Murderabelia Murderabelia Murderabelia Murderabelia Murderabelia Murderabelia Murderabelia Murderabelia Murderabelia
Murderabelia
Murderabelia Murderabelia

SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE, SERIAL KILLER TRADING CARDSSERIAL KILLER TRADING CARDSSERIAL KILLER TRADING CARDS Newest Serial Killer Articles Newest Serial Killer Articles Newest Serial Killer Articles SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE


FAN OF THE MONTH

Newest Serial Killer Articles RETURN TO TOP

Incall: The Making Of An American Serial Killer
WildBluePress
Serial Killer Reading List
Also known as Oklahoma
The Killer Castle
Interview With Cannibal Killer Issei Sagawa
Top 4 Modern Cases Of Cannibalism
Senseless Murder Of Children
The Music Of Charles Manson
Killers History Is Trying To Forget
All Those Missing People
Manson And The Process Church
Sexual Sadists
Serial Killer Good Deeds
The Minds of Serial Killers
Serial Killer Methods of Disposal
The History of Serial Killers
Serial Killer Victim of Choice
My Experience With Richard Ramirez
Serial Killer Coincidental Catchings
Speed Freak Killers
Arthur Shawcross Interview
The Hand Of Death Cult
Pleading Insanity
Brain Fingerprinting Testing
Female Serial Killers
How to Survive a Serial Killer
Sympathetic Serial Killers
Serial Killers Who Got Away
The Real and the Imagined
Serial Killers In Ohio
Occupations of Serial killers
Serial Killers And Hiding bodies
Psychological Phases of Serial Killers
Serial Killers and Astrology
Last Words From Death Row
Serial Killers And Occult Murders
Infamous Murder Houses
Early Released Serial Killers
Grisliest Axe Murderers
BTK Killer Trivia
Killers Who Changed Their Minds
From Hero To Homicide
The Last Thing You Would Expect
People Who Survived Serial Killers


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

Charles ALBRIGHT
Rodney ALCALA
Howard Arthur ALLEN
Richard ANGELO
Amy ARCHER-GILLIGAN
Benjamin ATKINS
Joe BALL
Velma BARFIELD
Herb BAUMEISTER
Martha BECK
Bloody BENDERS
Robert BERDELLA
David BERKOWITZ
Kenneth BIANCHI
Richard BIEGENWALD
Jake BIRD
Arthur Gary BISHOP
Lawrence BITTAKER
Terry BLAIR
William BONIN
Angelo BUONO, Jr.
Dallen BOUNDS
Gary Ray BOWLES
Briley BROTHERS
Jerry BRUDOS
Judy BUENOANO
Carol M. BUNDY
Ted BUNDY
Ricardo CAPUTO
Harvey CARIGNAN
David CARPENTER
Richard CHASE
Thor Nis CHRISTIANSEN
Joseph CHRISTOPHER
Douglas CLARK
Cynthia COFFMAN
Alton COLEMAN
John Norman COLLINS
Daniel CONAHAN
Rory Enrique CONDE
Ray and Faye COPELAND
Dean CORLL
Juan CORONA
Tony COSTA
Richard COTTINGHAM
Juan COVINGTON
Andre CRAWFORD
Charles CULLEN
Jeffrey DAHMER
Thomas DILLON
Westley Allan DODD
Ronald DOMINIQUE
Nannie DOSS
Brian DUGAN
Joseph E. DUNCAN III
Paul DUROUSSEAU
Edward EDWARDS
Mack Ray EDWARDS
Walter E. ELLIS
Scott ERSKINE
Donald Leroy EVANS
Gary EVANS
Richard EVONITZ
Larry EYLER
Raymond FERNANDEZ
Albert FISH
Wayne Adam FORD
Bobby Jack FOWLER
Kendall FRANCOIS
Joseph Paul FRANKLIN
John Wayne GACY
Gerald GALLEGO
Carlton GARY
Donald Henry Peewee GASKINS
Alfred GAYNOR
Ed GEIN
Janie Lou GIBBS
Bertha GIFFORD
Kristen GILBERT
Sean Vincent GILLIS
Lorenzo GILYARD
Harvey GLATMAN
Billy GLAZE
Billy GOHL
Mark GOUDEAU
David Alan GORE
Dana Sue GRAY
Vaughn GREENWOOD
Samuel GREEN
Belle GUNNESS
Anna Marie HAHN
William HANCE
Robert HANSEN
Donald HARVEY
Charles Ray HATCHER
Dale HAUSNER
Linda HAZZARD
William HEIRENS
Elmer Wayne HENLEY
Loren HERZOG
Johann Otto HOCH
Dr. H. H. HOLMES
Waneta HOYT
Michael HUGHES
Leslie IRVIN
Phillip Carl JABLONSKI
Keith Hunter JESPERSON
Martha Ann JOHNSON
Milton JOHNSON
Vincent JOHNSON
Genene JONES
Jim JONES
John JOUBERT
Joseph KALLINGER
Patrick KEARNEY
Edmund KEMPER
Israel KEYES
Scott Lee KIMBALL
Roger KIBBE
Tillie KLIMEK
Paul John KNOWLES
Anthony KIRKLAND
Randy Steven KRAFT
Timothy KRAJCIR
Peter KUDZINOWSKI
Richard KUKLINSKI
Leonard LAKE
Delphine LALAURIE
Derrick Todd LEE
Bobbie Joe LONG
Michael Lee LOCKHART
Henry Lee LUCAS
Orville Lynn MAJORS
Richard Laurence MARQUETTE
Lee Roy MARTIN
Rhonda Belle MARTIN
David MASON
David Edward MAUST
Kenneth MCDUFF
David MEIRHOFER
Stephen MORIN
Frederick MORS
John Allen MUHAMMAD
Herbert MULLIN
Joseph NASO
Robert NIXON
Earle NELSON
Charles NG
Marie NOE
Roy NORRIS
Gordon NORTHCOTT
Carl PANZRAM
Gerald PARKER
Louise PEETE
Steven Brian PENNELL
Christopher PETERSON
Craig PRICE
Harry POWERS
Cleophus PRINCE JR.
Marion Albert PRUETT
Dorothea PUENTE
Dennis RADER
Richard RAMIREZ
Melvin REES
Paul Dennis REID
Ángel Maturino RESÉNDIZ
Gary RIDGWAY
Joel RIFKIN
Harvey Miguel ROBINSON
John Edward ROBINSON
Dayton Leroy ROGERS
Glen Edward ROGERS
Danny ROLLING
Michael Bruce ROSS
Robert ROZIER
Kimberly Clark SAENZ
Efren SALDIVAR
Altemio SANCHEZ
Gerard John SCHAEFER
Charles SCHMID
Heriberto SEDA
Tommy Lynn SELLS
Arthur SHAWCROSS
Lydia SHERMAN
Wesley SHERMANTINE
Anthony Allen SHORE
Robert SHULMAN
Daniel Lee SIEBERT
Robert Joseph SILVERIA, Jr.
Lemuel SMITH
Morris SOLOMON Jr.
Anthony SOWELL
Timothy Wilson SPENCER
Jack Owen SPILLMAN
Edward SPREITZER
Gerald STANO
Cary STAYNER
Paul Michael STEPHANI
William SUFF
Michael SWANGO
James SWANN
Joseph TABORSKY
John Floyd THOMAS, Jr.
Ottis TOOLE
Jane TOPPAN
Maury TRAVIS
Chester TURNER
Henry Louis WALLACE
Faryion WARDRIP
Karl F. WARNER
Coral Eugene WATTS
Nathaniel WHITE
Christopher WILDER
Scott WILLIAMS
Wayne WILLIAMS
Shirley WINTERS
Aileen WUORNOS
Robert LEE YATES
Robert ZARINSKY


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

Christine ADEWUNMI
Sara Maria ALDRETE
Nasra Yussef Mohammed AL-ENEZI
Patricia Taylor ALLANSON
Beverley Gail ALLITT
Angelica Salazar ALVAREZ
Maria Isabella AMAYA
Lyda Catherine AMBROSE
Michele Kristen ANDERSON
Amy ARCHER-GILLIGAN
Gertraud ARZBERGER
Francisca BALLESTEROS
Margie Velma BARFIELD
Juana BARRAZA
Martha BECK
Marie Alexandrine BECKER
Amanda BENNETT
Marie BESNARD
Amy BISHOP
Elfriede BLAUENSTEINER
Cecile BOMBEEK
Lizzie Andrew BORDEN
Kathy BOUDIN
The Marquise de BRINVILLIERS
Mary Ann BRITLAND
Mary Ann BROUGH
Debra Denise BROWN
Denise Dianna BUCHANAN
Judias Anna BUENOANO
Dora Luz BUENROSTRO
Erin Michelle CAFFEY
Angela CAMACHO
Martha "Patty" CANNON
Socorro CARO
Leonarda CIANCIULLI
Cynthia Lynn COFFMAN
Patricia COLUMBO
Faye Della COPELAND
Tammy L. CORBETT
Natasha Wallen CORNET
Carol CORONADO
Mary Ann COTTON
Mary Frances CREIGHTON
Anna CUNNINGHAM
Rebecca DAVID
Williamina DEAN
Daisy Louisa DE MELKER
Joanna DENNEHY
Catherine DESHAYES
Phoolan DEVI
Edlira DOBRUSHI
Nannie DOSS
Amelia Elizabeth DYER
Gilberta ESTRADA
Ellen ETHERIDGE
Susan Dianne EUBANKS
Christine FALLING
Timea FALUDI
Nancy FARRER
Júlia FAZEKAS
Constance M. FISHER
Lulonda Lynn FLETT
Kathleen Megan FOLBIGG
Priscilla Joyce FORD
Antoinette FRANK
Ethel Mae FRANKEN
Irina Viktorovna GAIDAMACHUK
Seema Mohan GAVIT
Tillie KLIMEK
Janie Lou GIBBS
Bertha GIFFORD
Kristen GILBERT
Delfina and Maria de Jesus GONZALEZ
Gesche Margarethe GOTTFRIED
Gwendolyn Gail GRAHAM
Dana Sue GRAY
Josephine Victoria GRAY
Holly Ann GRIGSBY
Caroline GRILLS
Belle Sorenson GUNNESS Anna Marie HAHN
Tiffany HALL
Amanda HAMM
Lashaun Ternice HARRIS
Tonya Lynn HAWKS
Masumi HAYASHI
Susan Diane HENDRICKS
Olga HEPNAROVA
Khoua HER
Sabine HILSCHENZ
Myra HINDLEY
Megan K. HOGG
Mary Ann HOLDER
Karla Leanne HOMOLKA
Waneta Ethel HOYT
Megan HUNTSMAN
Miyuki ISHIKAWA
Banita M. JACKS
Mary Jane JACKSON
Vickie Dawn JACKSON
Helene JEGADO
Angela Jane JOHNSON
Martha Ann JOHNSON
Genene Anne JONES
Leisa JONES
Claudette Regina KIBBLE
Kanae KIJIMA
Sante KIMES
Judy D. KIRBY
Tillie KLIMEK
Marie Delphine LaLAURIE
Marilyn LEMAK
Diana LUMBRERA
Anjette Donovan LYLES
Sarah Jane MAKIN
Yiya MURANO
Sarah MALCOLM
Christine MALEVRE
MALLIKA
Martha MAREK
Enriqueta MARTI RIPOLLES
Rhonda Bell MARTIN
Melissa MARVIN
Dorothy Jean MATAJKE
G.R. McANICH
Kimberly Lagayle McCARTHY
Eleazar Paula MENDEZ
Silvia MERAZ MORENO
Blanche Taylor MOORE
Hiroko NAGATA
Kayoko NAKAI
Martha NEEDLE
Frances Elaine NEWTON
Sandi Dawn NIEVES
Marie NOE
Marianne NOLLE
Elsie NOLLEN
Aino NYKOPP-KOSKI
Diane ODELL
Junko OGATA
Emma OLIVER
Dagmar OVERBYE
Christine Marie PAOLILLA
Louise PEETE
Madame POPOVA
Dorothea Helen PUENTE
Mahin QADIRI
Sabine RADMACHER
Florence RANSOM
Florence REY
Theresa RIGGI
Andrea ROBERTS
Guadalupe RONQUILLO-OVALLE
Robin Lee ROW
Kimberly Clark SAENZ
Darya Nikolajevna SALTYKOVA
Jennifer SAN MARCO
Felicitas SANCHEZ AGUILLON
Gail SAVAGE
Kathryn Dempsey SCHOCH
Antoinette SCIERI
Lydia SHERMAN
Renuka Kiran SHINDE
Sanna SILLANPAA
Melanie Jane SMITH
Magdalena SOLIS
Della SORENSON
Diane Louise SPENCER
Miyoko SUMIDA
Maria Catherina SWANENBURG
Mary SYEBOLDT
Jessica TATA
Bobbie Sue TERRELL
Tonya THOMAS
Coleen M. THOMPSON
Marybeth TINNING
Jane TOPPAN
Gail TRAIT
Lyda TRUEBLOOD
Debra Sue TUGGLE
Lise Jane TURNER
Sophie Charlotte Elisabeth URSINUS
Le Thanh VAN
Angelica VAZQUEZ
Maria VELTEN
Neah VERMA
Louise VERMILYEA
Waltraud WAGNER
Annie WALTERS
Natashay Yvonne WARD
Margaret WATERS
Jeanne WEBER
Rosemary Pauline WEST
Sarah Jane WHITELING
Elisabeth WIESE
Dorothy WILLIAMS
Manling Tsang WILLIAMS
Stella Elizabeth WILLIAMSON
Catherine WILSON
Mary Elizabeth WILSON
Shirley WINTERS
Martha WISE
Catherine May WOOD
Martha WOODS
Aileen Carol WUORNOS
Barbara-Anne WYRZYKOWSKI
Tooba Mohammad YAHYA
Andrea Pia YATES
Maggie YOUNG
Lin YURU
Anna Margaretha ZWANZIGER



SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM AFGHANISTAN

Robert BALES
Abul DJABAR
Reza KHAN
Abdullah SHAH


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

John Earl BAUGHMAN

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM ARGENTINA

John Earl BAUGHMAN
Francisco Antonio LAUREANA
Carlos Eduardo ROBLEDO PUCH
Cayetano SANTOS GODINO

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM AUSTRALIA

Allan BAKER
Malcolm George BAKER
David John BIRNIE
Samuel Leonard BOYD
Gregory John BRAZEL
Martin John BRYANT
John Justin BUNTING
Eric Edgar COOKE
John Leslie COOMBES
Donato Anthony CORBO
Ashley Mervyn COULSTON
Douglas John Edwin CRABBE
Elmer Kyle CRAWFORD
Lloyd Maurice CROSBIE
Kevin CRUMP
Roger Kingsley DEAN
Frederick Bailey DEEMING
Paul Charles DENYER
Peter Norris DUPAS
Raymond EDMUNDS
Paul Anthony EVERS
Christopher Dale FLANNERY
Colin Richard FORMAN
Wade FRANKUM
Leonard John FRASER
John Wayne GLOVER
Paul Steven HAIGH
Matthew James HARRIS
Mark JEFFERIES
Edward "Ned" KELLY
Julian KNIGHT
Edward Joseph LEONSKI
Robert Paul LONG
John LYNCH
William MacDONALD
John MAKIN
Archibald Beattie McCAFFERTY
Ivan Robert Marko MILAT
James William MILLER
William Patrick MITCHELL
Alexander PEARCE
Derek Ernest PERCY
Robin REID
John ROWLES
Ronald Joseph RYAN
Joseph SCHWAB
John Myles SHARPE
Peter SHOOBRIDGE
George David SILVA
Arnold Karl SODEMAN
Mark Mala VALERA
Frank VITKOVIC
James Spyridon VLASSAKIS
Bevan Spencer VON EINEM
Robert Joe WAGNER
Carl Anthony WILLIAMS
Christopher Robin WORRELL
Huan Yun XIANG

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM AUSTRIA

Franz FUCHS
Josef GAUTSCH
Max GUFLER
Udo PROKSCH
Hugo SCHENK
Jack UNTERWEGER
Felix ZEHETNER

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM AZERBAIJAN

Farda GADIROV
Haji MAMMADOV

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM THE BAHAMAS

Cyril DARVILLE
Cordell FARRINGTON
Michiah SHOBEK

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM BANGLADESH

Munir HUSSAIN
Ershad SIKDER


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM BELARUS

Gennady MIKHASEVICH

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM BELGIUM

Nordine AMRANI
Michel BELLEN
Marc DUTROUX
Michel FOURNIRET
Kim de GELDER
Ronald Alain JANSSEN
Remy LECRENIER
Andras PANDY
Ozan SELAMET
Michel VAN WIJNENDAELE


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM BOLIVIA

Triston Jay AMERO

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

Esad LANDZO


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM BRAZIL

Andre Luis CASSIMIRO
Francisco Das CHAGAS Rodrigues B.
Marcelo COSTA DE ANDRADE
Genildo FERREIRA do Franca
Anisio FERREIRA de Sousa
Tiago Henrique GOMES DA ROCHA
Sailson Jose das GRACAS
Luiz Miguel Miltao GUERREIRO
Edson Isidoro GUIMARAES
Wellington Menezes de OLIVEIRA
Francisco de Assis PEREIRA
Duilio PESSOTO
Gustavo PISSARDO
Gerd WENZINGER
Marcelo Kenji YOSHINO


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM CANADA

Paul Kenneth BERNARDO
Wayne Clifford BODEN
Vernon Elwood BOOHER
Marc CHAHAL
Sandy CHARLES
William Dean CHRISTENSON
John Etter CLARK
Camille CLEROUX
Robert Raymond COOK
Scott William COX
John Martin CRAWFORD
Sukhwinder Singh DHILLON
Leopold DION
Valery I. FABRIKANT
William Patrick FYFE
Kimveer GILL
David John GORTON
Matthew de GROOD
Joseph Albert GUAY
Victor Ernest HOFFMAN
Russell Maurice JOHNSON
Gilbert Paul JORDAN
Pierre LEBRUN
Cody Alan LEGEBOKOFF
Allan Joseph LEGERE
Marc LEPINE
Vince Weiguang LI
Christian Herbert MAGEE
Luka Rocco MAGNOTTA
Michael Wayne McGRAY
Herman Webster MUDGETT
Dale Merle NELSON
Earle Leonard NELSON
Clifford Robert OLSON
Robert William PICKTON
Swift RUNNER
David William SHEARING
Charles T. SINCLAIR
Michael Peter SLOBODIAN
Jeremy Allan STEINKE
Roch THERIAULT
Mark Andrew TWITCHELL
Roger WARREN

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM CHILE

Julio PEREZ SILVA

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM CHINA

Bai BAOSHAN
Hu DAOPING
Chen FUZHAO
Duan GUOCHENG
Feng GUOHUI
Gao HAIPING
Fu HEGONG
Liu HONGWEN
Huang HU
Wu HUANMING
Ma JIAJUE
Fang JIANTANG
Yang JIAQIN
Liang JIQIAN
Chan KA-CHUN
Zhao LIANRONG
Zhang LISONG
Tian MINGJIAN
Liu MINGWU
Yang MINGXIN
Zheng MINSHENG
Bai NINGYANG
Chen PEIQUAN
Zhang PILIN
Li PINGPING
Jin RUCHAO
Hua RUIZHUO
Gong RUNBO
Changyin & Changping SHEN
Chen SHUIZONG
Wang SHUJIN
Zhou WEN
Li WENXIAN
Huang WENYI
Dong WENYU
Jin XIANGWU
Qiu XINGHUA
Yang XINHAI
Wang XIWEN
Jian XUELIANG
Wu YANDONG
Yan YANMING
Kuang YINGXUE
Huang YONG
Ma YONG
Chen YONGFENG
Zhang YONGMING
Zhou YOUPING
Shi YUEJUN
Zhang YUNLIANG
Liu ZHANJIN
Cheng ZHENGPING
Xiong ZHENLIN
Yang ZHIYA
Guo ZHONGMIN

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM COLOMBIA

Daniel CAMARGO BARBOSA
Campo Elias DELGADO MORALES
Luis Alfredo GARAVITO
Pedro Alonso LOPEZ
Juan de Jesus Lozano VELASQUEZ

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM CONGO

William UNEK


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM CROATIA

Vinko PALIC
Vinko PINTARIK

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM CZECH REPUBLIC

Martin LECIAN
Vaclav MRAZEK
Hubert PILCIK
Jozef SLOVAK
Jack UNTERWEGER
Petr ZELENKA


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM ECUADOR

Daniel CAMARGO BARBOSA
Gilberto Antonio CHAMBA
Luis Alfredo GARAVITO
Pedro Alonso LOPEZ

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM EGYPT

Saber & Mahmoud ABU-EL-ULLA
Suleiman KHATER
Ramadan Abdel Rehim MANSOUR


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM ESTONIA

Aleksandr RUBEL

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM FINLAND

Pekka-Eric AUVINEN
Jarno Sebastian ELG
Petri Erkki Tapio GERDT
Matti Juhani SAARI
Ibrahim SHKUPOLLI
Antti Olavi TASKINEN

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM FRANCE

Patrice ALEGRE
Jean-Pierre ALLAIN
Marcel Henri BARBEAULT
Eric BOREL
Pierre CHANAL
Nicolas CLAUX
Manuel DELGADO VILLEGAS
Hamida DJANDOUBI
Christian DORNIER
Martin DUMOLLARD
Richard DURN
Volker ECKERT
Gunter Hermann EWEN
Serge FORTIN
Michel FOURNIRET
Guy GEORGES
Roger GIRERD
Francis HEAULME
David HOTYAT
Henry Desire LANDRU
Claude LASTENNET
Lucien LEGER
Emile LOUIS
Guy MARTEL
Mohammed MERAH
Thierry PAULIN
Michel PEIRY
Bernard PESQUET
Dr. Marcel PETIOT
Joseph PHILIPPE
Sid Ahmed REZALA
Jean-Claude ROMAND
Jean-Pierre ROUX-DURRAFOURT
Issei SAGAWA
Georges-Alexandre SARRET
Albert SOLEILLAND
Roberto SUCCO
Jean-Baptiste TROPPMANN
Jules-Alexandre UGHETTO
Joseph VACHER
Denis WAXIN
Eugen WEIDMANN

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM GEORGIA

Artur VAGANOV

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM GERMANY

Fritz Heinrich ANGERSTEIN
Jurgen BARTSCH
Ernst-Dieter BECK
Eugen BERWALD
Andreas BICHEL
Werner BOOST
Karel CHARVA
Olaf DATER
Karl DENKE
Volker ECKERT
Peter GOEBBELS
Klaus GOSSMAN
Georg Karl GROSSMANN
Friedrich HAARMANN
Kuno HOFMANN
Fritz HONKA
Alexander KEITH Jr.
Gundolf KOHLER
Tim KRETSCHMER
Joachim Georg KROLL
Peter KURTEN
Stephan LETTER
Bruno LUDKE
David Edward MAUST
Alwin NEUMANN
Rudolf PLEIL
Norbert Hans POEHLKE
Heinrich POMMERENCKE
Thomas RATH
Thomas RUNG
Wolfgang SCHMIDT
SCHULTZ
Friedrich SCHUMANN
Adolf Gustav SEEFELD
Mark Alan SMITH
Helmut WEIDENBROEKER
Gerd WENZINGER
Manfred WITTMAN
Michael WOLTER

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM GHANA

Charles Ebo QUANSAH

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM GREECE

Antonis DAGLIS
Peter KULAXIDES
Kyriakos PAPAXRONIS
Theofilos SECHIDIS
Dimitris VAKRINOS

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM GUATEMALA

Jose Maria Miculax BUX
Manuel MARTINEZ CORONADO

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM GUYANA

Oral HENDRICKS
James Warren JONES

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM HONG KONG

Lee Chi HANG
Lam KOR-WAN
Lam KWOK-WAI

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM HUNGARY

Bela KISS
Sylvestre MATUSCHKA
Ramil SAFAROV

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM INDIA

Shantaram Kanhoji JAGTAP
M JAISHANKAR
Rajendra JAKKAL
K P JAYANANDAN
Chandrakant JHA
Surender KOLI
Mohan KUMAR
R. KUPPUSAMY
Mahanand NAIK
Motta NAVAS
Moninder Singh PANDHER
Raman RAGHAV
Dilip RATHIA
Mahavir RAZAK
Umesh REDDY
Sadashiv SAHU
Munawar Harun SHAH
Auto SHANKAR
Kampatimar SHANKARIYA
Devendra SHARMA
Darbara SINGH
Major SINGH
Charles SOBHRAJ
Dilip Dhyanoba SUTAR
Ravindra Kumar VERMA

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM INDONESIA

BAEKUNI
Verry Idham HENYANSYAH
Ahmad SURADJI

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM IRAN

Mohammed BIJEH
Ali Asghar BORUJERDI
Saeed HANAEI
Ali Reza Khoshruy Kuran KORDIYEH
Yaghoub Ali MIRSHEKARI

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM IRAQ

Ali Asghar BORUJERDI

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM IRELAND

Henry McCABE

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM ISRAEL

Nicolai BONNER
Mohammed HALABI
Ami POPPER
Asher WEISGAN

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM ITALY

Marco BERGAMO
Donato BILANCIA
Manuel DELGADO VILLEGAS
Bartolomeo GAGLIANO
Maurizio GIUGLIANO
Antonio MANTOVANI
Andrea MATTEUCCI
Maurizio MINGHELLA
Nicola SAPONE
Cesare SERVIATTI
Roberto SUCCO
Vincenzo VERZENI
Andrea VOLPE

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM JAMAICA

Lewis HUTCHINSON

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM JAPAN

Sataro FUKIAGE
Hiroaki HIDAKA
Yasutoshi KAMATA
Kiyotaka KATSUTA
Yoshio KODAIRA
Genzo KURITA
Hiroshi MAEUE
Futoshi MATSUNAGA
Tsutomu MIYAZAKI
Kiyoshi OKUBO
Robert Dale SEGEE
Furuya SOKICHI

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM JORDAN

Ahmad Musa DAKAMSEH
Saeed QASHASH

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM KAZAKHSTAN

Vladislav CHELAKH
Nikolai DZHUMAGALIEV
Oleg MURAYENKO
Abduseit ORMANOV

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM KENYA

Francis NG'ANG'A

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM KOSOVO

Frank J. RONGHI

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM KUWAIT

Hasan AKBAR

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM LATVIA

Yuri CHUBAROV
Alexander KORYAKOV
Kaspars PETROVS

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM LESOTHO

Makhele SCOTT

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM LITHUANIA

Leonardas ZAVISTONOVICIUS

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM MACEDONIA

Vlado TANESKI

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM MALAWI

Nasser KARA

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM MALAYSIA

Mat Taram bin SA'AL
Charles SOBHRAJ

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM MALTA

Silvio MANGION

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM MEXICO

Jose Luis CALVA ZEPEDA
Ricardo Silvio CAPUTO
Adolfo de Jesus CONSTANZO
Gabriel Arturo GARZA HOTH
Cesar Armando LIBRADO LEGORRETA


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM MOROCCO

Abdelali AMER
Abdelaali HADI
Hadj Mohammed MESFEWI
Hicham RAOUI

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM NAMIBIA

Sylvester & Gavin BEUKES

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM NEPAL

Charles SOBHRAJ
Basudev THAPA

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM NETHERLANDS

Jacobus Dirk (Koos) HERTOGS
Ondrej RIGO
John SWEENEY
Willem VAN EIJK
Hans VAN ZON

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM NEW ZEALAND

Wiremu Kingi MAKETU
Raymond Wahia RATIMA
Arthur ROTTMAN
James STACK

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM NIGERIA

Kazeem ADEYEMO

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM NORWAY

Anders Behring BREIVIK
Arnfinn NESSET
Thomas QUICK

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM PAKISTAN

Arif and Farman ALI
Javed IQBAL
Amir QAYYUM
Abdul RAZZAQ
Muhammad YOUSAF

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM PALESTINE

Baruch Kappel GOLDSTEIN

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM PERU

Pedro Alonso LOPEZ
Pedro Pablo NAKADA LUDENA


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM POLAND

Joachim KNYCHALA
Julian KOLTUN
Karol KOT
Zdzislaw MARCHWICKI
Wladyslaw MAZURKIEWICZ
Stanislaw MODZELEWSKI
Andrzej NOWOCIEN


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM PORTUGAL

Antonio Luis COSTA

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM ROMANIA

Ion RIMARU
TCAIUC
Romulus VERES

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM RUSSIA

Artem ANOUFRIEV
Valery ASRATYAN
Anatoly BIRYUKOV
Ahmed BRAGIMOV
Vladimir BRATISLAV
Roman BURTSEV
Alexander BYCHKOV
Andrei Romanovich CHIKATILO
Sergei Aleksandrovich GOLOVKIN
Alexander GREB
Vasili KOMAROFF
Alexander KOMIN
Valery KOPYLOV
Vasiliy KULIK
Ilshyat KUZIKOV
Alexander KUZMINYKH
Sergey MARTYNOV
Andrei MASLICH
Vladimir MIRGOROD
Vladimir MUKHANKIN
Oleg NAUMOV
Dr. Maxim Vladimirovich PETROV
Alexander Yuryevich PICHUSHKIN
Mikhail Viktorovich POPKOV
Vladmir ROMANOV
Sergei RYAKHOVSKY
Artur RYNO
Anatoly Yelemianovich SLIVKO
Alexander SPESIVTSEV
Nicholas TRAPISHKIN
Dmitry VORONENKO
Vadim YERSHOV

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SAUDI ARABIA

Faisal bin MUSAID

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SERBIA

Ljubisa BOGDANOVIC
Silvo PLUT
Nikola RADOSAVLJEVIC


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SLOVAKIA

Matej CURKO
Ondrej RIGO
Jozef SLOVAK

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SLOVENIA

Silvo PLUT
Metod TROBEC

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SOUTH AFRICA

Pierre Corneille Faculys BASSON
Dr. Wouter BASSON
Elias CHAUKE
Johannes Christiaan DE JAGER
Sipho DUBE
Sibusiso DUMA
Casper KRUGER
Gamal Salie LINEVELDT
Maoupa Cedrid MAAKE
Bulelani MABHAYI
Fanuel MAKAMU
Jimmy MAKETTA
Johannes MASHIANE
Lazarus Tshidiso MAZINGANE
Samuel Bongani MFEKA
Mbulaheni David MMBENGWA
Madumetsa Jack MOGALE
Zola Jackson MQOMBOYI
Elifasi MSOMI
Mtimane MSUNDWANA
Themba MTHOMBENI
Mukosi Freddy MULAUDZI
Nicholas Lungisa NCAMA
Velaphi NDLANGAMANDLA
David RANDITSHENI
Norman Afzal SIMONS
Moses SITHOLE
Barend Hendrik STRYDOM
Themba Anton SUKUDE
Thozamile TAKI
Sipho Agmatir THWALA
Gert VAN ROOYEN
Louis VAN SCHOOR
Stewart WILKEN
Elias XITAVHUDZI
Christopher M. ZIKODE

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SOUTH KOREA

KANG Ho-sun
Jeong NAM-KYU
Yoo YOUNG-CHUL

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SPAIN

Manuel BLANCO ROMASANTA
Gilberto Antonio CHAMBA
Manuel DELGADO VILLEGAS
Volker ECKERT
Raymond Martinez FERNANDEZ
Francisco GARCIA ESCALERO
Jose Antonio RODRIGUEZ VEGA
Joan VILA DILME

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SUDAN

Abbas Baqir ABBAS

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SWAZILAND

David Thabo SIMELANE

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SWEDEN

John Ingvar LOVGREN
Jon Andreas NODTVEIDT
Thomas QUICK

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SWITZERLAND

Roger ANDERMATT
Michel PEIRY
Hermann SCHWARZ

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM SYRIA

Ali MARJEK

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM TAIWAN

Cheng CHIEH

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM THAILAND

Somkhid PHUMPHUANG
John Martin SCRIPPS
Charles SOBHRAJ

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM TURKEY

Adnan COLAK
Ogdur DENGIZ
Ali KAYA
Yavuz YAPICIOGLU

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM UGANDA

Joseph KIBWETEERE

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM UKRAINE

Vladimir KONDRATENKO
Anatoly ONOPRIENKO
Viktor SAYENKO
Igor SUPRUNYUCK
Serhiy TKACH
Vladislav VOLKOVICH

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Junaid Nawaz Lal NAWAZ

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM UNITED KINGDOM

Dr. John Bodkin ADAMS
Stephen AKINMURELE
Robert BLACK
Ian BRADY
William BURKE
George CHAPMAN
John CHILDS
John Reginald CHRISTIE
Thomas Neill CREAM
Kenneth ERSKINE
Roy FONTAINE
Daniel GONZALEZ
Steven John GRIEVESON
Stephen Shaun GRIFFITHS
Allan GRIMSON
John George HAIGH
Archibald Thompson HALL
Anthony John HARDY
Trevor Joseph HARDY
William HARE
Neville George Clevely HEATH
Mark HOBSON
Colin IRELAND
Ian KAY
Kieron KELLY
Bruce George Peter LEE
Wendell Willis LIGHTBOURNE
Robin Stanislaw LIGUS
Michael LUPO
Patrick David MacKAY
Peter Thomas Anthony MANUEL
Robert John MAUDSLEY
Peter MOORE
Raymond Leslie MORRIS
David MULCAHY
Donald NEILSON
Dennis Andrew NILSEN
Colin Campbell NORRIS
Dr. William PALMER
Michael Robert RYAN
Dr. Harold Frederick SHIPMAN
Angus Robertson SINCLAIR
George Joseph SMITH
John Thomas STRAFFEN
Peter William SUTCLIFFE
Peter Britton TOBIN
Frederick Walter Stephen WEST
Steven Gerald James WRIGHT
Graham Frederick YOUNG


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM UZBEKISTAN

Abduseit ORMANOV

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM VENEZUELA

Dorancel VARGAS GOMEZ

LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM VIETNAM

Duong VAN MOM


LIST OF MALE MURDERERS FROM ZIMBABWE

Dr. Richard Gladwell McGOWN

SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

MASS MURDERERS AND SPREE KILLERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

Ricky ABEYTA
Saber & Mahmoud Farahat ABU EL-ULLA
Gameel AL-BATOUTI
Aaron ALEXIS
Jean-Pierre ALLAIN
Juan Manuel ALVAREZ
Nordine AMRANI
Stephen Lawrence ANDERSON
Fritz Heinrich ANGERSTEIN
Abbas Baqir ABBAS
Mauro ANTONELLO
Siavosh Rahmani AQDAM
Shoko ASAHARA
Larry Gene ASHBROOK
Pekka-Eric AUVINEN
Jorjik AVANESIAN
Ronald Baquiran BAE
Robert BALES
Asanda BANINZI
George Emil BANKS
Mark Orrin BARTON
Clarence V. BERTUCCI
Sylvester & Gavin BEUKES
Ljubisa BOGDANOVIC
William Ray BONNER
Eric BOREL
Ahmed BRAGIMOV
Anders Behring BREIVIK
Carl Robert BROWN
Martin John BRYANT
Woo BUM-KON
David Augustus BURKE
Julian CARLTON
Dragan CEDIC
Marc CHAHAL
Robert CHARLES
Vladislav CHELAKH
Seung-Hui CHO
Yuri CHUBAROV
John Etter CLARK
Abel CLEMMONS
Darnell COLLINS
Melvin COLLINS
Marciano CONTATOE
Kim DAE-HAN
Ahmad Musa DAKAMSEH
Mesac DAMAS
Rodrick Shonte DANTZLER
Roger Kingsley DEAN
Campo Elias DELGADO MORALES
DIPENDRA Bir Bikram Shah
Christian DORNIER
Jessie DOTSON
Thomas G. DOTY
Richard DURN

MORE COMING SOON


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

MOBSTERS, HITMEN AND MORE

ORGANIZED CRIME
ABE RELES
AL CAPONE
ALBERT TANNENBAUM
ALEXANDER SOLONIK
ANTHONY SENTER
ANTHONY SPILOTRO
ANGELO LA BARBERA
BERNARDO PROVENZANO
CALOGERO VIZZINI
CHARLES HARRELSON
CHARLES NICOLETTI
CHRIS ROSENBERG
CORNELIUS HUGHES
GAETANO BADALAMENTI
GIUSEPPE GENCO RUSSO
GLENNON ENGLEMAN
HARRY MAIONE
FRANK ABBANDANDO
FRANK ABBANDANDO JR
FRANK NITTI
FRANK SHEERAN
FELIX ALDERISIO
HARRY STRAUSS
JACK MCGURN
JAMES BURKE
JOHN GOTTI
JOSEPH TESTA
LEOLUCA BAGARELLA
LOUIS CAPONE
LUCKY LUCIANO
MATTEO MESSINA DENARO
MICHELE GRECO
MICHELE NAVARRA
RICHARD KUKLINSKI
ROY DEMEO
SALVATORE GRECO
SALVATORE LO PICCOLO
SALVATORE INZERILLO
SALVATORE RIINA
SAMMY GRAVANO
STEFANO BONTADE
STEFANO MAGADDINO
SEYMOUR MAGOON
THOMAS DESIMONE
TOMMASO BUSCETTA
VERNON C. MILLER
VITO CASCIO FERRO


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

KILLERS FROM MOVIES, BOOKS, GAMES, COMICS AND MORE

MOVIES AND MURDER
ANGELA
ANGELA BAKER
ALEX DELARGE
ANNIE WILKES
BABY "ANGEL" FIREFLY
BABY JANE HUDSON
BARABAS THE JEW
BEN WILLIS (THE FISHERMAN)
BILLY CHAPMAN
BROTHER PAPA
BUFFALO BILL
CAPTAIN SPAULDING
CANDYMAN
THE CENOBITES
CHOP TOP (ROBERT SAWYER)
CHUCKY (CHARLES LEE RAY)
CLETUS KASADY
CORINTHIAN
DEXTER MORGAN
DOCTOR EVAN RENDELL
DOCTOR MABUSE
DOCTOR SATAN
DR. ALAN FEINSTONE
DR. PHILIP CHANNARD
DRAYTON SAWYER
EDGLER VESS
EDWARD LIONHEART
EDWARD SAWYER
FARMER VINCENT SMITH
FRANCIS DOLARHYDE
FRANK BOOTH
FREDDY KRUEGER
GEORGE HARVEY
GEORGES QUERELLE
GRANDPA HUGO
DR HANNIBAL LECTER
GHOSTFACE KILLER
HERBERT WEST
HORACE PINKER
JASON VOORHEES
JIGSAW KILLER
JOHN DOE
JOHN RYDER
JUPITERS CLAN
LAWRENCE WARGRAVE
LEATHERFACE
LORD VOLDEMORT
LUDA MAY HEWITT
MAX CADY
MICHAEL MYERS
MICKEY & MALLORY KNOX
NORMAN BATES
OH DAE-SU
OLD MONTY
OTIS DRIFTWOOD
PATRICK BATEMAN
PINHEAD
RANDALL FLAGG
REVEREND HARRY POWELL
RHODA PENMARK
SERGE A. STORMS
SHERIFF HOYT
SWEENEY TODD
TED ALLISON
THE TALL MAN
TOM RIPLEY
WHITEFACE


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

THE MANY TYPES OF MURDER

ASSASSINATION
CHILD MURDER
CONSENSUAL HOMICIDE
CONTRACT KILLING
DEMOCIDE
FELONY MURDER
FETICIDE
FILICIDE
FRATRICIDE
GENDERCIDE
GENOCIDE
HOMICIDE
HONOR KILLING
HUMAN SACRIFICE
INFANTICIDE
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
LUST MURDER
LYNCHING
MANSLAUGHTER
MARITICIDE
MASS MURDER
MATRICIDE
MURDER-SUICIDE
NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
PARRICIDE
PATRICIDE
PROLICIDE
PROXY MURDER
REGICIDE
RITUAL MURDER
SERIAL KILLER
SORORICIDE
SPREE KILLER
SUICIDE
TYRANNICIDE
UXORICIDE
VEHICULAR HOMICIDE


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

UNNATURAL LOVE AND IT'S CONNECTIONS TO SERIAL KILLING

OVERVIEW OF PARAPHILIA
OVERVIEW OF FETISHISM
ABASIOPHILIA
ACOUSTICOPHILIA
ACROTOMOPHILIA
ALGOLAGNIA
APOTEMNOPHILIA
AMAUROPHILIA
ANACLITISM
ANDROMIMETOPHILIA
AQUAPHILIA
ARETIFISM
ASPHYXIOPHILIA
AUTOGYNEPHILIA
BIASTOPHILIA
COPROPHILIA
CHRONOPHILIA
CRUSH FETISH
DACRYPHILIA
EMETOPHILIA
EPHEBOPHILIA
EXHIBITIONISM
FOOD PLAY
FORNIPHILIA
FROTTEURISM
GALACTOPHILIA
GYNOPHAGIA
HEMATOLAGNIA
HOMEOVESTISM
HYBRISTOPHILIA
INCEST
INFANTILISM
KATOPTRONOPHILIA
KLEPTOMANIA
KLISMAPHILIA
LUST MURDER
MACROPHILIA
MAIESIOPHILIA
PODOPHILIA
SADISM & MASOCHISM
MICROPHILIA
MYSOPHILIA
NARRATOPHILIA
NASOPHILIA
NECROPHILIA
NEPIOPHILIA
PYROPHILIA
RETIFISM
SALIROMANIA
SCHEDIAPHILIA
SITOPHILIA
SOMNOPHILIA
STATUEPHILIA
TERATOPHILIA
TRANSVESTISM
TROILISM
UROLAGNIA
VINCILAGNIA
VORAREPHILIA
VOYEURISM
ZOOPHILIA


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

FROM THE MOUTH OF KILLERS

ARTHUR SHAWCROSS INTERVIEW
BTK KILLER INTERVIEW
CHARLES MANSON INTERVIEW
ELMER HENLEY INTERVIEW
JAMES MUNRO INTERVIEW
JEFFREY DAHMER INTERVIEW
JOHN ROBINSON INTERVIEW
KEITH JESPERSON INTERVIEW
RICHARD RAMIREZ INTERVIEW
TED BUNDY INTERVIEW
WAYNE LO INTERVIEW
SWAP LINKS WITH US


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

AN EVER GROWING COLLECTION OF HORROR MOVIE REVIEWS

ABANDONED, THE
AB-NORMAL BEAUTY
ABOMINABLE
ALBERT FISH
ALONE IN THE DARK
ALONE WITH HER
ALTERED
AMATEUR PORN STAR KILLER
AMAZON JAIL
AN AMERICAN HAUNTING
AND NOW THE SCREAMING STARTS
ANDRE THE BUTCHER
APRIL FOOL'S DAY
ARANG
ASYLUM
AUDREY ROSE
AUNT ROSE
AUTOMATONS
AUTOPSY
AWAKEN THE DEAD
BABY BLOOD
BAD REPUTATION
BAD TASTE
BAISE MOI
BANGKOK HAUNTED
BARE BEHIND BARS
BARRICADE
BASKET CASE
BATTLE IN HEAVEN
BENEATH STILL WATERS
BEYOND THE WALL OF SLEEP
BIG BAD WOLF
BLACK DAHLIA
BTK KILLER
BUTCHER OF PLAINFIELD
CABIN FEVER
CACHE
CAMP BLOOD
CAMP BLOOD 2
CAMP SLAUGHTER
CANDY STRIPERS
CANNIBAL (2005)
CANNIBAL (2006)
CANNIBAL CAMPOUT
CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST
CARD PLAYER, THE
CAVED IN
CAVE, THE
CAVERN, THE
CELLO
CEMETERY GATES
CEMETERY MAN
CENTIPEDE
CERBERUS
CHAINSAW SALLY
CHAOS
CHEERLEADER MASSACRE
CHICAGO MASSACRE
CHILDREN OF THE CORN
CHOKE, THE
CHURCH, THE
CINDERELLA
CITY OF ROTT
CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD
COME GET SOME
CONTAINMENT
CONTAMINATION
CONVENT, THE
COOKERS
CORPSES
COVENANT, THE
CREEP
CREEPSHOW
CREEPSHOW 2
CREEPSHOW 3
CULT
CUP OF MY BLOOD
CURIOUS DR. HUMP, THE
CURSE OF LIZZIE BORDEN
CURSE OF THE DEVIL
CUT
CUT AND RUN
DANIKA
DARK CORNERS
DARK FIELDS
DARK HOURS, THE
DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS
DAWN
DEAD & BREAKFAST
DEAD & DEADER
DEAD CALLING, A
DEAD LEAVES
DEAD LIFE
DEAD LINE
DEAD MARY
DEAD MEN WALKING
DEAD & ROTTING
DEAD SHIT
DEAD SILENCE
DEATH BED
DEATH BY ENGAGEMENT
DEATH CLIQUE
DEATH KNOWS YOUR NAME
DEATH TUNNEL
DEATH VALLEY
DEATH WALKS AT MIDNIGHT
DEATH WALKS ON HIGH HEALS
DECOYS: THE SECOND SEDUCTION
DEFENCELESS: A BLOOD SYMPHONY
THE DELIBERATE STRANGER
DEMON HUNTER
DEMONIC
DEMONS
DEMONS 2
DESCENT, THE
DESPERATE SOULS
DESPERATION, STEPHEN KING'S
DEVIL'S DEN
DEVIL'S RAIN, THE
DEVIL'S REJECTS, THE
DEVIL TIMES FIVE
DEXTER 6 "RETURN TO SENDER"
DEXTER 7 "CIRCLE OF FRIENDS"
DEXTER 8 "SHRINK WRAP"
DEXTER 9 "FATHER KNOWS BEST"
DEXTER 10 "SEEING RED"
DEXTER 11 "TRUTH BE TOLD"
DEXTER 12 "BORN FREE"
DIARY OF A CANNIBAL
DIE YOU ZOMBIE BASTARDS!
DISTURBANCE
DJANGO
DOG SOLDIERS
DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE
DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL
DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE
DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING
DOOM
DOOMED
DOPPELGANGER
DORM
DORM OF THE DEAD
DO YOU LIKE HITCHCOCK?
DRACULA
DRACULA, HOUSE OF
DRACULA, SPANISH
DRACULA'S CURSE
DRACULA'S DAUGHTER
DREAM REAPER
DROP, THE
DUMBLAND
DUST DEVIL
EATING RAZORS
EDMOND
EMANUELLE AROUND THE WORLD
EMANUELLE IN AMERICA
EMANUELLE IN BANGKOK
ENTRAILS OF A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN
ENTRAILS OF A VIRGIN
EVIL (TO KAKO)
EVIL ALIENS
EVIL BEHIND YOU
EVIL BONG
EVIL BREED
EVIL DEAD TRAP 2
EVIL ED
EVILENKO
EVILSPEAK
EYE, THE
EYES OF CRYSTAL
FACES OF GORE
FAMILY PORTRAIT
FANTOM KILER
FAUSTO 5.0
FEAR OF CLOWNS
FEAST
FEED
FEMALE CONVICT SCORPION
FIFTH CORD, THE
FINAL DESTINATION 3
FIRST BORN
5 DEAD ON THE CRIMSON CANVAS
5IVE GIRLS
FLESH EATERS, THE
FLOWER AND SNAKE
FLOWER AND SNAKE 2
FOG, THE (1980)
FOG, THE (2005)
FORBIDDEN PHOTOS OF A LADY ABOVE SUSPICION
FORCED ENTRY
FOREST OF DEATH
FRAILTY
FRANKENHOOKER
FRANKENSTEIN
FRANKENSTEIN CONQUERS THE WORLD
FREAKMAKER, THE
FREAK OUT
FREAKSHOW
FRENCH SEX MURDERS
FRIDAY THE 13TH
FRIDAY THE 13TH II
FRIDAY THE 13TH III
FRIDAY THE 13TH VI
FRIDAY THE 13TH VII
FRIDAY THE 13TH VIII
FRIGHTMARE
FRIGHT NIGHT
FROM DUSK TILL DAWN
FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 2
FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 3
FROSTBITE
FUNHOUSE, THE
FUNNY GAMES
FUTURE-KILL
GAME BOX 1.0
GANGS OF THE DEAD
GARDEN, THE
GATHERING, THE
GEMINI
GHOST GAME
GHOST LAKE
GHOST OF MAE NAK
GHOST, THE (RYEONG)
GHOUL SCHOOL
GINGER SNAPS
GIRL BOSS GUERILLA
GIRL SLAVES OF MORGANA LE FAY
GOING TO PIECES
GOLDEN AGE
GONE THE WAY OF FLESH
GORE GORE GIRLS, THE
GRAVEDANCERS, THE (2007)
GRAVEYARD ALIVE
GRAVEYARD, THE
GREEN RIVER KILLER
GRINDHOUSE - DEATH PROOF
GRINDHOUSE - PLANET TERROR
GRUB GIRL
GRUDGE, THE
GRUDGE 2, THE
H6: DIARY OF A SERIAL KILLER
HALFWAY HOUSE, THE
HALLOWED
HALLOWEEN NIGHT
HAMILTONS, THE
HANNIBAL RISING
HARD CANDY
HARSH TIMES
HAUNTED FOREST
HAUNTED HIGHWAY
HAUNTED PRISON
HAVOC
THE HAZING
HEADER
HEADHUNTER
HEAD OF THE FAMILY
HEADSPACE
HEAD TRAUMA
HEARTSTOPPER
HELLBENT
HELLFIRE CLUB
HELLRAISER
HELLBOUND: HELLRAISER 2
HELLRAISER 3: HELL ON EARTH
HELLRAISER - DEADER
HELTER SKELTER
HENRY
HIGH TENSION
HILLS HAVE EYES, THE (2006)
HILLS HAVE EYES 2, THE (1985)
HILLS HAVE EYES 2, THE (2007)
HILLSIDE CANNIBALS
HITCHER, THE (1986)
HITCHHIKER, THE
HORROR BUSINESS
HORRORS OF MALFORMED MEN
HORRORS OF WAR
HOSTEL
HOSTEL 2
HOST, THE
HOT FUZZ
HOT WAX: ZOMBIES ON WHEELS
HOUSE OF 9
HOUSE OF BLOOD
HUMAN NO MORE
HUNDRA
HUNT, THE
IDLE HANDS
I DRINK YOUR BLOOD
I'LL BURY YOU TOMORROW
ILSA - SHE WOLF OF THE SS
ILSA - HAREM KEEPER OF THE OIL SHEIKS
ILSA - THE WICKED WARDEN
IN A DARK PLACE
INCUBUS
INFECTION
INNOCENTS, THE
INSECTICIDAL
INSIDE IRVIN
IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS
INVASION OF THE POD PEOPLE
IRIS EFFECT, THE
IRREVERSIBLE
ISOLATION
I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
I STAND ALONE
IT WAITS
IVORY, THE
JACK FROST
JACK FROST 2
JESUS CHRIST VAMPIRE HUNTER
JOSHUA
JUNGLE HOLOCAUST
KARLA
KATIEBIRD: CERTIFIABLE CRAZY PERSON
KAW
KEEPER, THE
KEKKO KAMEN NEW
KIDNAPPED (RABID DOGS)
KILL, BABY...KILL
KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE
KILLER MUST KILL AGAIN, THE
KITTEN KRIME DOUBLE FEATURE
KNIGHT OF THE PEEPER
KOLOBOS
KOVAK BOX, THE
KRAKEN - TENTACLES OF THE DEEP
KWAIDAN
LADY IN THE WATER
LADY SNOWBLOOD: LOVE SON OF VENGEANCE
LADY VENGEANCE
LAST BROADCAST, THE
LAST ROUND, THE
LAST SUPPER, THE
LAURE
LEGEND OF BLOODY JACK, THE
LEGEND OF LUCY KEYES, THE
LEGEND OF THE 7 GOLDEN VAMPIRES
LET ME DIE A WOMAN
LITTLE ERIN MERRYWEATHER
LIVE FEED
LIVE FREAKY DIE FREAKY
LIVING COFFIN, THE
LIVING DOLL
LIVING HELL
LONELY ONES, THE
LONE WOLF AND CUB
LOST, THE
LUCKY
LUTHER THE GEEK
MACUMBA SEXUAL
MAD COWGIRL
MAGDALENA'S BRAIN
MAGIC
MAID, THE
MAID OF HONOR
MAIL ORDER BRIDE
MALPERTUIS
MAN CALLED MAGNUM, A
MANIACTS
MANSION OF THE LIVING DEAD
MAN WITH THE SCREAMING BRAIN
MARAUDERS
MARCUS
MAREBITO
MARK OF THE DEVIL
MARSH, THE
MATAVIEJITAS, LA
MAY
MEATBALL MACHINE
MEN BEHIND THE SUN
MESSENGERS, THE
MEXICAN WEREWOLF IN TEXAS, A
MIKADROID: ROBOKILL BENEATH DISCO CLUB LAYLA
MINOTAUR
MOH - CHOCOLATE
MOH - CIGARETTE BURNS
MOH - DEER WOMAN
MOH - DREAMS IN THE WITCH HOUSE
MOH - FAIR HAIRED CHILD
MOH - HAECKEL'S TALE
MOH - HOMECOMING
MOH - IMPRINT
MOH - INCIDENT ON AND OFF A MOUNTAIN ROAD
MOH - JENIFER
MOH - PICK ME UP
MOH - SICK GIRL
MOH 2 - THE DAMNED THING
MOH 2 - FAMILY
MOH 2 - PELTS
MOH 2 - PRO-LIFE
MOH 2 - RIGHT TO DIE
MOH 2 - THE SCREWFLY SOLUTION
MOH 2 - THE WASHINGTONIANS
MOH 2 - WE ALL SCREAM FOR ICE CREAM
TO CATCH A KILLER
THE ZODIAC
THE ZODIAC KILLER


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

A GRAB BAG OF INTERESTING INFO ON SERIAL KILLERS

SERIAL KILLERS LAST MEALS
A SIGNATURE SERIAL KILLER IN THE MAKING
AILEEN WUORNOS TRIVIA
CANNIBAL COOKBOOK
DEFINING SERIAL MURDER
ARTICLE "THE ICEMAN" RICHARD LEONARD KUKLINSKI
ARTICLE ON JOHN HAIGH JR
KENNETH BIANCHI MEDICAL REPORT
KILLER'S LAST MEALS
KILLERS WHO SURRENDER
PLEADING INSANITY
PSYCHOLOGY & DEVELOPMENT
POEMS ABOUT KILLERS
PREDESTINED KILLERS
PROFILING A KILLER
MOVIES AND MURDER
TYPES OF CRIME SCENES
TYPOLOGIES OF MURDER
SERIAL KILLER QUOTES
SERIAL KILLER POETRY
TED BUNDY TRIVIA
WHAT MAKES A KILLER?
WRITINGS OF MICHAEL ROSS
WRITINGS OF PATRICK KEARNEY
SWAP LINKS WITH US


CONTACT JAMES GILKS



SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

TEXT LINK ADS : If you would like to add your text based ad to the site (and greatly improve your site's search engine optimization) contact us HERE.

Bizarrepedia.com
Historical Crime Detective
True Crime Historian
Mafia Mob
Carl Alves
Gangsters Inc
Wild Blue Press
Murderseriatim
True Crime Diva
Attack From Planet B
The Dark Side of Nebraska
The Dark Side of America
Investigating Crimes - Explore the Criminal Minds!
Forensic Psychology
Cinematic Shocks
Prison Horror
The Horror Movies Blog
Incall Movie
Saw Freaks
Court Junkie
Horror Author James Hershey Jr
Serial Killer Project
History and Headlines
Psycho Killers USA
Travnvic Horror
All Things Crime Blog
5d-blog
The Morbid Dollhouse
Ed Walters
Dark Thirty News
Dark Thirty Radio
Mutual Broadcast
Leo Ashcraft
Anomaly Hub
Racks And Razors
Jeremy D Hill
Honest Liars
Frankly Curious
Funeral Home Video
Author Simon Law
Burl Barer
True Crime Uncensored
Revenant Publications
House of Mysterious Secrets
Evil Von Scary
Rhiannonirons.com
Reading Ghost
Horror Movies Uncut
Gorehore
Daily Nightmare
Geekmundo
Hudson Horror
Crime Scene Database
Curiosity Kills Podcast
Certification Track
Crimedocumentary.com
Do-evil.com
Corsobooks.com
Klondike
Solitaire
solitairechamp.info


SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE RETURN TO TOP

JAMES GILKS - OWNER
KRIS SAUNDERS- CO OWNER

WRITERS
AARON KIRKLAND
ADAM DIGENOVA
ADELAIDE LIDDEL
ALEXANDER DELIGHT
ANDY EVANS
ANGELA HOMMELL
ANNA M. GRIFFY
ANNA ROCKET
BANDI BROCK
BILL DIXON
BOB GEORGE
BOB WARD
BRAD BARRETT
BRIAN RUSSELL
BRIAN WHITNEY
BRIDGET HEATH
BRIDGETTE ORMOND
BRUCE MOWDAY
BRYAN BURR
CASEY FRANK
CASEY JONES
CHARLOTTE GLEDSON
CHRIS BARTHOLOMEW
CHRIS CASINES
CHRISTI PUNTENEY
DAVID BOYLE
DAVID C. HAYES
DAVID L TAMARIN
DEANNA MULLINS
DENISE NOE
DION BRASS
DOUG WALLACE
DYLAN BONNAR
ELLEN GROGAN
EVIL LUCY
EZRA RAINSTEIN
FAITH LEANNE
FRANCESCA HAVRE
FRANK ANZALONE
FREDERICK MADDEN
FREDERICK W. COOK
GARIN T. JONES
GENERAL AK47
GILBERT JOHNSON
HERLAKA ROSE
JASON HUGHES
JASON WOLFE
JAYNEE VOELPEL
JEFFREY HAYES
JEMMA LILLEY
JEN MONTZ
JEN PADDON
JESSICA FAIRFIELD
JESSICA ROBINSON
JOANNE FEDDELER
JODI RENÉE LESTER
JOHN DAVID HERNANDEZ
JOHN WISNIEWSKI
JONATHON CRYSTAL
JORDAN SEMICH
JUDITH YATES
KAIT BOBLABLA
KAIT WELLMAN
KATIE DOHERTY
KAMYELLE POWELL
KATHRYN JEWEL
KATIE DOHERTY
KEIMI YAMAGATA
KELLY HUTCHISON
KENNY HACKNEY
KILMER VARIENT
KIMBERLY BAILEY
KIMBERLY LEWIS
KRYSTINA VALLADARES
LADY ZOMBIE
LISA WILBERDING
LORENZO GARZA
LUIS CARBAJALES
LUKE DAVIES
MADISON SHERMAN
MAGGIE SMOAK
MARTIN PROBEE
MAT CLOUSER
MATTHEW AARON
MELISSA HOGLE
MICHAEL ALOISI
MICHAEL BORELLA
MICHELLE CRIST
MICHELLE KOSTEVC
MOLLY CELASCHI
NADIA FEZZANI
NICHOLAS PEACOCK
NICK STEVENS
NICOLE MEREDITH
REAGAN DAVIS
REV WILLIAM SMYERS
RJ PARKER
RHIANNON EDWARDS
ROBERT HARNISH
SALLY BUCKLEY
SAMANTHA KESSINGER
SCOTT RUSSELL
SEAN DEMERS
SHELLY RAAB
SHAUN DUNNE
SHELLS WALTER
SKYE ANDREWS
STEPH ARENA
STEPHANIE JOHNSON
STEPHEN W. ROBERTS
STEVE GIANNANGELO
TAMMY ARMSTRONG
TOD BOHANNON
VANESSA WEST
VICKY ZUBCIC
WILLIAM A. KINGMAN

ARTISTS
ADAM CLINE
ADAM GEYER
ADAM WILLIAMS
ALEKSANDR POLTAVSKIY
ANDREAS LARSSON
ANDREW O'CONDELL
ANI ASLANIAN
BILLY CRANCE
BRYON BURDICK
CHAD OCONNELL
CHRIS CARPENTER
CHRYSTAL THOMPSON
CHUCK HODI
CLAIRE AZZOPARDI
CLINT CARNEY
CODY WHITMAN
CRAIG HEWITT
DAN HARTMAN
DAN VERKYS
DARIO GARCIA
DARYL WALKER
DAVID CSICSELY
DAVID HARTMAN
DR. PAYNE
EDDIE MULLINS
ERIC SWARTZ
ERIC WELLMAN
ERIN TINNEY
FABIEN FERNANDEZ
FRANKIE BABYLON
GERALD TORBITT
GREGORY COBURN
HAYLEY MUI
HERVE SCOTT FLAMENT
IAN WAGNER
JACK MALEBRANCH
JAMES GILKS
JAMES RICHARDSON
JASON DAQUINO
JEREMY VANDERMARK
JESSICA FAIRFIELD
JESSICA JOHNSON
JOAQUIN MONTALVAN
JO DUGGAN
JOAQUIN MONTALVAN
JOE COLEMAN
JOEL BAGLEY
JOHNNY MACHINE
JONATHAN HAWK
JOSHUA MASON
JUSTIN MYERS
KAHLA WALKOSKI
KELLY HUTCHISON
KIMBERLY BAILEY
KUNSTATELIER -
GEBHARDT 
KURT BELCHER
LEE BILLINGHAM
LEONARDO CASAS
LORI HESTON
LOU RUSCONI
LYDA DAY
MARK STINSON
MARTHANA YUSA
MATT VERGES
MATTHEW AARON
MATTHEW JOEL -
CASSAR 
MICHAEL MAJEWSKI
MICHAEL REYNOLDS
MICHI NEW FRANKENSTEIN
MICKMO
MIKE STOLTZ
NELLIE BROWN
NICOLAS CASTELAUX
NICHOLAS RAIMO
NICK DUNKELY
NICK LAZARISS
OPHELIE BERNAUD
PATRICK OLSEN
PAUL MELLINO
PETE BERG
PHILIP R. MERTZ
R.M. HANSON
RANDY WALL
ROBERTO ARANDA
ROWAN ANDREWS
RYAN SCHEMPP
SARAH SMITH
SHANE SHEILS
SHANNON HILSON
SHANNON RIDDLE
SIONA MORROW
TOM PALIWODA
URIEL A. DURAN
VINCE PACKARD
VINCENT CASTIGLIA
WILLIAM JENNINGS

WANT TO BE PART OF OUR KILLER TEAM? CONTACT JAMES GILKS


Douglas John Edwin CRABBE

A.K.A.: "Mack Truck murderer"

Classification: Mass murderer
Characteristics: Revenge - Angry for being refused service for intoxication
Number of victims: 5
Date of murder: August 18, 1983
Date of arrest: Next day
Date of birth: 1948
Victims profile: Two men and three women
Method of murder: Drove his 25 ton Mack Truck into a crowded bar
Location: Yulara, Northern Territory, Australia
Status: Sentenced to five consecutive terms of life imprisonment (non-parole period of 30 years) on October 7, 1985


Douglas John Edwin Crabbe (b. 1948) is an Australian murderer, currently detained in Darwin for multiple murder which occurred when he rammed his 25 ton Mack truck through a hotel wall at the Inland Hotel at Yulara in the Northern Territory on August 18, 1983, killing five people and seriously injuring sixteen others.

Crabbe's crime is sometimes referred to as the Mack Truck murders. In 1984, Crabbe was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will be eligible for parole in August 2013 at the age of 66.

Early life

Crabbe worked as a truck driver and began driving at the age of 14. In February 1983 Crabbe was arrested and charged for assault on a car load of youths at a service station near Tennant Creek. The youth were harassing the service station console operator and also provoked Crabbe, who retaliated by jumping up and down on the bonnet of the victims car.

On March 24, 1983, Crabbe attended a country and western function in Curtin Springs and become involved in a fight on two occasions involving police.

Multiple murder

One the evening of August 18, 1983, Crabbe spent an hour at the Inland Hotel before being refused service for intoxication. Crabbe then walked behind the bar and confronted bar staff before being involved in a fight and being ejected from the premises at 12.30am.

He then walked approximately 500 metres to his parked Mack truck, and drove it to a nearby motel where he unhitched one of two attached trailers, then according to witness Martin Fisher,

"Crabbe then manoeuvred the 25 ton Semi and trailer, at speed, around a blind bend, through a car park, around a minibus, turned and drove it through the bessa brick wall into the crowded bar, crushing the people there. Leaving the engine running, he then got out of the truck, smiled down at one of his victims, stepped over some bodies and ran. This was at 1.10am. It had been 40 minutes between being thrown out and driving the truck into the bar. He was captured the next morning walking out of the bush 22 kilometres away.

Witnesses described the impact of the truck hitting the hotel to that of a bomb exploding. Crabbe was 36 at the time of the murders.

The truck had penetrated the building to the length of one trailer. The truck remained in place after impact, and was the only thing holding up the building's roof. After the crash the dining room adjacent to the bar became an emergency clinic for the injured. Four people were killed instantly in the crash. A fifth person died in a hospital in Alice Springs, Northern Territory after surgeons worked for five and a half hours to save her life. The 35 year old woman had sustained severe internal injuries.

Crabbe's capture occurred at the Yulara Tourist Village construction site after a search by police and Aboriginal trackers. William Hugh O'Neill, the catering manager from the Yulara Construction Camp, testified that he found Crabbe walking towards him near the construction camp on the morning of August 18. Crabbe waited with O'Neill for police to arrive, asking the extent of the damage to the motel. Crabbe was informed by O'Neill that at least four people had died, including "one of my boys from the kitchen".

Trials

At an October 1983 court hearing a police video taken on 18 August 1983 was shown to the court. It showed the bodies of the four people killed instantly - two men and two women - in the make shift mortuary set up at the back of the motel. It also showed the damage to the bar area of the motel, with clothes and boots embedded in the ground under the truck and near its bloodstained bull bar, from which the officer who took the video said many of the dead had been pulled. Crabbe, charged with five counts of murder at the hearing, sat expressionless as the video was shown.

Ronald Slinn, a building manager from Yulara, told the court he was hit by the truck, jamming his left leg under the front axle. He managed to drag himself out and found his 45-year-old wife Patricia Slinn half underneath with her face downward; she had been killed instantly. A motel guest testified he saw a man, later identified from police photographs as Crabbe, running as if fleeing something. The man told the guest "Okay mate, I'm not going any further. I've gone far enough." After leaving to get help the guest found that the man had disappeared.

At the trial in March 1984 a witness testified that Crabbe had been rude and aggressive in the bar. This witness reported she had later seen Crabbe on the floor of the bar, being held down by three men. A second witness corroborated that a man had been involved in a scuffle with three men. The witness testified that after the truck crashed into the bar he saw the man who had been involved in the scuffle leave the truck's cabin and exit "very quickly" towards the rear of the truck via the gaping hole the truck left in the side of the building. The witness had been knocked down by the truck.

Crabbe offered no reason for his actions. At trial he pleaded memory loss from his removal of the second trailer until waking to the sound of the truck's exhaust amid the damaged bar room after impact. He was convicted of all five counts of murder by a jury. The judge sentenced him to the mandatory term of life imprisonment on each count of murder, each term to run consecutively. Asked if he had anything to say, Crabbe replied "No, nothing." Crabbe later appealed to the High Court of Australia, which found that the judge at the original trial had erred in his summing up to the jury and the convictions were set aside and a retrial ordered.

Crabbe pleaded not guilty at his second trial which was held in the Darwin, Northern Territory Supreme Court in 1985. This trial concluded on 7 October 1985 when a second jury convicted him on all five counts of murder. Crabbe was again sentenced to five consecutive terms of life imprisonment with a thirty-year minimum (the longest in the Northern Territory's history) backdated to 18 August 1983, the day of the murders and his arrest, to be served at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre.

In early 2005, Crabbe was moved to a prison in Perth, Western Australia after strong pleas from his family, including his sister, Flo. Crabbe will be eligible for release on parole on 18 August 2013 at the age of 66; if he is paroled, he will be on parole for the rest of his life.

Aftermath

The episode was documented by Australian rock band Hunters and Collectors on their 1984 album The Jaws of Life, with the lyrics of the opening track, "42 Wheels", sung from Crabbe's point of view. The artwork of the original vinyl LP includes the memorial plaque at the pub where the incident happened.

Wikipedia.org


The Queen v Crabbe [2004] NTSC 63

PARTIES: THE QUEEN v CRABBE, Douglas John Edwin

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: 8322499

DELIVERED: 8 December 2004

HEARING DATES: 26 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the Director”) pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing (Crime of Murder) and Parole Reform Act 2003 (“the Act”). The respondent is serving sentences of life imprisonment for five crimes of murder. The Director seeks an order revoking the non-parole periods of 25 years fixed by the Act in respect of those sentences together with an order fixing non-parole periods longer than 25 years. The Director does not apply for an order refusing to fix a non-parole period.

History

[2] In the early hours of 18 August 1983 the respondent drove his 25 ton Mack Truck into a crowded bar of the Inland Hotel at Yulara. Five persons were killed and 16 were injured.

[3] The respondent was charged with five counts of murder. After a trial in March 1984 during which the respondent gave evidence, a jury convicted the respondent of all five counts. On appeal the convictions were set aside and a retrial was ordered. The second trial concluded on 7 October 1985 when a jury convicted the respondent of the five counts of murder.

[4] As required by the legislation in force in October 1985, the learned Sentencing Judge sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for life with respect to each of the five counts of murder. At that time the legislation did not permit the court to fix a non-parole period. Imprisonment for life meant imprisonment for the term of the respondent’s natural life without any possibility of release other than by way of Executive clemency.

The New Scheme

[5] The Act came into operation on 11 February 2004. It brought about a substantial reform of the sentencing regime applicable to sentences of life imprisonment imposed for the crime of murder. The history of the laws relating to sentences for murder and the relevant provisions of the Act are set out in the reasons for judgment in R v Leach [2004] NTSC 60.

[6] The Act amended the Sentencing Act and introduced s 53A to that Act. Section 53A provides for the fixing of non-parole periods in respect of sentences of life imprisonment imposed for the crime of murder after the Act commenced. Upon conviction for a single crime of murder, s 53A(1)(a) provides that the court must fix at least the “standard” non-parole period of 20 years unless the circumstances identified in s 53A(3) apply. If those circumstances apply, and such circumstances include sentencing for two or more convictions for murder, the court is required to fix a non-parole period of at least 25 years. The “standard” non-parole period of 20 years is specified as representing the non-parole period “for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness.”

[7] Although s 53A(1)(a) directs the court to fix at least the “standard” non-parole period of 20 years, power is given to fix a non-parole period that is shorter than 20 years. The court may only fix a shorter period if satisfied that “exceptional circumstances” exist which “justify fixing a shorter period.” Subsection (7) prescribes the circumstances that are capable of amounting to exceptional circumstances for these purposes and directs that the court “must not have regard to any other matters.” By way of contrast, when the circumstances require the fixing of a non-parole period of at least 25 years, there is no provision authorising the court to impose a non-parole period that is less than 25 years.

[8] Section 53A(4) empowers the court to fix a non-parole period that is longer than either 20 or 25 years:
“if satisfied that, because of any objective or subjective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence, a longer non-parole period is warranted.”

[9] The court may also refuse to fix a non-parole period. Section 53A(5) provides that the court may refuse to fix a period:
“if satisfied the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme the community interest in retribution, punishment, protection and deterrence can only be met if the offender is imprisoned for the term of his or her natural life without the possibility of release on parole.”

Transitional Provisions

[10] It is against the background of the previous legislation and the change in the sentencing regime that the transitional provisions applicable to the application before me must be considered. The relevant provisions for present purposes are as follows:

“PART 5 – TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Division 1 – Prisoners currently serving life imprisonment for murder

17. Application of Division

This Division applies in relation to a prisoner who, at the commencement of this Act, is serving a sentence of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder.

18. Sentence includes non-parole period

Subject to this Division –

(a) the prisoner's sentence is taken to include a non-parole period of 20 years; or

(b) if the prisoner is serving sentences for 2 or more convictions for murder – each of the prisoner's sentences is taken to include a non-parole period of 25 years, commencing on the date on which the sentence commenced.

19. DPP may apply for longer or no non-parole period

(1) The Supreme Court may, on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions –

(a) revoke the non-parole period fixed by section 18 in respect of the prisoner and do one of the following:

(i) fix a longer non-parole period in accordance with subsection (3) or (4);

(ii) refuse to fix a non-parole period in accordance with subsection (5); or

(b) dismiss the application.

(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions must make the application –

(a) not earlier than 12 months before the first 20 years of the prisoner's sentence is due to expire; or

(b) if, at the commencement of this Act, that period has expired – within 6 months after that commencement.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), the Supreme Court must fix a non-parole period of 25 years if any of the following circumstances apply in relation to the crime of murder for which the prisoner is imprisoned:

(a) the victim's occupation was police officer, emergency services worker, correctional services officer, judicial officer, health professional, teacher, community worker or other occupation involving the performance of a public function or the provision of a community service and the act or omission that caused the victim's death occurred while the victim was carrying out the duties of his or her occupation or for a reason otherwise connected with his or her occupation;

(b) the act or omission that caused the victim's death was part of a course of conduct by the prisoner that included conduct, either before or after the victim's death, that would have constituted a sexual offence against the victim;

(c) the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the act or omission that caused the victim's death;

(d) at the time the prisoner was convicted of the offence, the prisoner had one or more previous convictions for the crime of murder or manslaughter.

(4) The Supreme Court may fix a non-parole period that is longer than a non-parole period referred to in section 18 or subsection (3) if satisfied that, because of any objective or subjective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence, a longer non-parole period is warranted.

(5) The Supreme Court may refuse to fix a non-parole period if satisfied the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme the community interest in retribution, punishment, protection and deterrence can only be met if the offender is imprisoned for the term of his or her natural life without the possibility of release on parole.

20. Appeals

(1) For Part X of the Criminal Code, a decision of the Supreme Court under section 19(1)(a)(i) or (ii) fixing or refusing to fix a non-parole period is taken to be a sentence passed by the Court.

(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions may appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal under Part X of the Criminal Code against a decision of the Supreme Court under section 19(1)(b) dismissing an application as if the decision were a sentence passed by the Court fixing a non-parole period of 20 or 25 years (as the case may be).

(3) On an appeal under subsection (2), the Court of Criminal Appeal may confirm the decision of the Supreme Court or substitute another decision that would have been available to the Supreme Court.

21. Effect of decisions

(1) The failure of the Supreme Court to comply with section 19(3), (4) or (5) when fixing or refusing to fix a non-parole period does not invalidate the prisoner's sentence.

(2) For section 5 of the Parole of Prisoners Act, a non-parole period fixed by or under this section is taken to be a non-parole period fixed in pursuance of the Sentencing Act.”

[11] The effect of the transitional provisions is to direct that all sentences of life imprisonment for the crime of murder which were being served at the commencement of the Act are taken to include a non-parole period. Section 18(b) provides that if the prisoner was serving sentences of life imprisonment for two or more convictions for murder, each of those sentences is taken to include a non-parole period of 25 years. All other life sentences for murder are taken to include a non-parole period of 20 years (s 18(a)). The non-parole periods fixed by s 18 are taken to have commenced on the date on which the sentence of life imprisonment commenced.

[12] The periods of 20 and 25 years fixed by s 18 of the Act correspond with the minimum periods that s 53A of the Sentencing Act directs be fixed in respect of sentences imposed after the commencement of the Act. However, unlike the direction found in s 53A(2), there is no direction in the transitional provisions that the non-parole period of 20 years is a “standard” period which represents a period for an offence “in the middle range of objective seriousness”.

[13] Section 19 of the Act provides that on application by the Director, the court may revoke the non-parole period fixed by s 18 and either fix a longer non-parole period or refuse to fix a non-parole period. There is no power to fix a non-parole period less than the period fixed by s 18.

[14] A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment at the time that the Act commenced is not able to make any application in respect of a non-parole period fixed by s 18. Unlike the prisoner who is sentenced after the commencement of the Act, therefore, the prisoner already serving a sentence has no prospect of receiving a non-parole period of less than 20 years. The minimum period fixed by s 18 is 20 years and such a prisoner is unable to make any application in respect of that period.

[15] On an application by the Director in respect of a non-parole period of 20 years fixed by s 18 of the Act, if any of the circumstances set out in s 19(3) of the Act apply in relation to the crime of murder for which the prisoner was sentenced, the court must fix a non-parole period of at least 25 years. Those circumstances are identical to the circumstances now found in s 53A(3) of the Sentencing Act which, if they exist in respect of a crime of murder for which sentence is imposed after the commencement of the Act, require the court to fix a non-parole period of at least 25 years.

[16] On an application by the Director, pursuant to s 19(4) of the Act the court may fix a non-parole period longer than the periods of 20 or 25 years:
“if satisfied that, because of any objective or subjective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence, a longer non-parole period is warranted”.

[17] This is the same test as that to be applied when determining whether to impose a longer non-parole period than 20 or 25 years in respect of sentences imposed after the commencement of the Act (s 53A(4)). The attention of the court is drawn to the “relative seriousness of the offence” as determined by reference to any “objective or subjective factors” affecting that relative seriousness. The court is required, therefore, to consider the objective circumstances of the offending together with any matters personal or subjective to the offender which affect the gravity of the offending. Having assessed those matters the court must determine whether, by reason of those matters, a longer non-parole period is “warranted”.

[18] As to the power to refuse to fix a non-parole period on an application by the Director, pursuant to s 19(5) of the Act the Legislature has set for the court a different test to be applied from that by which the court decides whether to impose a longer non-parole period. Section 19(5) provides that the court may refuse to fix a period:
“if satisfied the level of culpability in the commission of the crime is so extreme the community interest in retribution, punishment, protection and deterrence can only be met if the offender is imprisoned for the term of his or her natural life without the possibility of release on parole".

[19] The terms of s 19(5) are identical to s 53A(5) of the Sentencing Act which empowers a court to refuse to fix a non-parole period in respect of sentences of life imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Act. These provisions focus on the “level of culpability in the commission of the crime”. The court is directed to determine whether that level of culpability is “so extreme” that the specified community interests can only be met if the offender is imprisoned for life without the possibility of release on parole.

[20] The net effect of the transitional provisions is to create a degree of equality between those who were serving sentences before the commencement of the Act and those who are sentenced after that commencement. In substance, a minimum non-parole period of either 20 or 25 years is automatically applied to prisoners whether sentenced before or after the commencement of the Act unless the court orders otherwise. The tests for determining whether to fix a longer period or to refuse to fix a non-parole period are the same for each category of prisoner. A significant difference is that those sentenced after the commencement of the Act have the opportunity of attempting to persuade the sentencing court to fix a period shorter than the “standard” period of 20 years by establishing the existence of specified “exceptional circumstances”. Those sentenced before the Act commenced are deprived of that opportunity.

Sentencing Principles

[21] Although the respondent has previously been sentenced, on an application by the Director pursuant to s 19 of the Act, essentially the court is required to undertake a sentencing exercise. Unless excluded by the Act, the well settled principles and the provisions of the Sentencing Act governing the exercise of the sentencing discretion apply. These include the principles enunciated by the High Court in The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270. The Court may take into account facts adverse to the interests of the respondent only if those facts are agreed or have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If the respondent seeks to establish facts in mitigation, the respondent bears the burden of establishing those facts on the balance of probabilities.

[22] Those sentencing principles must be applied when considering the objective or subjective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence as required by s 19(4) of the Act. Similarly, when addressing s 19(5), the usual principles will apply to the determination of the facts relevant to an assessment of the level of culpability of the respondent in the commission of the offence and to the determination of the underlying facts such as the likelihood of re-offending and the progress or otherwise towards rehabilitation.

Facts

[23] The crimes occurred in the early hours of 18 August 1983. The respondent was then aged 36 years. He had been a truck driver all his working life having been driving since the age of 14.

[24] On 17 August 1983 the respondent spent the day driving his 25 ton Mack Truck to various localities and unloading his trailers. That evening after a meal the respondent went to the Inland Hotel where he drank at the bar for an hour or so before the barman refused to serve him because he was causing trouble. The respondent walked behind the bar and confronted the barman. A scuffle followed during which the respondent was forcibly removed from behind the bar and restrained. The respondent and another man fell to the floor briefly before the respondent was let up. He dusted himself off and, at about 12.30pm left the bar.

[25] The respondent walked approximately 500 metres back to his truck. He then drove the truck and two attached trailers a small distance to the Uluru Motel. At the motel the respondent unhitched one of the trailers. That was an exercise that required a degree of skill and dexterity, although it must be recognised that the respondent was very experienced in the operation of the truck and the trailers.

[26] After unhitching a trailer, the respondent drove the truck and trailer back to the Inland Hotel. The affidavit of Mr Martin Fisher sworn in support of the Director’s application summarises the events at the hotel as follows:

“Crabbe then manoeuvred the 25 ton Semi and trailer, at speed, around a blind bend, through a car park, around a minibus, turned and drove it through the bessa brick wall into the crowded bar, crushing the people there. Leaving the engine running, he then got out of the truck, smiled down at one of his victims, stepped over some bodies and ran. This was at 1.10am. It had been 40 minutes between being thrown out and driving the truck into the bar. He was captured the next morning walking out of the bush 22 kilometres away.”

[27] One of the witnesses described the impact of the truck with the wall as like a bomb going off.

[28] As to whether the respondent smiled down at one of his victims, counsel for the respondent noted that two other witnesses did not see the respondent smile. However, I am satisfied that the respondent did smile at a victim, Mr Hannigan, who was trapped under the truck.

[29] Mr Hannigan gave evidence that he was knocked down by the truck onto his backside. He finished up just behind the front right hand tyres of the truck covered with an amount of debris from the bar and a bessa block or two. Mr Hannigan said the light was on in the bar. At first he panicked because he thought the truck was going to reverse over his legs. In what he described as a “rather loud” voice, he called for help. He looked toward the cabin area where he noticed movement and again called for help. Mr Hannigan said the cabin door opened and the driver began to alight. He again called out. The respondent looked down on him and their eyes met. According to Mr Hannigan the respondent then smiled at him, stepped over his head onto what was left of the bar and ran from the bar. The respondent did not display any difficulty in doing so.

[30] In cross-examination Mr Hannigan agreed he had a very brief glimpse of the driver. When it was suggested to him that he was mistaken about the appellant smiling, Mr Hannigan responded that he had no doubt at the time that the respondent smiled at him. Mr Hannigan’s description in cross-examination when asked the time that elapsed between the cabin door opening and the person stepping over him was as follows:
“Almost immediately. He opened up the door, swung it open. I called to him. He looked down at me, recognised me, smiled, stepped over me and was gone almost – in – in – in the one movement. There was no stopping.”

[31] In re-examination Mr Hannigan said that as the respondent was beginning to dismount from the truck it appeared he was going to dismount in a normal fashion down towards Mr Hannigan. In an instant reaction he called out for help to make sure that the respondent was aware of him and it was then that the respondent looked straight down at him. He described the smile as a “very basic smile”.

[32] There is no evidence to suggest that the respondent had any grievance with the patrons in the bar. It appears that he had consumed a substantial quantity of alcohol, but there was no suggestion that he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming a specific intent. The respondent did not display any difficulty in getting to his feet after the scuffle in the bar or in running out of the bar. In addition, he was capable of driving his truck and two trailers to the motel, uncoupling one of the trailers, driving the truck and trailer back to the hotel and then manoeuvring the truck and trailer at speed immediately before driving into the wall of the hotel.

[33] The respondent gave evidence at the first trial. That evidence was read to the jury in the second trial. The respondent said he recalled being dragged from behind the bar and being choked until he was let up. He said he felt slightly embarrassed. He thought he realised he had made a fool of himself. He said the message had sunk in and he walked out. The respondent denied having any feelings other than embarrassment.

[34] In substance, although the respondent said he recalled a number of subsequent movements and the removal of the second trailer, he maintained that he had no memory of driving the truck into the wall of the hotel. He said that after the committal proceedings some recall returned, but not of driving into the wall. He had a memory of someone saying “Run. Run. The cops are coming” and of running himself. His next recollection was waking up draped over a bush in the scrub.

[35] The respondent told the jury that he did not consider his ejection from the bar was a possible reason for driving the truck into the wall of the hotel. He said he did not believe he was capable of doing something like that. The respondent said he did not accept in his own mind that he was the driver. He did not think that alcohol played any role.

[36] Asked if he knew that if he drove the truck against the wall while there were people in the bar it would be likely to kill some of those people, the respondent replied: “It would be highly likely”.

[37] As a consequence of the evidence given by the respondent, the trial Judge allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine about two previous incidents in which the respondent had been involved. The decision to allow the cross-examination was the subject of an appeal to the Full Federal Court in Crabbe v R (1984) 56 ALR 733. In the course of his judgment, Muirhead J observed that the respondent gave evidence-in-chief “designed no doubt to portray [the respondent] as a hard working man of stability”. His Honour pointed out there was little if any cross-examination on the question of intoxication and that the defence “did not endeavour to portray a drunken man whose capacity to reason or control his vehicle was reduced”. His Honour’s judgment continued (748):
“His [the appellant’s] evidence, relating to his feelings after he had been manhandled and ejected from the bar was quite clear. He told the jury his only feeling was one of embarrassment; an acceptance that he was in the wrong. Any sense of hostility was by implication denied; again a picture of a man who realised he had been in the wrong and who accepted the consequences of his conduct in good spirit. It was against this background that the appellant gave evidence on three occasions in remarkably similar terms. It was not one “off the cuff” remark. On each occasion the answer went further than acceptance of a suggestion or denial of a counter suggestion as to previous behaviour under stress whilst drinking.
(1) “I don’t consider myself capable of doing something like that” (p 352).
(2) “I still don’t believe that I’d be capable of doing something like that” (p 354).
(3) “I don’t feel I’d be capable of doing such a thing … it’s completely against me you know” (p 357).
These answers were given towards the end of his testimony, in an apparently considered fashion. The repetition of the questions was unusual; it may have been designed to emphasise to the jury that the accused was a mild type of fellow, careful of property. It seems to me that the appellant, bearing in mind what he had said earlier as to his years of experience on Territory roads, thus endeavoured to convey to the jury that he was a man without violence, a man who did not bear a grudge after a bar-altercation, a man too careful of vehicles he has driven to deliberately damage them.”

[38] On the basis that the respondent had given evidence of good character, he was cross-examined about prior incidents.

[39] In February 1983 the respondent was at Threeways near Tennant Creek. He had been drinking alcohol at the roadhouse. The respondent denied he was affected by alcohol, but said he was short of sleep.

[40] According to the respondent, three youths in a car were giving a young bowser attendant a hard time by language and spinning the wheels backwards and forwards on the driveway. The respondent told them they were a bunch of hoons and they started on him with language. They asked what he was going to do about it. Provoked in that way the respondent went over to the car and grabbed a youth through the window.

[41] The respondent admitted assaulting a person who was inside the car and that he tried to get that person out of the car. He agreed that the person was saying he did not want to fight him. The respondent said he tried to open the door and admitted bringing the door back past its limit of travel. The victim said “don’t dent the car. It cost me $1800” or something like that and ran away. The respondent admitted chasing the youth and taking his boots off for that purpose because he could not catch the youth.

[42] During the incident the respondent said “I’ll [obscenity] dent the car all right”. The respondent got onto the bonnet of the car and jumped on it. He did the same to the roof of the car. His explanation for doing these acts was to entice the victim back.

[43] The respondent admitted telling the police that he was provoked by obscenities and general words. He described the victim and others as a “pack of scumbags”. The respondent pleaded guilty to wilful and malicious damage to the vehicle.

[44] The second incident occurred on 24 March 1983, three months before the respondent committed the crimes under consideration. The respondent was at the Curtin Springs store where a country and western night was occurring. While drinking in the bar he got into an argument with other patrons. The bar manager approached him and asked him to calm down. The proprietor intervened. A scuffle occurred inside the hotel and others intervened trying to restrain the respondent.

[45] The scuffle moved outside. A police officer joined in and the respondent was held down on the ground. He agreed he was held in much the same manner as he was held down at the Inland Motel three months later.

[46] At Curtin Springs while he was being held down the respondent was told to calm down. Eventually he stopped struggling and was let up. He was told that if he behaved himself he could re-enter the bar. After he re-entered the bar another argument occurred. As a consequence a second scuffle involving the respondent, the proprietor of the roadhouse and a police officer occurred.

[47] The respondent agreed that on both occasions he had struggled violently. He agreed he would have used abusive language during the course of the events.

[48] After the scuffles the respondent was told by the proprietor that he was barred from the pub. The respondent agreed that he was angry, not about the scuffles or being barred, but about the people involved. He said he became angry on the second occasion. He had moved to a corner where he was sitting quietly drinking, but he was provoked by one of the people who was in the first argument. The respondent said he became very angry. He agreed it was a similar type of provocation to the provocation that occurred at Threeways.

[49] The respondent said he was very slow to be provoked at any time, even when he was drinking. He said he usually became happier when drinking, but when it was put to him that sometimes he became more aggressive with drinking, the respondent replied:
“I have become more aggressive when I’ve been drinking, yes.”

[50] It is unnecessary to canvass the evidence in further detail. It was open to the jury to reject the respondent’s evidence that he had no memory of driving the truck into the wall of the hotel. Even if the jury was of the view that it was reasonably possible that the respondent had no memory of the events, it was open to the jury to convict the respondent.

[51] As a consequence of the way in which the Crown presented its case and the directions to the jury, there were two states of mind that were sufficient for convictions of murder. First, that the Crown had proved the respondent intentionally drove the truck into the wall with an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm to persons in the bar. Alternatively, the jury could have convicted on the basis that although not satisfied that the respondent possessed such specific intention, the jury was satisfied that when the respondent drove the truck into the wall he knew that his act of driving the truck into the wall would probably cause death or grievous bodily harm. The jury was told that such a state of mind was sufficient for murder even if that knowledge was accompanied only by indifference as to whether or not death or grievous bodily harm might be caused.

[52] I am not satisfied that the jury convicted on the basis that the respondent intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Nor does the material satisfy me of the existence of such a specific intent. It is more likely that the jury convicted on the basis that the respondent knew it was probable that his actions would cause death or grievous bodily harm. For the purposes of assessing the relative seriousness of the respondent’s crimes, I proceed on that basis.

[53] As to the respondent’s attitude to the probability that he would cause death or grievous harm, and as to his attitude immediately following the entry of the truck into the bar, I have referred to the evidence of Mr Hannigan. I am unable to discern any basis for rejecting that evidence.

[54] I am satisfied that when the respondent drove his truck into the wall with the knowledge that it would probably kill or cause grievous bodily harm, he was utterly indifferent to whether death or grievous bodily harm ensued. I am satisfied that when he climbed out of the truck, Mr Hannigan called for help and the respondent heard that call. He looked at Mr Hannigan, smiled, stepped over him and over the rubble within the bar. As the respondent exited from the truck and the bar, he was utterly indifferent to the harm he had caused.

[55] Consideration must be given to the respondent’s consumption of alcohol. It appears that he had consumed a quantity of alcohol. I am satisfied, however, that the respondent was not significantly affected by alcohol. He was able to scuffle and move about without displaying any obvious signs of intoxication. He was capable of driving the truck and of uncoupling a trailer. He proved to be capable of manoeuvring the truck and trailer at speed.

[56] Although the respondent was not significantly affected by alcohol, nevertheless the effects of alcohol played a role in the commission of the offence. The respondent had previously demonstrated a tendency to be argumentative when affected by alcohol. He had also demonstrated a tendency to react with physical aggression in the face of provocation. On this appeal, through counsel the respondent said that he now recognises that he was “an immature fool”. Counsel submitted that the respondent now recognises that he possessed a reactive personality. He never walked away from a confrontation. Counsel suggested that sleep deprivation over a number of years was relevant in this context.

[57] In the context of the respondent’s mental state, I have had the assistance of a helpful report from a psychologist who examined the respondent in October 2004. Details of the respondent’s background are provided. There is nothing in that background of particular relevance to the facts of the respondent’s criminal conduct. It is not the type of background that would ordinarily attract mitigation of penalty.

[58] The respondent was not suffering from any mental illness, psychological illness or psychological symptoms suggestive of psychosis. It was the view of the psychologist that it is highly likely that the respondent has never been psychotic. The psychologist reported that as at October 2004 the respondent had a good degree of intelligence and insight. There is nothing related to the respondent’s mental state or psychological condition capable of affecting the gravity of the respondent’s criminal conduct.

[59] Prior to the commission of the crimes, the respondent had committed a number of offences of a relatively minor nature. The prior offending was not such as to have any relevance to an assessment of the gravity of the respondent’s criminal conduct.

[60] As mentioned, the respondent was aged 36 at the time he committed the crime. There is no issue of youth or immaturity relevant to an assessment of the gravity of the criminal conduct.

[61] Finally as to the facts, the extent of the harm caused by the respondent’s crimes is reflected by the death of five persons and injuries to 16 others, four of whom were injured seriously. In addition, the court is now in a position to gain an appreciation of the harm caused to the indirect victims through the deaths of the five persons. The victim impact statements provided on this appeal graphically demonstrate the severity of the ongoing and wide ranging impact of the respondent’s crimes.

21 Years of Incarceration

[62] The respondent has been in prison for approximately 21 years. He is now deeply remorseful and acutely aware of the ongoing impact of his crimes.

[63] The respondent is highly regarded by Correctional Services officers with whom he has had contact over the last 21 years. From his early days in custody the respondent has maintained a strong work ethic and has been consistently described as placid, well behaved and courteous. The respondent has undertaken numerous courses of study and physical skills. He has acquired skills in mechanics, welding, electrical refrigeration, automotive air-conditioning, computers, first aid and woodwork. He has taken every opportunity to work within a Community Support Program conducted by Correctional Services. This has included working outside the confines of the prison. The respondent’s right to engage in that type of activity was earnt through his exemplary conduct and industry. The President of an Association for which the respondent worked during the Program has spoken highly of the respondent’s dedication and care for the work he performed. In an enlightened reference, the President concluded:
“I and the Committee feel the work he [the respondent] is doing and the contact that he has with club members and the public will greatly aid in his reintegration into the civilian population in the not too distant future. I and a lot of clubs throughout the Darwin region support the Community Support Program and we hope that it continues not only for our benefit but also for those who work in it.”

[64] In short, the respondent has been a model prisoner. He has achieved this not just by staying out of trouble. He has made every conceivable positive effort to rehabilitate himself and to prove that he is no longer a risk to the community. The totality of the material before me inspires confidence that the respondent, who is now aged 57 years, can in due course be safely released into the community.

Relative Seriousness of the Offence

[65] As I have said, in determining whether to fix a non-parole period longer than the 20 or 25 years automatically fixed by s 18(b) of the Act, the court is required by s 19(4) to determine whether it is satisfied that “because of any objective or subjective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence, a longer non-parole period is warranted.” In determining that question, for the reasons discussed in Leach, in my opinion evidence is admissible of matters occurring or emerging since the imposition of sentence if relevant to the seriousness of the offence. This brings into focus the question as to what factors the Legislature intended be encompassed within the description “factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence”.

[66] In the case of this particular respondent, one of the critical questions is whether the respondent’s subsequent rehabilitation can properly be regarded as a factor affecting the relative seriousness of his crimes.

[67] The starting point is to consider the ordinary and natural meaning of the words of the provisions in the context in which they appear. There is nothing ambiguous about that meaning. The court is required to consider factors “affecting” the relative seriousness of the offence. The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) defines “affect” as meaning:
“To make a material impression on; to act upon, influence, move, touch, or have an effect on.”

[68] The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1988) defines “affect” as meaning “have an effect on; make a difference to.” The following note appears:
“Affect is primarily a verb meaning “make a difference to””.

[69] Ordinarily, only those circumstances which are causally connected or have a nexus with the commission or the offence would fit the description of factors which make a difference to the seriousness of the offence. As a matter of the ordinary use of language, it does not appear that the rehabilitation of an offender over many years subsequent to an offence can be regarded as a factor capable of making a difference to the seriousness of the crime.

[70] It hardly needs to be said that, subject to legislative requirements and exceptions, the established principles of sentencing dictate that factors such as an offender’s plea of guilty, remorse and rehabilitation are important factors in the determination of both a head sentence and a non-parole period. Allowing for differing weight to be given to various factors depending upon whether a head sentence or a non-parole period is being determined, the factors to be taken into account in fixing the non-parole period will be the same as those factors relevant to the fixing of a head sentence: Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 at 627; R v Robinson and Barrett (1979) 22 SASR 367 per King CJ at 269 and 270; Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 per Mason CJ and McHugh J at 531. In the context of the statutory regime applicable to the fixing of non-parole periods in respect of sentences of life imprisonment imposed for the crime of murder, therefore, a clear legislative direction is required before the court will find that the Legislature intended to exclude such factors thereby overriding the application of established principles of sentencing.

[71] In considering the statutory context in which the transitional provisions must be interpreted, it must be borne in mind that prior to the commencement of the new regime brought about by the Act, there was no power to fix a non-parole period in respect of a sentence of life imprisonment imposed for the crime of murder. Subject to Executive clemency, that sentence meant imprisonment for the term of the offender’s natural life without the possibility of release on parole. The new sentencing regime introduced in February 2004 brought about a dramatic change to that situation. It would not be surprising to find that the Legislature accompanied that change with guidance for the court in respect of the fixing of non-parole periods for sentences of life imprisonment imposed for the crime of murder. However, the Legislature has not restricted itself to the provision of guidelines. It has gone much further by prescribing minimum non-parole periods.

[72] Section 5 of the Sentencing Act identifies both the purposes for which sentences may be imposed and the matters to which the court shall have regard in the sentencing process. Those purposes and matters are entirely consistent with the well established principles of sentencing. Those provisions do not exclude other established principles of sentencing to the extent that those principles are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Sentencing Act.

[73] As a consequence of the Legislative provisions of the new regime, however, to a large extent s 5 of the Sentencing Act and the ordinary principles of sentencing have been displaced in respect of the fixing of a non-parole period for the crime of murder. Depending on the circumstances, s 53A of the Sentencing Act directs the court to impose at least the minimum periods of either 20 or 25 years. If the circumstances require that the court fix a period of at least 25 years, the court does not possess a discretion to impose a period less than 25 years. To that extent s 5 and the well established principles of sentencing are excluded.

[74] In respect of the minimum of 20 years fixed for a single crime of murder, s 53A(6) enables the court to fix a non-parole period shorter than 20 years “if satisfied there are exceptional circumstances that justify fixing a shorter non-parole period”. However, the discretion of the court is significantly limited because s 53A(7) defines what is capable of amounting to “exceptional circumstances” and directs that the court must not have regard to any other matters. Subsections (7)-(9) are relevant for these purposes and are in the following terms:
“(7) For there to be exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify fixing a shorter non-parole period under subsection (6), the sentencing court must be satisfied of the following matters and must not have regard to any other matters:
(a) the offender is –
(i) otherwise a person of good character; and
(ii) unlikely to re-offend;
(b) the victim’s conduct, or conduct and condition, substantially mitigate the conduct of the offender.
(8) In considering whether the offender is unlikely to re-offend, the matters the sentencing court may have regard to include the following:
(a) whether the offender has a significant record of previous convictions;
(b) any expressions of remorse by the offender;
(c) any other matters referred to in section 5(2) that are relevant.
(9) The sentencing court must give reasons for fixing, or refusing to fix, a non-parole period and must identify in those reasons each of the factors it took into account in making that decision.”

[75] This brief overview is sufficient to demonstrate that in fixing minimum non-parole periods in connection with sentences of life imprisonment for the crime of murder imposed after the commencement of the Act, subject to a very limited exception the Legislature has excluded the operation of both s 5 and the ordinary principles of sentencing. Regardless of where the crime of murder sits in the scale of seriousness, and regardless of any other factors normally relevant to the imposition of sentence and the fixing of a non-parole period, a minimum of either 20 or 25 years must be fixed. It is in this context that the power contained in s 53A(4) to fix a longer non-parole period and the identical power contained in s 19(4) of the Act applying to the respondent must be construed.

[76] Two relevant powers exist. The court may either refuse to fix a period or fix a longer period. As mentioned, in determining whether to refuse to fix a non-parole period, the court is required to focus on the “level of culpability in the commission of the crime”. The court is also directed to an assessment of the community interest in retribution, punishment, protection and deterrence. The community interest in those features may change over the years of incarceration and must be determined as at the date of the application. Matters such as the offender’s progress by way of rehabilitation, plea of guilty and remorse will all be relevant to an assessment of those features of the community interest.

[77] In directing the attention of the court to those aspects of the community interest, in substance the Legislature has brought into consideration all of the factors normally relevant to the imposition of sentence and the fixing of a non-parole period; that is, those factors relevant by reason of s 5 of the Sentencing Act and the well established principles of sentencing.

[78] The Legislature has chosen, however, to employ a different test when the court is considering whether to impose a non-parole period longer than the minimum. In directing the attention of the court solely to “objective or subjective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence”, the Legislature has pointedly omitted reference to the community interest in matters such as retribution, punishment, protection and deterrence. Is the court to infer, therefore, that the Legislature intended that the court should disregard the usual sentencing considerations such as retribution, punishment, protection of the community and general deterrence? Does it follow that the Legislature intended that the court should ignore the rehabilitation of an offender that has occurred over many years in custody because, although rehabilitation is directly relevant to questions such as protection of the community and personal deterrence, it does not affect the relative seriousness of the offence committed many years previously?

[79] The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal had occasion to consider the meaning of a legislative direction to take into account objective or subjective factors that affect the relative seriousness of an offence in an appeal against sentence, including a non-parole period, in R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131. The relevant provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the NSW legislation”) with which the Court was concerned applied to offences committed on or after 1 February 2003. Those provisions give directions concerning the fixing of “standard” non-parole periods unless the Court determined there were reasons for setting a longer or shorter non-parole period. As is the situation with respect to the minimum non-parole period of 20 years in the Northern Territory, the NSW legislation states that the “standard” non-parole period “represents the non-parole period for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness” for specified offences.

[80] The New South Wales provisions contain detailed guidance for the court that does not appear in the Northern Territory legislation. The New South Wales legislation states that the reasons for which the court may set a longer or shorter period than the standard non-parole period are those referred to in s 21A of that legislation. Section 21A directs that the court is to take into account the “aggravating” and “mitigating” factors listed in s 21A together with:
“(c) any other objective or subjective factor that affects the relative seriousness of the offence.”

[81] The aggravating and mitigating factors to which the court is directed by the New South Wales legislation are the types of factors usually found in sentencing legislation and which are taken into account when sentencing in accordance with the well established sentencing principles. The mitigating factors specified in s 21A include matters such as prospects of rehabilitation, remorse, plea of guilty and degree of pre-trial disclosure by an offender as provided by the legislation. These are factors that settled sentencing principles treat as relevant in mitigation of penalty. Such factors do not necessarily have a nexus with the commission of the offence. Notwithstanding the absence of such a nexus, however, it is a reasonable interpretation of the New South Wales legislation that by listing the factors to be taken into account as aggravating and mitigating, and by giving a direction that in addition to those factors the court was required to take into account “any other objective or subjective factor that affects the relative seriousness of the offence”, the legislation was indicating that it regarded all of the factors listed under the headings of “aggravating” and “mitigating” as factors that affect the relative seriousness of the offence.

[82] The court observed that by providing guidance in the form of specified aggravating and mitigating factors, the Legislature did not intend to overrule or disturb the well established body of principles.

[83] After discussing the “abstract” offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness and the assessment of whether an offence falls within that range, the court turned to the construction of the words “objective seriousness” as those words appear in the direction that the standard non-parole period represents the non-parole period “for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for offences …”.

[84] In that context, the court made the following observations:
“85 The multiplicity of purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Act, quoted above, do not suggest a narrow perspective as to the range of facts and matters that are to be regarded as “objective” facts and matters which may affect the judgment involved in assessing “seriousness”. It is too narrow a perspective to confine attention to the physical acts of the offender and their effects, as those acts or effects could be observed by a bystander. The inquiry which we consider to have been intended is one that would take into account the actus reus, the consequences of the conduct, and those factors that might properly have been said to have impinged on the mens rea of the offender (see for example Fox and Freiberg, Sentencing, 2nd Edition at paras 3.506 to 3.510).
86 Some of the relevant circumstances which can be said “objectively” to affect the “seriousness” of the offence will be personal to the offender at the time of the offence but become relevant because of their causal connection with its commission. This would extend to matters of motivation (for example duress, provocation, robbery to feed a drug addiction), mental state (for example, intention is more serious than recklessness), and mental illness, or intellectual disability, where that is causally related to the commission of the offence, in so far as the offender’s capacity to reason, or to appreciate fully the rightness or wrongness of a particular act, or to exercise appropriate powers of control has been affected: Channon v The Queen (1978) 20 ALR 1 and R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67. Such matters can be classified as circumstances of the offence and not merely circumstances of the offender that might go to the appropriate level of punishment. Other matters which may be said to explain or influence the conduct of the offender or otherwise impinge on her or his moral culpability, for example, youth or prior sexual abuse, are more accurately described as circumstances of the offender and not the offence.
87 Questions of degree and remoteness arise which will need to be developed in the case law. There are potential areas of overlap. For example, impaired mental or intellectual functioning can go to either, or both, the seriousness of the offence and punishment, so far as deterrence is concerned.
88 In an assessment of the objective seriousness of the subject offence it seems to us that attention must accordingly be given to the factors mentioned above. Some of these relevant factors will be elements of the offence itself. Others will fall within the list of aggravating and mitigating factors referred to in s 21A (2) and (3) of the Act, so far as they relate to purely objective considerations.” (my emphasis)

[85] In the context of the New South Wales legislation, the court regarded matters personal to an offender at the time of the offence as objectively affecting the seriousness of the offence if they were “causally related” to the offence. This view was confirmed shortly after the passages I have cited when the court noted that there has always been a need to compare an offence in the abstract with an individual offence when assessing the relative seriousness of the individual offence. The court said:
“90 In that comparison, it is necessary to reflect the distinction between circumstances which go to the seriousness of the offence considered in a general way, and matters that are more appropriately directed to the objectives of punishment.
91. If that distinction is respected then the spectrum of offences, and the identification of those which fall in the mid range of seriousness can be confined to matters which are directly or causally related to its commission.”

[86] After referring to the observations in Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1998) 164 CLR 465 that an antecedent criminal history illuminates the moral culpability of the offender or shows dangerous propensity or shows a need for both personal and general deterrence, the court expressed the view that such factors “are more relevant to the measure of punishment for the individual offender, than they are to a consideration of where the offence before the court falls within the spectrum of conduct which may constitute the offence in the abstract”. The judgment continued:
“93 The existence of this dichotomy between matters relevant to the offence and to the offender, or put another way, between matters to be taken into account as relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of an offence, and matters going to the punishment of the offender for its commission, has not always been fully recognised, or at least expressly reflected, in the reasons which are given for sentence.
94 That is illustrated by reference to the terms in which the authorities have spoken of the factor last mentioned, namely re-offending while on conditional liberty, and of the factor that the offender has a prior record for similar offences.”

[87] Having discussed differing approaches to an antecedent criminal history which in some cases had been treated as demonstrating an increased animus and culpability for an offence and in others as more related to the aspect of punishment, the court observed that it has not previously been necessary to draw a distinction between factors affecting objective seriousness and those which do not have a nexus with the commission of the offence:
“98 Prior to enactment of legislation of the kind which is seen in Division 1A of Part 4 it was probably not necessary for any strict line to be drawn between matters which related to the offence, and to the offender, respectively, since the focus was placed upon the question of setting a sentence that reflected the overall criminal culpability involved.
99 The position has now changed in relation to sentencing in respect of offences for which standard non-parole periods have been set, in so far as there needs to be an examination of the level of objective seriousness involved in the offence, in which considerations that do not have a nexus with its commission are to be placed to one side.”

[88] The observations to which I have referred were made in the context of a requirement to assess the objective seriousness of an offence in order to compare the objective seriousness of the particular crime with an abstract offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for that type of crime. The court then observed that in addition to the specified aggravating and mitigating factors, the legislation specifically required the court to take into account “any other objective or subjective factor that affects the relative seriousness of the offence”. The court also noted that s 21A specifically states:
“The matters referred to in this subsection are in addition to any other matters that are required or permitted to be taken into account by the court under any Act or rule of law”.

[89] In that context, the court concluded that the provisions in their entirely indicated that the factors listed in s 21A were not intended to operate as an exhaustive or exclusive code. In the view of the court, the provisions demonstrated a Legislative intention “that existing statutory and common law factors may still property be taken into account in determining a sentence even though they are not listed in s 21A(2) or (3).” The court went on to say that such factors could include hardship to a family where it qualifies as exceptional or the fact that serving a sentence will be unduly onerous by reason of illness or by the reason of the fact that it will be served in strict protection.

[90] In the light of that analysis, the court concluded that the sentencing Judge must ask and answer the question: “Are there reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period?” The court determined that the question would be answered by considering:
“(i) the objective seriousness of the offence, considered in the light of the facts, which relate directly to its commission, including those which may explain why it was committed, so as to determine whether it answers the description of one that falls into the mid range of seriousness for an offence of the relevant kind;
(ii) the circumstances of aggravation, and of mitigation, which are present in the subject case, or which apply to the particular offender, as listed in s 21A(2) and (3), and as incorporated by the general provisions in s 21A(1)(c) and by the concluding sentence to s 21A(1).”

[91] I have considered the decision in Way at some length because it contains a very helpful analysis of the appropriate approach, in the context of the New South Wales legislation, to the determination of the objective seriousness of an offence where the legislation has directed that a standard non-parole period represents the non-parole period for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for the offence under consideration. In that context, and in the context of provisions specifically directing the court to take into account specified aggravating and mitigating factors and “any other objective or subjective factor that affects the relative seriousness of the offence”, the court determined that the legislation preserved the “well established body of principles that have been developed by the courts over a long period of time.”

[92] The court also determined that in assessing the objective seriousness of an offence, regard could be had to matters personal to an offender if such matters had a causal connection with the commission of the crime. For that purpose, other matters personal to an offender such as moral culpability which were not directly or causally related to the commission of the crime, but were more appropriately directed to the objectives of punishment, must be put aside. In determining a sentence, however, the court was not confined to factors causally connected to the commission of the crime and was entitled to take into account all those factors regarded as relevant in accordance with the well established common law principles of sentencing.

[93] The issue for consideration is whether the same approach is permitted under the Northern Territory legislation. As mentioned, when considering whether to fix a non-parole period longer than 20 years in respect of a sentence of life imprisonment for murder imposed after the commencement of the Act, the court is given guidance in the same terms as the New South Wales legislation that the standard non-parole period of 20 years “represents the non-parole period for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness” for offences of that type. In determining where an offence stands in the range of objective seriousness, there is no impediment to applying the reasoning in Way. I find that reasoning persuasive.

[94] A more difficult question is whether the reasoning in Way can be applied in determining which objective or subjective factors can properly be regarded as affecting the relative seriousness of the offence when deciding whether a longer non-parole period is warranted.

[95] The decision in Way that all factors relevant to the imposition of sentence in accordance with the well established body of sentencing principles can be taken into account was a decision reached in the context of the particular New South Wales provisions. As I have said, there are significant differences between the two sets of legislation. The New South Wales provisions relate to sentences and non-parole periods generally whereas the Northern Territory legislation under consideration is limited to non-parole periods for sentences of life imprisonment imposed for the crime of murder.

[96] In contrast to the Northern Territory provisions, the New South Wales legislation specifically includes for consideration most factors relevant to sentence at common law including factors that do not have a causal connection to the offence. It is in the context of the specific inclusion of those matters that the New South Wales legislation also directs the court to have regard to any other objective or subjective factor that affects the relative seriousness of the offence.

[97] It is apparent, therefore, that the context in which the relevant provisions of the Act are to be interpreted is quite different from the New South Wales legislation. In addition, as mentioned, in the Sentencing Act and the transitional provisions the Legislature has chosen to direct the court in different terms depending upon whether the court is considering whether to refuse to fix a non-parole period or to fix a longer period. In the former situation the terms of the legislation effectively embody the principles found in s 5 of the Sentencing Act and the common law. In the latter situation which relates to the application under consideration, the Legislature chose not to give the same direction.

[98] As to why different tests have been imposed by the Act, in Leach I pointed out that the court would only consider not fixing a non-parole period in respect of those cases properly characterised as in the worst category of cases of murder. It is not necessary, therefore, for the court to be directed to any question of the relative seriousness of the offending. In respect of the worst type of crimes, the Legislature was concerned to direct the court to the moral blameworthiness of the offender and to whether that blameworthiness was so extreme that the specified community interests could only be met by imprisonment for life without the possibility of release on parole.

[99] In cases where the court is considering whether to fix a longer non-parole period, the court will not be concerned only with those crimes falling within the worst category. The crimes involved will cover the whole spectrum of crimes from the lowest end of the scale of seriousness through to crimes fitting within the worst category. In these circumstances, the Legislature had directed the court to consider the “relative seriousness of the offence”. In this way, the court is required to determine where the offending sits in the scale of seriousness. It is only when the court has determined where the offence sits in that scale that, in the context of fixed minimum non-parole periods, the court is able to determine whether a longer non-parole period is warranted.

[100] The Legislature cannot have intended that the court should take a narrow view of factors which affect the relative seriousness of the crime. Ordinarily, when a court is fixing a non-parole period the court is required to determine the minimum period that “justice requires that [the offender] must serve having regard to all the circumstances of [the] offence”: Power v The Queen at 629; Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367; Bugmy. As was stated in Power, that determination is made according to accepted principles of sentencing. In the context of the fixed statutory minimum, when determining whether to fix a longer non-parole period, in substance the court is engaged in the same process.

[101] Adopting a broad interpretation which I consider will achieve the purposes of the legislation, in my opinion the objective and subjective factors to which the court shall have regard are not limited to those that, literally speaking, have a direct causal connection with the commission of the offence. Factors such as immediate remorse, immediate cooperation with authorities and an early plea of guilty, while not directly linked in a causative way to the commission of the crime, are so closely connected with the offender’s culpability as to amount to factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence for the purposes of s 53A of the Sentencing Act and s 19(4) of the Act. To this extent, following detailed submissions and analysis of the decision in Way, I have been persuaded that my general observation in Leach that an offender’s plea of guilty and cooperation with the authorities do not affect the relative seriousness of the crime was incorrect ([64]). Such factors may affect the relative seriousness. It is a question of degree and timing.

[102] Having reached that view, the question remains whether the broad interpretation I have adopted can reasonably encompass prospects of rehabilitation or the rehabilitation of an offender that has taken place over many years subsequent to the commission of the crimes. It is here that I have reached the view that the line must be drawn adverse to the respondent.

[103] To find that the Legislature intended that the court, in assessing the relative seriousness of the offence, should take into account prospects of rehabilitation or rehabilitation that has occurred over many years subsequent to the commission of an offence is to distort the ordinary and natural meaning of the words “affecting the relative seriousness of the offence”. Prospects of rehabilitation or subsequent progress towards rehabilitation cannot reasonably be regarded as factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence.

Warranted – Discretion

[104] The threshold question for the court in considering the question of a longer non-parole period is whether the court is satisfied that a longer non-parole period is warranted. That question is answered by reference to any objective or subjective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence. Unless the court is satisfied by reason of those factors that a longer non-parole period is warranted, the court is not empowered to fix a longer non-parole period. In other words, the discretion to fix a longer non-parole period is not enlivened unless the court is satisfied that a longer period is warranted.

[105] Sections 53A(4) of the Sentence Act and 19(4) of the Act provide that if the court is satisfied that a longer non-parole period is warranted, the court “may” fix a longer non-parole period. The Legislature has not directed the court to fix a longer non-parole period if satisfied that a longer period is warranted. A discretion is conferred upon the court to do so.

[106] Significantly, once the discretion to fix a longer non-parole period is enlivened, neither the Sentencing Act nor the Act purports to restrict the exercise of that discretion. Nor do the provisions of those Acts provide any guidance for the court in the exercise of that discretion. Subject to the context in which the discretion is granted to the court, and subject to the well recognised principles of sentencing, the discretion is unfettered.

[107] In these circumstances the question arises as to whether there is anything in the Sentencing Act or the Act or in the context of the new sentencing regime which evinces an intention on the part of the Legislature to fetter the discretion exercised by the court in determining whether to fix a longer non-parole period. In particular, is there any basis for inferring an intention that the court should ignore prospects of rehabilitation or rehabilitation that has occurred over many years subsequent to the commission of the offence?

[108] On one view, it might be said that the history of the treatment of persons convicted of murder and the purposes of the new regime points in the direction of ignoring questions of rehabilitation. Previously, regardless of any objective or personal circumstances or issues of rehabilitation, the community regarded the gravity of a crime of murder as requiring that the offender remain in prison for the term of the offenders’ natural life. The new regime has sought to ameliorate that situation to a strictly limited extent. The view of the community, reflected in the terms of the new regime, is that regardless of any factors of mitigation, issues of scale of seriousness or questions or rehabilitation, the crime of murder requires the punishment of a long period of incarceration. It could be said that consistently with that view, the court should be guided only by the gravity of the crime when determining whether a period longer should be fixed. On this view the court is concerned only with determination of the minimum period that justice requires the offender serve by reason of the gravity of the criminal conduct. Questions of rehabilitation are left to the Parole Board in deciding whether to release an offender on parole.

[109] The alternative view is that clear direction is required before a court will infer an intention on the part of the Legislature to exclude from the court’s consideration those matters which s 5 and the well established principles of sentencing otherwise require the court to consider in a sentencing exercise. Generally when sentencing, and in particular when fixing non-parole periods, the court is vitally concerned with prospects of rehabilitation. Where a delay has occurred between the offence and sentencing, progress that has been made towards rehabilitation is usually an important consideration. Rehabilitation is generally regarded as particularly important when considering the question of a non-parole period.

[110] As I observed in Leach, there are powerful reasons why the Legislature would intend a court to receive all relevant information capable of bearing upon the assessments required of the court, including facts that have emerged during the period of incarceration. The decisions required of the court affect the liberty of prisoners. The court is empowered to increase the very lengthy minimum periods fixed by the transitional provisions. The nature of the orders to be imposed and their impact upon the lives of prisoners dictate that in the absence of the clearest words to the contrary, the provisions should be interpreted as supporting a Legislative intention that the court should have available to it all relevant and up to date information concerning the prisoner.

[111] The other factor which indicates a Legislative intention that in exercising the discretion whether to fix a longer non-parole period the court should have regard to all matters ordinarily relevant to the fixing of a non-parole period, including questions of rehabilitation, is the timing of applications by the Director as required by s 19(2) of the Act. On that aspect I adhere to the following views expressed in Leach ([69] – [70]):
[69] In considering this issue, regard must also be had to the timing of applications by the Director as required by s 19(2) of the Act. If a period of 20 or 25 years fixed by s 18 expired before the commencement of the Act, s 19(2)(b) requires the Director to make the application within six months of the commencement of the Act. In other circumstances, s 19(2)(a) provides that the Director must make the application not earlier than twelve months before the first 20 years of the prisoner’s sentence is due to expire. In substance, therefore, the Legislature has specifically precluded the Director from making an application before a prisoner has served at least 19 years.
[70] In my opinion, the obvious reason for imposing the requirement that an application by the Director be delayed for such a long time is to enable the court to be put in the best position possible to make the assessments required of it. Numerous authorities have emphasised the difficulties facing sentencing Judges required to impose lengthy sentences of imprisonment and lengthy non-parole periods when endeavouring to predict the likely response of an offender to imprisonment. For example, in Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525, in a joint judgment, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ observed that a minimum term of 18 years and 6 months was of such a length as to render impossible accurate forecasts as to the risk of offending and the protection of the community (537). Experience has demonstrated that on occasions persons convicted of horrific crimes and who appear to be incapable of rehabilitation have, over a period of many years, responded favourably to incarceration. By precluding a Director’s application for such a long period the Legislature has endeavoured to minimise the difficulties associated with future predictions as to human behaviour in response to lengthy periods of imprisonment.

[112] In my opinion, neither the terms of the legislation nor the context of the new statutory regime imply that in determining whether to exercise the discretion to fix a longer non-parole period the court is not to take into account prospects of rehabilitation or rehabilitation that has occurred subsequent to the crime. There is nothing to indicate a Legislative intention that the principles embodied in the Sentencing Act and the well established common law principles of sentencing should not apply. Quite the contrary. The Legislature has chosen not to fetter the discretion and to ensure that the timing of an application by the Director pursuant to the transitional provisions will enable the court to receive the benefit of information as to an offender’s progress or otherwise by way of rehabilitation over many years in custody.

Range of Objective Seriousness

[113] The Director submitted that as s 53A of the Sentencing Act states that the standard non-parole period of 20 years represents the non-parole period for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for offences of murder, the periods of 20 and 25 years automatically fixed by s 18 of the Act should also be regarded by the court as periods appropriate to an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness. In this way the court is given a guideline or starting point from which to determine the relative seriousness of the offence under consideration.

[114] It seems to me there is considerable force in that submission in respect of the period of 20 years automatically fixed by s 18 in respect of a sentence of life imprisonment imposed before the commencement of the Act. As mentioned, it is apparent that the transitional provisions endeavour to create a degree of equality between prisoners serving sentences before the commencement of the Act and those sentenced after the Act commenced. Notwithstanding the absence of the direction in the transitional provisions that the period of 20 years represents the period for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, in my view it is reasonable to infer that the Legislature intended the court proceed on that basis when determining whether to fix a longer non-parole period pursuant to the transitional provisions.

[115] In my opinion the same reasoning cannot be applied when considering whether the Legislature intended that the non-parole period of 25 years be regarded as representing the period appropriate for an offence or offences in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for offences of the type attracting the minimum of 25 years. The Legislature chose not to give such a direction in either the Sentencing Act or the transitional provisions. If it was intended that the court should regard the 25 years as representing the period for an offence or offences in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, given the direction with respect to the standard non-parole period of 20 years it is somewhat surprising that the Legislature omitted to give a similar direction.

[116] The standard non-parole period of 20 years applies regardless of the circumstances of the crime and circumstances of the offender. Without a direction that 20 years represents the period for an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, the court would be deprived of any reference point by which to determine the relative seriousness of the offence when considering whether to impose a shorter or longer non–parole period.

[117] The difficulty in giving a similar direction with respect to those crimes requiring a minimum of 25 years is that the circumstances which require the fixing of a minimum period of 25 years will almost inevitably elevate the objective seriousness beyond the middle of the range. The legislature has determined that those factors which require the increased minimum period are aggravating factors which justify a significant increase in the minimum non–parole period of five years. Any increase of that magnitude is inconsistent with the view that the offence requiring the minimum of 25 years represents an offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness.

[118] In addition, the minimum of 25 years must be imposed if the offender is being sentenced for two or more crimes of murder or if the offender has previously been convicted of unlawful homicide. These criteria do not sit well with an attempt to apply a presumption with respect to all crimes requiring the minimum of 25 years.

[119] In my opinion, bearing in mind that the minimum of 20 years represents a period appropriate for a single crime of murder in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, it is appropriate to regard 25 years as appropriate for an offence otherwise in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, but accompanied by any one of the aggravating features specified in s 53A(3) of the Sentencing Act and s 19(3) of the Act. If more than one of the features specified in those sections is present, the objective seriousness of the crime is increased. It is not appropriate to regard the addition of each feature as requiring the addition of another five years to the non-parole period, but each feature represents a circumstance of aggravation.

[120] Those remarks relate to a single crime of murder accompanied by one or more of the particular features which require the fixing of at least 25 years as the non-parole period. In the case of two or more crimes of murder, that reasoning cannot apply. At best the court will be required to bear in mind that the Legislature has determined that for a single crime of murder in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, 20 years is the minimum period. In addition, for a single crime in the middle of the range of objective seriousness accompanied by one of the specified aggravating features, the minimum is 25 years.

Findings

[121] I am satisfied that at the time the respondent left the bar after the scuffle or soon after leaving the bar, the respondent formed an intention to drive his truck through the wall of the hotel. At that time the respondent knew that if he drove his truck at speed into the wall, the size and the momentum of the truck would inevitably mean that it would break through the wall and into the bar.

[122] The respondent also knew that a significant number of people were in the bar. He knew that if he drove his truck through the wall, it was highly likely that persons in the bar would be killed or seriously injured.

[123] The respondent’s intention to drive the truck through the wall of the bar was formed at a time when he was affected by alcohol, but not significantly affected. Alcohol was a contributing factor to the respondent’s conduct. As the consequence of the effects of alcohol, the respondent’s inhibitions were lowered and his anger at being ejected from the bar prevailed to the point where his violent reaction ensued. An aggressive and physical response in such circumstances perceived by the respondent as provocation was not an uncommon reaction when the respondent was affected by alcohol. When the respondent perceived that he was being provoked, he tended to become argumentative and physically aggressive.

[124] I emphasize that this is not a case in which the moral culpability of the respondent was reduced by reason of his intoxication. The respondent was not a person of impeccable character who, totally out of character, committed a minor offence while significantly affected by alcohol.

[125] Intoxication is, unfortunately, often an explanation for the commission of a crime. Rarely, however, is it a mitigating factor: R v Sewell & Walsh (1981) 29 SASR 12. In some circumstances, it may be an aggravating factor. In Sewell reference was made to violent crimes committed by intoxicated persons being more frightening to the average person.

[126] The respondent’s intoxication provides part of the explanation for his conduct. I regard it as neither an aggravating nor a mitigating factor.

[127] In arriving at this view I have not overlooked the fact that the respondent was addicted to alcohol. In my view, however, in the circumstances of the respondent’s criminal conduct, the fact of his addiction cannot be treated as a mitigating factor. There is no proper basis for the view that alcoholism reduces the respondent’s moral culpability in the commission of the crimes. This approach is consistent with the approach to the relevance of addiction to other drugs, particularly in the context of serious crimes: R v Proom (2003) 85 SASR 120.

[128] I have also had regard to the reports of the psychologist and Dr Wake, the Director of the Northern Territory Prison Medical Services. The respondent told the psychologist that he could not provide a basis for his motivation and said that he “had no distinct or dedicated animus” to any of the victims. The psychologist did not proffer any explanation as to the respondent’s motivation.

[129] Dr Wake has known the respondent since 1993. In his opinion the respondent is of above average intelligence. Dr Wake “ventured” the view that, “in one moment of madness”, the respondent committed the crimes. It appears that Dr Wake regards alcohol and anger as the “offending precipitants”.

[130] Speaking colloquially, it might be said with some justification that anyone who deliberately drives a 25 ton truck through a wall into a crowded bar was acting in a “moment of madness”. However, in my view, that expression is not appropriate to the respondent’s offending.

[131] The respondent’s crimes, while committed on impulse, were not in the category of a spontaneous reaction to a stressful set of circumstances. There was a significant element of premeditation. Having been ejected from the hotel, the respondent not only walked to his truck and drove it to the motel, he uncoupled one of the two trailers before driving back to the hotel. I am satisfied the respondent uncoupled the trailer because, for some unexplained reason, in planning to drive the truck through the wall of the hotel the respondent thought it would be in his best interests to remove the second trailer. It might be that the respondent had in mind backing away from the hotel after he had driven the truck through the wall. Such a manoeuvre would not be possible if a second trailer was attached. However, the reason is not of particular significance. The conduct in driving to the motel and removing the trailer is primarily relevant because it demonstrates a significant degree of premeditation and planning.

[132] As mentioned, this was not a spontaneous and instant reaction to stressful circumstances. In that context one of the serious features of the respondent’s crimes is that his actions were directed towards people who had given him no cause for animosity towards them. They were entirely innocent.

[133] The means by which the respondent committed the crimes is also relevant. It is difficult to imagine a more lethal weapon than a 25 ton Mack truck. It was a weapon against which there was no defence. It was a weapon capable in one action of destroying the lives of many people.

[134] In considering the relative seriousness of the respondent’s criminal conduct, it is not appropriate to attempt to isolate the individual crimes of murder and to consider the relative seriousness of each individual crime. In the particular circumstances of the respondent’s offending, it is the totality of his conduct to which regard must be had. In its totality, the respondent’s criminal conduct must be regarded as falling within the worse category of crimes of murder. Whatever might be said about the circumstances, in one action with a lethal weapon that would inevitably kill and injure a significant number of innocent victims, the respondent murdered five persons. The severe and widespread harm caused by the crimes continues today, over 20 years later.

[135] As mentioned earlier in these reasons, I am satisfied that when the respondent left the mayhem in the bar behind him he was utterly indifferent to the harm he had caused. It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify when the respondent came to accept responsibility and to experience true remorse. In his affidavit in response to the Director’s application, the respondent stated that after extensive self analysis he now understands the circumstances which led to his irresponsible behaviour and the devastating effects of that behaviour. He said gaining an insight and understanding has been a long, difficult and confronting exercise. The respondent now accepts full responsibility for his actions.

[136] The respondent maintained his plea of not guilty in his trial of October 1985. The conduct of that trial was not based solely on putting the Crown to proof. I am satisfied that at the time of his second trial in 1985, a little over two years after the crimes were committed, the respondent had not accepted responsibility. There is nothing in the material before me to suggest that by the time of his second trial the respondent was truly remorseful. I make that observation in the light of the respondent’s evidence at the first trial which conveys the distinct impression of a person not being entirely truthful about his state of memory and of a person somewhat indifferent to the harm he had caused. It might be that the respondent could not bring himself to accept that he would have committed such terrible crimes and, in the process of justifying that position, an incorrect impression had been conveyed. At the least, however, on the basis of the material before me I am unable to find that the respondent was experiencing true remorse at any time prior to his second trial. In these circumstances, I do not regard remorse subsequently experienced as a factor affecting the relative seriousness of the offence.

Conclusion

[137] I am required to assess the relative seriousness of the respondent’s criminal conduct. The respondent is not a serial killer who murdered five people on different occasions in premeditated and planned attacks. The respondent did not possess a specific intention to kill. Sentencing courts have always regarded a murder committed with a specific intention to kill as more aggravated than a murder committed with a reckless state of mind. However, much will depend upon the circumstances and the words of the High Court in a joint judgment in The Queen v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464 should be borne in mind (469):
“the conduct of a person who does an act, knowing that death or grievous bodily harm is a probable consequence, can naturally be regarded for the purposes of the criminal law as just as blameworthy as the conduct of one who does an act intended to kill or to do grievous bodily harm. … If an accused knows when he does an act that death or grievous bodily harm is a probable consequence, he does the act expecting that death or grievous bodily harm will be the likely result, for the word “probable” means likely to happen. That state of mind is comparable with an intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm.”

[138] Those remarks were addressed to the mental state required for the crime of murder in the context of a Crown application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the full court of the Federal Court quashing the respondent’s convictions on the first trial. The Court was not concerned with assessing the relative seriousness of a particular crime. Notwithstanding that distinction, the observations of the Court represent a recognition of the underlying culpability of a person who does an act knowing that death or grievous bodily harm is a probable consequence.

[139] In the circumstances of the respondent’s crimes, as the respondent admitted in evidence, it was highly likely that a number of persons would be killed or injured seriously when he drove his truck through the wall. The respondent’s knowledge and callous indifference to the consequences of his act mean that the difference between a specific intention to kill and the respondent’s state of mind is not of great significance for present purposes.

[140] Although the respondent did not commit the crimes by multiple premeditated acts, nevertheless he committed the crimes with a lethal weapon in circumstances that would inevitably result in multiple deaths and injuries. The inescapable fact is that the respondent murdered five innocent and defenceless persons. There are no circumstances that significantly mitigate the objective seriousness of the crimes. Similarly, there are no subjective circumstances which mitigate the seriousness of the criminal conduct.

[141] The community has determined that the starting point for the commission of two crimes of murder is a non–parole period of at least 25 years. This minimum applies regardless of where the individual crimes sit in the scale of seriousness. It applies regardless of the personal circumstances of the offender. While it is inappropriate to engage in a mathematical calculation based on 20 years for one crime of murder and an additional five years for each additional murder, and while the legislation plainly contemplates the possibility that the minimum non-parole period of 25 years could be fixed in respect of more than two crimes of murder, it is relevant to bear in mind that the absolute minimum period that can be fixed for two crimes of murder is 25 years.

[142] By reason of the factors affecting the relative seriousness of the respondent’s crimes to which I have referred, I am satisfied that a longer non-parole period is warranted. The discretion having been enlivened, I must determine whether to exercise that discretion.

[143] I have had regard to all of the material relating to the circumstances of the crime and personal to the respondent. As I have said, in connection with the commission of the crime, there is little to mitigate the gravity of the respondent’s criminal conduct. The respondent’s personal circumstances do not attract mitigation. Nor is the respondent entitled to the benefit of youth, a plea of guilty or immediate remorse.

[144] Of particular importance to the exercise of the discretion is the respondent’s subsequent rehabilitation. As mentioned, the respondent has made every conceivable possible effort to rehabilitate himself and has done so successfully. It is impossible to predict with absolute certainty that if released the respondent will not offend again. There is always an element of risk that a person who has been convicted of serious crimes will offend again when released. Through the terms of the legislation, however, the community has recognised that notwithstanding a degree of risk, in appropriate circumstances a person convicted of serious crimes of murder should receive a non-parole period thereby providing the offender with an opportunity to seek release on parole.

[145] It must be emphasised that the fixing of a non-parole period does not mean that at the expiration of the period the respondent will be entitled to release on parole. He will not be entitled to an automatic release. At the expiration of the non-parole period the respondent will be able to apply for release on parole. Whether he will be released on parole is a matter for determination by the Parole Board.

[146] With the advantage of knowledge of the prisoner’s response to imprisonment over the last 21 years, I must determine the minimum period that justice requires that the respondent must serve having regard to all the circumstances of the offence. That determination must be made in the context of the new Legislative scheme. That scheme provides for an absolute minimum non-parole period of 25 yeas for two crimes of murder. In my view the community expectation and intention reflected in the scheme is that ordinarily an offender being sentenced in respect of five crimes of murder could not expect to receive the minimum non-parole period of 25 years. I do not exclude the possibility that compelling objective and/or subjective factors might justify the imposition of the minimum period of 25 years.

[147] While the respondent’s subsequent remorse and remarkable efforts to achieve his rehabilitation are particularly significant factors, I have reached the view that they do not justify the imposition of the absolute minimum of 25 years. If it had not been for those factors, the period I would have fixed would have been significantly longer.

[148] The non-parole periods of 25 years in respect of each of the five sentences of life imprisonment are revoked. I fix a single non-parole period of 30 years commencing on 18 August 1983. The respondent will be eligible for parole in August 2013 when he will be 66 years of age.


SERIAL-KILLER-CALENDAR-this-day-in-serial-killer-history

SERIAL KILLER CALENDAR: THIS DAY IN SERIAL KILLER HISTORY BOOK
PRICE : $19.95

This perfect bound Serial Killer Calendar book includes detailed facts and trivia about serial killers for every day of the year. It also includes the best true crime artwork from around the world.

Want to know what happened today in serial killer history? Its all in this one massive collection of true crime information. This is the perfect gift for any fan of history, murderabelia or the macabre.


 

NEW ISSUE OF SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE!
ISSUE 24 OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ART AND MORE.

ISSUES 1 THROUGH 23 OF SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE!
PRICE : $250 (YOU SAVE OVER $100)

SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE is an official release of the talented artists and writers at SerialKillerCalendar.com. It is chock full of artwork, rare documents, FBI files and in depth articles regarding serial murder. It is also packed with unusual trivia, exclusive interviews with the both killers and experts in the field and more information that any other resource available to date. Although the magazine takes this subject very seriously and in no way attempts to glorify the crimes describe in it, it also provides a unique collection of rare treats (including mini biographical comics, crossword puzzles and trivia quizzes). This is truly a one of a kind collectors item for anyone interested in the macabre world of true crime, prison art or the strange world of murderabelia.


 



Serial Killers
 

ARTISTS AND WRITERS AND INTERVIEWERS NEEDED : We are now looking for artists, writers and interviewers to take part in the world famous Serial Killer Magazine. If you are interested in joining our team, contact us at MADHATTERDESIGN@GMAIL.COM

ATTENTION ALL MURDERABELLIA COLLECTORS! : We are now looking for high resolution scans of Serial Killer letters, death certificates, birth certificates and other interesting serial killer Murderabellia to be printed in future issues of Serial Killer Magazine. Anyone who submits high res scans of such items, will get full credit for their contribution. If you are interested, contact us at MADHATTERDESIGN@GMAIL.COM.

TRADE LINKS WITH US : Serialkillercalendar.com is looking to trade links with other websites to help with Search Engine Optimization. We are one of the top true crime websites on the internet and receive a ton of daily traffic. A link exchange would help to improve both of our sites search engine optimization (since search engines like google rank websites higher when they have a lot of external links from other sites). Your text link would be on our homepage (and all 3000+ pages of our website). If anyone is interested or knows someone who might be interested, please contact us at MADHATTERDESIGN@GMAIL.COM.

 
 

THE COMPLETE SET OF SERIAL KILLER TRADING CARDS
PRICE : $99

THE NEW SERIAL KILLER TRADING CARDS ARE HERE! THIS 90 CARD SET FEATURES THE ARTWORK OF 15 OF THE WORLD'S BEST TRUE CRIME ARTISTS AND WILL COME WITH A NUMBERED, SIGNED CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY FOR EACH SET. WE ARE TAKING ORDERS NOW. THIS SET IS AWESOME. DO NOT MISS OUT!


 

MASSIVE COLLECTION OF 30 EBOOKS
PRICE : $100

THIS MASSIVE COLLECTION OF 30 EBOOKS INCLUDES EVERY PRINT BOOK WE SELL ON SERIALKILLERCALENDAR.COM! THAT MEANS YOU GET PDFS OF: EVERY ISSUE OF SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE, THE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ED GEINS CONFESSION, THE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD RAMIREZ’S TRIAL, THE ULTIMATE JOHN WAYNE GACY COLLECTION, THE ULTIMATE SERIAL KILLER INTERVIEW COLLECTION AND THE COMPLETE FBI FILES OF CHARLES MANSON, TED BUNDY, THE BLACK DAHLIA, THE VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTING AND THE COLUMBINE MASSACRE.


 

THE "REAL AMERICAN PSYCHOS" POSTER IS ONE OF OUR FAVORITES. LIMITED TO JUST 1000 PRINTS, WE ARE ALMOST OUT OF THESE AMAZING POSTERS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE ONLY KNOWN COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED WORK THAT CAME FROM A REAL KILLER IN A REAL PRISON. THE IMAGES WERE DONE BY NICO CLAUX (WHO HAS SINCE CHANGED NAME) WHILE SERVING TIME FOR HIS CRIMES. HE IS LEGITIMATELY GIFTED AND IT SHOWS IN HIS WORK. WE HAVE A GOOD HANDFUL THAT ARE FRAMED AND FEW ACTUALLY SIGNED BY NICO HIMSELF. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THOSE, PLEASE CONTACT US AT MADHATTERDESIGN@GMAIL.COM FOR MORE INFO. THIS IS AN AWESOME PIECE AND A MUST HAVE FOR ANY COLLECTION.



THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE

SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE is an official release of the talented artists and writers at SerialKillerCalendar.com. It is chock full of artwork, rare documents, FBI files and in depth articles regarding serial murder. It is also packed with unusual trivia, exclusive interviews with the both killers and experts in the field and more information that any other resource available to date. Although the magazine takes this subject very seriously and in no way attempts to glorify the crimes describe in it, it also provides a unique collection of rare treats (including mini biographical comics, crossword puzzles and trivia quizzes). This is truly a one of a kind collectors item for anyone interested in the macabre world of true crime, prison art or the strange world of murderabelia.


NEW ISSUE OF SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE!

ISSUE 24 OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ART AND MORE.

ISSUE 23 OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ART AND MORE.


ISSUE 22 OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ART AND MORE.

ISSUE 21 OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ART AND MORE.

ISSUE TWENTY OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE NINETEEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE EIGHTEEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE SEVENTEEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE SIXTEEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE FIFTEEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE FOURTEEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE THIRTEEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE TWELVE OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE ELEVEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE TEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE NINE OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE EIGHT OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE SEVEN OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

>ISSUE SIX OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE FIVE OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE FOUR OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE THREE OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE TWO OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ISSUE ONE OF THE WORLD FAMOUS SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE IS CHOCK FULL OF RARE INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES, LETTERS, DEATH CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENTS, ARTWORK, TRIVIA AND MUCH MORE.

ULTIMATE SERIAL KILLER COLLECTIONS

THIS MASSIVE 8.5 X 11 PERFECT BOUND BOOK CONTAINS OVER 300 PAGES OF RARE INTERVIEWS, LETTERS, DOCUMENTS, TRANSCRIPTS AND ARTWORK FROM HISTORIES MOST NOTORIOUS KILLERS.

THIS MASSIVE 8.5 X 11 PERFECT BOUND BOOK CONTAINS OVER 150 PAGES OF RARE INTERVIEWS, LETTERS, DOCUMENTS, TRANSCRIPTS, ART AND ARTICLES ABOUT SERIAL KILLER, RICHARD RAMIREZ (AKA THE NIGHTSTALKER).

THIS MASSIVE 8.5 X 11 PERFECT BOUND BOOK CONTAINS OVER 150 PAGES OF RARE INTERVIEWS, LETTERS, DOCUMENTS, TRANSCRIPTS, ART AND ARTICLES ABOUT SERIAL KILLER, JOHN WAYNE GACY.

GIANT PERFECT BOUND TRANSCRIPTS

THIS MASSIVE 8.5 X 11 PERFECT BOUND BOOK CONTAINS THE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF SERIAL KILLER EDWARD GEIN'S CONFESSION. OVER 220 PAGES OF RARE POLICE DOCUMENTS.

THIS MASSIVE 8.5 X 11 PERFECT BOUND BOOK CONTAINS THE COMPLETE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT OF SERIAL KILLER, RICHARD RAMIREZ (AKA "THE NIGHTSTALKER"). OVER 110 PAGES OF RARE COURT DOCUMENTS.

COMPLETE FBI FILES IN GIANT PERFECT BOUND BOOKS

THIS PERFECT BOUND BOOK INCLUDES THE COMPLETE FBI FILE OF CHARLES MANSON. IT ALSO INCLUDES ALL THE COMPLETE HOMICIDE REPORTS OF THE MANSON FAMILY MURDERS.

THIS MASSIVE PERFECT BOUND BOOK INCLUDES THE COMPLETE FBI FILE OF THE BLACK DAHLIA MURDERS. THIS IS THE PERFECT GIFT FOR ANY COLLECTOR.

THIS MASSIVE PERFECT BOUND BOOK INCLUDES THE COMPLETE FBI FILE OF THE THE COLUMBINE HIGHSCHOOL MASSACRE. THIS IS THE PERFECT GIFT FOR ANY COLLECTOR.

THIS MASSIVE PERFECT BOUND BOOK INCLUDES THE COMPLETE FBI FILE OF THE VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTING. THIS IS THE PERFECT GIFT FOR ANY COLLECTOR.

THIS 178 PAGE PERFECT BOUND BOOK INCLUDES THE COMPLETE UNABRIDGED FBI FILE OF SERIAL KILLER, TED BUNDY. IT ALSO INCLUDES EXCLUSIVE TED BUNDY ARTICLES, INTERVIEWS, ARTWORK, RARE DOCUMENTS AND MUCH MORE.

RARE DVD FOOTAGE OF KILLERS AND CULT LEADERS

Ted Bundy, was one of the world's most vile and sadistic killers. He claimed never to commit these crimes however until weeks before he was executed. This DVD includes the two very rare last interviews where Bundy spills the beans and tells all. With amazing cover art by Johnny machine!

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage of the Son of Sam, David Berkowitz (including the rare interview where David Berkowitz admits that he was not alone in the killings and his connection to a satanic cult)!

PRICE : $10

 

This is an ultra rare DVD containing footage of serial killer John Wayne Gacy (AKA Pogo The Killer Clown). Contained on this amazing DVD is over an hour of unedited, uncut raw video taken by the Chicago Police in 1978 while they dug for bodies in Gacy’s house.

PRICE : $10

 

This is a rare collection of local news report when Richard "The Night Stalker" Ramirez was captured by an angry mob wanting justice, Richard was one of the most violent serial killers that ever lived and left many people dead or severely impared from his violent killing spree.

PRICE : $10

 

This is a rare collection of local news footage and interviews with Richard "The Night Stalker" Ramirez.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the full 90 minute interview between Stone Philips and Jeffery Dahmer. Pretty wild stuff.

PRICE : $10

 

This is a rare collection of local news reports and interviews of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer during the 1990s.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage of Jeffrey Dahmer.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes over an hour of hard to find footage taken during the Jeffrey Dahmer trial. You will see evidence, witnesses, angry family members and Jeffrey Dahmer himself take the stand. This is a must have for any true collector of the strange and macabre.

PRICE : $10

 

Produced in 1996, this rare home video marks one of the most bizarre points of athlete, actor and suspected murderer OJ Simpson’s life. Apparently OJ was frustrated that everybody thought he was guilty, so he produced this video in order to clear his name.

PRICE : $10

 

Known as the "Bedroom Basher," serial rapist Gerald Parker thought he had gotten away with murder until DNA testing linked him to the murder of five women and an unborn child in Orange County, California. Police and Navy officials believe Gerald might be responsible for even more killings.

PRICE : $10

 

Known as the "Bedroom Basher," serial rapist Gerald Parker thought he had gotten away with murder until DNA testing linked him to the murder of five women and an unborn child in Orange County, California. Police and Navy officials believe Gerald might be responsible for even more killings.

PRICE : $10

 

This is an ultra rare DVD containing footage of the standoff at Waco Texas. They are best known for the 1993 siege of their Center near Waco, Texas, by the ATF and the FBI, which resulted in the deaths of 76 of the church's members, including head figure David Koresh.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD is the very rare Heavens Gate initiation tape that Marshall Applewhite used to collect new members to the UFO cult and convince them to ultimately castrate themselves and drink a Jim Jones cocktail. This DVD is hours of creepy cult craziness.

PRICE : $10

 

RARE DATA DVDS OF KILLERS AND CULT LEADERS

This amazing data dvd contains thousands of pages of documents regarding serial killers Henry Lee Lucas and ottis Toole along with over an hour of rare video files. Among the many scans and original documents on this dvd are the complete trial transcripts, interviews, police reports, photos, parole hearing transcripts and much much more!

PRICE : $10

 

This is the very rare FBI Files DVD. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we are proud to present you with this amazing Data DVD which includes over 100 rare and newly declassified FBI Files on some of the most interesting people, groups and events in world history. These files can be viewed on any computer and are perfect for printing.

PRICE : $10

 

RARE DVD FOOTAGE OF MANSON & THE FAMILY

This DVD includes the 1985 interview that Charles Manson did with Nuell Emmons at the Vacaville medical center. This dvd also includes several other hard to find Manson family interviews as a bonus. The DVD is over an hour long.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the very rare FBI Files DVD. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we are proud to present you with this amazing Data DVD which includes over 100 rare and newly declassified FBI Files on some of the most interesting people, groups and events in world history. These files can be viewed on any computer and are perfect for printing.

PRICE : $10

 

Rare Charles Manson Interview

PRICE : $10

 

Anyone who has seen the episode of Geraldo with Charles Manson knows that something didn't seem right. Well what Geraldo didn't count on is the fact that the prison staff had their own camera filming the entire interview! This is the uncut tape from the prison camera, see what really happened!

PRICE : $10

 

Rare Charles Manson Interview

PRICE : $10

 

Female Tabloid reporter Penny Daniels interviews Manson.

PRICE : $10

 

Ron Reagan interviews Charles Manson

PRICE : $10

 

This is the full interview between Charlie Manson and Charlie Rose.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the complete uncut interview shown in Charles Manson Superstar.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the full interview between Charlie Manson and Tom Snyder. It has been said that this interview was the inspiration for much of the prison interview at the end of Natural Born Killers. This is trulyu one of Manson's best interviews and a must have for any crime history collector.

PRICE : $10

 

Charles Manson 1980's Interviews With Tom Snyder, Penny Daniels, Charlie Rose, Nuel Emmons, Geraldo Rivera. This DVD is approx. 4 hr 20 mins Interesting, Great Research Material.

PRICE : $10

 

Unedited footage of the entire interview Leslie Van Houten gave in 1977 after she was granted a re-trial (she eventually was convicted after a third trial in 1978: 7 years to life.) conducted inside the prison. Unique material.

PRICE : $10

 

Rare 1993 interview with Manson family member Patricia Krenwinkel

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD contains the first 2 hours of 4 hours of raw footage of KTLA from the UCLA archives.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD contains the second 2 hours of 4 hours of raw footage of KTLA from the UCLA archives.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD contains the first 2 hours of 4 hours of footage from the NBC 2 archives. This volume contains raw footage of newscasts throughout the 1970s up to 1994.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD contains the second 2 hours of 4 hours of footage from the NBC 2 archives. This volume contains raw footage of newscasts throughout the 1970s up to 1994.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD contains raw footage from the CNN archives.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes very rare parole hearing footage from almost a decade of Charles Mansons Parole Hearings. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true crime.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD is a crazy cut up film put together in the 80s featuring a bunch of Charles Manson's rants. Also features rare Manson TV footage of the 70s trail.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the 1992 Parole Hearing of Charles Manson.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the 1997 Parole Hearing of Charles Manson.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the 2007 Parole Hearing of Charles Manson.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage of the Manson family. On this DVD you will find an amazing collection of parole hearings, home videos, interviews, news clips and hard to find raw footage not found anywhere else!

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes the very rare 1990 parole hearing of Manson Family killer, PATRICIA KRENWINKEL. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes the very rare 1997 parole hearing of Manson Family killer, PATRICIA KRENWINKEL. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true crime.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the 1991 parole hearing of Manson Family killer, Leslie Van Houten. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true crime.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the 1998 parole hearing of Manson Family killer, Leslie Van Houten. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true crime.

PRICE : $10

 

This is the 2000 parole hearing of Manson Family killer, Leslie Van Houten. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true crime.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes the very rare 1990 parole hearing of Manson Family killer, CHARLES TEX WATSON. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true crime.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes the very rare 1993 parole hearing of Manson Family killer, SUSAN ATKINS. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true crime.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes the very rare 2000 parole hearing of Manson Family killer, SUSAN ATKINS. This is truly a collector’s item for anyone interested in true crime.

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage from the Manson family. On this DVD you will find an amazing mix of raw footage, home videos, interviews, parole hearings and much much more!

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage from the Manson family. On this DVD you will find an amazing mix of raw footage, home videos, interviews, parole hearings and much much more!

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage from the Manson family. On this DVD you will find an amazing mix of raw footage, home videos, interviews, parole hearings and much much more!

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage from the Manson family. On this DVD you will find an amazing mix of raw footage, home videos, interviews, parole hearings and much much more!

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage from the Manson family. On this DVD you will find an amazing mix of raw footage, home videos, interviews, parole hearings and much much more!

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage from the Manson family. On this DVD you will find an amazing mix of raw footage, home videos, interviews, parole hearings and much much more!

PRICE : $10

 

This DVD includes hours of rare and lost footage from the Manson family. On this DVD you will find an amazing mix of raw footage, home videos, interviews, parole hearings and much much more!

PRICE : $10

 

RARE INTERROGATION OF MANSON FAMILY CONFIDANT. Interrogation by Inyo Co. Sheriffs and the Dig for Bodies at Barker Ranch.

PRICE : $10

 

SERIAL KILLER & CULT LEADER DVD MEGA SETS

COMPLETE SERIAL KILLER ULTIMATE DVD SET

This 15 DVD collectors set includes: 1. The Very Rare Last Interview of Ted Bundy Before His Execution, 2. Rare Footage of David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam), 3. The Very Rare Unedited Police Footage of John Wayne Gacy (at Gacy’s house in 1978), 4. The Capture of Richard Ramirez (the Nightstalker), 5. Rare Footage of Richard Ramirez (Nightstalker), 6. Jeffrey Dahmer (Confessions of a Serial Killer), 7. Rare Jeffrey Dahmer Television Appearances, 8. Horror in Milwaukee (hours of rare Jeffrey Dahmer footage and original news clips), 9. Rare Footage of the Jeffrey Dahmer Trial, 10. Bizarre Rare Home Made Interview With OJ Simpson, 11. Rare Confession Footage of Gerald Parker Part One, 12. Rare Confession Footage of Gerald Parker Part Two, 13. Armageddon in Waco (rare David Koresh footage), 14. Rare Heaven's Gate Cult initiation Tape, and 15. Carnage in Columbine (The Columbine Tapes Volume One).

PRICE : $125


 

COMPLETE JEFFREY DAHMER DVD SET

This 4 DVD collectors set includes: 1. Jeffrey Dahmer - Confessions of a Serial Killer 2. Rare Jeffrey Dahmer Television Appearances, 3. Horror in Milwaukee (hours of rare Jeffrey Dahmer footage and original news clips), and 4. Rare Footage of the Jeffrey Dahmer Trial.

PRICE : $35


 

COMPLETE CHARLES MANSON INTERVIEW DVD SET

This 9 DVD collectors set includes: 1. THE BEST OF CHARLES MANSONS 1980 INTERVIEWS, 2. Manson Interview with GERALDO RIVERA (RARE UNCUT PRISON INTERVIEW TAKEN BY GUARDS) , 3. Manson Interview with ED SANDERS, 4 Manson Interview with PENNY DANIELS , 5. Manson Interview with RON REAGAN JR, 6. Manson Interview with CHARLIE ROSE, 7. Manson Interview with TOM SNYDER, 8. Manson Interview with BILL STOUT, and 9. The UNCUT CHARLES MANSON SUPERSTAR INTERVIEW.

PRICE : $75


 

COMPLETE CHARLES (MANSON) IN CHARGE DVD SET

This 7 DVD collectors set includes: 1. Charles (Manson) In Charge Volume One, 2. Charles (Manson) In Charge Volume Two, 3. Charles (Manson) In Charge Volume Three, 4.Charles (Manson) In Charge Volume One, 6. Manson Interview with RON REAGAN JR, 5. Manson Interview with CHARLIE ROSE, 8. Manson Interview with TOM SNYDER, 9. Manson Interview with BILL STOUT, and 10. The UNCUT CHARLES MANSON SUPERSTAR INTERVIEW.

PRICE : $55


 

FEATURED SERIAL KILLER ARTICLE

PEOPLE WHO HAVE SURVIVED VICIOUS SERIAL KILLERS

By Lori Bell

Most people remember the names of infamous serial killers. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy --- these names and more ring unwanted through our collective psyche, their crimes too horrendous to ignore. However, very few remember the names of the victims of these depraved individuals, perhaps because most never live to tell their tale.

In some cases, though, there are those who are fortunate enough to escape the clutches of madness. Their stories serve as lessons in survival that we can all learn from, lessons that could very well have saved a life.

Maria Viricheva:

Three months pregnant and unmarried, 19 – year – old Maria Viricheva was working as a saleswoman at the time of her encounter with one of Russia’s most notorious serial killers --- Alexander Pichuskin. Known by the seemingly bizarre name “The Chessboard Killer,” this deranged individual set out to kill as many people as there are spaces on a chessboard. He later refuted this claim, confessing that had he not been caught, he would have continued killing indeterminately.

Attracted to the idea of having the power over the life or death of another person, Pichuskin explained that he felt like God when he was carrying out the murders. He would end the lives of his victims with a hammer blow to the head. Chillingly he is quoted as saying, “I killed in order to live because when you kill, you want to live.”

Maria was new at her job and had been set up with it by her boyfriend, who was also the father of her child. Earlier that day, the two had gotten into an argument,  and afterward she found herself distraught in a metro station in Moscow. Pichuskin spied Maria, and noting her obvious state of despair, struck up a conversation with her. Maria, desperate and alone, welcomed the company.

Hearing of her situation, Pichuskin offered her a chance to earn some additional money, telling her that he had stashed some stolen cameras in a well in nearby Bittsevsky Park, and that he would give her some to sell. Even though it was late in the evening, Maria not even knowing if her job would be there in the morning anyway, agreed to go with him to retrieve the cameras.

When they arrived at the spot, Pichuskin lifted the cover from the well and told her to look inside. As she did so, he quickly snatched her up and threw her in. She clung to the sides of the well to avoid falling, but Pichuskin grabbed her head and repeatedly slammed it into the side of the well. She had little choice but to let go. The last thing she heard was her killer yell, “take a bath there!” as she plummeted into the darkness.

She tumbled over 30ft. before landing knee – deep in sewage water that was rapidly flowing down a drain pipe. She was caught in the current, and only by swiftly removing her jacket and boots, did she manage to place her hands and feet on the sides of the drain and stop her further decent. Had she not done so, she would have reached the end of the drain pipe to a section that was completely filled with water and drowned.

Fortunately, she stopped herself near another well leading up from the drain pipe and managed to climb to the top, only to find that she was too weak to push the well cover open above her. Luckily, a passing woman heard her cries for help and saw the well cover raise a bit as Maria tried to pry it open, and the woman ran to alert security guards. They lifted the well cover and pulled Maria to safety.

Unbelievably, the police refused to investigate the incident and forced Maria to sign a statement saying that she had fallen down the well herself. She was only brought in to identify her attacker when he was finally apprehended under suspicion of 48 murders. Had the police done their job the first time, many lives might have been saved.

Viricheva is one three people known to have survived attacks by Pichuskin. One survivor has no recollection of the attack because of the head injury Pichuskin inflicted, while the third was a homeless boy, Mikhail Lobov, who was 14 when Pichuskin threw him down the well. He submitted written testimony to the court. He said he tried to tell police about Pichuskin but that they would not listen to a homeless boy.

Pichuskin told the court that he almost had a nervous breakdown when he saw Maria Viricheva near her apartment about six months after the attack. Pichuskin is serving the first part of his sentence, which he must spend in solitary confinement.

Whitney Bennett:

Young Whitney Bennett could not have known that leaving her bedroom window unlocked before she went to bed on the night of July 4, 1985, would lead to her being viciously attacked. This innocent mistake would lead her to a night of pure horror and a lifetime of suffering. That night Richard Ramirez, also known as The Night Stalker, crept through her bedroom window and savagely beat her with a tire iron before ransacking her room and taking all the valuables.

The only thing the young girl could be thankful for was that the first few blows quickly rendered her unconscious, though the strangulation marks which were on her neck after the attack indicated that luck was truly on her side that night. Two nights later, Ramirez perpetrated an almost identical attack against another woman, Joyce L. Nelson, in her home. This time, the attack was fatal.

The crime scene Ramirez left behind him was covered in Whitney’s blood, and his bloody shoe print was found on her comforter. The distinctive print also turned up at many other Night Stalker crime scenes. One such bloody shoe print was found on the left cheek of Joyce L. Nelson. He had also carelessly left the tire iron on her bedroom floor. As for Whitney Bennett, she was left with permanent scarring from the attack and had to undergo extensive cosmetic surgery.

It was her testimony that helped convict Ramirez of his crimes during his trial and ensured that he received the death sentence. Ramirez was on trial for 13 murders in Los Angeles County. The self – proclaimed devil worshipper from El Paso, also faced 30 other felony counts stemming from the series of nighttime attacks in 1984 and 1985. He faced a 14th murder charge in San Francisco, and an attempted murder and sexual assault charges in Orange County. He ended up dying in prison of natural causes at the age of 53 before the execution could take place.

Rhonda Williams:

After 40 years of silence, Rhonda Williams decided that enough was enough and finally worked up the courage to tell of her twisted involvement with one of Houston’s most notorious serial killers. Dean Corll, and his younger accomplice, Elmer Wayne Henley, we’re responsible for the murders of 29 young boys, all lured into Corll’s clutches for the purpose of satisfying his sadistic sexual urges.

Dean Arnold Corll exclusively targeted teenage boys. He worked from 1965 to 1968 in his family’s candy company, giving him his horrid nickname, “The Candy Man.” He lured many if his victims with free candy and also free alcohol and Marijuana.  His rampage lasted from 1970 to 1973, during which he befriended two wayward accomplices, David Brooks, and Elmer Henley.

Rhonda Williams had befriended Henley during her teenage years and thought Henley was someone she could trust. Growing up in an atmosphere of severe abuse and neglect, she was often beaten by her alcoholic father and was even raped repeatedly as a toddler.

In August 1973, she placed her trust in Henley once again as he snuck up to her bedroom window to help her escape another episode of abuse at the hands of her father. Another boy, Tim Kerley, was waiting in the car for them and the three drove away to what Williams thought was safety. Had she known Henley’s true motives, she certainly would have decided against letting him “rescue” her.

The trio arrived at Corll’s home, where they partied until they passed out. Williams woke to a scene of unimaginable horror. She and two other boys were bound hand and foot. Corll began kicking and screaming for her to wake up, then he and Henley took the other two captives to another room and lashed them both to what can only be described as “torture boards.”  Naively, she still believed that Henley would not let her be hurt, even as she heard the screams of her captive companions.

Her trust was finally broken when Henley told her that he would have to shoot her before the ordeal was over. However, something in Henley finally broke, and instead he turned the gun on Corll and shot him dead, saving the lives of all the captives.  Then Henley reached for the phone and called police.

Williams survived her night of horror thanks to the conscience of her friend, and although he was jailed for a short time she made a promise to him to remain silent about her ordeal from then on, only to speak about it publicly four decades later. Henley, still in prison for his role in luring victims to Corll, remains in contact with Williams to this day.

Teresa Thornhill :

Robert Black was a convicted child murderer and pedophile, who claimed four young victims in Scotland between the 1970s and 1990s. Teresa Thornhill was one of the few known survivors of his attacks. Black was convicted in 1994 of the murders of 11 – year – old Susan Maxwell from the Scottish Borders, five – year – old Caroline Hogg, from Edinboro,  and Sarah Harper, 10 from Morley near Leeds.

On a warm day in April 1988, Teresa, 15 at the time, was walking home when she caught the eye of Black, who was parked in a van by her house. Faking car trouble as he exited the back of his van, Black asked the young girl if she knew anything about engines. When she approached, he grabbed her and placed one hand over her mouth, pinned her arms by her sides, and tried to pull her into his van through the back doors. She screamed and bit his arm, causing him to drop her just as a friend in the neighborhood came running to help, scaring Black off. After her frightening experience she ran to her home and her parents called the police. But it was already too late --- Black had already disappeared.

Two years passed and the young girl remained traumatized by her experience, almost never going outside. She was one of the witnesses to testify against him at his trial, where he was convicted of the three murders and her kidnapping, receiving a life sentence for his crimes. While still in prison, he was convicted of killing his fourth victim, a nine – year –old girl. To this day, police are still investigating his case and suspect him of many more murders.

Black has long been the prime suspect in the disappearance of 13 – year – old, Genette Tate, who was last seen on a country lane in Aylesbeare, Devon, in 1978. No trace of the newspaper delivery girl has ever been found.

Teresa Thornhill says, “I can still see Robert Black’s face every day.”

Tali Shapiro:

Eleven – year – old, Tali Shapiro didn’t like taking the bus, so almost every day she would walk to school from her home in West Hollywood. On a September morning in 1969, the young girl’s decision to walk the short distance to her school would prove to be a costly mistake.

While walking down South Boulevard that morning, Rodney Acala approached her in his vehicle and asked her if she wanted a ride. She refused, saying that she was not allowed to talk to strangers. He assured her that he knew her family and told her that he had a beautiful picture to show her. Though wary, she approached his car. That’s the last thing she remembers from that morning. Luckily, another man saw the abduction and called the police.

Rodney Acala became known as, “The Dating Game Killer,” after appearing as a contestant on the Dating Game show during the midst of his murder spree. Posing as a professional photographer, Acala took over 1,000 disturbing photographs of women. While none of these individuals have been positively identified as a missing person or unsolved homicide victim, there may come a time when they are realized as casualties of the Dating Game Killer.

When the police arrived at his door, Acala tried to stall them by claiming that he was  in the  shower, forcing them to kick the door in. Acala escaped out the back door and the officers found young Tali on the floor of his apartment in a state of near death, with a metal bar across her neck, as if Acala had just been pinning her down when they arrived. The young girl was also found to have been sexually assaulted. She was rushed to the hospital and thankfully, survived her atrack.

Tali Shapiro was the second person to testify for jurors who were considering the death penalty for Acala, who was convicted of killing four Los Angeles County  women and a 10 – year – old Huntington Beach ballet student. Like many brave victims recounted in this article, Tali Shapiro later testified against her assailant, helping to convict him. He was sentenced to death.

Acala, who had been representing himself, asked if she remembered him apologizing to her when she testified at an earlier trial. She said she did not.  “I sincerely regret and apologize for my despicable actions that day,” was the apology he made. Shapiro did not respond.

Rose Steward:

Although Rose Steward has every justification for hating Dean Carter, in an incredible act of forgiveness, she actively campaigns to spare from the death penalty for her rape and the murders of five other people.

On March 29, 1984, Steward was woken up by an intruder holding a knife to her neck. Over the next five hours she was repeatedly raped and tortured by him, losing consciousness twice during the attack. She only managed to survive ordeal by pretending to “like” her attacker, even going so far as to kiss him, which caused him to leave without taking her life. When her nightmare was finally over, she immediately sought help from a neighbor, who contacted the police. Carter went on to rape and strangle five other women throughout California over the next 18 days, and it was Steward’s testimony in part, that helped prosecutors ensure that he received the death penalty for his crimes.

After her assault, Steward started sleeping on her living room floor. She kept a loaded gun under her pillow --- even after Carter was arrested during a traffic stop a month later with his victim’s belongings in his car.

During their first courtroom encounter --- Steward said she managed to stare down Carter and felt stronger as a result. Steward worried about how the victim’s families would regard her. She had come to know the slain women --- Jillette Lenora Mills, 25, Susan Lynn Knoll, 25, Bonnie Ann Gunthrie, 34, Janette Anne Cullins, 24, and Tok Chum Kim, 42, --- as “sisters” and saw herself as their voice.

Would their families resent her for living while their loved one’s died? Could she have prevented their murders by doing something differently? Did he kill because he realized she had tricked him and decided to leave no more witnesses? The loved ones of the other victims did not blame her. They were kind and warm.

As he now sits on death row awaiting his fate, Steward herself has actively campaigned against the death penalty, supporting what is known as California Proposition 34, a ballot to replace all death sentences with sentences of life without parole. Some of the other victim’s families are understandably shocked by her decision. This has left Steward torn between her belief that the death penalty is wrong, and her personal understanding of her fellow victim’s pain. Only time will tell if Rose Steward will be there to see Carter’s last day.

Bryan Hartnell:

While Bryan Hartnell was attending school at Pacific Union College in San Francisco in the late 1960s, he had no idea that his bright future would forever be scarred by one truly horrifying day. After driving to a scenic lake in a remote part of the city with his girlfriend, Cecilia Shephard, the couple parked their car and planned to enjoy their day in privacy. Unbeknownst to them, the unknown man who would later be dubbed the Zodiac Killer had other plans for them.

While they remained in their car, a man wearing a black hood and a shirt with cross hairs etched on the front, approached the couple and forced them out of the car at gunpoint. After forcing them to the ground, he proceeded to stab both of them repeatedly. Then he just vanished, leaving them for dead. Cecilia was later able to provide a description of the killer before she died in the hospital. Bryan however, never saw his face and thus was left with the frustration of not knowing who it was that took the life of the one he loved.

Hartnell was stabbed 8 times, his companion, Cecilia, between 10 and 20. She died a day later at the hospital. Investigators say it was one of the most brutal attacks they’ve ever seen. They believe the Zodiac used a knife so passersby wouldn’t hear the sound of gunshots. Following the attack the Zodiac Killer calmly walked away leaving intentional clues as to his identity. He wanted to make it clear there was a serial killer on the loose. The Zodiac craved attention.

Thankfully, the years that passed healed Hartnell’s wounds not only physically, but emotionally as well.  Bryan is now a probate attorney and is married with a family of his own. The Zodiac Killer remains unidentified to this day and is still one of the most enduring crime mysteries of the 20th century.

Corazon Attenza:

It was Corazon Attenza, a 23 – year – old exchange nurse from the Phillipines, who opened the door to her apartment on the night of July 13, 1966, and unknowingly allowed brutal mass murderer, Richard Speck, into her and her roommates’ lives. The first thing she noticed about him was the strong smell of alcohol. She also saw the small gun he had pulled from his black jacket. She was also the only one that survived that terrifying night.

Richard Speck committed all his murders in one day, sneaking into a housing facility for student nurses and stabbing eight of them to death. Speck’s savagery evoked world – wide horror and headlines --- and left a terrifying legacy: the growing fear that Americans weren’t save anymore, even in their own homes.

Gun in hand, Speck forced his way into the home and herded the girls into the common room. He sliced some of the bed sheets into makeshift ropes and bound them all tightly. At first, he didn’t harm the women, telling them he just wanted some money, and that he would leave them alone. After a short while, though, one by one, Speck proceeded to rape, stab and mutilate them while Corazon, wracked with fear, hid under the beds in the room. At one point, one of her friends was being assaulted on the bed directly above her.

The attacks went on for almost six hours, with Corazon not daring to even whimper the entire time. Finally, at around five in the morning, it was over. Due to Speck being highly intoxicated at the time of the attacks, he apparently forgot about her and left the apartment after he thought his work was finished. She escaped the scene of carnage through a bedroom window after he left, and screamed for help. Her cries were heard by her neighbors and her waking nightmare came to an end.

Due to the overwhelming amount of physical evidence Speck had left at the scene --- and the fact that he had an extensive criminal record already --- he was caught shortly afterward when he checked himself into a local hospital after attempting suicide. He had slashed his wrists after learning that he’d left Corazon alive, and a doctor at the hospital recognized him from newspaper reports and contacted the police. Nine months later, a jury took only 49 minutes of deliberation to sentence him to the electric chair. His sentence was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 1972 and he was given eight consecutive terms of 50 to 150 years.

On December 5, a part of the terror ended when Speck, 49, died of a heart attack in a hospital near Joliet, Illinois, where he had been held for 24 years. Cremated by the state, and never showing any remorse for his crimes, Speck took with him the horror of those crimes.

Larry Flynt:

Larry Flynt is famous as the outspoken and flamboyant publisher of Hustler magazine, and the creator of a business empire. He is also famous for nearly being assassinated by one, Joseph Paul Franklin, in an attempt that left Mr. Flynt paralyzed from the waist down, when he was hit by two bullets from Franklin’s high powered rifle.

What is not commonly known is that Mr. Flynt’s assailant was a serial killer who was tried and convicted for eight murders across the United States between 1977 and 1980, though he claimed to have killed a dozen more in an attempt to start a “race war” in the country. Franlkin, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and a Neo – Nazi, spoke of “being at war.” Flynt was a direct contradiction to Franklin’s highly religious beliefs and his moral stance against pornography, particularly the interracial deceptions that were featured in Hustler at the time. It was on March 6, 1978, that both Mr. Flynt and his lawyer were shot by Franklin, who confessed in prison after being sentenced for another shooting in which he received the death penalty.

Though Larry Flynt, who was left in constant pain, could have understandably wished to see his assailant die, he actually lobbied for Franklin’s sentence to be commuted to life in prison due to his stance against the death penalty itself. To quote him exactly: “In all the years since the shooting, I have never come face –to – face with Franklin. I would love an hour in a room with him and a pair of wire – cutters and pliers, so I could inflict the same damage on him that he inflicted on me. But, I do not want to kill him, nor do I want to see him die …I just don’t think that the government should be in the business of killing people. And I  think punishment by putting someone in a three – by – six cell, is a lot greater than if you snuff out their life in a few seconds with a lethal injection.”

Flynt filed a motion with the American Civil Liberties  Union in an effort to have Franklin’s sentence commuted to be life behind bars. Despite Flynt’s best efforts, Joseph Franklin was executed in November 2013. Franklin made no statement before his execution, but told CNN during an interview that he was no longer racist, had found religion, and repented.

Rebecca Garde:

Rebecca Garde worked as a telemarketer in Seattle in 1982. She had just gotten off work and was tired of waiting out in the rain for her bus, so she decided to hitchhike home on a cold night in November. The man who eventually offered her a ride seemed as ordinary as the Dodge pickup he was driving, so she happily accepted his offer. Had she known that he would eventually be convicted of killing 48 women like her, she might have declined instead. She had no way of knowing that the driver was Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer, one of the most prolific serial killers. She didn’t know the terror he had in store for her.

While riding in his vehicle, she offered him sex in exchange for $20, figuring she could use the money to buy weed when she got home. It was at this point that she began to get an odd feeling about the man she was with, so as a precaution, she asked to see his identification, which he agreed to. This put her a little more at ease --- at least he wasn’t a cop. They parked by a trailer park and the man suggested they go into the woods for some privacy.  Once they reached a spot that was relatively secluded, Gary Ridgway attacked, and tried to strangle her to death from behind. Fighting him off by pushing him into a tree, she stunned him and ran to a nearby trailer for help. Her attacker immediately fled the scene.

Due to her lifestyle and a general fear of the police, Garde waited nearly two years after her attack before she contacted the authorities, and though her forthcoming would not lead directly to his capture, it did help law enforcement build a more solid case around the most prolific killer in the United States. Ridgway picked up and killed at least 15 more women in the same area along the Pacific Highway South, where he attacked Garde. Her description of him at least gave them something to move on.

The majority of Ridgway’s victims were teenage girls who had left tough or abusive homes, turning to the streets where they supported drug habits through prostitution. In 2001, Ridgway was finally apprehended and sentenced to life in prison. At the time of their brief initial encounter, Garde said she thought Ridgway seemed odd. At 5’11”, and 150lbs, he wasn’t very imposing, though she remembers that his hands were large and his eyes small. Most of all, she said, “I remember the look in his eyes.” Rebecca Garde remains his only known surviving victim.

We could never imagine the horror that these victims felt during their ordeals but, the exhilaration of escape must have been mind boggling too. Although they are “survivors,” their turmoil continues as they struggle everyday with the memories of how close they were to becoming a statistic. Their brave efforts saved lives and calmed fears of many, and brought to light the identities of the many victims who lost their battle with evil.



 
Murderbilia
Copy and paste the code below in to your website to add our killer web banner. If you have any trouble with this flash banner, you will find many more banners to use in our downloads section. Be sure to let us know that you used one of our banners so we can add a link to your site in our massive links page.

SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE
Murderabelia
SERIAL KILLER MURDEREBILIA

CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US FOR PRICING INFORMATION, BANNER SWAPS, ARTWORK SUBMISSION OR SUGGESTIONS AT MADHATTERDESIGN@GMAIL.COM