Serial killers look like normal people. That’s how they are able to ply their trade. People are not always who you think they are. I remember snooping outside the window of a drug dealer one hot night when I was in the Drug Squad. The window was open and the dealer was talking to his girlfriend, a nurse, who used heroin. They were talking about drugs.
‘I wonder what people would think, if they knew I was using,’ she said.
She looked like a normal person, acted like a normal person, worked as a nurse looking after people but was a heroin user. She hadn’t become a junkie. Her appearance and body shape had not deteriorated. Many people think that drug use results in an addiction and a downward spiral with physical wellbeing deteriorating, as was happening to Neil Muir. However, many users do not become emaciated but keep their healthy appearance just as many alcoholics do. They look normal. Serial killers can look normal. They can be charming individuals.
As children, serial killers may have been chronic bed wetters as a result of domestic violence in their household. Also, there may be an addiction to either alcohol or drugs or both. Most serial killers possess average or above average intelligence, with some having superior intelligence.
With these murders our offenders were most likely to be homosexuals — violent ones at that — who had the ability to move about Adelaide without bringing attention to themselves. The generally mentioned figure is that ten per cent of the population is homosexual. Given that, with South Australia’s population of about 1.5 million, then 150,000 people in South Australia are homosexual. If fifty per cent of them are males, then 75,000 men in South Australia are homosexual. Actually, no-one knows the exact figures but, whatever the numbers are, it is still likely to be in the thousands of men. Even if one per cent of males are homosexual, then we had 7,500 men to consider. How many of that number are violent? Obviously, checking criminal records for crimes of violence involving homosexuals was one way but that would be an extremely laborious task. Police records were still being computerised in 1983 and even when they were the ability to work the database was limited.
The homicidal rampages of serial killers are thought to have a sexual component. The murders are part of an elaborate fantasy that climaxes at the time of killing. Authors believe that the killing becomes a part of a ritual, and has been described as an ‘emotional sexual orgasm — the explosion of power’.
Serial killers are sadistic. They murder and then ‘cool off’ before their need to satisfy their fantasies builds again. This explained the now-regular style of murders. There were two in 1979 — Alan Barnes and Neil Muir disappeared within two months of one another. Then, there was a longer period of two years before Peter Stogneff disappeared. Then a gap of five months before Mark Langley and then a gap of nearly eighteen months before Richard Kelvin was snatched.
Serial killers obtain satisfaction from activities such as cannibalism, necrophilia (sex with a corpse) and keeping souvenirs of their work — trophies that celebrate their activities. Were the body parts of Neil Muir that were missing, the testicle for instance, kept as trophies? Three theories were possible. One theory suggested that the testicle was eaten as a part of a cannibalistic ceremony to celebrate the occasion or the testicle was simply lost during the butchering of Neil Muir. A third theory suggested that the items were taken as trophies to remind the murderers of the occasion. The silver necklace and ingot with Mark Langley’s star-sign on it, and his blue satin shirt, were missing. Were they kept as trophies to gloat over or the items merely disposed of because they were marked or bloodied? We couldn’t discount any of these possibilities and the existence of different theories made the investigation harder to narrow down and allow us to focus our efforts in one direction.
Some authors say that serial killers are fascinated with the remains of their crimes and may visit their victims’ graves and even attend their funerals. Trevor asked me to attend the funeral of Peter Stogneff early in 1983. He was buried at Cheltenham Cemetery, which lies adjacent to Port Road. The large plot of land extends from Port Road almost to the railway line that bisects Cheltenham Parade. The flat burial ground is divided by three walkways that cross and separate the gravestones. Distant relatives of mine are buried there and I find the cemetery uninspiring. However, there were two reasons to attend the funeral. There was the remote chance that someone other than the kindred family and friends were hanging around that day but also I went to represent police and support the Stogneff family.
I stood at the back watching the service and looking around for anything unusual. Nothing extraordinary happened on the day but I realised my limitations a week later. An envelope arrived at Major Crime addressed to me. I opened it and found a picture of me at the Cheltenham Cemetery looking very serious and trying to pick anything unusual. I was photographed by police surveillance who were also sent to the funeral service by Trevor — so much for my observation skills! On reflection, I think that I only had an average score for observation from my test during my detective training course.
Both Trevor and I went to Centennial Park to the funeral of Richard Kelvin on 9 September
