Why Zodiac was never caught? - Zodiac (2007) Discussion

[–] fiendfilms 10 years ago

He was just lucky. I mean, the closest he was ever to getting caught was right after the Stine murder and that was basically it and yeah, that was his luckiest twist of fate he caught. Every other crime he committed was in an isolated area and there was no apparent motive nor were there any connections to the victims. The only thing investigators had were fingerprints, which may or may not have belonged to him, a very generic physical description, a generic criminal profile and his handwriting...which in 1969, wasn't much.

reply

[–] Od1n 10 years ago

Well, that's sound plausible, perhaps police methods was really outdated at the time.

Still I have a feeling that something was missed from the whole picture.

For example why investigators didn't create psychological portrait based on letters and handwriting? Why they didn't check the building where he was seen after killing taxi driver?

And the biggest question was it really the same pesron, who killed those people and wrote letters? I mean, is it possible someone from police department or who had ties with them could get inside info (and pieces of clothes)? Like some naughty reporters, you know?

reply

[–] manram24 10 years ago

Well, that's sound plausible, perhaps police methods was really outdated at the time.

Yep I think so, though they had a golden opportunity to catch him if they didn't screw up the night of the Stine murder, the dispatcher mistakenly described the suspect as being a black male and the patrol officers didn't bother to stop him. So there was luck involved too as to why he slipped through their fingers. And the police focused so much on Arthur Leigh Allen which probably took away time from looking for a different suspect that matched the description better.

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

reply

[–] Od1n 10 years ago

Well, we don't know for sure was it Zodiac or just a random passer.

I read about Ted Bundy and Green River Killer and it strikes how miserable was police, detectives, investigators at the time.

But I also think there is a big chance real killer could be one of those 2500 suspects and hundreds anonimous messages, searchers just need to look through more carefully.

reply

[–] manram24 10 years ago

True we don't know for sure, but it was said he matched the physical description so it might have been. I happen to think it likely was him.

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

reply

[–] Murray_Hewitt 10 years ago

Well, we don't know for sure it was Zodiac or just a random passer.

The book and the movie differ a lot in the details surrounding this incident. In the book, when the two patrolmen see the man, instead of driving straight past him, they ask him if he had seen anything unusual in the last few minutes. The man replies he saw someone with gun running down a nearby side street. The officers, believing the suspect they were looking for was black, let the man go without further questioning. In subsequent letters, the Zodiac taunts the police about the encounter, mentioning it as one of two opportunities they missed in capturing him on the night of the murder.

R G B

reply

[–] cgsofwa 10 years ago

I think the methods issue was part of it, as well as the limited technology they had available to them back then. Look at the Green River Killer case. They hung on to good physical evidence until DNA technology became so reliable. I also think that communications, or lack of, between departments played a huge role as well.

reply

[–] longcandle 10 years ago

The only thing investigators had were fingerprints, which may or may not have belonged to him, a very generic physical description, a generic criminal profile and his handwriting...which in 1969, wasn't much.

So now you're NOT so confident about the fingerprints? Huh, fiendfilms? Which is why you keep listing them as reasons to eliminate Arthur Leigh Allen as a viable suspect?

Do you realize how many times you've contradicted yourself over the last couple of years while being a complete a$$hole on this forum? Seriously, what can you possibly hope to contribute?

reply

[–] fiendfilms 10 years ago

You're right Longcandle, I've never been very confident about the Zodiacs alleged fingerprints. But in regards to Allen, his DNA, handwriting and a forearm print ruled him out as a suspect. All of those things, just not the fingerprints, have eliminated him as a suspect for me. Have a good day Londcandle.

reply

[–] longcandle 10 years ago

You're right Longcandle, I've never been very confident about the Zodiacs alleged fingerprints. But in regards to Allen, his DNA, handwriting and a forearm print ruled him out as a suspect. All of those things, just not the fingerprints, have eliminated him as a suspect for me. Have a good day Londcandle.

"forearm print"?

Is that a new CSI Jim Sty technique? You have used that term at least half a dozen times in the last year-and-a-half; I never corrected you then because I was being polite. I believe that you mean "palm print"—you ought to just shut up about anything relating to forensic science and the Zodiac killer.

Have a great day, Jim Styslinger.

reply

[–] longcandle 8 years ago

**bump**

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 9 years ago

Fingerprints are actually a poor way of tracking someone anyway for a couple of reasons:

1. We don't REALLY know if prints are unique. Sure we're TOLD they are, but there's no proof of this. No one knows this for sure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10775477/Why-your-fingerprints-may-not-be-unique.html

2. Fingerprints are examined by eye even today. Forget what you see on CSI and the like. There are not computers that analyze them. PEOPLE look at them and PEOPLE make mistakes.

https://www.gofundme.com/sinnersbible

reply

[–] spkeck 9 years ago

Yes there is. And yes we do know.

Fingerprints are analyzed by computer.

Source: I work in a *beep* CSI

reply

[–] whereisamber 9 years ago

I thought computers ran the initial matching (which is how it's possible to have a national database) but once the computer found a match, a human examined them and made he final determination.

Note: I'm not arguing with you or supporting the other people here. I'm only asking for my own curiosity because I think forensics are interesting.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] samantharifkinftb 9 years ago

I agree. The Stine murder was the closest police ever came, and it was ultimately because of incredible and downright bad luck Zodiac got away. I know Fouke and Zelms have always denied they spoke to the man they saw on Jackson Street, but even if they're telling the truth, Zodiac probably couldn't believe his luck when they drove away. The fact that the dispatch stated the killer was black was just the biggest fluke of all. In some really macabre way its almost like he was meant to get away.

The lack of DNA was always a crucial factor to this investigation, too. Or rather, the lack of knowledge surrounding DNA. Its easy to watch this film or research the Zodiac case and judge how it was handled by today's standards. Crime, crime dramas, crime documentaries etc. are so prevolant now we all have a basic knowledge of just what can be accomplished with DNA and criminal profiling. But we're going back to 1969: the term 'serial killer' hadn't even been coined. Pretty much all the Zodiac crime scenes had police officers traipsing around, touching potentially key pieces of evidence. As Detective Bidou (an officer at the LHR scene) said, if these murders happened today the crime scenes themselves would be handled completely differently: forensic scientists taking earth samples, the bodies remaining in situ for 24 hours - all this just didn't happen.

But Zodiac was (and is) no means invincible. Whether inadvertently or not, certain clues and evidence were left behind i.e. the fingerprint and gloves in Stine's cab, the palm print on one of the letters and the saliva recovered from the stamps. He managed to get away with it for a number of reasons. But I think we can guarantee that if he committed these crimes today, with the exact same methods and manner, he probably would have been caught after the first murder.

reply

[–] cookiela2001 10 years ago

I do think something that helps many serial killers remain loose is that they often choose victims outside their personal circle... or connected to a secret life. So to the police, the killer could be practically anyone...and how do you investigate everyone?

It's really not funny... but one situation I always kind of laugh about is the married killer who slay victims on business trips or at his home when his wife was away...then buried them in the woods behind his house.

Then he became a suspect, and the police asked the wife if they could search the property, and she got all indignant and ordered them away, saying, "You're telling me my husband is a SERIAL KILLER???"

Then a week later one of their kids came skipping into the house with a moldy skull from out back, chirping, "Mommie, what's this?"

reply

[–] jasonbourneagain 10 years ago

PS Perhaps someone could drop a link for detailed analytical summary if such exists - why Zodiac wasn't caught?

It depends on who you think is the Zodiac killer. There are other theories and other summaries. There are other movies besides this one.

I just saw this movie for the third time. I'm not sure if it's still in the Wayback Machine, but if you want to look it could still be there. It's an article in the Vallejo Times that talks about Arthur Leigh Allen being brought to trial by Det. Mulanax of Vallejo PD. He discusses the evidence against him. As the movie states before the credits, he died of a heart attack before the trial.

reply

[–] oldschool339 10 years ago

You sir are a real jerk. Thanks for ruining the movie for me when I was innocently browsing the movie page prior to watching. Do everyone a favor and take down this post

reply

[–] v-thea 10 years ago

Well you sure are some dumb ass mofo, huh? What the bollocks did you expect?

reply

[–] cgsofwa 10 years ago

You don't know how the Zodiac killings turned out?

reply

[–] zender8584 10 years ago

This just in: browsing the IMDB forums on a film you are about to watch is not a good idea if you want zero spoilers. If you want basic info about the movie prior to watching it (such as things that might offend you or running time), might we suggest the movie's main page.

The Anne Sellors fan club: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1856457/board/threads/

reply

[–] Kristiparsons101 8 years ago

It's one of the most infamous unsolved serial killer cases in US history, that's why it's still talked about to this day. It's like being upset that someone tells you the boat sinks in The Titanic. And I agree with above posts, you don't deliberately go and read a movie board about a film prior to watching it then act surprised you found out details you didn't want to know.

reply

[–] damastro 8 years ago

It's like being upset that someone tells you the boat sinks in The Titanic.

Jesus, SPOILER WARNING!!1!1

reply

[–] fiendfilms 10 years ago

Why are you so angry longcandle? You're right though, I should have said Palm print. And yes my name is Jim Styslinger. My points are still valid though and your petty insults against me aren't going to negate them. Have a good day longcandle.

reply

[–] longcandle 10 years ago

fiendfilms:

Your full name is no secret; you've given it out publicly and proudly between IMDb and Facebook.

Jim, why are you so ignorant? Where's that New Year's resolution? You stated:

But in regards to Allen, his DNA, handwriting and a forearm print [sic] ruled him out as a suspect.

You did not express this statement as your opinion; you expressed it as fact, and you are 100% wrong. Not only do you choose to remain in ignorance, you are disseminating your twaddle as if it were truth to IMDb readers that may not know any better. Isn't that why you refrain from posting this bunkum on ZodiacKillerSite, where you are a member, correct, Jim?

Go on fiendfilms, go post there about your confidence that DNA traces are from the Zodiac killer, or that handwriting is going to eliminate suspects (Zodiac had a knack for changing up his handwriting – hadn't you noticed?), or that a partial palm print (what a joke!), which could be from any paper handler (pre- or post-mailing) is reasonable to ELIMINATE a suspect, especially one with so much circumstantial evidence against him in this 46+ years-old cold case.

HAVE A NICE DAY. 

--------------------------------------------------
fiendfilms (IMDb 'Zodiac' forum, Sun Jun 16 2013 22:12:29):

This is what I love about you longcandle. You speak very well but you're also overzealous, biased and closed minded... A very interesting mix of negative traits.
[Re: 'It was Allen' PAGE 11, POST 3]

--------------------------------------------------
fiendfilms (IMDb 'Zodiac' forum, Sun Jun 16 2013 18:38:47):

Look longcandle, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not always right nor do I always say the right things but at least I'm not some stubborn and cynical prick who's unwilling to acknowledge facts
.
But hey, if relentlessly beating the hell out of a dead horse helps you sleep at night, then so be it... To each his own, right?
[Re: 'What doesn't make sense about Arthur Allen as killer' PAGE 2, POST 3]

--------------------------------------------------
fiendfilms (IMDb 'Zodiac' forum, Wed Jun 12 2013 18:36:18):

On the contrary longcandle, I feel that my opinions have only thoughtfully developed more. As I've said before, in a case like this it doesn't pay off to be constantly stubborn . . . .
[Re: 'I'm 90 percent sure Zodiac was a merchant marine' PAGE 1, POST 9]

--------------------------------------------------
fiendfilms (IMDb 'Zodiac' forum, Tue Jun 11 2013 15:01:14):

What's up longcandle? You still singing the same "ALA is the Zodiac despite what the facts say" tune?
[Re: 'Who is your prime suspect for the Zodiac killer and Jack the Ripper?' PAGE 2, POST 3]

--------------------------------------------------
fiendfilms (IMDb 'Zodiac' forum, Tue Jun 11 2013 14:58:10):

I can already tell you're probably going to ignore that fact...but hey, that's how most amateur Zodiac "investigators" operate now adays, why should you be any different?

Do you realize how warped this comment is? Come on man, you can't just make an extreme assumption like that to help incriminate a suspect.

[T]here's absolutely no credibility to that comment and it's absurd that you would completely believe something you read on the internet without doing your own research first.
[Re: 'Richard Gaikowski/Zodiac Connection Timeline.' PAGE 1, POST 4]

--------------------------------------------------
fiendfilms (IMDb 'Zodiac' forum, Sat May 11 2013 18:54:54):

I'm starting to wonder if James Vanderbilt was high on meth when he wrote this script or if he really had the balls to blatantly lie about an innocent man.
[Re: 'Has anybody else read the script to this movie?' PAGE 1, POST 1]

--------------------------------------------------
fiendfilms (IMDb 'Zodiac' forum, Sat Apr 27 2013 11:27:15):

Why do you keep making *beep* up? Call me a troll all you want but I have been researching this case for a long time and I know when someone like you will lie to make a point.
[Re: 'The Zodiac stalked Cheri Jo Bates and Darlene Ferrin' PAGE 2, POST 9]

--------------------------------------------------
fiendfilms (IMDb 'Zodiac' forum, Sun Nov 18 2012 07:56:21):

I don't think the police ever had the Zodiac's real fingerprints. I think the bloody print they obtained from the Paul Stine murder was not Z's and he either planted it to mislead investigators or the print may have been in fact from one of the cops who were first on the scene.
[Re: 'Zodiac suspect Richard Hirshfield' PAGE 1, POST 5]



reply

[–] fiendfilms 10 years ago

And the sad thing is that I've missed you off so much that you've decided to start an archive if all of my old comments. And why again? Because I said I don't think Arthur Leigh Allen is the Zodiac? That's incredible. Its incredible that my opinion has forced so much time, energy and hate out of you. It actually brings a smile to my face to know that I'm incidentally helping another a-hole lose his mind. And also longcandle, I don't care if you know who I am nor am I shocked that you do...in fact frankly, I don't care. But I know it's not gonna help your case of looking like an internet creep with too much time on his hands to the other board members on here. -Jim Sty the Science Guy

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Salvatoori 8 years ago

Pretty sure you're the Zodiac. That's some creepy *beep*

reply

[–] longcandle 8 years ago

**bump**

reply

[–] filthydeeds 10 years ago

People argue about this all the time, one side says he was very intelligent and knew the areas he roamed off by heart, almost like a hunter another side will say he was just lucky.

It's hard to say really, for instance when you look at the Stine murder it was very sloppy and a giant risk, if it wasnt for him sending in the shirt as proof I'd say it wasnt a Zodiac murder. While the lovers lane murders and Lake Berryessa murder seemed to be well thought out and he knew the areas very well due to getting away very fast and not getting caught (even if they areas were somewhat desolate at times).

Another reason is awful police work, for instance one of the victims cars was returned to the family merely a day after the murder (90% sure this is true), plus much more - it honestly feels like they didnt put a lot of passion and hard work into it. THAT being said it is debated that the murders were committed by someone in who is an authority figure e.g police, fireman, etc.

As for a "reason" as to why he killed these people, it may have just plain random and he enjoyed showing dominance over his victims, it was almost a fetish, for example look at how he treated the couple at Lake Berryessa - he tied them up then without any way of defending themselves then stabbed them to death. Some argue that because he killed couples it was maybe something from his past that made him do that, like not being good with women, I happen to believe he simply targeted couples because he got 2 for the price of 1 or/and the areas couples went to have private time were quiet and desolate so he got to do his deeds in peace with very little chance of getting caught.

Unless somehow Zodiac comes forward and can prove he really is who he says he is or we find diaries we will never know or sure, sadly.

-

Vienna?

OHHHHH VIENNA!

reply

[–] babuandbabu 10 years ago

Zodiac being intelligent & getting lucky are not two different things. He was lucky because he was intelligent enough to play cat & mouse with the police yet the police was/is sitting duck all the time.

You see there are 2 things missing in this entire case - evidence & witness. No strong evidence, no witness. Zodiac was too smart to leave any evidence behind, because a murderer playing with police wouldn't be dumb enough to make any mistake.

Mike Mageau who identified Arthur Leigh Allen as the zodiac, is hard to believe on because a long time had passed from the occurrence & he was alcoholic at the time of interrogation. It is highly unlikely to remember the face of the man who you've seen at night who shot at you & you have gone through a traumatic event in your life & end up being a drinker. You just can't convict someone because a witness says so. And the death of Arthur Leigh Allen is really a tragedy.

And about the Stine murder, it wasn't really luck. It was Zodiac's cunning moves. He knew exactly what he was going or going to do. He deliberately left the gloves in the car because being noticed by anyone him wearing the gloves would increase the chance of making him a suspect & there was a Good chance for the cops to stop him if he had worn them after getting away from the car.

Vote  http://www.imdb.com/poll/5y1KBRCQYtQ/ Vote

reply

[–] filthydeeds 10 years ago

Zodiac being intelligent & getting lucky are not two different things. He was lucky because he was intelligent enough to play cat & mouse with the police yet the police was/is sitting duck all the time.

I disagree, you can have both. I think the whole cat and mouse thing was not based on intelligence or luck it was simply to get attention.

You see there are 2 things missing in this entire case - evidence & witness. No strong evidence, no witness. Zodiac was too smart to leave any evidence behind, because a murderer playing with police wouldn't be dumb enough to make any mistake.

Well, he left finger prints at the Stine murder but other than that yes he left nothing that we know of but I do think that also falls down to bad police work, any good cop will tell you there is ALWAYS something to find t any scene.

Mike Mageau who identified Arthur Leigh Allen as the zodiac, is hard to believe on because a long time had passed from the occurrence & he was alcoholic at the time of interrogation. It is highly unlikely to remember the face of the man who you've seen at night who shot at you & you have gone through a traumatic event in your life & end up being a drinker. You just can't convict someone because a witness says so. And the death of Arthur Leigh Allen is really a tragedy.

Totally agree, Mike was unreliable and quite frankly I think he has made a few things up in recent years. Allen to a lot of people is still the Zodiac but the DNA didnt match so it cant be him.

And about the Stine murder, it wasn't really luck. It was Zodiac's cunning moves. He knew exactly what he was going or going to do. He deliberately left the gloves in the car because being noticed by anyone him wearing the gloves would increase the chance of making him a suspect & there was a Good chance for the cops to stop him if he had worn them after getting away from the car.

I disagree, look how carefully planned the other murders were then all of a sudden we have a sloppy murder in a populated area which nearly got him caught. I think something went drastically wrong that night, maybe Stine seen the gun and tried to jump out? Who knows but it didnt go according to plan.

And when he was getting away we know cops stopped him, I think reality hit home here and he decided to tone down on telling the newspapers and cops exactly what he was doing and refined his technique, in fact I think he specially says something like this in a letter - stating he is going to make the murders look like routine robberies and etc.

I personally believe he continued murdering but because of leaving survivors he refined his technique so that there would never be none from here on in, almost overkill possibly. Then again he may have just stopped, I dont think we will ever truly know but I'd sure love to.

-

Christ on a bendy-bus. Don't be such a *beep* faff arse.

reply

[–] babuandbabu 10 years ago

I think the whole cat and mouse thing was not based on intelligence or luck it was simply to get attention.

Yes, attention but wasn't it a great risk for playing with police like that? Surely high intelligence helped him.

he left finger prints at the Stine murder

There is no real proof that the prints were from the Zodiac. Though they didn't know who was zodiac, it could be of anyone.

but I do think that also falls down to bad police work, any good cop will tell you there is ALWAYS something to find t any scene.

Might be but that's what Zodiac was doing all the time. Leaving no trace behind. Because these little mistakes/traces would put you behind the bars, that's why he was way too smart for the police to leave anything behind.

Allen to a lot of people is still the Zodiac but the DNA didnt match so it cant be him.

Again, how can you just rule someone out just because of an unknown DNA sample? What proof is there that the DNA sample the police has/had (from under the stamp ticket?) is of the Zodiac? Allen is not a confirmed Zodiac but neither an innocent. He is still a suspect.

I think something went drastically wrong that night, maybe Stine seen the gun and tried to jump out? Who knows but it didnt go according to plan.

So if it was an unexpected thing for the Zodiac then it is very strange because he still got away. Because this unexpected murder was also too smart to leave anything behind (except gloves & unknown print but of no help). This makes Zodiac a "ready to kill" machine who can kill anywhere, anytime & get away with it without leaving anything behind. That's why I said he was extremely intelligent.

But him continuing the killings afterwards is really a mystery as his identity.

Vote  http://www.imdb.com/poll/5y1KBRCQYtQ/ Vote

reply

[–] Michael71 9 years ago

Unless somehow Zodiac comes forward and can prove he really is who he says he is or we find diaries we will never know or sure, sadly.

With DNA evidence now can't they run a test and see if it matches to Allen, or someone else?

All the evidence points to Allen, but I don't get how the handwriting did not match, they tested both his left AND his right, and still no match, maybe he had somebody else as an accomplice?

reply

[–] filthydeeds 9 years ago

With DNA evidence now can't they run a test and see if it matches to Allen, or someone else?

All the evidence points to Allen, but I don't get how the handwriting did not match, they tested both his left AND his right, and still no match, maybe he had somebody else as an accomplice?

It's entirely possible, but I've sort of began to think he found a way to write differently, I don;t know if that is even possible but if it is then maybe this is what he did, that being said you have to also remember the DNA did not match Allen, this is crucially important.

-

See, you? Get me a *beep* Curly Wurly, right?

reply

[–] Michael71 8 years ago

Yeah, I agree that probably makes more sense that he found a technique to write differently, it sounds like it's possible, I just wish they could have arrested him as I think it was him that did it.

Remember after he died the anonymous phone call stops so not that it proves that it was him, and the victim recognised him, and he had a zodiac watch, I think it's too coincidental.

reply

[–] filthydeeds 8 years ago

Let's say it was in fact him, he was far smarter, far more devious and in general just more evil that we ever knew, in person he may have gave off a creepy vibe but it was really only certain things he was wearing that apparently made detectives alert.

No matter who did it I just dont know how he or anyone else could have hid or destroyed everything to do with the murders without being seen.

Whoever the Zodiac is, he is one of the luckiest men I have ever heard of in my life, its astounding how he got away with so much, even if he *beep* up, gave away details, teased police and so on.

-

See, you? Get me a *beep* Curly Wurly, right?

reply

[–] The-Demon 8 years ago

Are you basing this off facts or what you saw in the movie?

While obviously I wasn't there in real life, neither was Graysmith in a lot of the investigation so a lot of what he wrote is based off memory.

Graysmith was so sure Allen was Zodiac that he built his story around him. It's the same with Harvey Hines pinning everything on Lawrence Kane. He knew Kane was an ex mental patient with a criminal record and tried finding evidence on him. Same with the My nam is____ cipher. It spells Kane backwards with the birth date so Hines was trying to figure out the cipher to again pin it on Kane.

So back to Allen, hints of it was actually shown at the prison scene with Darlene's sister. He was confident it was Rick Marshall that he kept pressuring her to say his name.

As for the phone calls, who says that was true? It's just Graysmith saying it doesn't mean it actually happened.

While Fincher is strict and tries to be as accurate as possible it's not actually true, it's even said Graysmith and Avery's relationship was entirely fictional and they never talked except once years after Avery left the Chronicle,

The drawing Graysmith did of Zodiac at the lake was actually drawn in the 80s.

reply

[–] babuandbabu 10 years ago

Because of... what, really? Bad investigation? Someone did mistake in procedure (like with Chikatilo when messed matching blood and sperm)? Perhaps authorities wasn't interesting or hiding something? Or someone inside police was tied with this killings and cover up things?

Police had to do the investigation but on what? When there is no lead no connection afterall? And the possible witness Mike Mageau who could have helped the police ran away from the place.

All this movie/book or theory is just merely speculations from a 3rd person's point of view. There was/is no trail to follow that's why the Police failed. Zodiac was smart & never did any mistake when the police was doing trial & error experiments.

His claim of 37 or so murders is just another mind *beep* game of his to confuse the police & to mock of their incompetence.

Vote  http://www.imdb.com/poll/5y1KBRCQYtQ/ Vote

reply

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 10 years ago

Yes.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.

reply

[–] scousethief 10 years ago

Hi sorry replying as this is the last post.

Was there no dna taken from the gloves in the Stine murder ? no skin cells or hairs in the gloves.

Its an interesting case to read about.

reply

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

As stated previously in this thread, police homicide investigations have to take into consideration that in the vast majority (70%+) of cases, the victim and the killer know each other. They might be family, friends, business rivals, enemies, or just casual acquaintances. What they typically do is to gather any physical evidence at the scene, then fan out, using this physical evidence as a guide if practical, and check the known associates, narrowing the list down until, hopefully, they arrive at a plausible suspect.

What makes serial killers so hard to track is that in most cases, this connection between the victim and the killer is lacking, so they only have what physical traces the killer leaves at the crime scene to go on. And sometimes, the physical traces left by the killer is very little or sometimes is lacking almost completely.

This is the primary reason that serial killers are so hard to catch.

Hope this helps.

reply