Re: [DL] A quick question

["Eric Young" <ecyoung@mediaone.net>]

> One pet peeve--don't have your NPC law enforcement-types call him a
"serial
> killer." That is a fairly modern-term, post-1970s. The closest term for
that
> type of killer was coined in the late 1890s and was "multi-murderer."
>
> For some reason, that snappy term never caught on. :-)
>
> Anyway, it was applied to an extremely disturbed American individual who
> went by the name of Dr. H. H. Holmes. Look him up if your interested; some
> of his crimes were thehighly imaginative and involved stuff movies are
made
> about.
>
> John

Most of the time Law Enforcement would deny it was the same person
responsible for all of the killings. Remember that city police forces in
this time period tended to be poorly paid, came from the lower class, were
often corrupt, and mainly interested in swift justice (whether or not they
got the right person often wasn't as important as getting who in their eyes
was the most likely person). Also remember that this is long before "Miranda
Warnings" (that wasn't until 1966) and torture induced confessions are a
fairly common practice in the larger police departments. You could be held
and questioned for days before anyone even knew you were arrested. Often you
wouldn't see a lawyer until just before you go to court (and he'll usually
tell you to plead guilty anyway, assuming of course you haven't already
signed a confession). Being beaten with rubber hoses, thumb screws, being
hung by your thumbs (there's a term for that but I can't remember it), held
without food or water for days, and partial hanging (the rope was just long
enough that if you stayed on your toes you were just slightly strangled)
were all commonly used to get written confessions for crimes.

These practices were in use until 1966 when the Arizona v. Miranda case
reached the Supreme Court...

Eric