ted kaczynski

10 notorious Murderers

The following people are ten notorious murderers (8 serial killers, 2 terrorists) ordered by their birthday (youngest to oldest).

I’m posting four pictures of everyone (them as kid, random picture of them, police sketch, mugshot) and a short summary of their crime.


Timothy McVeigh

*23/04/1968
†11/06/2001

Timothy James McVeigh was an American terrorist. He is responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing. He had two accomplices (Terry Nichols, Michael Fortier). With his bomb he killed 168 people.




Richard Ramirez

*29/01/1960
†07/06/2013

Ricardo Leyva Muñoz Ramírez, also known as the „Night Stalker“, was an American serial killer. He killed at least 14 people. He often used different weapons and didn’t have any specific targets.




Aileen Wuornos

*29/05/1956
†09/10/2002

Aileen Carol Wuornos was an American serial killer. She probably killed 7 men in between 1989 and 1991. She is one of the most notorious female serial killers.




David Berkowitz

*01/06/1953

David Richard Berkowitz, also known as „Son of Sam“, is an American serial killer. He killed 6 people and wounded 8. Today he is an Christian.




Richard Chase

*23/05/1950
†26/12/1980

Richard Trenton Chase, also known as „The Vampire of Sacramento“, was an American serial killer. In just one month he killed 6 people. He drank the blood from some of his victims, ate body parts or had sex with their dead bodies. 




Gary Ridgway

*18/02/1949

Gary Leon Ridgway, also known as „Green River Killer“, is an American serial killer. He killed at least 49 women and girls. He killed his victims after having sex with them. He strangled them to death. Then he had sex with their dead bodies. Sometimes he came back at night and had sex with them again or mutilated their bodies.




Ted Bundy

*24/11/1946
†24/01/1989

Theodore „Ted“ Robert Bundy was an American serial killer. He raped and killed at least 28 young women and girls and cut them into pieces.  He is one of the most notorious serial killers in the history of the USA.




Dennis Rader

*09/03/1945

Dennis Lynn Rader, also known as „BTK-Killer“ (Bind, Torture, Kill) is an American serial killer. He killed at least 10 people. Most of his victims were female.




Ted Kaczynski

*22/05/1942

Theodore John „Ted“ Kaczynski, also known as the „Unabomber“ is an American terrorist. In between 1978 and 1995 he sent 16 bombs to different people in the USA. With these bombs he killed 3 people and injured 23.




Andrei Chikatilo

*16/10/1936
†14/02/1994

Andrei Romanovich Chikatilo, also known as „Butcher of Rostov“, was a Soviet serial killer. He killed at least 53 people. He often raped his female victims.

Types of Motives for serial Killers

  • Visionary- These serial killers suffer breaks from reality sometimes thinking a god or devil is compelling them to kill .David Berkowitz, “The Son of Sam” Killer is an example of this.
  • Mission Oriented- These killers believe their acts are helping to rid the world of something evil or unwanted. Some see themselves as curing society. A killer example of this would be Ted Kacynski, the unabomber. 
  • Hedonistic- This killer seeks a thrill or a rush from killing. Killing for them is like a drug it sends them on a high they never want to come down from. There are three sub types of hedonistic killers; “comfort”, “thrill” , and “lust”
  • Lust- These are the most common type of serial killers. Killers that are motivated by sex and fulfilling their fantasy. It doesn’t matter if they body is living or not all that matter is that they get to relive their fantasy over and over again. Serial Killer Ted Bundy would be an example of this type of killer.
  • Power/ control- These killers kill in order to feel a sense of power or control they don;t have in their everyday lives. The act of taking someone’s life gives them that control they crave. Ted Bundy is also an example of this as he traveled the United States looking for women to control. 
  • Media-  Media killers are driven by publicity. They thrive on other knowing what they have done and seeing everyone’s reactions to their heinous deeds. They seek attention for their deeds and will continue to kill until that need for attention is fulfilled. The BTK killer is a killer who sought media attention for his crimes. 

A timeline of Ted Kaczynski’s life and crimes:


May 22, 1942: Ted Kaczynski born.

October 3, 1949: David Kaczynski born.

1952: In 5th grade a test determined Ted’s IQ was 167, this let him skip the 6th and 11th grade.

1957: At age 15 Ted graduated high school.

1958: At age 16 Ted started college at Harvard. He entered a multi-year psychological study that is thought to have had a negative impact on him.

1962: He attended University of Michigan for his PhD.

1967-1969: At age 26, he became the youngest Assistant Professor hired by University of California, Berkley.

1973: Ted moved to an isolated cabin in Lincoln, Montana (with no electricity or running water). The development of land nearby that affected his ability to live in complete isolation is thought to have triggered his first plan of “attack,” as this is when he started targeting “societal progress.”

1978-1995: Ted killed 3 people and injured 23 others with his homemade bombs.

Ted Kaczynski Work BenchSeptember 1995: The Unabomber manifesto was printed in The Washington Post and The New York Times. Due to the writing style, David became suspicious that it was his brother (Ted) and went to authorities. David gave the FBI $1 million reward money to the families of victims (minus his expenses from helping with the case).

April 1996: Ted was indicted.

January 7, 1998: Ted attempted to hang himself.

January 22, 1998: He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. He is in the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado (this is also where Robert Hanssen and Terry Nichols are incarcerated).

FBI Profiler Says Linguistic Work Was Pivotal In Capture Of Unabomber

On May 25, 1978, a package exploded at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., injuring a security guard. It was the first of a series of 16 bombings that would occur over the next 17 years, killing three people and injuring many others. The suspect in the case, a shadowy figure who frequently used the U.S. mail to send his homemade explosives, became known as the “Unabomber.”

FBI criminal profiler James R. Fitzgerald began working on the case in July 1995. He remembers the Unabomber as a “criminal mastermind” who went to extraordinary lengths to erase any trace of physical evidence within his explosives.

FBI labs revealed, for instance, that the bomber ripped the skins off batteries to make them untraceable. He also avoided commercial glue and instead made his own epoxy by melting down deer hooves. “And, of course, no fingerprints, no DNA — nothing like that,” Fitzgerald says.

But Fitzgerald and his colleagues did have one important source of evidence: In the 1990s, the Unabomber began sending letters about his crimes to the media and some of his victims. In 1995, he sent a sprawling, 35,000-word “manifesto” to The New York Times and The Washington Post, in which he explained why he believed technology to be evil and how society should disband the technological system and live in agrarian tribes.

Fitzgerald says the Unabomber’s writings were a “pivotal factor” in cracking the case. He and his colleagues used them to help pinpoint the age and geographic origin of their suspect — evidence that helped lead to the April 6, 1996, arrest of Ted Kaczynski, an ideologically-motivated hermit living in a cabin in Montana.

Kaczynski pleaded guilty to the bombings in 1998 and is now serving a life sentence in prison. Fitzgerlad, now retired, is the central character in a new scripted mini-series on The Discovery Channel called Manhunt: Unabomber, starring actors Sam Worthington and Paul Bettany.

Photo: Kaczynski’s manifesto 

8
  • Some Serial killers + High IQs 

The average serial killer has an IQ 94.7. Although various tests measure IQ, a score of 90 to 110 is usually considered “average” intelligence. A serial killer with average IQ is also the most likely to strangle or shoot their victims. Serial killers who have used bombs show, on average, higher IQs, while those who used poison exhibited the lowest.

from left to right 

  • Ted Kaczynski - Rodney Alcala
  • Carroll Cole - Andrew Cunanan
  • Ed Kemper - Jeffrey Dahmer
  • Ted Bundy - Gary Heidnik
2

Ted Kaczynski at a family gathering circa 1965

Ted is pictured with his relatives in the family’s Evergreen Park backyard, in his early 20s. In the first picture he can be seen on the left, standing next to his brother Dave - who in later years was responsible for informing the police about Ted, eventually leading to his arrest as The Unabomber. In the second picture he can be seen in the background. The women present in the pictures are his grandmother Helen Kaczynski (left), cousin Kathy Kaczynski (middle) and aunt Josephine Manney (right).

Timothy McVeigh’s thoughts on his death sentence, or in his words “state-assisted suicide.” These excerpts are from the book American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck.


For a man entering a super-secure prison to await the death penalty, McVeigh seemed markedly, almost wilfully, unconcerned. Anyway the wind blows, doesn’t really matter to me, he thought, recalling the line from Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody.” On a personal level, McVeigh would welcome death; it would be his crowning achievement. The government he reflected, would be doing him a favor, ending a long march that had turned hollow in the final years. His execution would be a relief.


“I’ll be glad to leave this fucked-up world,” he said. “Truth is, I determined mostly through my travels that this world just doesn’t hold anything for me.” But as the weeks rolled by, the isolated hours he spent in the four-cell special disciplinary unit at Supermax provided time for self-examination, and he would come to realize that he was not immediately suicidal. “I figure, why not take a few years in retirement. Sit in my cell; write letters, make peace with everyone. What does that make the death penalty, if that’s what it is?” In McVeigh’s opinion, it was nothing more than state-assisted suicide. “I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was a state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it’s in your face, motherfuckers. You just did something you’re trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel.”


Like McVeigh, Kaczynski preferred the idea of execution to life in prison. But when Kaczynski made his preference public, McVeigh thought his fellow prisoner had made a big mistake—particularly since Kaczynski was seeking a retrial. “Ted messed up,” he said. “They’re not going to want to seek death now because they know he’s being tortured with life… They won’t give the opportunity for the death penalty again, either with a federal retrial or a state trial. If one is serious about it, you should never show your hand.”


McVeigh wanted to find a way to tell Fortier that he wasn’t upset at him for testifying. He figured that Fortier might be blaming himself for McVeigh’s receiving the death penalty, and he wanted to tell him that it was his own doing. But in the end McVeigh couldn’t bring himself to speak so openly about his carefully calculated plan to have the government execute him. He feared that by making it known he had sought “a deluxe suicide-by-cop package” it might somehow hurt his chances of realizing it. McVeigh could only hope that his easygoing manner would let Fortier know he did not hate him.


An artist’s drawing of a cell in ADX Florence, America’s highest security prison. Inmates spend 23 hours a day in a cell similar to the one above. The 4 inch wide window allows the prisoner to only see the sky and the roof, preventing the inmate from knowing their exact location, thus making an escape plan virtually impossible. The cells are also soundproofed to prevent communication with fellow inmates.

The 408 supermax prisoners currently incarcerated at ADX Florence include Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber.

2

Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber. Perhaps one of the most interesting people of the 80s and 90s. His Wikipedia entry is pure gold.

Kaczynski was born in Chicago, Illinois, where, as a child prodigy, he excelled academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree, and later earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25, but resigned two years later.

In 1971, he moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water, in Lincoln, Montana, where he lived as a recluse while learning survival skills in an attempt to become self-sufficient.[3] He decided to start a bombing campaign after watching the wilderness around his home being destroyed by development, according to Kaczynski.[3] From 1978 to 1995, Kaczynski sent 16 bombs to targets including universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring 23. Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times on April 24, 1995 and promised “to desist from terrorism” if the Times or the Washington Post published his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future (also called the “Unabomber Manifesto”), in which he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization.

Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction It is already happening to some extent in our own society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.
—  Theodore Kaczynski
2

A letter from Theodore Kaczynski to the authors of the book American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh & the Oklahoma City Bombing.


I should begin by noting that the validity of my comments about McVeigh is limited by the fact that I didn’t know him terribly well. We were often put in the outdoor rec yard together in separate wire-mesh cages, but I always spent most of the rec period running in a small oval, because of the restricted area of the cages and consequently I had only about 15 or 20 minutes of each rec period for talking with other inmates. Also, I was at first reluctant to become friendly with McVeigh because I thought (correctly) that any friendly relations between McVeigh and me would be reported to the media and I also thought (incorrectly, it seems) that such reports would lose me many supporters. But my reluctance very soon passed away: When you’re confined with other people under the conditions that exist on this range of cells, you develop a sense of solidarity with them regardless of any differences or misgivings.

On a personal level I like McVeigh and I imagine that most people would like him. He was easily the most outgoing of all the inmates on our range of cells and had excellent social skills. He was considerate of others and knew how to deal with people effectively. He communicated somehow even with the inmates on the range of cells above ours, and, because he talked with more people, he always knew more about what was going on than anyone else on our range.

Another reason why he knew more about what was going on was that he was very observant. Up to a point, I can identify with this trait of McVeigh’s. When you’ve lived in the woods for a while you get so that your senses are far more alert than those of a city person; you will hardly miss a footprint, or even a fragment of one, and the slightest sound, if it deviates from the pattern of sounds that you’re expecting to hear at a given time and place, will catch your attention. But when I was away from the woods, or even when I was in my cabin or absorbed in some task, my senses tended to turn inward, so to speak, and the observant alertness was shut off. Here at the ADX, my senses and my mind are turned inward most of the time, so it struck me as remarkable that even in prison McVeigh remained alert and consistently took an interest in his surroundings.

It is my impression that McVeigh is very intelligent. He thinks seriously about the problems of our society, especially as they relate to the issue of individual freedom, and to the extent that he expressed his ideas to me they seemed rational and sensible. However, he discussed these matters with me only to a limited extent and I have no way of being sure that he does not have other ideas that he did not express to me and that I would not consider rational or sensible. I know almost nothing about McVeigh’s opinions concerning the U.S. government or the events at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Someone sent me a transcript of his interview with 60 Minutes, but I haven’t read it yet. Consequently, I have no way of knowing whether I would consider his opinion on these subjects to be rational or sensible.

McVeigh is considered to belong to the far right, and for that reason some people apparently assume that he has racist tendencies. But I saw no indication of this. On the contrary, he was on very friendly terms with the African-American inmates here and I never heard him make any remark that could have been considered even remotely racist. I do recall his mentioning that prior to the Gulf War, he and other soldiers were subjected to propaganda designed to make them hate the people they were going to fight, but when he arrived in the Persian Gulf area he discovered that the “enemies” he was supposed to kill were human beings just like himself, and he learned to respect their culture.

McVeigh told me of his idea (which I think may have significant merit) that certain rebellious elements on the American right and left respectively had more in common with one another than is commonly realized, and that the two groups ought to join forces. This led us to discuss, though only briefly, the question of what constitutes the “right.” I pointed out that the word “right,” in the political sense, was originally associated with authoritarianism, and I raised the question of why certain radically anti-authoritarian groups (such as the Montana Freemen) were lumped together with authoritarian factions as the “right.” McVeigh explained that the American far right could be roughly divided into two branches, the fascist/racist branch, and the individualistic or freedom-loving branch which generally was not racist. He did not know why these two branches were lumped together as the “right,” but he did suggest a criterion that could be used to distinguish left from right: the left (in America today) generally dislikes firearms, while the right tends to be attracted to firearms.

By this criterion McVeigh himself would have to be assigned to the right. He once asked me what kind of rifle I’d used for hunting in Montana, and I said I’d had a .22 and a .30-06. On a later occasion McVeigh mentioned that one of the advantages of a .30-06 was that one could get armor-piercing ammunition for it.  I said, “So what would I need armor-piercing ammunition for?” In reply, McVeigh indicated that I might some day want to shoot at a tank. I didn’t bother to argue with him, but if I’d considered it worth the trouble I could have given the obvious answer: that the chances that I would ever have occasion to shoot at a tank were very remote. I think McVeigh knew well that there was little likelihood that I would ever need to shoot at a tank—or that he would either, unless he rejoined the Army. My speculative interpretation is that McVeigh resembles many people on the right who are attracted to powerful weapons for their own sake and independently of any likelihood that they will ever have a practical use for them. Such people tend to invent excuses, often far-fetched ones, for acquiring weapons for which they have no real need.

But McVeigh did not fit the stereotype of the extreme right-wingers. I’ve already indicated that he spoke of respect for other people’s cultures, and in doing so he sounded like a liberal. He certainly was not a mean or hostile person, and I wasn’t aware of any indication that he was super patriotic. I suspect that he is an adventurer by nature, and America since the closing of the frontier has had little room for adventurers.

McVeigh never discussed the Oklahoma City bombing with me, nor did he ever make any admissions in my hearing. I know nothing about that case except what the media have said, so I’m not going to offer any opinion about whether McVeigh did what they say he did. However, assuming that the Oklahoma City bombing was intended as a protest against the U.S. government in general and against the government’s actions at Waco in particular, I will say that I think the bombing was a bad action because it was unnecessarily inhumane.

A more effective protest could have been made with far less harm to innocent people. Most of the people who died at Oklahoma City were, I imagine, lower-level government employees—office help and the like—who were not even remotely responsible for objectionable government policies or for the events at Waco. If violence were to be used to express protest, it could have been used far more humanely, and at the same time more effectively, by being directed at the relatively small number of people who were personally responsible for the policies or actions to which the protesters objected. Such protest would have attracted just as much national attention as the Oklahoma City bombing and would have involved relatively little risk to innocent people. Moreover, the protest would have earned far more sympathy than the Oklahoma City bombing did, because it is safe to assume that many anti-government people who might have accepted violence that was more limited and carefully directed were repelled by the large loss of innocent life at Oklahoma City.

The media teach us to be horrified at the Oklahoma City bombing, but I won’t have time to be horrified at it as long as there are greater horrors in the world that make it seem insignificant by comparison. Moreover, our politicians and our military kill people in far larger numbers than was done at Oklahoma City, and they do so for motives that are far more cold blooded and calculating. On orders from the president, a general will kill some thousands of people (usually including many civilians regardless of efforts to avoid such losses) without bothering to ask himself whether the killing is justified. He has to follow orders because his only other alternative would be to resign his commission, and naturally he would rather kill a few thousand people than spoil his career. The politicians and the media justify these actions with propaganda about “defending freedom.” However, even if America were a free society (which it is not), most U.S. military action during at least the last couple of decades has not been necessary for the survival of American society but has been designed to protect relatively narrow economic or political interests or to boost the president’s approval rating in the public-opinion polls.

The media portray the killing at Oklahoma City as a ghastly atrocity, but I remember how they cheered the U.S. action in the Gulf War just as they might have cheered for their favorite football team. The whole thing was treated as if it were a big game. I didn’t see any sob stories about the death agonies of Iraqi soldiers or about their grieving families. It’s easy to see the reason for the difference: America’s little wars are designed to promote the interests of “the system,” but violence at home is dangerous to the system, so the system’s propaganda has to teach us the correspondingly correct attitudes toward such events. Yet I am much less repelled by powerless dissidents who kill a couple hundred because they think they have no other way to effectively state their protest, than I am by politicians and generals—people in positions of great power—who kill hundreds or thousands for the sake of cold calculated political and economic advantages.

You asked for my thoughts on the behavior of federal law enforcement officers. My personal experience suggests that federal law enforcement officers are neither honest nor competent, and that they often disobey their own rules.

I’ve found by experience that any communication with journalists is risky for one in my position. I’m taking the risk in this case mainly because I think that McVeigh would want me to help you in the way that I have. As I indicated near the beginning of this letter, when you’re locked up with other people you develop a sense of solidarity with them in spite of any differences.

Sincerely yours, Ted Kaczynski.