A Guide to Follow All True Crime Upcoming Projects on TV
(Note: This post will be updated as new information comes. Feel free to message me if I’m missing something so I can add it)
“Manhunt: Unabomber” (Formerly Manifesto)
Format: Scripted limited series.
Summary: This show will be about the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski
and the manhunt led by the FBI to catch him. Paul Bettany will play Kaczynski (see picture above),
Jane Lynch will play Attorney General Janet Reno and Sam Worthington will play
FBI agent Jim Fitzgerald. See the trailer here.
One of the bombs made by the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, an incredibly intelligent academic with a doctorate in mathematics, who started a bomb mailing spree that lasted a period of 20 years. In total he killed 3 people and injured a further 23.
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 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.
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
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 Richard Berkowitz, also known as „Son of Sam“, is an
American serial killer. He killed 6 people and wounded 8. Today he is an
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 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.
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 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, 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.
Chikatilo, also known as „Butcher of Rostov“, was a Soviet serial killer. He
killed at least 53 people. He often raped his female victims.
Ted Kaczynski, aged 9, with his pet parakeet and younger brother Dave, age 2. Ted is better known as ‘The Unabomber’, a domestic terrorist who engaged in a bomb mailing plot that lasted over 20 years and killed 3 people and injured 23 in total.
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).
A mathematics prodigy, Ted Kaczynski taught at the University of California before retreating to a survivalist lifestyle in the Montana woods. Between 1975 and 1995, Kaczynski mailed bombs to universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring 23 more. FBI agents arrested Kaczynski in 1996.
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
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
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
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
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.