Yes, I agree.
My point was that in the era of Bundy, law enforcement often failed to connect multiple stranger murders to the same killer.
Today, every stranger murder of a woman, and every suspicious disappearance, is profiled immediately against similar crimes nationally.
And the local news media immediately alert the public to any “serial killer” evidence.
I really do believe that luck is the only way a modern serial killer can escape capture for more than a couple years.
I think you’ve been watching too much CSI or something. There is no way for police to identify something as a stranger murder until they’ve already investigated and determined the perpetrator of the murder. Suspicious disappearances aren’t even treated as crimes by the police in many cases, unless there is evidence of foul play, much less checked against some nationwide database. If there is evidence of a serial killer at work, the police can be VERY selective about releasing any information to the media, though the sensationalism of the media when they do get information might lead you to believe otherwise.
Serial killers often get away with it for decades, because the very nature of their crimes make them very hard to catch. It’s fair to say that police are better at realizing when there is a serial killer at work now than in times past, but they are still usually caught when they make mistakes, or by lucky breaks, than by modern methods of police work.
I see your point, but on fallacy that TV shows perpetrate is the idea that DNA solves more cases.
at most crimes scenes, there is just too much. Defense attorneys don’t want DNA testing cause it may prove their client did it, prosecutor don’t want DN testing cause it may prove the defendant didn’t do it.
While we now can look at nationwide cases, a awful lot of crimes never get “solved”