#(☕️) issy

[icarus-suraki]

☕️ true crime, because yiss

Yisssssssss. I am, I will admit, a True Crime Addict. (Hi, my name is Issy and I am a True Crime Addict.)

In the "Stay Sexy and Don't Get Murdered" trinity of Detective, Victim, and Perp, I'm definitely in the Detective category (sometimes with a view to Perp because I'm just like "I feel that in my mental alphabet soup").

Is my fandom problematic? Fuck yeah, I'm sure it is. But I'm still into it. And given my INTJ inclinations towards Detective, I'm always like "Okay, that's fucked up. How are you going to solve this one, gang?"

It's the solving that I like best. Details, clues, weird connections, unexpected revelations, confessions, interviews, observations--that's my jam. Unsolved cases are interesting, but they're not as satisfying sometimes. If there are some interesting theories, okay, I'm in. Half-solved cases are pretty good because of that.

If I'm going to get into unsolved stuff, it's gotta be a bit weird. Like, I'm interested in the Somerton Man/Tamam Shud case and the Isdal Woman because those stories are made out to be more peculiar than some other unsolved cases (I do realize that some of these "unsolved mysteries" are elaborated, for sure). Same thing for the Man from the Train: it's weird and I can buy into some of the theories, sure. (I do hold that TMftT is different from the New Orleans Axman. Weird hill, I know.)

I am. So tired. Of everyone-know-about-that. Serial. Killer. Stuff. It's like, "Ted Bundy is so fucked up!" Yes. I know. Got anything new? If it's something new, then I'll listen. Like I just saw a short YouTube video about how a woman rented a house only to have a family member call her and tell her that her house was featured in a documentary about a serial killer. This man used the basement of the house for his murders. Like, that's fucked up and therefore fascinating to me. Holy shit, dude. (I will make an exception for Edmund Kemper, I think, because I heard some prison interviews with him and that dude is intelligent and he's oddly interesting to listen to.)

Same thing for the major news stories (Madeline McCann, for instance): unless there's something new, some break in the case, why retread old ground? When some of the JonBenet Ramsey stories resurfaced in, what, 2016 or something? And her brother did the interview with Dr. Phil, yeah, I was kind of like "Okay, maybe there's something new here." Alas, nope.

I do feel a bit uncomfortable with myself for being interested in the fucked up stuff (the Snowtown Murders, Katherine Knight--why are so many of these from Australia?--the Yuba County Five, the Slenderman stabbing) but I guess the stories around the real story make them seem semi-mythical, nearly fictional.

Which is unfair to the victims, of course. And I do feel sympathy for the victims. But I cannot abide it when podcasts or YouTubers feel this obligation to talk up the victim and how perfectly angelic they are and how sad it all is and how horrible, evil, terrible, demonic the perpetrator is. S in chat to slap them. Lots of cussing. It's like the way Tumblrs that focused on true crime would have to put "I do not condone!" all over the place in the hopes that no anons would come for them for talking about crime and criminals and murder and so on. Sometimes it feels like content creators have to do the same thing and since I'm over here playing Sherlock Holmes, it feels a bit...soppy? Overwrought? It's like "if I don't do this, you'll think I agree with the perp and I promise I do not!" Okay, thanks? I didn't think you did? I feel like rather than handwringing over how wonderful a victim was, it's more respectful to talk about how the case was solved. It was figured out; the victim's story is known.

Although I did see a YouTube video yesterday that delved into some of that handwringing, but it also spent an equal amount of time on one of the guilty parties because he was undeniably guilty, but he didn't have the usual constellation of challenges and difficulties that many murderers have. No abuse, no drugs, no problems in school... And that was an interesting breakdown to me.

The long and the short of it is that I'm interested in true crime the way I'm interested in mystery novels: what the fuck happened and how the fuck do we solve it?

It's a lot of DNA, DNA, DNA anymore which works and it works great! But that does mean I tend to prefer hearing about older cases that don't involve DNA so much (at least initially)

Also, have I considered looking for a job in one of the genetic genealogy companies that sort out who might be related to who based on genes? Yeah, I have, because I know I have the skills for it--but I also have some ethical qualms, so I haven't actually sought out a job.

I'll also say that I love a good "no one dies!" crime story. Like a bank heist or an art theft or a jewel theft (why not cut a hole in a wall to sneak in?). D. B. Cooper is a favorite, for example. There's a theory that D. B. was actually a transwoman who passed as a man while on the plane and that's why no one could find the man they were looking for because they should have been looking for a woman. (In actual fact, yes, I acknowledge that D. B. probably died on the way down. But let me have my pet theories!)

I guess what it all comes down to is that I like a strange story with an uncertain ending. Famous serial killers aren't really my thing. Nor are compilations of pretty straightforward stories around a basic theme ("2 Cases of Babysitters Who Killed"). If it's weird, if it's strange, if it's complicated, if there are incongruent details, then I'm interested. I'll listen to a lot of different things Just Because, but the ones that keep my interest are the Strange and Unusual.

#true crime #ask game #ask me things