MI MI - JOHN NORMAN COLLINS Co-Ed Murders 1967-69, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
You are correct to say that this is one of the most complicated and expensive investigations and criminal trials in Michigan history. It was not an easy one for law enforcement when one considers that at least seven murders took place in an apparent series before they arrested John Norman Collins.
Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion and alternate theory regarding this case, you are not entitled to inventing or twisting the evidence to fit your narrative.
You have stated numerous times that Mrs. Goshe lied, changed her story, or committed perjury during the trial in her testimony regarding the identification of Collins' motorcycle. This is simply not true. First, she never identified his motorcycle at any time as to make, model, or state of registration (license plate) either before or during the trial. She always claimed to investigators and under oath during the trial that she DID NOT KNOW what type of motor cycle it was - only that it was blue, loud, and had a square mirror attached to the handlebars.
It was Mrs. Spaulding (who was present with Mrs. Goshe at the time) who suggested to police investigators that the motorcycle MIGHT have been a Honda. Because of that comment, both women were taken to a nearby Honda dealership and asked to look at motorcycles to see if they could pick one out that resembled the one they saw. Mrs. Spaulding stated that she could not pick any that matched the one they saw. Mrs. Goshe tentatively picked a Honda 450 (not a 350 as you often state) only because it had a square mirror.
During the trial with Collins' stolen motorcycles in the courtroom, both Mrs. Goshe and Mrs. Spaulding declined to identify either bike as the one they saw because they did not know motorcycles well and stated that they were focused on the rider - whom they both pointed out and identified in their court testimony as John Norman Collins.
The description of the motorcycle to police by Mrs. Goshe or Mrs. Spaulding was a moot point as far as the trial was concerned. They did NOT make any identification of the bike itself. Both women identified the defendant, John Norman Collins, as the man they had seen with Karen Sue Beineman leaving their place of business the day Karen was murdered.
The Motorcycle was described by a third eyewitness and pointed out in court as the one on which she had seen Karen Sue Beineman ride away.
None of the witnesses made any statement as to what state the motorcycle was registered in or what state license plate was attached to it. When taken into evidence, the plate on Collins' bike was noted to be bent so that it could not be easily seen. It was, in fact, a bike that he had stolen from a fraternity brother. Even if the police had been told the registration number of the motorcycle by any witness, it would not have been traced to Collins as being its owner.
A police search of motor vehicle records was initiated in an attempt to draw up a list of owners' names for Honda and Triumph motorcycles. Before such a search was complete, John Norman Collins had already been arrested. The absence of Collins' name on any such search is far from proof that the motorcycle and rider were from another state.
As to Collins' "airtight" alibi; the police did do a stake out of the body dump site in the Beineman case, on the hope that the killer would return to the site (as was believed to be the case with some of the other murders). A person was seen running by or from that location, but he (or she) was NOT caught or identified. Regardless of what anyone thought regarding that incident, it was NOT proof either way of Collins' guilt or innocence.
The story of the running man was introduced by Collins' defense attorney - along with a single witness who stated Collins was with a small group of friends about 60 miles away in Ortonville, Michigan at the time. This was in an attempt to introduce an element of doubt into the prosecution's case. The prosecutors did not question any of it because they did not wish to add credence to the story. The whole scenario and the way it was presented and handled in court had mainly to do with courtroom tactics than with solid evidence.
Had the prosecution wished to pursue the defense's presentation, they could have asked for the names of all the other five or six persons who allegedly spent that Saturday with Collins - and could have questioned each. And they could have questioned one of the prosecution witnesses, Arnold Davis, regarding Collins' statement to him that he was going to spend that day at his mother's home in Centerline, Michigan - where Collins was found by police the next morning carefully detail cleaning his Oldsmobile.
The fact is that the jury DID get to hear the "running man" story and the defense witness, and they DID take it into consideration before arriving at their verdict.
The basic premise put forth by the defense was that the "running man" was the actual killer, but there is another very real possibility, and that is that there could have been more than just one killer, working together or separately in the commission of the Michigan Co-ed Murders.
The murder of Roxie Ann Phillips is probably a more solid case against Collins than any of the Michigan murders. He was with Roxie the day before she disappeared, he was identified along with his silver Oldsmobile as being in her neighborhood the day she went missing, and a piece of her clothing was found in his car when taken into evidence in Michigan.
Last edited:
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
It’s all over news reports that the motorcycle was a Honda (350 or 450). And it was not later reported that this information was in error. Goshe was confronted with this during the trail and was at a loss to explain it.
And she signed a report saying that the time the victim was in her store was 15 minutes earlier than what she later testified. The change seemingly does not benefit Collins. There were discrepancies between her testimony during the trail and preliminary hearings and it was reveled during the trial that she lied when she signed legal documents elsewhere.
This qualifies as a liar in my book. Anyone here is free to interpret it as they please and read the news coverage and books on the case.
Otherwise, it's important that people know who they're getting their information from. They're free to look me up and can do so without much effort. How about you? Where can one document who you are, what your background is and how it might influence what you believe and write?
It was revealed during the trail that police threatened a defense witness, who had been cooperative, with perjury if he didn't commit perjury during the trail by testifying that something happened that he knew never happened. I've not read anything even remotely close to this kind of behavior by police regarding another murder case. Given that so much of what was used to convict Collins came from the basement of a cop I think this is fishy.
Given this, it's not a stretch to say that while certain things about Collins fit the reports written in the days after Beineman disappeared, like the suspect's description, other things did not. That said it seems reasonable to wonder if other witnesses were threatened and or changed their stories as a result.
Those aren't the only weird thing about this case. Far's I can tell, this is the only one that comes to mind when there were six or seven bodies and only one murder conviction. Yet it is said, seemingly without question, that Collins is a serial killer.
What more, there is an exhaustive history written about the case in the seventies, far closer to when the events occurred. What else was left to tell? I've read both books and it doesn't seem a lot, though some of the conclusions by the author of the second book regarding the testimony at the trail seem ludicrous.
Was the point simply to get the words "murders" and "John Norman Collins" on the cover of a book (which in itself is misleading) because someone was worried that someone might come along and start questioning these things in regard to another suspect and other murders that occurred around the same time and call B.S. regarding Collins? These are fair questions.
Regarding the northern California murder and William Thoresen's residency there, like so many things about these murders, it's amazing how the facts that surround him align with the facts of this case.
Meanwhile, as previously stated it's not a stretch to say Collins lacked the resume to have committed the Beineman murder. The prosecution presented no motive. And his behavior during circa '69-70 regarding this case and during his trail is not indicative of guilt.
These things, taken with the fact that Thoresen's description is stunningly close to that of Collins, none of the witnesses knew either man, Goshe wasn't wearing her glasses when she saw the guy, Thoresen was nomadic killer, etcetera etcetera.
And she signed a report saying that the time the victim was in her store was 15 minutes earlier than what she later testified. The change seemingly does not benefit Collins. There were discrepancies between her testimony during the trail and preliminary hearings and it was reveled during the trial that she lied when she signed legal documents elsewhere.
This qualifies as a liar in my book. Anyone here is free to interpret it as they please and read the news coverage and books on the case.
Otherwise, it's important that people know who they're getting their information from. They're free to look me up and can do so without much effort. How about you? Where can one document who you are, what your background is and how it might influence what you believe and write?
It was revealed during the trail that police threatened a defense witness, who had been cooperative, with perjury if he didn't commit perjury during the trail by testifying that something happened that he knew never happened. I've not read anything even remotely close to this kind of behavior by police regarding another murder case. Given that so much of what was used to convict Collins came from the basement of a cop I think this is fishy.
Given this, it's not a stretch to say that while certain things about Collins fit the reports written in the days after Beineman disappeared, like the suspect's description, other things did not. That said it seems reasonable to wonder if other witnesses were threatened and or changed their stories as a result.
Those aren't the only weird thing about this case. Far's I can tell, this is the only one that comes to mind when there were six or seven bodies and only one murder conviction. Yet it is said, seemingly without question, that Collins is a serial killer.
What more, there is an exhaustive history written about the case in the seventies, far closer to when the events occurred. What else was left to tell? I've read both books and it doesn't seem a lot, though some of the conclusions by the author of the second book regarding the testimony at the trail seem ludicrous.
Was the point simply to get the words "murders" and "John Norman Collins" on the cover of a book (which in itself is misleading) because someone was worried that someone might come along and start questioning these things in regard to another suspect and other murders that occurred around the same time and call B.S. regarding Collins? These are fair questions.
Regarding the northern California murder and William Thoresen's residency there, like so many things about these murders, it's amazing how the facts that surround him align with the facts of this case.
Meanwhile, as previously stated it's not a stretch to say Collins lacked the resume to have committed the Beineman murder. The prosecution presented no motive. And his behavior during circa '69-70 regarding this case and during his trail is not indicative of guilt.
These things, taken with the fact that Thoresen's description is stunningly close to that of Collins, none of the witnesses knew either man, Goshe wasn't wearing her glasses when she saw the guy, Thoresen was nomadic killer, etcetera etcetera.
Last edited:
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
By the way, there were multiple witnesses ready to testify as to where Collins was the night that the "running man" (AKA killer, according to police) was. If only one testified it was presumably because the testimony of the others would have been redundant and the prosecution did not challenge the testimony of the witness who testified.
One has to wonder why the authorities would have gone to great lengths to "frame" an innocent person and convict him of such a heinous murder as that of Karen Sue Beineman. If they had the wrong man and the murders continued, it would not look good for them.
In fact, with the arrest of Collins, the murders stopped. The main question is whether he had been the only killer, or did he have partners in those crimes?
In regard to the "unfairness" of calling Collins a serial killer when he was only convicted of one murder, I would ask this: If Thoresen was a serial killer, how many murders was he convicted of? Many serial killers have been only convicted of one or two murders, while they are known or suspected of having committed others.
Collins was present in the same close vicinity of all the Michigan Co-ed Murders (and that of Roxie Phillips in California), and was connected in some way with some of the victims. He was identified by witnesses as in the company of Karen Sue Beineman the day she died.
What proof do you offer that Thoresen was ever in Michigan? Not just that he did a lot of traveling - Can you provide any proof that he was in the area of any of the Michigan Co-ed Murders at the time they were committed?
In fact, with the arrest of Collins, the murders stopped. The main question is whether he had been the only killer, or did he have partners in those crimes?
In regard to the "unfairness" of calling Collins a serial killer when he was only convicted of one murder, I would ask this: If Thoresen was a serial killer, how many murders was he convicted of? Many serial killers have been only convicted of one or two murders, while they are known or suspected of having committed others.
Collins was present in the same close vicinity of all the Michigan Co-ed Murders (and that of Roxie Phillips in California), and was connected in some way with some of the victims. He was identified by witnesses as in the company of Karen Sue Beineman the day she died.
What proof do you offer that Thoresen was ever in Michigan? Not just that he did a lot of traveling - Can you provide any proof that he was in the area of any of the Michigan Co-ed Murders at the time they were committed?
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
So what you're saying is, after authorities conducted a years long, statewide investigation (one you called perhaps the largest in the state's history) that turned up nothing, whatsoever, to indicate there was more than one killer, nor has anything else turned up after a half century to indicate there was even though Collins was convicted of but one murder, you float it like it is a possibility.
Meanwhile, you state that there was more evidence that Collins killed Phillips than the others, though no one seemed interested in prosecuting him for it. Seems kind of a hollow claim.
Overzealous prosecution and framing are vastly different things.
It would appear that in this case two close seated communities, one relatively small, in which universities play an outsized role, experienced a number of horrible murders a large number of which victimized students.
For years investigators came up with absolutely nothing while pressure mounted with each additional murder. Meanwhile, they let their best suspect to date escape like as if out of an episode of the Keystone Cops.
This was an ideal situation for a case of overzealous prosecution.
Meanwhile, you state that there was more evidence that Collins killed Phillips than the others, though no one seemed interested in prosecuting him for it. Seems kind of a hollow claim.
Overzealous prosecution and framing are vastly different things.
It would appear that in this case two close seated communities, one relatively small, in which universities play an outsized role, experienced a number of horrible murders a large number of which victimized students.
For years investigators came up with absolutely nothing while pressure mounted with each additional murder. Meanwhile, they let their best suspect to date escape like as if out of an episode of the Keystone Cops.
This was an ideal situation for a case of overzealous prosecution.
Last edited:
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
Maybe it's a co-incidence that the vehicle driven by the suspect who was trying to get Fleszar into his car sounds like the car a guy who could not have sounded more like Thoresen (by no less than three witnesses) was seen in at Lake Berryessa minutes before the attacks there.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen owned a Honda-350.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen and Collins were the same height.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen and Collins had similar hair color.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen and Collins wore their hair the same length.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen and Collins wore their hair parted on the left
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen was a suspect in numerous brutal murders in the Midwest prior to these killings.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen was violent and nomadic as can be.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen's vehicles had out-of-state plates, which would explain authorities inability to find a suspect via vehicle records searches.
Maybe it's a coincidence that, for all this evidence you claim there was against Collins, he was barely convicted of but one of these murders.
Maybe it's a coincidence that prosecutors failed to find a motive for Collins to have murdered anyone.
Maybe it's a coincidence that Collins had a solid alibi for the night the guy police said the murderer ran from them.
Maybe it's a coincidence that most of these crimes remain unsolved (and Thoresen has been dead since 1970.)
Maybe it's a coincidence that, all these years later, with all that's known about serial killers, Collins seems an unlikely killer.
Maybe it's a coincidence that the prosecution's star witness in this case changed her story numerous times and was proven to be a liar during the trial.
Maybe it's a coincidence that the "evidence" to convict came from a cop's basement and cops were harassing a witness to lie in court.
Maybe it's a coincidence that Collins seems to have been too smart, had he been a killer, to parade a victim around town on his motorcycle at that time when police were looking for the killer on every block.
Any of these things individually could be coincidence. No doubt about it.
Collectively, they are proof that Thorsen not only was in Michigan, but he committed these crimes.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen owned a Honda-350.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen and Collins were the same height.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen and Collins had similar hair color.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen and Collins wore their hair the same length.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen and Collins wore their hair parted on the left
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen was a suspect in numerous brutal murders in the Midwest prior to these killings.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen was violent and nomadic as can be.
Maybe it's a coincidence Thoresen's vehicles had out-of-state plates, which would explain authorities inability to find a suspect via vehicle records searches.
Maybe it's a coincidence that, for all this evidence you claim there was against Collins, he was barely convicted of but one of these murders.
Maybe it's a coincidence that prosecutors failed to find a motive for Collins to have murdered anyone.
Maybe it's a coincidence that Collins had a solid alibi for the night the guy police said the murderer ran from them.
Maybe it's a coincidence that most of these crimes remain unsolved (and Thoresen has been dead since 1970.)
Maybe it's a coincidence that, all these years later, with all that's known about serial killers, Collins seems an unlikely killer.
Maybe it's a coincidence that the prosecution's star witness in this case changed her story numerous times and was proven to be a liar during the trial.
Maybe it's a coincidence that the "evidence" to convict came from a cop's basement and cops were harassing a witness to lie in court.
Maybe it's a coincidence that Collins seems to have been too smart, had he been a killer, to parade a victim around town on his motorcycle at that time when police were looking for the killer on every block.
Any of these things individually could be coincidence. No doubt about it.
Collectively, they are proof that Thorsen not only was in Michigan, but he committed these crimes.
Last edited:
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
Thoresen’s wife convinced a jury that he murdered three people. She was acquitted of shooting him five times in the back.
Imagine that, in 1970, years before the burning bed case, the sexist justice system of that era, a woman was acquitted of shooting her husband in the back and killing him.
Imagine what kind of a freaking *advertiser censored* that guy had to be.
The story is amazing. Have you read it? A rich guy running wild, committing bombings, assaults, killing his only sibling to get his money and trying to kill his parents to get their’s. Meanwhile, he destroyed their mansion.
Meanwhile, the feds are chasing him for weapons violations and, when they bust him, he has seventy tons of weapons. Yet, he doesn’t spend a day in jail for this though he has been a lifelong, violent felon, an extremely dangerous guy.
It is incredible. The book is called Sympathy Vote.
Oh, and there’s a sequel about all the evidence that he was the Zodiac in addition to the murderer of dozens of other people.
Imagine that, in 1970, years before the burning bed case, the sexist justice system of that era, a woman was acquitted of shooting her husband in the back and killing him.
Imagine what kind of a freaking *advertiser censored* that guy had to be.
The story is amazing. Have you read it? A rich guy running wild, committing bombings, assaults, killing his only sibling to get his money and trying to kill his parents to get their’s. Meanwhile, he destroyed their mansion.
Meanwhile, the feds are chasing him for weapons violations and, when they bust him, he has seventy tons of weapons. Yet, he doesn’t spend a day in jail for this though he has been a lifelong, violent felon, an extremely dangerous guy.
It is incredible. The book is called Sympathy Vote.
Oh, and there’s a sequel about all the evidence that he was the Zodiac in addition to the murderer of dozens of other people.
Last edited:
If Karen Sue Beineman was abducted and murdered on 23 July 1969, and her body found three days later on 26 July 1969, and then John Norman Collins was arrested on 30 July 1969, how do you come up with the murders having stopped "months earlier"? Again, twisting simple facts for your narrative.
Your argument that because the police search of motor vehicle registrations did not produce any suspects that this is Proof that the killer was from out of state, and that Thoresen must have been the killer is a theory that defies any kind of logic. The absence of information from a limited search of records for a Honda or a Triumph motorcycle registered in the Ypsilanti area is far from any kind of proof that the unknown (at the time) motorcycle was a specific one from out of state owned by Thoresen.
In fact, no vehicle records search ever came up with the name of John Norman Collins either - because the motorcycles he had in his possession were stolen. The records search DID come up with the name of the true owner of the blue Triumph motorcycle identified as the one Collins rode away on with Karen Sue Beineman. It was owned by a fraternity brother of Collins, who had reported it stolen some months earlier. When the trial was over, it was returned to him.
You state that "Thoresen was a suspect in numerous brutal murders in the Midwest prior to these killings." How many of those murders was he convicted of?
Even if all of your stated coincidences were true, where is your proof that Thoresen was in Michigan at the times and places of the Co-ed murders?
The crime scene of Karen Sue Beineman's murder was not just a "cop's basement". It was the basement of the house owned by the Aunt and Uncle of John Norman Collins. Collins was the only person who had access to that house while they were away on vacation. The fact that his Uncle was a State Police Trooper was perhaps the downfall of the very careful Collins. Because of that cop's experience and training, he noticed things that were out of the norm, and knew to report it and to allow forensic experts to investigate his home for suspected evidence.
In spite of Collins' efforts to clean up the scene, and to paint over what he thought were blood stains, evidence was found which conclusively linked Karen Sue Beineman with that basement.
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
That was my bad, the timeframe between Beineman and the arrest.
But it's hardly an example of me twisting the narrative.
The twisting of the narrative was done in court. Anyone reading the cross examination of Goshe and her earlier statements can see this, not to mention police harassment of what was likely numerous witnesses.
Meanwhile you, nor anyone else, have not come up with a motive for Collins to have murdered Beineman, nor explain why he has constantly been called a serial killer despite only having one conviction.
Or why anyone would believe that he would ride Beineman around town in broad daylight or murder her in the basement of his brother in law's (who was a cop) house.
This stretches the bounds of believability as much as that paid quack who testified about the hair from the basement with his scientific method that was never again heard of in a court of law.
Gacy is considered a serial killer because there's evidence that he murdered numerous people.
Dahmer is considered a serial killer because there's evidence he murdered numerous people.
Bundy is considered a serial killer because there's evidence he murdered numerous people.
You're always talking about evidence. The murders stopping when police said that the killer (who clearly was not Collins) was nearly pinched is not evidence that Collins did squat. This one event was clearly reasonable doubt as to Collins' guilt.
Meanwhile, your incessant efforts to prop up a flimsy, and today totally unbelievable case, that some 21-year-old student from YPSILANTI (ha ha) had the ability to get away with, let alone let alone motivation to commit, five or more murders, a guy who had no priors, no violence in his past when some of these victims appear to have been tortured for hours...get real.
Then you talk about passing a bad check, or selling stolen stolen property when, unfortunately, people pass bad checks and steal things all of the time, as if these things (which were clearly smears because Collins had no priors, no assaults, and was a ridiculous candidate for these crimes) don't reveal the utter weakness of the case against him.
At this point people have to be wondering who you, a "well known member" who no one apparently knows, are. You won't provide anything that can be verified and conspicuously you ignore the point and why you're doing this because it's ridiculous. You accuse me of personally attacking you when your screen name, propping up the conviction of Collins, and secretiveness couldn't make you sound more like a spook, "Richard."
Seeing that the last 50 years of what is now common knowledge about serial killers and the revelation of Thoresen (have you read any of the books regarding him?) appear to have torpedoed the SS Collins Conviction, it would be no surprise if you were.
But it's hardly an example of me twisting the narrative.
The twisting of the narrative was done in court. Anyone reading the cross examination of Goshe and her earlier statements can see this, not to mention police harassment of what was likely numerous witnesses.
Meanwhile you, nor anyone else, have not come up with a motive for Collins to have murdered Beineman, nor explain why he has constantly been called a serial killer despite only having one conviction.
Or why anyone would believe that he would ride Beineman around town in broad daylight or murder her in the basement of his brother in law's (who was a cop) house.
This stretches the bounds of believability as much as that paid quack who testified about the hair from the basement with his scientific method that was never again heard of in a court of law.
Gacy is considered a serial killer because there's evidence that he murdered numerous people.
Dahmer is considered a serial killer because there's evidence he murdered numerous people.
Bundy is considered a serial killer because there's evidence he murdered numerous people.
You're always talking about evidence. The murders stopping when police said that the killer (who clearly was not Collins) was nearly pinched is not evidence that Collins did squat. This one event was clearly reasonable doubt as to Collins' guilt.
Meanwhile, your incessant efforts to prop up a flimsy, and today totally unbelievable case, that some 21-year-old student from YPSILANTI (ha ha) had the ability to get away with, let alone let alone motivation to commit, five or more murders, a guy who had no priors, no violence in his past when some of these victims appear to have been tortured for hours...get real.
Then you talk about passing a bad check, or selling stolen stolen property when, unfortunately, people pass bad checks and steal things all of the time, as if these things (which were clearly smears because Collins had no priors, no assaults, and was a ridiculous candidate for these crimes) don't reveal the utter weakness of the case against him.
At this point people have to be wondering who you, a "well known member" who no one apparently knows, are. You won't provide anything that can be verified and conspicuously you ignore the point and why you're doing this because it's ridiculous. You accuse me of personally attacking you when your screen name, propping up the conviction of Collins, and secretiveness couldn't make you sound more like a spook, "Richard."
Seeing that the last 50 years of what is now common knowledge about serial killers and the revelation of Thoresen (have you read any of the books regarding him?) appear to have torpedoed the SS Collins Conviction, it would be no surprise if you were.
Last edited:
Clearly, your understanding of the rules of evidence is whatever you want to disregard and make up. Motive is not something that has to be in court in order to convict someone of murder. It is often introduced as a circumstance, but it is not proof in and of itself that a person committed a crime.
All of the persons that you mention as serial killers murdered due to motivations that are not "normal". You cannot say that any of them walked around with a sign around their neck stating that they were serial killers. They all appeared normal, or even like "nice guys" in their everyday personas. Why did they kill? Good question, and one that begs answers. But none of them did so for the common reasons of committing homicide - such as greed, jealousy, anger, fear, hatred, etc. These fiends simply liked to kill, torture, humiliate, and rape. They didn't need any other reason or "motive". It is what they do.
Your examples would tend to argue against your belief that one has to be convicted of multiple murders to be considered a serial killer. Compare the number of murders that these guys were actually convicted of with those they are suspected of. You argue that Collins is not a serial killer because he was only convicted of one murder, but that Thoresen was the ultimate serial killer when he was not convicted of any murders.
Passing bad checks, stealing the identification of another, theft of motor vehicles and trailers, theft of firearms, breaking into the homes of others, theft of cash, jewelry, other items, etc. None of these crimes in and of themselves (or taken individually) would necessarily indicate that the person would abduct, torture, or murder someone. But this continued sort of illegal behavior is indicative of someone who has absolutely no respect for the law. He felt he was above the law and could do whatever he whished. That, in part, may have contributed to Collins' motivation to commit more heinous crimes.
However, none of this was introduced in his trial for murdering Karen Sue Beineman. He was found guilty based on the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense in court.
Collins was very careful to clean up after himself - as seen by his meticulous detail cleaning of the stolen trailer in California, his Oldsmobile, and the Leik family basement. He was also careful to dispose of a box of souvenirs and a hunting knife (also carefully wiped clean of any blood or fingerprints). As careful as Collins was, however, he screwed up. He overplayed his hand when he was seen with Karen and then took her to his aunt and uncle's house.
Anyone who reads this thread can see where you have made personal attacks on me, by calling me a liar, a spook, and any number of other names. Whenever you are asked to provide solid evidence of your theories, you have resorted to personal attacks and disparaging remarks about me. I am not the story here. If you want to see my writings, simply use the search function here and read what I have written on this and other cases. There are well over 8,700 posts written over the past 17 years.
All of the persons that you mention as serial killers murdered due to motivations that are not "normal". You cannot say that any of them walked around with a sign around their neck stating that they were serial killers. They all appeared normal, or even like "nice guys" in their everyday personas. Why did they kill? Good question, and one that begs answers. But none of them did so for the common reasons of committing homicide - such as greed, jealousy, anger, fear, hatred, etc. These fiends simply liked to kill, torture, humiliate, and rape. They didn't need any other reason or "motive". It is what they do.
Your examples would tend to argue against your belief that one has to be convicted of multiple murders to be considered a serial killer. Compare the number of murders that these guys were actually convicted of with those they are suspected of. You argue that Collins is not a serial killer because he was only convicted of one murder, but that Thoresen was the ultimate serial killer when he was not convicted of any murders.
Passing bad checks, stealing the identification of another, theft of motor vehicles and trailers, theft of firearms, breaking into the homes of others, theft of cash, jewelry, other items, etc. None of these crimes in and of themselves (or taken individually) would necessarily indicate that the person would abduct, torture, or murder someone. But this continued sort of illegal behavior is indicative of someone who has absolutely no respect for the law. He felt he was above the law and could do whatever he whished. That, in part, may have contributed to Collins' motivation to commit more heinous crimes.
However, none of this was introduced in his trial for murdering Karen Sue Beineman. He was found guilty based on the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense in court.
Collins was very careful to clean up after himself - as seen by his meticulous detail cleaning of the stolen trailer in California, his Oldsmobile, and the Leik family basement. He was also careful to dispose of a box of souvenirs and a hunting knife (also carefully wiped clean of any blood or fingerprints). As careful as Collins was, however, he screwed up. He overplayed his hand when he was seen with Karen and then took her to his aunt and uncle's house.
Anyone who reads this thread can see where you have made personal attacks on me, by calling me a liar, a spook, and any number of other names. Whenever you are asked to provide solid evidence of your theories, you have resorted to personal attacks and disparaging remarks about me. I am not the story here. If you want to see my writings, simply use the search function here and read what I have written on this and other cases. There are well over 8,700 posts written over the past 17 years.
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
Another reason to doubt that Collins was behind any of these crimes is that prolific killers almost exclusively are products of larger metro areas.
Gacy, Chicago.
Bundy, Tacoma.
Dahmer, Milwaukee.
Then there's Collins of...Ypsilanti? This is another major aspect of him that does not fit.
Meanwhile, in a day when serial killers were a far more rare entity, you have Zodiac, a killer who made massive turns in his MOs, attacking at night and then during the day and attacking with guns and then a knife. Such turns are rare.
This while, at the same time only with more than enough days in between for one to travel from CA to MI (I'm sure this is another coincidence), you have someone attacking in Ann-Arbor and Ypsilanti and, like Zodiac, making huge in MOs, attacking at dusk and late at night by car and then, by day on motorcycle. And, as with Zodiac, you have him shooting with a small caliber firearm and stabbing as well.
These things strongly imply it was the same guy.
You may say "but wait, Zodiac wrote letters and called the cops." Yes, but not before the Michigan murders ended.
Regarding twisting the narrative, I said you sound like a spook, not that you are one (there you go again, twisting the narrative.) You have the opportunity to reveal who you are and you don't. Also, rather than pick some screen name that sounds like most, you pick one that sounds like an actual person's name yet reveals nothing. That is spook like.
That said, if you are not a spook, you did it to imply that you are somehow more genuine (and, ostensibly credible) than someone who posts under screen names like Spacejunk or Winward, only without revealing anything more because it's just your first name, which reveals nothing. If so, you are misleading in this respect as well.
And you are all over this site with voluminous postings like you're an authority on something but you hide in the shadows. If we were talking about politics or baseball no one would care. But we're talking about murders, many unsolved, possible government corruption, etcetera.
You can keep hiding and implying, baselessly, that I am a bully for saying what this looks like. But if you want to be an authority and want credibility "lay it all on the table so people can understand," as Johnny Carson once said.
Until then, people can disagree with me but at least they know I'm not hiding from anyone for any reason. How about you? If you're going to go to bat for the status quo 24/7, it's going to be meaningless if people don't know why and who you are.
Gacy, Chicago.
Bundy, Tacoma.
Dahmer, Milwaukee.
Then there's Collins of...Ypsilanti? This is another major aspect of him that does not fit.
Meanwhile, in a day when serial killers were a far more rare entity, you have Zodiac, a killer who made massive turns in his MOs, attacking at night and then during the day and attacking with guns and then a knife. Such turns are rare.
This while, at the same time only with more than enough days in between for one to travel from CA to MI (I'm sure this is another coincidence), you have someone attacking in Ann-Arbor and Ypsilanti and, like Zodiac, making huge in MOs, attacking at dusk and late at night by car and then, by day on motorcycle. And, as with Zodiac, you have him shooting with a small caliber firearm and stabbing as well.
These things strongly imply it was the same guy.
You may say "but wait, Zodiac wrote letters and called the cops." Yes, but not before the Michigan murders ended.
Regarding twisting the narrative, I said you sound like a spook, not that you are one (there you go again, twisting the narrative.) You have the opportunity to reveal who you are and you don't. Also, rather than pick some screen name that sounds like most, you pick one that sounds like an actual person's name yet reveals nothing. That is spook like.
That said, if you are not a spook, you did it to imply that you are somehow more genuine (and, ostensibly credible) than someone who posts under screen names like Spacejunk or Winward, only without revealing anything more because it's just your first name, which reveals nothing. If so, you are misleading in this respect as well.
And you are all over this site with voluminous postings like you're an authority on something but you hide in the shadows. If we were talking about politics or baseball no one would care. But we're talking about murders, many unsolved, possible government corruption, etcetera.
You can keep hiding and implying, baselessly, that I am a bully for saying what this looks like. But if you want to be an authority and want credibility "lay it all on the table so people can understand," as Johnny Carson once said.
Until then, people can disagree with me but at least they know I'm not hiding from anyone for any reason. How about you? If you're going to go to bat for the status quo 24/7, it's going to be meaningless if people don't know why and who you are.
Last edited:
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
I'm open to criticism. I wrote two books. The first basically reveals that a guy who hardly anyone heard of, or remembers, committed a once notorious unsolved murder that, for a long time at least, hardly anyone remembered.
The second book argues that he murdered an additional 46 people, including the victims of Zodiac, and that the government has known this since mid-1970 and worked to cover it up.
I'll admit that sounds crazy. But there's a lot of evidence of this, both that he committed the murders and that a coverup followed and it's easy to understand why. He was dead and if what happened got out there would have been Hell to pay.
The FBI was getting information on many of the murders but what did the FBI know about serial killers in the nineteen sixties? (However, their notorious secrecy arguably allowed the guilty to escape punishment for the murder in my first book and allowed him to murder many, many others. Hence the coverup.)
Meanwhile, the guy's criminal history is, as one person I saw describe it, completely insane. He was from an ultra-wealthy family. Yet he robbed stores and residences and he and his brother destroyed his family's mansion before he murdered the brother for money and out of jealousy and, later, the guy who he hired to do it.
In between this he was violently assaulting people, setting off bombs, and illegally purchasing and transporting virtually every kind of military weapon, up to and including Howitzers.
He blew through the equivalent of millions of dollars while, I believe, killing his way across the country numerous times. The end of his life and destruction of his resources screams of a guy who was addicted to killing.
I don't think anyone's worried if I'm wrong. I do think they may be wondering if I'm right. I think some of them will find things about him that I missed. If fact, I know some of them already have.
All I can say is, for anyone interested in outrageous true crime stories, you're missing out if you don't know William Thoresen III's story.
The second book argues that he murdered an additional 46 people, including the victims of Zodiac, and that the government has known this since mid-1970 and worked to cover it up.
I'll admit that sounds crazy. But there's a lot of evidence of this, both that he committed the murders and that a coverup followed and it's easy to understand why. He was dead and if what happened got out there would have been Hell to pay.
The FBI was getting information on many of the murders but what did the FBI know about serial killers in the nineteen sixties? (However, their notorious secrecy arguably allowed the guilty to escape punishment for the murder in my first book and allowed him to murder many, many others. Hence the coverup.)
Meanwhile, the guy's criminal history is, as one person I saw describe it, completely insane. He was from an ultra-wealthy family. Yet he robbed stores and residences and he and his brother destroyed his family's mansion before he murdered the brother for money and out of jealousy and, later, the guy who he hired to do it.
In between this he was violently assaulting people, setting off bombs, and illegally purchasing and transporting virtually every kind of military weapon, up to and including Howitzers.
He blew through the equivalent of millions of dollars while, I believe, killing his way across the country numerous times. The end of his life and destruction of his resources screams of a guy who was addicted to killing.
I don't think anyone's worried if I'm wrong. I do think they may be wondering if I'm right. I think some of them will find things about him that I missed. If fact, I know some of them already have.
All I can say is, for anyone interested in outrageous true crime stories, you're missing out if you don't know William Thoresen III's story.
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
Another thing, not only does Collins being from a town the size of Ypsilanti and him having no priors not fit him being a serial killer, he was also 21 when arrested. He not only lacked the resume, he was most certainly too young .
Meanwhile, Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy, etc., were all in their 30s when caught.
Richard Ramirez, as violent and dangerous a killer as they come, was 24 before he committed his first murder. It’s believed Bundy was, at minimum, 25 before he killed anyone. Gacy may have been days from, or already had, turned 30 by the time of his first murder.
In his best Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat voice:
“You think this was all the work of Little John Collins from Ypsilanti?”
Not only that, this is further reason to believe he didn’t kill Beineman. Meanwhile, it’s all over the web, books, etc., for years that he is a “serial killer.”
I'm right. This was Thoresen and it was cover up. Read the books, you'll see.
Meanwhile, Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy, etc., were all in their 30s when caught.
Richard Ramirez, as violent and dangerous a killer as they come, was 24 before he committed his first murder. It’s believed Bundy was, at minimum, 25 before he killed anyone. Gacy may have been days from, or already had, turned 30 by the time of his first murder.
In his best Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat voice:
“You think this was all the work of Little John Collins from Ypsilanti?”
Not only that, this is further reason to believe he didn’t kill Beineman. Meanwhile, it’s all over the web, books, etc., for years that he is a “serial killer.”
I'm right. This was Thoresen and it was cover up. Read the books, you'll see.
The key phrase here would be "in their 30's when caught". In fact, Dahmer committed his first murder at age 20, circumstantial evidence suggests that Bundy may have abducted and killed eight-year-old Ann Marie Barr of Tacoma when he was 14 years old in 1961, and John Wayne Gacy, at age 20, climbed into a casket with the dead body of a teenaged boy when working for a mortuary. It is indeed sad that these maggots were in their 30's when finally caught and put away, because by that time they had each murdered numerous victims.
Collins was actually 22 when arrested, but comparing him to these others does not make him innocent of the murder for which he was convicted - and it is really a quantum leap to state that it proves that Thoresen was the actual killer of not only Karen Sue Beineman, but all the others as well. Especially when there is no evidence that he was even in the state at the time of any of the murders.
The size of a town might play into the serial killer scenario in some ways, but it is not a mandatory requirement on the resume of a potential killer. One could argue that perhaps because a city is large, a criminal might be more able to evade discovery by legal authorities, while a killer living in a smaller city or town might be more easily identified and captured. I do not know of any studies that would confirm your theory that serial killers all come from large municipal cities.
To be clear, Collins was convicted of only one murder in Michigan. A California grand jury indicted him for the murder of Roxie Ann Phillips and requested his extradition to stand trial for that charge. Michigan governor Milliken waited until all of Collins's appeals were complete (and ruled on) before notifying California that he was available for extradition. By that time, California declined to press the issue and he has remained in prison in Michigan ever since.
Last edited:
Winward1
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 191
Even if Collins did commit the murder he was convicted of, which it’s clear he completely lacked the resume for, there is the mystery of why it was all over the media that he is a “serial killer” when there is no evidence he is one and there are numerous reasons to believe he is not one, including his age and the size of the town where he is from.
That just does not add up.
Put that together with the divergence between the intitial reports of the motorcycle and what it became during the trial, at least one witness being threatened if they didn’t lie during a trial, and Thoresen being killed before the trial, meaning the powers that be had plenty of time to learn he was guilty of fifty plus murders and if it got out it would have been the end of Hoover and perhaps the FBI as it was known.
Then you look at Thoresen. At the time of these murders he was in the prime age to be a serial killer and he was from the the town that produced Gacy and HH Holmes.
Another couple of coincidences to add to the pile.
Meanwhile, Dahmer was not a serial killer at the time of his first murder, there’s no evidence Bundy killed that girl. You just pulled that speculation out of your butt. Speaking of circumstantial evidence there’s a ton that Thoresen commented these murders including Beineman. There were three vehicles liked to this case. Thoresen was linked to or owned two of them and rented cars in the Midwest all of the time, which could explain the red Pontiac. That can’t be said about little John Collins from little Ypsilanti.
That just does not add up.
Put that together with the divergence between the intitial reports of the motorcycle and what it became during the trial, at least one witness being threatened if they didn’t lie during a trial, and Thoresen being killed before the trial, meaning the powers that be had plenty of time to learn he was guilty of fifty plus murders and if it got out it would have been the end of Hoover and perhaps the FBI as it was known.
Then you look at Thoresen. At the time of these murders he was in the prime age to be a serial killer and he was from the the town that produced Gacy and HH Holmes.
Another couple of coincidences to add to the pile.
Meanwhile, Dahmer was not a serial killer at the time of his first murder, there’s no evidence Bundy killed that girl. You just pulled that speculation out of your butt. Speaking of circumstantial evidence there’s a ton that Thoresen commented these murders including Beineman. There were three vehicles liked to this case. Thoresen was linked to or owned two of them and rented cars in the Midwest all of the time, which could explain the red Pontiac. That can’t be said about little John Collins from little Ypsilanti.
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 202
- Guests online
- 3,577
- Total visitors
- 3,779