Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: "The Backpacker Murderer" Ivan Milat Pt. 1

Episode Date: August 31, 2026

Ivan Milat grew up in a volatile Sydney household surrounded by weapons, abuse, and fourteen siblings. By his teens, he was already hurting animals, and allegedly... people. After a series of robberies, a sexual assault, and a faked suicide, Milat walked free from every charge and used steady road work to move unseen through Australia's most isolated stretches of highway. This episode traces how years of escaping consequences shaped one of Australia's most terrifying serial killers.If you’re new here, don’t forget to follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds to never miss a case! Want all 2 parts of every case all at once? Join Crime House+ and get both parts of each case dropped together on Monday ad-free. Join at crimehouseplus.com or if you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, tap “Try Free” at the top of this show’s page. Serial Killers & Murderous Minds is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios.🎧 Need More to Binge? Listen to other Crime House Originals Clues, Crimes Of Reddit, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts!Follow me on SocialInstagram: @CrimehouseTikTok: @CrimehouseFacebook: @crimehousestudiosYouTube: @crimehousestudios

Hi listeners, it's Vanessa. Are you the type to fall down an internet rabbit hole and not come up for hours? You'll love Crimes of Reddit, a new crimehouse original with Sabrina Deanna Roga and Alexis Linkletter. Every week, one host brings real true crime stories from Reddit, while the other reacts completely blind. No prep, no spoilers, then they swap. It's the feeling of sending your group chat a threat at 2 a.m. that starts with, You have to see this. Except Sabrina and Alexis. are in the chat with you. Follow Crimes of Reddit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify or subscribe

at Crimes of Reddit Pod on YouTube. This is Crime House. Growing up, most of us got into a little trouble at one point or another. Maybe you stayed out too late, snuck out of the house, or pushed the limits to see just how much you could get away with before someone noticed. Eventually, most of us grow up and learn that actions have consequences. and that boundaries exist for a reason. But not everyone comes to see it that way. Ivan Millett never learned that lesson.

Rules meant nothing to him and consequences rarely stuck. By the 1960s and 70s, he wasn't just committing crimes. He was learning how to offend, hide, and walk away. Over time, that pattern would escalate into something far darker, until Ivan became one of Australia's most terrifying killers. The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate. But sometimes it drives people to commit the unthinkable.

This is serial killers and murderous minds, a crimehouse original. I'm Vanessa Richardson. And I'm forensic psychologist, Dr. Tristan Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer. Crime House exists because of listeners like you. Want even more? Join Crime House Plus and get both parts of every story

dropped on the same Monday, completely ad-free. No waiting three days for part two, plus Crime House bonus episodes every month. To join, go to Crimehouseplus.com, or if you listen on Apple Podcasts, tap Try Free at the top of the serial killers and murderous minds page. Before we get started, be advised this episode contains descriptions of violence against animals and sexual violence against women.

So please listen with care. Today we begin our deep dive on Ivan Millette, not Milat, as is commonly pronounced. But however you say his name, he's a killer whose violence didn't come out of nowhere, but grew from years of recklessness and defiance. We'll trace Ivan's early life in a chaotic, crowded home, where boundaries barely existed, and follow how a fearless boy who ran from from consequences grew into one of Australia's most notorious killers. As Vanessa goes through the story, I'll be talking about things like how early exposure to

weapons and chaos can distort a child's sense of danger, what it means when violence begins as fun and whether that can ever be rewired and how Ivan avoided real consequences for serious crimes and why each escape seemed to emboldened him. And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? Before the Great Outdoors became the backdrop for Ivan Millett's crimes, it was his playground. Ivan Robert Marco Millett was born on December 27, 1944 in New South Wales, Australia. From the beginning, Ivan grew up in a home that was crowded, loud, and constantly in motion. He was the fifth of 14 children born to his parents, Stephen and Margaret. And the Millette kids were impossible to contain. Stephen worked long hours

doing physically demanding labor to support the family. While he was away, Margaret did her best to raise her children with structure. They were sent to Catholic schools, where they were expected to follow rules, keep their grades up, and be disciplined if they didn't. School offered the children a sense of routine that their home sometimes lacked. Eventually, Stephen and Margaret knew they had to make a change. Despite how hard Stephen worked, they had 14 mouths to feed. They were barely getting by. So when Ivan was still young, the family moved to a suburb of Sydney called Liverpool, where Stephen found steadier work as a stonemason. Over time, he saved up enough money to start his own tomato farm.

But while the move gave the family more stability on paper, life inside the home was anything but calm. Ivan's father had a temper, and according to some family members, that temper was often made worse by alcohol. Screaming matches inside the home between Stephen and his wife weren't uncommon, and he was often physically abusive toward Margaret in front of their kids. But the home wasn't just emotionally unstable, it was physically unsafe, too. Stephen had a fondness for weapons and kept guns and knives within easy reach around the home. He used them constantly for target practice, for hunting, for his own enjoyment, until to his kids, they didn't seem dangerous at all. Ivan and his siblings grew up watching their

father use violence inside the home. They heard the screaming matches, saw the abuse, and had access to the knives and guns he kept nearby. And they didn't just see those weapons. They used them. Ivan and his brothers often shot guns at targets in their own front yard and roamed through the bush around them, hunting animals. This is why social learning theory is so powerful. and child development. Children learn behaviors, attitudes, and values by observing, imitating, and modeling the people around them. But it's not only what they're explicitly taught that's important, it's also what's normalized as well. If weapons and violence are being normalized, especially in an environment like his that's chaotic and aggressive,

then they won't necessarily be seen as something significant in their environment, not in the way that they would in other environments where they aren't normalized. this can also cause desensitization. They can also become associated with familiarity, competence, authority, or even excitement, rather than risk, danger, or consequences. And my caveats, that doesn't mean a child exposed to violence will become violent. So many children are exposed to violence and they will never harm anyone. But children are constantly learning what problems look like, how power is expressed,

and how conflict is handled by watching the adults around them. And if in his household aggression is repeatedly modeled as a way of responding to the world, then that's the template that Ivan has to work with. And you can already see hints of that there. Ivan's shooting firearms from his front yard with little appreciation for the potential danger and the risks involved in that. Is there a difference between a child being taught how to use weapons responsibly versus a child being exposed to weapons in a chaotic or aggressive environment like Ivan was?

Well, absolutely there's a significant difference. The difference is in what the child learns the weapons represent. I mean, ideally, for example, they're taught that weapons are used for hunting, sport, work, or protection, and they have age-appropriate conversations about firearms in the home or other weapons to address the curiosity for injury prevention or to teach appropriate. use of them. They should be taught to be treated as dangerous tools that require discipline, responsibility, and respect, not tools for anger, intimidation, or power over other people. Well, in that crowded, volatile house, the everyday exposure to weapons and violence made it

hard to tell where Ivan's reckless streak ended and where something darker began. Around the age of 13, Ivan developed a violent temper, and he could be especially cruel to his siblings. Around the same time, he started sneaking out at night with a single goal to attack any animal he could find with a machete, even the family pets. He was doing it just for fun, and he felt no shame. Ivan once bragged to someone he knew about how he'd killed a dog simply because he felt like it. I want to just say that animal cruelty is overstated in popular culture, even the psychiatrist who proposed the McDonald triad, which he believed predicted future violent behavior, which is animal cruelty, fire setting, bed wetting, what we clinically call

aneurysis, he walked it back five years later because it couldn't be validated. It's still a warning sign, though, that shouldn't be ignored. Generally, now it's an indication of an abusive or traumatic home. Obviously, there are always exceptions, but what stands out to me here is that he has had enjoyment of this. That points to callous unemotional traits, which are a set of characteristics in youth that are often a precursor to adult psychopathy. They consist of distinct lack of empathy, a lack of remorse or guilt for harmful actions, shallow affect, and a general uncaring attitude about his behavior. That's a different clinical picture than just animal cruelty alone. Well, that reckless behavior eventually became serious enough that by the late 1950s when Ivan was 13, his parents stepped in.

He was sent to a Catholic reform school for troubled boys, where the goal was to put him back on a more stable path. While Ivan was there, his days were highly regimented. He followed a strict routine that included trade work, tending a farm, cooking, cleaning, and religious study. Everything about the environment was designed to break bad habits and teach control. And for a while, to work. During his two years there, Ivan stayed out of any serious trouble. Routine is very stabilizing, especially for someone coming from chaotic home environments where there is no routine. Having regular expectations, consistency, and adults who model appropriate behavior can help regulate their behavior and provide stability they may not have experience

before. But simply removing Ivan from his home doesn't necessarily address any underlying issues that brought him there. If a child experienced chronic violence, emotional neglect, or has already developed serious behavioral problems, teaching trade skills, assigning chores, or enforcing discipline may improve behavior in the short term, but he needs therapeutic interventions to address how to think about relationships, communicate effectively, develop empathy, or treat aggression. And Ivan has definitely been exhibiting some behavioral concerns that require therapeutic. intervention. And not to mention, a lot of these improvements tend to fail the moment these children are placed right back into the same environment that they were before where all of this stability was

lacking. When a child is sent away as a punishment, is there a risk that they don't interpret it as help, but maybe they interpret it instead as rejection? Yes, especially during adolescence, because it's a critical period for identity development. Being sent away can reinforce very different messages depending on how the child interprets the experience. Some children see it as an opportunity to change. Others experience it as rejection or abandonment. And I've certainly worked with patients who experience it as the latter, particularly those who came from emotionally neglectful homes. Often there was very little communication surrounding the decision to send them off to begin with. No one truly explained why they were.

were being sent away, as in their caregiver, whoever that might be, didn't help them distinguish between their behavior and their worth as a person, meaning it was the behavior and the behaviors they were seeing that needed to change, not that they were a bad or unlovable child. That distinction is really important. And in some cases, contact with their family while they were there was also limited or inconsistent or their family just didn't even make contact. when they could have, and that was making them feel less connected or supported while they were away. And that was always a very harmful message that they internalized, especially if there was no one there to help them challenge it.

So that really reinforces the feeling of abandonment. Around the age of 15, Ivan finished his time at the boys' school and came home. He was put straight to work on the family tomato farm alongside his siblings, And it didn't take long to see that whatever structure he'd found at school hadn't come home with him. Before long, Ivan fell right back into his old patterns. He and his brothers were often in trouble for things like stealing, breaking into local properties, and causing problems around town. Sometimes it got so bad, police were called to the Millet home.

But there was a difference between Ivan and his siblings. His brothers seemed to know how far they could push before the consequences turned serious. Ivan didn't have that line. He'd become unusually comfortable with breaking the law, even if it meant hurting someone. There's one violent episode from Ivan's teenage years that never reached a courtroom, at least not with Ivan named in it. It surfaced only decades later in 2015 when his brother Boris came forward and told investigators that Ivan had privately confessed to it. According to Boris, one night when Ivan was around 17, he climbed into the back of a taxi with a gun, meaning to rob the driver. As the cab pulled away, the gun went off.

The shot hit the driver, a man named Neville Knight, and left him paralyzed from the waist down. Ivan ran off before anyone could stop him. Knight survived, but at the time, police had no idea who had shot him. All right, so we have to treat this as an unproven allegation. We don't know if this is even true. It is entirely possible.

Ivan took credit for something he didn't do for attention, reputation, or excitement, particularly given what we've already discussed about his upbringing and the way violence may have been normalized or even glamorized. This could simply be a story he told for attention. And if it were true, then let's think through what it might tell us. Based on Boris's account, it doesn't sound like Ivan set out intending to shoot Neville. And I'm not surprised, though, that he brought a firearm to do this, given his comfort and history with weapons in general. And this isn't the first time we've seen Ivan bring a weapon into a situation with very little regard for the danger or the risk involved.

When he was younger, he was shooting firearms from the front porch. Even then, he was oblivious to the risks of that. So if this allegation were true, it would be another example of him choosing to use a deadly lethal weapon in a circumstance where the harm was obvious, at least to all of us, and it really emphasizes how normalized weapons seemingly are to him, regardless of the environment. If someone does commit that level of violence as a teenager and faces no consequences, can that mark a turning point psychologically? It can, but not always in the way we imagine. For some, it can be a wake-up call.

It could be the moment that they realize the real risk involved with their behaviors and the need for caution and control. For teenagers especially, they operate with this invincibility. They think they're untouchable. And this could be the moment where they realize the reality of that. And for others, and especially those with callous on emotional traits, who lack the internal restraints that pro-social individuals have, it could be more emboldening, building confidence and even appeal. And for some, it might do absolutely nothing, especially if they're desensitized to guns or gun violence. It really all depends on the individual, their prior exposure, their history, their traits, and their psychology in general.

Well, another man, Alan Dillon, was charged and convicted of that shooting and served roughly five years in prison for it. Ivan himself was never charged over it, but if Boris is telling the truth, it would mean Ivan committed his first act of serious violence as a teenager, and let an innocent man take the fall. Whether or not that shooting happened the way Boris described, Ivan's documented record tells its own story,

and it isn't one of a young man learning to stop. Instead of pulling back, he pushed further, as if consequences were something that happened to other people. And soon, two young women would cross his path and barely escape him. By his late teens, Ivan Millett had built up a criminal record. And if his own brothers to be believed, he'd already shot and paralyzed a man during a robbery, then watched someone else go to prison for it. And from there, his behavior only escalated.

Ivan became more and more involved in crime around his community. He broke into homes and businesses, stole cars, got into fights, and generally acted like laws and consequences didn't apply to him. Eventually, Ivan's behavior couldn't be dismissed as teenage troublemaking anymore, and the authorities stepped in. That same year of the shooting, Ivan was arrested for robbery and sent a juvenile detention, but the sentence didn't change him. At 19, he was arrested again for breaking into a local store and stealing cars. He was sentenced to hard labor, but even that didn't slow him down.

Soon after, Ivan and some of his brothers were tied to break-ins and robberies at commercial warehouses around Sydney. Police started to see the Millet Boys as more organized and more dangerous, almost. a gang of brothers. And now that Ivan was a legal adult, the system could finally punish him like one. For his involvement in the robberies, Ivan was sentenced to three years in prison, his longest stint yet. So at this point, it does not seem that consequences have been much of a deterrent for Ivan, which isn't uncommon in juveniles with persistent conduct problems who receive little effective intervention and have a history of callous on emotional. traits. We talked earlier about social learning theory. Criminal behavior, especially in families, is often learned, modeled, and reinforced by the people around us as well. That, unfortunately, was part of Ivan's developmental environment. And he came from a very large family and several of his

brothers were involved in criminal behavior as well. And as you said, they were described as a gang of brothers. That can become its own echo chamber. And because of this, prison may have been normalized around him as well. It doesn't always carry the same psychological meaning in like prison. For some people, it's a wake-up call. For others, particularly if criminality has become part of their identity or their social concept, incarceration can reinforce that social concept. It can feel like a badge of honor. From my own experience, working in prisons, younger inmates like Ivan can be especially impressionable when they get in there. Some find mentors who are incarcerated that encourage a more pro-social life and push the younger generation toward education, employment, and rehabilitation.

Others are not so lucky. They become connected with people who expand their criminal networks and teach them new offending skills. Prison has the potential to do both. Which path someone takes depends on the person, the environment, and the opportunities that they're exposed to while they're in there. Is it possible for someone like Ivan to learn how to endure consequences without actually fearing them? Yes. I mean, one thing that can happen is that the consequence becomes less intimidating. Once someone, for example, has been to prison, they know what the worst case scenario looks like. They've experienced it. They've learned the routines adapted to the environment. They've met certain people and they've discovered that they can survive it, especially when they've only had to serve one and a half years of a three-year sentence, for example.

And to some, it's a better alternative than being on the outside on the streets because it provides all of their basic needs. They have shelter, food, clothing, and even medical needs, all in one place. And of course, prison is still an inherently stressful, restrictive, and dangerous place to be. having worked there myself. I mean, I've seen that firsthand. It's a very negative place. But for some individuals, particularly those who already come from chaotic, violent, or unstable lifestyles like Ivan, it's not an environment that necessarily feels foreign to them, not in the way it would to someone who came from a more stable environment. Fear is one of the strongest deterrence we have, but fear depends on things like uncertainty. And once uncertainty is replaced with more familiarity, fear can lose some of its power to some people. By his early 20s, Ivan had already built up a serious criminal record, but he didn't seem interested in actually reforming. He just wanted to look like he had. After he was released, Ivan got a job with the water sewerage and drainage board.

On paper, it was steady, legitimate work. Ivan dug trenches, operated machinery, repaired line breaks and cleared blockages across a wide service network. The job also kept him on the road. He traveled between work sites hundreds of miles apart. And over time, he learned Australia's back roads, its isolated stretches of land, and the places most people had no reason to go. From the outside, it may have looked like Ivan had turned a corner. He had a job, a routine, and a reason to stay out of trouble. And Ivan understood appearances. He lifted weights, kept himself clean-cut and presented himself as controlled. Women found him attractive, even charming.

His clothes were neat and ironed. His car was always spotless. Nothing about the way he looked gave away what he was actually capable of. But beneath that polished image, nothing could change who Ivan had always been. Less than two years into his new job, Ivan committed a robbery with one of his brothers. It's not uncommon for people leaving

prison to put considerable effort into their appearance. Think about it. They're trying to rebuild their lives. They need to find employment, form relationships, and reenter society, one that often sees their criminal record. And for those that genuinely want to succeed, I mean, that's their greatest fear. All they're going to see is the fact that they have a criminal record. And I've personally seen that. And I've worked with individuals serving life with the possibility of parole who express that very thing. Their anxiety primarily surrounded how to explain the gaps in their resume without feeling defensive because inevitably they will be asked about their time in prison and how to acclimate to a world that's not going to pause for them to adapt to it. So presenting themselves

as responsible, reliable, and put together is a completely healthy and understandable part of that process. And we all do it, especially for something like a job interview. But those same behaviors can also be about managing other people's perceptions of them for manipulation, especially in someone who's actively seeking to offend, someone like Ivan. What Ivan is doing here can reduce suspicion, increase trust, and help him avoid detection. He's praying on the halo effect. That's one of the reasons that I'm trained not to confuse someone's presentation with their behavior. We don't want to be fooled by the halo effect. People can present themselves in all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons. And that's why we place much

greater weight on patterns of behavior than on first impressions. And the lesson Ivan took from it was the same as always. Not that he should stop, but that he could keep getting away with it. Legal technicalities got him off without a conviction and he walked free. To Ivan, that meant one thing. He was untouchable. On the morning of April 7th, In 1771, the 26-year-old was driving from his parents' home toward his work region near Canberra. Along the way, he came across two young women hitchhiking near a railway station, so he pulled over and offered them a ride. The women were hoping to make their way three hours south. Ivan seemed friendly, polite, and completely unthreatening, so they climbed into his truck. For the first part of the drive, nothing seemed off. Ivan talked with the women. He asked them questions about their lives and shared

details about his own. The conversation kept the mood calm. But that all changed about two hours into the drive. Ivan suddenly pulled off the highway and started driving down secluded, bush-covered roads. He was heading away from traffic, witnesses, and anyone who might hear the women scream. Then he slammed on the brakes. Ivan locked the doors, grabbed a knife, then spun around and threatened to kill the women if they tried to escape. Terrified, the women did as they were told. Ivan sexually assaulted one of them and made it clear he meant to kill them both. But before he could, the women did something Ivan didn't expect. They begged him to let them use a restroom and promised they would come right back, and Ivan believed them.

He was convinced he'd scared them so badly that they wouldn't dare run, even given the chance to get away. So he drove the women he'd just assaulted to a gas station, and the second they got out of his truck, They ran and screamed for help, but Ivan sped away. This tells us something about his expectations, and it kind of gives us a glimpse into how he may have been thinking about other people. Given everything we know about how he was raised and how he has historically used weapons as tools, I mean, he might have believed that the fear he instilled was powerful enough to control their behavior, thus feeling comfortable enough to let them go use the restroom.

And the somewhat isolated area that he drove them to likely contributed to that feeling of control as well. But there's a difference between actual control and perceived control. And his perceived control here was grossly overestimated. And these women saw an opportunity and thankfully he did not. That said, one thing we know from trauma research is that fear doesn't produce a single predictable response. Some people freeze, some people comply, some people fight back, and some wait for the first realistic opportunity to flee. These responses can change from minute to minute depending on how the person assesses their chances of survival. It varies by person and situation, which is why I encourage people to always remember that whenever they ask, well, why didn't they just do this in the moment?

Do you think that letting these hitchhikers out of his control, even briefly, suggest, that Ivan was just becoming too confident in his ability to intimidate and control them? He definitely overestimated his control and that comes from something or somewhere and when we think back to his history, this wouldn't be the first time that he'd taken significant risks

and believed that he'd controlled the outcome somehow. We've already talked about growing up around violence, the use of weapons and the allegation with the taxi driver and being undeterred from consequences, experiences are how we live. learn. It's what shapes expectations. If Ivan repeatedly takes risks, intimidates others, and avoids any kind of consequence, it would not be surprising for him to start expecting to succeed going forward,

regardless of the situation, even as he escalates. And that's one way overconfidence can develop. It's not just about ego. It's about reinforcement from past experiences. Well, this time, Ivan couldn't outrun what he'd done. The women flagged down help and gave the police a clear description of him and his truck. It was enough. Later that same day, officers caught up with Ivan and arrested him. For once, he hadn't been able to move fast enough. He'd been caught for something serious, and he knew it. Still, he had no interest in facing what he'd done. Instead of accepting that his actions had finally caught up with him, he started looking for a way out. And soon, he came up with a plan that he thought would keep him

out of prison forever. By April of 1971, 26-year-old Ivan Millett had been arrested and charged over the abduction of two young women and the rape of one of them. But shortly after that arraignment, the legal system made a terrible mistake. Ivan was granted bail,

and just like that, he was allowed to go home and wait for his next court appearance. But Ivan had no intention of ever showing his face in court again. Once he was out on bail, he came up with a plan to avoid trial altogether. Ivan drove to a well-known Oceanside Cliff in Sydney, a place people were known to go die by suicide. There, he left a pair of his shoes and a note.

He wrote that he couldn't face the shame of the trial or the disgrace he'd brought on his family. Everything about the scene was staged to look like he'd jumped. But Ivan never really jumped. He only wanted the authorities to believe that he had. had. When the police found Ivan's shoes and note, they thought he'd done it. So they searched for his body, but never found any trace of him. That led investigators to believe the current had swept him away and that he was likely dead. But in reality, Ivan was very much alive. It's believed he made his way through Queensland and Victoria before leaving the country for New Zealand.

This is interesting because just a short time ago, we were talking about someone who appeared really confident in his ability to control other people. Now he's staging a suicide, which is essentially the death of his own identity, to avoid going back to prison and facing these charges. So what is driving that? Is it fear? Is it wanting to avoid consequences? You mentioned that he'd do anything to stay out of prison. And I think that is absolutely possible that it is those things. And if we zoom out, one theme seems to run throughout Ivan's behavior since the beginning and its control. Early on, that control became evident through weapons, intimidation, animal cruelty, and violence. Then prison temporarily took much of that away because that's what it's designed to do.

It controls all movements, schedules, and even choices. And now that he's out, we're seeing that control expressed more broadly and more serious. For example, he controls his image now through his appearance for the purposes of manipulation. He's controlling the setting and the method in which he attacks victims. And now he's kidnapping and sexually assaulting. Sexual assault is frequently about power, domination, and control. And now he's attempting to control the investigation itself by staging his suicide. So this makes sense. He understands the seriousness of these charges. and what they can mean for his future. I know earlier we talked about how once someone has been to prison, the uncertainty about it can decrease. They know what to expect. They know they can survive it. But surviving prison isn't the same as wanting to spend decades there.

And his first sentence was relatively short as far as sentences go. It may have become less psychologically intimidating because it was no longer an unknown, but the magnitude of what he stood to lose is different now. If someone has repeatedly sought to control people and outcomes throughout their life, the idea of surrendering all control for possibly decades, especially for someone who needs control, this could be motivation to prevent that, whatever the cost, which is ironic because the best way to prevent that is to just not offend at all. But that's the paradox of Ivan's psychology. The control he needs causes him to offend, and simultaneously the consequences of that offending behavior threaten his control at the same time. Do you think this kind of escape, I guess that's what you can call it, could reinforce the

idea that consequences aren't something he has to accept, but something Ivan can manipulate his way out of? Yeah, possibly, highly probable. But I actually think there are two different ways to look at this. One is developmental. If we're looking back at Ivan's childhood, there's been very little there to teach him about caution, respect for rules, or consideration for consequences at all. Instead, he grew up in an environment where weapons and violence were normalized from an early age. There were no consequences for that.

And like we talked about, that can shape how someone thinks about rules, authority, and accountability. But at the same time, Ivan clearly understands consequences. If he didn't, there'd be no reason to stage a suicide in flee. He understands exactly what's at stake. So I don't think this is someone who lacks awareness of consequences. It's someone who appears willing to risk them. And then when those consequences become immediate or potentially unavoidable in his mind, he shifts to escaping them rather than accepting them or taking responsibility for them. He wants to alter the outcome. And just like that, Ivan had made himself disappear for a while. anyway. At first, his fake suicide seemed to work. The police believed he was dead, but Ivan didn't

disappear completely. He stayed in touch with friends and family members, likely assuming the lie would hold as long as police didn't find him. That turned out to be a mistake. Eventually, someone tipped off the authorities that Ivan might still be alive. The police didn't know where he was, and they didn't even have proof the tip was true. But given his history, it was enough to flip his status from deceased to fugitive. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, Ivan found work through labor jobs that didn't require much background checking. For about two years, he seemed to stay out of trouble. But in 1974, three years after Ivan faked his death, he learned that his mother had suffered a heart attack. He'd always remained close to her, and in a lot of ways, she was the reason he'd been

able to flee in the first place. After his arrest, she was the one who'd paid his bail. Because the Millette family was already so familiar to local police, the authorities suspected there was a good chance Ivan might risk coming back to Australia to see his ailing mother. And they were right. Days after her heart attack, Ivan slipped back into Australia, but when he arrived to check on her, officers were waiting. They took him into custody and reinstated the rape and abduction charges from 1971. As always, Ivan had no intention of going down without a fight. He hired a prominent lawyer who'd represented members of the Millette family before, and that lawyer went hard at the prosecution's case.

Instead of focusing only on what the women said Ivan had done, the defense worked to undermine their credibility and cast them as unreliable witnesses. And the prosecution's case was thin. It came down largely to the two women's word against Ivan's, with little other evidence to corroborate it. In the end, the tactic worked. After deliberations, Ivan was acquitted of all charges and walked free. Before we even talk about Ivan, I want to acknowledge what this must have been like for the victims.

They escaped, reported what happened, cooperated with investigators, thought their suspect, Ivan killed himself only to learn, surprise he didn't, had to restart these criminal proceedings. years later, which is psychologically traumatic in so many different ways, endured the stress of a criminal trial they didn't think would happen, and then watched Ivan walk away a free man. This is a serious setback for so many survivors of sexual assault to just witness and hear, let alone experience. It's beyond frustrating.

I don't know what happened with the prosecution's case or whether the years he was presumed dead had affected it, but it doesn't change their experience. Now, psychologically, let's talk about what this could have meant for Ivan. Assuming Ivan committed these crimes, and I only say that because he was acquitted, this may have become one of the most psychologically reinforcing experiences of his life because given everything we've discussed, this would mean that the criminal justice system itself was unable to hold him accountable, even after he staged his own death to avoid this. He was discovered and brought back to trial and still got away. Talk about a confidence-boosting experience. If Ivan interpreted this outcome

as confirmation that he could beat the system, which I suspect he absolutely did, that belief would become very powerful for him moving forward. After the acquittal, it looked like Ivan might have finally pushed his luck as far as it would go. for a while, his life did seem steadier. He took a new job as a truck driver and road worker with a local traffic authority, doing the kind of steady physical labor he already knew well. His work often required him to travel long stretches of highway, maintaining roads, clearing hazards, repairing asphalt, and moving through areas most people only pass through on their

way elsewhere. Ivan's new job also placed him in exactly the kind of environment where he could move around without drawing attention. And once he got comfortable, his criminal urges kicked in again. Now, Ivan had a reason to be parked on the shoulder of an empty road, a reason to be out near remote stretches of bushland, a reason to know the isolated places most people had never heard of. And his new job also happened to put him in close proximity to some of the most vulnerable people traveling through those spaces, hitchhikers and backpackers, people who were exactly like the women Ivan had already violated and gotten away with it.

This sounds eerily familiar. When he first got out of prison and started working again, his job at the time kept him on the road where he traveled between work sites and learned the back roads where most people never went and had no reason to go. And shortly thereafter, he allegedly, again, only saying that because he was acquitted,

picked the two female hitchhikers that he was, was later acquitted of. And here he is, again, working a job that once, again, requires travel, allows him to learn different isolated areas and back roads and gives him access to vulnerable targets. So it would not surprise me if he intentionally took this job because of the access it gave him. That said, it is also worth considering, even if it isn't as likely, that this was because his job prospects may have been limited because of his criminal background. But even with those limitations, he could have chosen a job that was more stationary. And the fact that he didn't suggests he was potentially seeking to exploit the opportunities this job gave him and that this

behavior may be escalating. Why do you think he continued targeting specifically travelers and hitchhikers? Do you think it was about access, control, familiarity, or maybe all of that? Probably all of that. Serial killers choose victims based on availability, vulnerability, and desirability. And with Ivan in particular, he had just stood trial for the kidnapping and assault of two female hitchhikers. I mean, one of whom he assaulted, but he was accused of taking to one of those remote areas and he got away with it. And as we discussed, that may have reinforced to him that whatever he was doing was effective. So this may be why. at least in part, he was repeating that method, at least broadly.

And hitchhikers are a vulnerable population, as you said. If they were to go missing or to not show up at their destination, they're more likely to be explained away rather than filed as a missing person or filed as runaways. And of course, how that is classified may differ in Australia than the U.S. I'm not very familiar, but the same concept likely applies. People tend to have a bias about certain classifications. like hitchhikers. And the same is true of backpacking. There are inherent risks to that. If they are missing, people are more likely to assume it's the elements or maybe it's wildlife before they ever

assume foul play. So he's exploiting those very real biases to his advantage, which we see time and again with predatory killers. So for him, it's advantageous in multiple ways. Well, the travelers Ivan met on those roads were usually friendly, trusting, and just trying to get from one place to the next, Ivan saw something else, opportunity, and soon that opportunity would turn deadly. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for the conclusion of our deep dive on Ivan Millett. Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is a crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios.

Here at Crimehouse, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on all social media. at Crimehouse. Don't forget to rate, review, and follow serial killers and murderous minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference. And to enhance your listening experience, join Crimehouse Plus and get both parts of every story dropped on the same Monday, completely ad-free. No waiting three days for part two, plus crimehouse bonus episodes every month. To join, go to Crimehouseplus.com. Or if you listen on Apple Podcasts, tap try free. at the top of the serial killers and murderous minds page.

Serial killers and murderous minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and Forensic Psychologist Dr. Tristan Engels, and is a crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the serial killers and murderous minds team, Max Cuddler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pritzowski, Sarah Camp, Alyssa Fox, Markey Lee, Sarah Batchel. and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening.

Hi listeners, it's Vanessa. Are you the type to fall down an internet rabbit hole and not come up for hours? You'll love Crimes of Reddit, a new crimehouse original with Sabrina Deanna Roga and Alexis Linkletter. Every week, one host brings real true crime stories from Reddit, while the other reacts completely blind. No prep, no spoilers. Then they swap. It's the feeling of sending your group chat a threat at 2 a.m. that starts with, you have to see this. Except Sabrina and Alexis are in the chat with you. Follow Crimes of Reddit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify or subscribe at Crimes of Reddit Pod on YouTube.