Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: The Monster of Florence Pt. 1 with Alexis Linkletter from Crimes of Reddit

Episode Date: August 17, 2026

For this episode, Vanessa and Dr. Engels are joined by Alexis Linkletter, co-hose of Crime House's newest show Crimes of Reddit. In 1968, a young couple was shot dead in the Italian countryside while their six-year-old son slept in the back seat: a crime that quietly launched one of Italy's most haunting serial killing sprees. For over a decade, a gunman stalked couples parked in remote areas outside Florence, leaving behind little evidence and a signature pattern of brutal mutilation. When investigators finally linked the crimes through a single .22-caliber Beretta pistol, the trail led back to that very first murder.Follow Crimes of Reddit wherever you listen to podcasts.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. Shame can play a huge role in our lives. Sometimes it stops us from doing things will regret. But other times, it feels unfair and undeserved.

In 1960s, Italy, young people were feeling a lot of shame around sex. Older generations viewed premarital sex as extreme. extremely taboo, so the younger members of society found ways to sneak around and get intimate without getting caught. Unfortunately, their desire for romance put them in an extremely dangerous situation. But it wasn't the usual risks associated with sex that they had to worry about. It was a cold-blooded killer. In the remote foothills just outside the city of Florence, this killer waited for couples

to park their cars and get wrapped up in each other's arms. once they were completely distracted, he struck. 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. And today, Vanessa and I are thrilled. to welcome Alexis Linkletter, the co-host of Crime House's newest show, Crimes of Reddit. I am so excited to be back with you, ladies, after the last collaboration we did with the first degree. I'm excited to be here part of the Crime House family. Yes, and we are thrilled that you're joining the Crime House family, Alexis. We are so excited. This is a brand new iteration of Crimes of. So every Tuesday, Alexis and Sabrina Deanna Roga are diving into the darkest crimes on Reddit,

bringing you real stories, real reactions, and a dynamic you won't want to miss. You can subscribe on YouTube for full video episodes and follow wherever you get your podcasts. Trust me, you won't regret it. Agreed. I cannot recommend it enough. And for the next two episodes, Alexis will introduce the case, then be sure to stick around at the end of Part 2 for an extended sit-down as I talked to her about all things crimes of Reddit, along with a special preview. And before we get started, be advised that,

that this episode contains discussion of sexual assault, murder, mutilation, and dismemberment. So please listen with care. Today, Vanessa and Dr. Engels begin their deep dive into the monster of Florence, a gruesome killer, or killers, who terrorized couples in Italy for over two decades. The monster's sheer level of violence was unheard of at the time. And with each crime, the same haunting clues were left behind. As Vanessa goes through the story, Dr. Angle's. will be talking about things like how some offenders take advantage of social taboos,

when highly traumatic experiences can impact witness testimonies, and what extreme violence against women can say about an offender's psyche. And as always, they'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? For some offenders, sex has been known to fuel violence, and in 1960s Italy, it kicked off a string of gruesome crimes. It all started with a young couple named Barbara Lodagh, and Stefano Mele. Barbara grew up in 1950s Sardinia in a poor family. When she was a teenager, her parents wanted to arrange a marriage for her that could be her way out of poverty. They wanted

her to marry a nice man who came from decent means, and they believed Stefano Mele was that man. The Meleys were from Sardinia too, but they were more well off. Still they agreed to the union, and soon Barbara and Stefano were married. Shortly after, the young newlyweds moved to Tuscany with Stefano's entire family. Barbara and Stefano weren't in love, but they weren't unhappy either, despite Barbara's risky behavior. She didn't want to be confined to domestic life, so she would sometimes steal money from her in-laws and sneak out at night for wild romps on the town. Barbara loved her freedom, especially the fact that she had multiple sexual partners. Even more freeing was the fact that she didn't have to hide any of it from Stefano,

He knew all about what his wife was doing, and he supported it. He even helped her find men to sleep with. At the time, the sexual revolution was in full swing, and Barbara and Stefano were enjoying every moment of it. However, when the rest of Stefano's family caught on, they disapproved and tried to put a stop to things. Stefano's father even installed bars on the bedroom window so Barbara couldn't sneak out.

So as you mentioned, this was the height of the sexual revolution and attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, and gender roles were changing rapidly. However, as with every generational shift, not all generations change along with them. And Stephanos family in particular, his parents, are an example of that. They had more traditional beliefs about marriage. And considering that this was an arranged marriage, they also likely had particular expectations about what this arrangement would provide for their. their son and their family, and Barbara was seemingly not meeting those expectations. Her behavior, her beliefs toward fidelity and marriage appeared to have been a challenge to their family and their family honor or traditions. And by installing bars on her room

is alarming because they are trying to exert physical control over a relational or moral conflict, and that's coercion, because they're restricting and controlling her movement to influence her behavior. And it doesn't really matter where it stems from, whether it's anger, shame, or fear, because at the core of it, it's violating her autonomy and her freedom. Even though Barbara and Stefano seem to be aligned right now, you know, with Barbara's behavior and Stefano seems to help her with this, do you see any potential risks for how their behavior could impact their relationship moving forward? Any relationship can work if the expectations are clear and agreed upon and respected mutually. Communication, how.

has to be open and honest, and there must be trust and mutual agreement. And that's established in the research on this. I think the thing that I would be more concerned about at this stage is the environment and their family system. They seem to have a consensual non-monogamous marriage and a family system that's not supportive of it. And on top of which, their knee-jerk reaction is to assume that Barbara is the, quote, problem, when they're both consenting to this arrangement. It's already becoming unequal within and how it's being viewed and treated

within their family system. So there are competing pressures there and that can actually create a lot of friction within their marriage if they're not addressed mutually. For now, it seemed like Stefano would do anything to make Barbara happy. He didn't care what his family thought and one day in 1961 he defied them in a major way.

Stefano met a fellow Sardinian, 24-year-old Salvatore Vinci. Salvatore mentioned that his wife had recently died in what was ruled a suicide, and he was looking for a place to stay. This gave Stefano an idea. He thought if Barbara couldn't get out, then he could bring men to her. Stefano invited Salvatore to move in with him and his family, and he mentioned that his own wife, Barbara, might be open to a sexual relationship.

Salvatore agreed to the arrangement. As soon as he moved in, he and Barbara began an affair. Stefano found ways to help them get out of the house and go on dates, and to give them time alone in the house together. It's not clear whether Stefano's family knew what was going on at first, but by 1962, they realized the truth, because that year, Barbara gave birth to a son, Natalino, who many believed was fathered by one of Barbara's lovers,

not her husband, Stefano. For the meleys, this was the son, the last draw. They kicked Stefano, Barbara, Salvatore, and Natalino out of the house. Barbara and Cephano rented a new place in Florence where they lived with Natalino, who Stefano seemed to view as his biological son, and over the next few years, Barbara continued her relationship with Salvatore. However, in the summer of 1968, she got bored with him and developed an interest in his younger brother, Francesco. She and Francesco had a brief affair, until two months later when she dumped him for 29-year-old Antonio Lobianco.

Before I get into how this could potentially complicate matters for Barbara, I want to state that ethical non-monogamy is more common than people may realize, and research shows that it can be just as healthy as traditional monogamy, provided there's trust, honesty, openness, and mutual agreement, like I mentioned. And that is how Barbara's marriage seemed to have started. But now we are seeing a lot of dynamics that seem to potentially violate those crucial principles and could complicate Barbara's relationships. Every new person that enters the picture adds another layer of complexity. First, there is now a child.

A child introduces emotional, practical, and legal responsibilities that don't exist when there's only adults involved. But there also seem to be questions regarding who the biological father is. Yet Stefano treats Natalino as his own, even though there's a potential. he's not. Then Barbara tires of Salvatore and moves on to his brother. Was that mutually agreed upon? If not, then that had the potential to create a real issue. And from a family system's perspective, this creates opportunities for something called coalitions. And a coalition occurs when two people become aligned in a way that changes the balance of the larger group. And those alliances aren't necessarily intentional or malicious all the time, but they often happen naturally as relationships

evolve and they can create resentment, divided loyalties and conflict, especially when the people involved are family members. What are some possible benefits of consensually non-monogamous relationships? And what are some possible risks or pitfalls? Those are always going to be experienced subjectively, but according to the research, some possible benefits have been reported as greater independence, higher rates of intentional communication, more honesty and transparency, sexual variety or exploration, reduced pressure, and personal growth and development, as well as flexibility. And overall, just more satisfaction have been reported. Again, those experiences are always going to be more likely when there's mutual consent, trust, honesty, clear boundaries, and ongoing communication.

Some possible risks that were identified in the research are jealousy, boundary violations, the breakdown in communication, inequality in emotional investment, changing needs, power imbalances, attachment complications, social stigma, which is certainly happening right now in Florence, and sexual health concerns. And again, this is based on the research. I'm reporting this from the research directly, but everyone's experience is going to be different. Barbara's relationship with Antonio would prove to be different from her past affairs, but the situation soon caused problems in their marriage. Because it wasn't just sexual, Barbara also stole roughly $1,000 from Stefano and gave it to Antonio. Stefano was furious, and he wanted the money back. To do that, he enlisted the help of Salvatore and Francesco Vinci. The two brothers were both still heartbroken over Barbara,

So they were happy for the chance to get between her and Antonio. So that concept of coalition we talked about earlier, Stefano, Salvatore, and Francesco may have different motivations for teaming up, but their interests are definitely aligned here. Well, Barbara had no idea what they were planning, and on August 21st, 1968, she and Antonio took six-year-old Natalino to see a movie. Afterward, they drove to a remote dirt road and parked in a field of high grass. Barbara turned around and saw her son sleeping soundly in the back seat,

so she and Antonio took the opportunity to get physical. They were too distracted to notice when a figure appeared next to the car and pulled out a gun. The figure aimed at Barbara and Antonio and fired multiple times. Fortunately, none of the shots hit Natalino, but Barbara and Antonio were both dead. Natalino was completely distraught and obviously traumatized, and his confusion was only about to get worse. Because soon, another figure appeared at the window. The original shooter handed over the gun to the second man

who fired a single shot into Barbara's lifeless body. Natalino stared at the men, terrified. As his eyes slowly adjusted to the darkness, he thought he recognized the original shooter. To Natalino, the man looked like his uncle, Piero. But Natalino couldn't see the man's face well enough to know for sure. Witnessing a homicide is traumatic for anyone, but imagine being a six-year-old child. Children process traumatic events differently than adults. They tend to remember the parts that felt

most important to their survival. And in this case, it's likely going to be the sound of the gun, someone outside the car and their fear. Trauma doesn't preserve our memories exactly as they happened. Instead, our brain store pieces of the experience. So when we later try, and remember what happened, we're putting those pieces back together. Some parts of that memory are still clear, but others are less so or more difficult to place an order, especially as time passes, and especially for a six-year-old whose brain is still developing. Their brains don't encode, organize, or describe experiences the same way that adults do. And they may remember the emotionally significant parts of the incident and struggle with the timing, the sequence, and details, especially under poor conditions like nighttime, or being abruptly woken up from sleep or in a remote area that they don't otherwise know. For children, could witnessing something like this affect their ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy? Generally no. Most children by that age can distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. I think the bigger challenge is the lack of language and cognitive development to accurately describe an experience that no child should ever have to witness to begin with.

children at that age are still building their mental frameworks and their schemas. That's how we organize and interpret information. So understanding why someone would walk up to their car and do what they did to their mother falls outside of a six-year-old's understanding. They're going to rely on what they have. For example, a child may use superhero or monster references, and that's going to sound like they don't know what's real and what's not. Or they may give an explanation that seems implausible, not because they're confusing something, that's fantasy from reality, but because they're trying to fit this experience into limited

language or concepts in their own life experience that's only six years long, that they have available at their age. And that doesn't mean that they still can't still provide anything useful or factual detail-wise, because they absolutely can, but they often describe it within their cognitive abilities. And there are some six-year-olds that might be more advanced than others. Does their later recollection of events rely more on their own memories or what other people have told them about what happened? Everyone is susceptible to suggestion to some degree, but children generally more so, especially following a frightening event like this and even more so when information comes from a trusted adult. So if there's repeated conversations about what happened, leading questions from officers or if they're hearing other people talk about what happened, that can all influence how a child. understands it and later describes it. And that's one of the reasons why nowadays we have specially

trained child forensic interviewers. They're trained in child development, memory, and evidence-based interviewing techniques because the way a child is questioned can influence the quality and the reliability of the information they get, which obviously in turn can affect the strength of the evidence that they have in a case. So ideally, they are able to speak with a forensic interviewer before they speak with or overhear anyone else to avoid any potential for that kind of suggestibility. Well, Natalino could make out the second shooter's face, and there was no denying this man's identity. It was his own father, Stefano. Suddenly, either out of fear or desperation, Natalino led out a blood-curdling scream. Stefano recognized his son's voice right away,

and he started to panic. He had no idea Natalino was. was in the back seat. He threw the gun to the ground, pulled the boy from the car, and fled on foot. Soon, Stefano would do something to unwittingly create a ripple effect of horror for decades to come. On August 21, 1968, Stefano Mele sprinted through the streets

with his six-year-old son Natalino in his arms. Stefano had just participated in the murder of his wife, Barbara, and her lover, Antonio. He had no idea that Natalino was in the back seat of Barbara's car when he and another mysterious gunman opened fire. Now, Stefano was trying to get as far away from the scene as possible. All the while, he tried to comfort Natalino, but there was something else, Stefano told his son, repeatedly.

He said if the police questioned him to say that Francesco Vinci had been at the scene of the crime and no one else. Once Stefano made it to a safe part of town, he placed Natalino on a stranger's doorstep, rang the doorbell, and ran off. The homeowners found the little boy sobbing, but they were able to get the gist of what had happened. Soon, police descended on the crime scene. Officers found bullet casings around the car. However, they didn't find the gun, which Stefano had dropped when he fled with Natalino.

Most likely, the other gunman took it before fleeing on his own. But for now, police had no idea how many suspects. were involved. They only knew this would be a tough case to solve. There was little evidence left behind, and their only witness was a six-year-old boy, which meant Natalino's testimony was all they had to start with. They brought him to the station to try and figure out what had happened, but his story was hard to follow. First, Natalino told police something unexpected. He said he may have seen his uncle Piero, but that he wasn't sure. Then he suddenly changed his Natalino claimed he saw Francesco Vinci.

However, as officers probed further, Natalino admitted that when his father, Stefano Mele, took him away from the scene, Stefano told him to say Francesco was there. The officers were getting frustrated, and they threatened to bring Natalino back to the crime scene where his deceased mother still was if he couldn't get his story straight.

Poor Natalino is just trying to process the most traumatic event of his young life, and instead of being given the space to do that, he's being interrogated and threatened. And those are coercive tactics, and it's the opposite of the evidence-based interviewing practices that child forensic interviewers are trained to use today. And let's imagine his position for a minute. He's under extraordinary psychological pressure. He just lost his mother. His father instructed him to identify Francesco, yet he initially believed he may have seen his uncle, and now the police are threatening him to take him back to the very scene he just survived

if he doesn't get his story straight. And for a six-year-old, that's an overwhelming amount of emotional pressure and conflict to navigate. He's trying to reconcile his own memories, his father's instructions, and then the demands of law enforcement, all while terrified. That can narrow his thinking even more. And the focus can shift to seeking comfort and relief, which means he's more likely going to say whatever law enforcement, wants to hear because that's what will get him relief the quickest.

What is the forensic experiential trauma interview? And why does basing questions around the five senses help investigators effectively interview trauma victims? I'm so glad you asked this. This is one of the biggest advances in trauma-informed interviewing. Our understanding of trauma has continuously evolved and with it, so does our practice. So this was developed around our understanding that trauma changes the way the brain processes, the traumatic event, and therefore, investigators should change the way that they

ask people about their event. Traditionally, when an investigator interviews a potential witness, they often ask them to tell them what happened from start to finish. But remember what we discussed earlier about memory. People tend to remember pieces of the experience, like what they saw, what they heard, what they smelled, what they felt physically, or even what they were thinking in the moment. This focuses on the five senses because of that. Rather than having them produce a timeline, investigators ask about the experience. They ask things like, what did you see? What did you hear? What did you notice? What did your body feel? And from there, investigators can begin piecing that information together into a more complete picture of what happened. And the goal is

to maximize the information that they get, but they're also considering the neurodemeanor. neurobiology of trauma at the same time. It also helps reduce secondary trauma in the process because it reduces stress and frustration, anxiety, and re-traumatization that can occur during an interrogation process. There was one thing Natalino was consistent about that Stefano had been present at the scene of the crime and he'd made suspicious remarks to his son. The police acted quickly on that, arresting Stefano the same night of the murders. Once he was in custody, they ran a test that revealed the presence of gunpowder on his hands. With that, Stefano confessed.

He told investigators he'd been present for the murders, but that someone else had pulled the trigger, Salvatore Vinci Francesco's brother. However, Stefano soon retracted this statement and said he was the only one involved. Since investigators had nothing else to go on, Stefano was the only one charged and tried for the double murder of Barbara Lochi and Antonio Lobianco. Two years later, in 1970, he was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison. It seemed like a cut-and-dry case, but it turned out something evil had taken root the night Barbara and Antonio died.

And four years later, while Stefano was still in prison, that darkness crept to the surface. On September 14, 1974, 19-year-old Pasquale Gentilcourt and his fiancé, 18-year-old Stefanya Petini, were partying with their friends at a teen nightclub in Borgo San Lorenzo, a town northeast of Florence. Eventually, the young couple had enough dancing. They left the club and hopped into Pasquale's blue fiat.

He drove to a remote dirt road next to a vineyard, about 35 miles from where Barbara Lóchi and Antonio Lobionco, were killed years before. Pasquale cut the engine and headlights. He and Stefania were excited to finally be alone with each other. By this point, bigger cities in Italy had become more accepting of sexual freedom, but in Florence, the stigma still held strong. Most young, unmarried people, like Stefania and Pasquale,

still lived with their parents, so if they wanted to be intimate, they had to sneak off to secluded areas. Couples often drove to remote dirt roads like the one Stefania and Paquale. Asquale had chosen. It helped them avoid getting caught, but it created other risks, specifically the chance that someone might be watching. A lot of these peeping toms knew the popular hookup spots, and they hid in the shadows while they spied on couples' private encounters. It was a known problem in Florence at the time. When there is a strong social stigma surrounding something, especially something natural,

like young love and sexual exploration, unfortunately that doesn't necessarily eliminate a behavior like many people would hope. It often just pushes people to engage in it out of public view. We call this risk displacement. Sneaking off to a private area is the only place that they can safely express a normal part of their lives without shame, judgment, or fear of social consequences. They were there because it offered concealment, but that privacy also, unfortunately, made them vulnerable in this case to voyeurism.

What motivates voyeurism? The core motivation behind voyeurism is obtaining sexual arousal or gratification from observing unsuspecting people who are naked, undressing, or engaging in intimate acts. And for some individuals, the act of spying itself becomes part of that reward. But psychologically, it's often more complicated than that. often the secrecy is part of the appeal and part of that motivation. They're observing someone during an intensely private moment without that person's knowledge or consent. And that often creates a sense of power, control, or even exclusivity that motivates them deeply. There's also an element of risk.

The possibility of being caught can heighten that excitement, much like other sensation-seeking behaviors. And unlike individuals who prefer consensual interactions, there's no problem. possibility of rejection, which is appealing to many voyeurs. The vast majority of individuals who engage in voyeuristic behavior don't escalate beyond that. However, voyeurism can be one behavior within a broader spectrum of sexually deviant or predatory behavior in a subset of offenders, which is why we always take it very seriously. The risk of being spied on was bad enough. However, For Stefania and Pasquale had no idea the true danger they'd stumbled into. Because while they were wrapped in each other's arms, a mysterious figure emerged from the

darkness and approached their car with a gun. Before the couple knew it was happening, he opened fire, killing them both. But he wasn't done. The shooter dragged Stefania's lifeless body behind the car, where he stabbed her 97 times around her breasts and genitals. Then he used a piece of grapevine to sexually assault her. After he rifled through Pasquale's wallet and threw it out of the car before grabbing Stefania's purse, pocketing some jewelry,

and dumping the rest of the contents onto the ground. Stefania and Pasquale's bodies remained there all night until a local farmer discovered them the next morning. When the police arrived, they were horrified, especially when they saw the state of Stefania's body. Not only that, but there was little evidence left behind. Officers could not find a gun or a knife at the scene. All they found were some bullet casings.

At the time, no one connected the case to the 1968 murder of Barbara Lochi and Antonio Lobianco. Police were completely stumped as to who could have done this and why. Their confusion only grew when Stefania's autopsy revealed no bodily fluid to indicate the killer had sexually assaulted her with his own body. This was about domination, humiliation, and control. The violence is very excessive. He stabbed her 97 times, and he concentrated the stab wounds around her breasts and genitals, and then assaulted her body with a grapevine. It's clear that the sexual parts of her body had significance to him because he intentionally targeted them.

Sexual homicide is not always driven by a desire for sexual contact. For some offenders, their body is how they express rage, hatred. entitlement or deviant fantasies. And the sexualized mutilation itself can be the source of their psychological gratification. The fact that he didn't personally sexually assault her is interesting, but I also think it tracks with the manner in which he treated her overall. In general, though, there could be a number of reasons to explain that. It could be to prevent leaving evidence behind an inability to perform or a lack of time, for example. But This crime, it just reads as a need to completely overpower and dominate Stefania until she cannot resist.

It feels possessive, degrading, and a violent fantasy being carried out all at once. The theft is interesting, too. It could be opportunism, robbery, or souvenirs. It's hard to say this early, though. What does it say that Stefania's body was brutalized so horribly and violently and sexually, but not Pasquist? Pesquale's. Clearly, Stefania was the focus of his interest, and Pesquale was an obstacle. He devoted additional time to her after her death. Research on post-mortem genital mutilation suggests these acts can reflect symbolic sexual behavior and may be associated with anger, curiosity, or other violent

fantasies. But when you combine that with the degree of, I guess, overkill in this case, even though the stabbing was after she died, the behavior, feels punitive. His violence was focused on parts of Stefania's body associated with femininity and sexuality, which appears to have been, at least in my opinion, professionally part of his fantasy. Investigators struggled to sort through the sheer gruesomeness of the crime, and eventually they gained one concrete piece of evidence. Forensic experts analyzed the bullet casings left at the scene and determined they'd come from a 22-calibre beretta. With this discovery in hand, investigators focused on the highly sexual nature of the crime,

looking into members of the local voyeur community as suspects. However, none of their leads panned out, and the case quickly went cold. Over time, the authorities moved on, and so did the public, until seven years later, when tragedy struck again. On June 6, 1981, 21-year-old Carmela Danuccio and her fiancé, 30-year-old Giovanni Fogai, went out dancing at a car. club together. Afterward, they drove about 20 minutes outside Florence to a popular hookup spot.

Giovanni parked on the side of the road, and a few minutes into the couple's encounter, they met a dark fate. Someone snuck up to their car, aimed a gun at them, and fired. Giovanni and Carmela died instantly, but the killer still wasn't done. He stabbed Giovanni's body several times, then dragged Carmela's body out of the car to a nearby by embankment where he violently mutilated her genitals. This time, the level of gruesomeness went even further because the killer removed her genitals entirely, keeping part of them.

Then he dumped everything from her purse before fleeing. These are lengthy cooling off periods. If we're looking at the same offender, and based on the behavioral similarities, I think that's pretty likely, he went approximately six years between the first and second known attacks and then another seven years before killing Carmelah and Giovanni.

This is someone capable of suppressing, delaying, or compartmentalizing whatever psychological processes were driving these offenses and for extensive periods of time. He must have substitute behaviors. Maybe the voyeurism or other fantasy behaviors, life circumstances like a family or other criminal activity that isn't detected, but after that seven-year period, when he returned, he had clearly escalated.

removing and retaining a body part serves no practical purpose in committing the murder or even escaping. It serves a psychological one. And in cases involving post-mortem mutilation, genitalia are among the body parts that are most commonly removed because they often carry symbolic significance within the offender's fantasy. And researchers have proposed several possible psychological functions for this, including sexual symbolism, trophy taking, Jeffrey Dahmer's a big one. possession and the expression of their own aggression. But I want to talk about the progression of the offender's behavior. In the first known attack, Barbara and Antonio were shot to death. That was it. There was no stabbing or mutilation. And maybe post-mortem behavior couldn't occur at the time because other people like Stefano and Natalino were there. And that is, of course, if their deaths were connected to the monster of Florence or not, but you have to stay for episode two to learn

that. Six years later, he returns, and he uses a firearm again, and then he uses a knife, and we see extensive post-mortem violence directed toward the female victim only. Stefania is repeatedly stabbed 97 times around her breast and genitals before being sexually assaulted with a grapevine. But then after another seven-year hiatus, this behavior evolves again. He comes back, he shoots to kill, and removes part of Carmela's genitalia and takes it with him and he redirected the stabbing onto Giovanni, but only several times and he does not stab Carmela. There is some post-mortem behavior there on Giovanni, which is new, but it's as if he's wanting to ensure that he's dead and he cannot be interrupted. I'm not sure what to make of that

yet because it's a new behavior, but he may have learned that it takes a lot of his physical strength and energy to do this genitalia removal and to do this post-mortem behavior. behavior. And that is a ritualistic behavior of his, and it's part of his fantasy. It's central to his offending behavior. And he needs that energy to engage in it. So this appears to be just a psychological focus for him. And that might have been why he's refined a little bit. But regardless of the why, it's clear that he's getting more elaborate and more refined every time he returns from these cooling off periods. What can a killer's use of genital mutilation suggest about their own sexuality or interest in sex and what might it suggest about how they view women in general?

So it suggests a detachment with regard to sexuality and intimacy. It's grossly distorted. They're seeking a non-reciprocal sexual experience and it's not a traditional one, but it's one where no one can reject, resist, or object. And it doesn't have to involve sexual intercourse for it to be sexual gratifying like we talked about. The violence itself can serve that purpose. And if they have a relationship or a family of their own, which is not in common for serial offenders. It's common when they do that they are possessive, controlling, and domineering in those relationships as well. We see intimate partner violence there. And as for what it says about how they view women, research suggests these type of offenders often objectify them. They're dehumanized. They're not

seen as autonomous people with thoughts, feelings, and agency. That way, they can be used to fulfill their own psychological needs. And I think that's pretty evident in his offending behavior. Well, the killer's distinct M.O. was becoming recognizable. The day after the murder, an off-duty police officer

discovered the bodies during a morning walk. And once investigators arrived on scene, they immediately noted Carmela's brutal injuries. However, just like Stefania, Carmela's autopsy later revealed no fluids to indicate she'd been raped. But the injuries to Carmela's genital

didn't resemble Stefania Pitini's stab wounds. Stephanias had been precise, whereas Carmela's were rough and jagged. So at the time, authorities didn't connect the two cases, nor did they connect this most recent case to the 1968 one. It wasn't until this case went public that a local reporter connected the dots between it and the other more recent one. He published a story about all the similarities between the two cases, and that's when police began searching for forensic evidence,

linking the crimes. They compared the bullets used in both murders and discovered that they all came from the same 22-caliber Beretta pistol. The police were sure that the same person was responsible for both crimes, and after gathering witness statements, they focused their investigation onto an ambulance driver who was also a known peeping Tom. The man was brought into the station for questioning in mid-June, and when he failed to produce a strong alibi, authorities charged him with Carmela and Giovanni's murders. It's not clear why he didn't face charges for the previous murders, but the man was held in custody while he awaited trial.

And it seemed like this could finally be the end of the grisly nightmare. But a few months later, evil descended onto Florence again. In late October of 1981, police had a suspect in custody for the murders of Carmela Danuccio and Giovanni Fogai, However, their case against this man would soon fall apart. On the evening of October 22nd, 26-year-old Stefano Baldi and his fiancé, 24-year-old Susanna Kambi, went on a nice date before driving to a secluded lover's spot in the Bartolene fields near Kalenzano, on the other side of Florence from where Carmela and Giovanni had been murdered months earlier.

Soon, Stefano and Susanna met the same fate. A gunman approached the car from outside, then shot and killed the young couple. Afterward, he stabbed Susanna four times and mutilated her the exact same way Carmela had been by removing her genitals. It's unclear whether he scattered or stole any of their belongings, but when the police arrived at the scene, they immediately spotted enough similarities to link Stefano and Susana's murders to the ones before, Carmela and Giovanni, and Stefania and Pasquale. However, the 1968 murders still didn't cross their minds.

But eventually, the authorities confirmed that, just like Carmela and Stefania before her, Susanna had not been raped, and that the very same gun had been used again, which heavily suggested that the same killer was behind each crime. This would mean the ambulance driver who was currently in custody couldn't be the killer. So he was released and the investigation continued. So this happened months later rather than years, this new attack. And I wonder if that's because they arrested the wrong person and the real killer knew that and wanted to make sure investigators knew that. Some offenders don't like it when other people take their credit, even if it's unwillingly.

Obviously, that's just a theory. But this is a deviation from his pattern. Historically, he's had several years between murders and there's got to be an explanation why that changed. But the public thought they had a suspect for these brutal crimes, and it turns out they did not. That, of course, undermines confidence and their sense of safety. And when they can't trust law enforcement and there's no known suspect now, that can create collective trauma. An entire community can start to adapt its behavior around this threat. They avoid certain places.

They change their routines or they become suspicious of strangers and start interpreting ordinary events as dangerous ones. It just puts people in a state of chronic vigilance and fear. Investigators had done nothing but hit roadblocks so far, but soon they got a major clue from a pair of witnesses. The couple that had been driving in the area the night of October 22nd told police they'd spotted a nervous-looking man driving a red car. The couple worked with an artist to compile a sketch of the man. However, the authorities kept this sketch out of the press,

since the public was already riddled with fear at the idea of a serial killer among them. Because of this, police were flooded with tips each day. Most of the tips weren't credible, but that didn't stop the rumor mill from churning out more terror. People started accusing a local gynecologist of being the killer, and the hysteria got so out of hand, a crowd formed outside the man's house.

Notably, investigators had already ruled that man out as a suspect. now they realized they'd have to do some damage control. Authorities went on TV to confirm the man was not a suspect and that anyone perpetuating the rumor would be charged. And this is where that collective trauma we just talked about can start really changing the behavior of an entire community. People have been living with this threat for years. They don't know who the killer is,

when he's going to strike again, or when the police can actually stop him or whether they can. That's terrifying. And we as humans don't like unsubes. certainty. We certainly don't like unpredictability. That doesn't make us feel safe. So we start to resolve that whatever way we can. And one way people tend to do that commonly is by looking more closely at their neighbors. They start to pay attention to people who seem strange or they share their suspicions with each other and they look for their own explanations. And now you have a false

sense of control and some comfort. But the problem is that doesn't mean you're right. And rumors can become self-reinforcing very quickly, especially when emotions are high. And then everybody else starts hearing the same rumor, and it starts to feel credible. And eventually now you've got a crowd outside in the home of a poor man that police have already cleared. So this is almost the other side of collective trauma. Earlier we talked about people becoming hypervigilant because they don't know where the threat is. Well, here we're seeing what can happen when that hypervigilance starts looking for somewhere to go. Fear can be a good thing, a really helpful thing, but also it can be not so great. So when there is this fear, when the public is scared, why do they want police to

just catch someone, anyone, as opposed to catching the right one? When you're experiencing immense fear, anxiety, and stress for a prolonged period of time, your brain can only sustain that for so long before it starts to seek relief. They don't necessarily want the wrong person arrested. They just want an end to their distress. Living in a constant state of hypervigilance is exhausting. Until the threat feels resolved, it's difficult for the brain to fully relax. And the brain cannot be both tense and relaxed at the same time. And I think this just reflects their desperation for a resolution. Well, as the public worked themselves into a frenzy, the media kept feeding the beast. They published stories comparing the killer to Jack the Ripper, and they dubbed him,

monster of Florence. It seems like the heightened attention may have dissuaded the killer because over the next eight months there weren't any murders. But in the early summer of 1982, the monster struck again. On June 19th of that year, 22-year-old Paolo Minority and his fiancee, 19-year-old Antonella Miliorini, drove 45 minutes out of Florence and parked near the gates of an old castle where they had sex in the car. Afterward, as they were putting their clothes back on, Paolo noticed something, a figure in the distance walking straight toward them.

Paulo threw the car in reverse and hit the gas. In response, the figure fired shots into the car, including one that hit Paolo in the shoulder, causing him to crash into a ditch. The couple had no time to escape before the man approached and shot them both. Antonela died instantly, but unbeknownst to the attacker, Paolo was still breathing.

This time, the killer didn't pull Antonella out of the car. Instead, he pulled Paolo out and got into the driver's seat himself. He tried to get the car out of the ditch and escape, but he couldn't get it to move. So he got out and fled on foot instead. Police arrived at the scene fairly quickly, and Paolo was rushed to the hospital. Unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries and died there. It was yet another tragedy. But at the same time, the authorities thought they could use Paolo's death to their advantage.

One of the lead investigators called the press and asked them to publish a story saying that Paolo was alive and that he'd provided useful information to help identify the killer. Their goal was to see if the news would spook the killer into doing something rash and bring attention to himself. The lengthy cooling off periods we've seen in the past, really do seem to be changing because this is the second attack that was within months of the last one. So it's likely unrelated to the arrest of the ambulance driver and more likely related to potential changes in his own circumstances. We talked about those dormant periods, sometimes it's life circumstance, obligations, or behavioral substitutes that had temporarily satisfy aspects of their

family that allow them to have these cooling off periods. But in some cases, they're motivated by the fear of the community. We don't know what changed here, but something did. He's offending more frequently, and this particular murder is also behaviorally interesting because he got into the victim's car and attempted to drive away with Antonella inside. That's new. But let's talk about the investigator strategy. He was attempting to influence his behavior. They want to make him worry. If successful, he might communicate with them or change his routine, maybe try and destroy some evidence or contact someone he knows in his personal life and say something or otherwise do something that generates some kind of lead for them. And it's classic if you think about it because this is a community

that's been living in fear and uncertainty because of him. And now they're making him the offender try and live in uncertainty because of his behavior. And we'll see if it works because it doesn't always. Some recognize the tactic immediately and they ignore it. Others do become anxious and they take debate. And for offenders who have a lot of grandiose or narcissistic traits, just believing that they've been challenged or that law enforcement thinks that they're outsmarting them, that can provoke a response because their ego just won't allow them to let that go. How do you think that strategy could potentially backfire? Well, if he knows that Paolo is dead and that they're lying, then he knows it's a bluff and he knows that he has the upper hand and that he can become more

confident in that way and maybe even toy with them instead. That's one way that certainly can backfire. Well, unfortunately, this plan didn't work, but investigators had a plan B. They went back to the sketch they had of the suspect and decided it was time to publish that too. The photo triggered an avalanche of calls and letters, and one piece of mail stood out. The envelope contained nothing but an old yellowed newspaper article from 1968. It was about the murder of Barbara Loci and Antonio Lobianco. The investigators who were familiar with this case hadn't thought about it in years. They decided to crack open the file to see what was in there. That's when they found the bullets recovered from the crime scene and tested them, and they were stunned by the result. The bullets

had come from the same 22-caliber Beretta pistol used in every single one of the recent murders. Investigators were finally able to connect the 1968 murders to the other four, and they knew they had to speak to the man convicted of the 1968 murders, Stefano Mele, immediately. Stefano had been released from prison and was living in a halfway house. During his interview with the investigators, he made a peculiar comment. He said, quote, They need to figure out where that pistol is, otherwise there will be more murders. They will continue to kill.

end quote. On the surface, the remark seemed obvious, but investigators were struck by Stefano's use of the word they. The officers recalled how Stefano had initially named his friend Salvatore Vinci as an accomplice, but eventually took all the blame himself. They also remembered that Stefano's son, Natalino, had claimed to see Francesco Vinci at the scene, as well as his own uncle, Piero. At the time, the police had thought Natalino's testimony was unreliable, so they hadn't looked into either of the two men he named. But now, the authorities wondered at Stefano had accomplices all along, and if someone involved in the original murder had never stopped killing.

Soon, they got a sign that might be true. About a month after the most recent double murder in mid-July, investigators in Florence got word from Tuscan authorities that they'd found a car hidden in the woods about a month earlier on June 21st, the same day that the media published the fake story about Paolo being alive. The Tuscan police hadn't gotten around to running the plates until now. And it turned out, the car belonged to none other than Francesco Vinci. Investigators were floored, and when they dug deeper,

they realized that the ghosts of the past may have been haunting them all along. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for the conclusion of our deep dive. on the Monster of Florence. And thanks again to Alexis Link Letter for joining us. She'll be back for part two for an extended conversation and a special look at Crimes of Reddit. And I can't wait to come back.

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 Instagram at Crimehouse. And 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, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode of serial killers and murderous minds add-free, along with early access to each thrilling two-part series. 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 Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pritzowski, Sarah Camp, Alyssa Fox, Dana Rossi, Sarah Batchelor, Mara Delarosa, Claire Swartzlander, 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. or subscribe at Crimes of Reddit Pod on YouTube.