Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: "The Ypsilanti Ripper" John Norman Collins Pt. 1 with Katie Ring from America's Most Infamous Crimes

Episode Date: May 25, 2026

Vanessa and Dr. Engels are joined by Katie Ring, host of the Crime House Original America's Most Infamous Crimes to discuss the crimes of the "Ypsilanti Ripper." In the late 1960s, Eastern Michigan University students Mary Fleszar and Joan Schell were brutally murdered by someone hiding in plain sight: their charming, honor-roll neighbor John Norman Collins. Despite a witness placing Collins with one victim and a description matching his car, he talked his way out of police scrutiny and continued killing. This episode examines Collins's violent childhood, his escalating crimes, and the psychological unraveling behind his all-American facade. If you’re new here, don’t forget to follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds to never miss a case! For ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House+ on Apple Podcasts. 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…, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts! Follow me on Social Instagram: @Crimehouse TikTok: @Crimehouse Facebook: @crimehousestudios YouTube: @crimehousestudios To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi listeners, it's Vanessa. Before we get into today's episode, I want to tell you about another show I think you'll love, Hidden History with Dr. Harini Bot. Every Monday, Dr. Bot goes where history gets mysterious, vanished civilizations, doomsday prophecies, paranormal phenomena, and events that science still can't fully explain. Dr. Bot treats these moments like open case files, not myths, not superstition, just incomplete explanations.

waiting for a closer look. Hidden history drops every Monday. Follow now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen, so you never miss a mystery. This is Crime House. Going off to college is an exciting time in someone's life. Most people never forget that first taste of freedom, planning your own schedule, going to parties, and choosing your own path. For many, entering college marks the beginning of a bright new chapter. But for John Norman Collins, it was the beginning of his sadistic downfall. When John started college in the late 1960s, he had everything going for him. Friends, good grades, and a steamy dating life.

So when female students started turning up dead, no one suspected that John was the monster behind it all. The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate. But sometimes it drives people to commit the unethical. This is serial killers and murderous minds, a crimehouse original. I'm Vanessa Richardson. And for the next two episodes, Dr. Engels and I are thrilled to welcome our special guest, Katie Ring, the host of the crimehouse original, America's most infamous crimes.

Thanks so much for having me on you, too. Of course. And for everyone listening, if you're not following America's most infamous crimes, make sure to do it now. Each week, she goes deep on one of the most notorious true crime cases in American history like Ted Bundy, the Idaho murders, O.J. Simpson, and more. And this isn't the SparkNotes version. It's the full story told across multiple episodes every Tuesday through Thursday. The audio version is on all your favorite podcast platforms, and you can subscribe to America's most infamous crimes channel on YouTube for the full video. And for the next two episodes, Katie will introduce our subject, then stick around at the end of part two for an extended conversation about the case. I can't wait to talk about this with you. Let's get into it.

Before we get started, please be advised that this episode contains discussion of domestic abuse, murder, and sexual violence. So please listen with care. Today, Vanessa and Dr. Engels begin their deep dive into the mind of John Norman Collins, aka the Ipsolante Ripper, a seemingly ordinary call. student who became one of the most feared serial killers in Michigan history. After suffering a troubled childhood, John used his wholesome All-American persona to get ahead. And once he'd earned the trust of everyone around him, he used it to hide in plain sight, while he hunted down innocent young women and girls. As Vanessa goes through the story, Dr. Engels will be talking about things like how growing up with abusive parental figures can alter someone's psyche for the worst, how some offenders

show early signs of violent rage, and how some killer's degradation of women show how insecure they really are with themselves. And as always, they'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? Before his name became synonymous with fear, John Norman Collins was just a kid with the odds stacked against him. John was born in Windsor, Ontario, in June of 1947, to his mother, Loretta, who was still a teenager herself. and his father, a military serviceman. John was the youngest of three children, and before he turned one,

his life was already marked by violence. Allegedly, his father was an abusive alcoholic. The details of the abuse are unclear, but shortly after John was born, his dad left their family for another woman. However, just because he was gone, that didn't mean John's family was any safer. Loretta quickly remarried,

and John's new stepdad was reportedly just as volatile as his own father had been. He and Loretta got into explosive arguments, and John sometimes got caught in the middle in dangerous ways. Once when John was just a toddler, Loretta and her husband got into a fight, and John's stepdad picked him up and threw him at her. John's stepdad wasn't just a cause of danger. It supposedly seemed to follow him everywhere, and like always, John's safety ended up at risk. On another occasion, a man suddenly confronted John's stepdad at gunpoint. In response, John's stepdad used him as a shield. It's unclear whether John sustained any injuries from these incidents, but Loretta seemed to realize that it was

only a matter of time before her husband caused real harm, so about a year after they were married, she left him. A couple years after that, she remarried again, this time to a guy named William Collins. On paper, William seemed like the fresh start the family needed. He had a step, steady job, and after he and Loretta had been together a little while, William adopted her three kids as his own. That's how John got his last name. After that, when John was five years old, the Collins family moved to Centerline, Michigan, just outside of Detroit. It seemed like things were finally settling down, but behind closed doors, life was just as chaotic as ever. Like both of Loretta's past husbands, William was also prone to violent, drunken outbursts.

He and Loretta fought constantly, and John and his siblings were often caught in the middle of it. So John has now experienced repeated abuse from multiple father figures, and the tragic part of this, aside from the abuse itself, is there's a traumatic cycle here. Every time he leaves an abusive situation, he gets some kind of relief from that. But every time he leaves, he's presented with a new father figure, and there's renewed hope. But that's repeatedly followed by more harm. and that can really shape what he comes to expect in relationships, especially when you're being used as a weapon or a shield in some instances of harm. Imagine the message that sends to a child about their worth.

That also affects their attachment as well because the person who's supposed to keep you safe is also essentially sending you a message that your safety is negotiable. There's no consistent sense of security in an environment like that. And at the same time, there are so many children who grow up in homes like this or traumatic environments in general who don't go on to harm anyone. So I want to dispel the myth that abused children go on to abuse. This is not a causation, but it is part of a larger picture that includes individual temperament, environment, and experiences.

I'd love to hear your take on John's father figures and how they might have impacted his view of men and women and how they relate to each other. And is it possible that all the abuse he experienced and, witnessed could have normalized domestic violence for him? Yes, definitely. Violence and abuse are learned behaviors. They're taught to children through modeling, observation, and reinforcement. This is where the cycle of violence starts. It can also influence how a child interprets masculinity and how to express emotions like anger. It becomes more complicated when he's also observing his mother repeatedly enter abusive relationships. And from his perspective,

doing very little to protect him while she's in them. That can create confusion about vulnerability, attachment, and a woman's role in relational dynamics. A series of dominant or abusive men and a more submissive mother in those relationships, that can create a framework around imbalance in relationships. And for normalization, that question, that can certainly happen under certain circumstances, because the violence, if it's being repeated, desensitized, and reinforced, that is how that becomes normalized. By the time John was about 10 years old, Loretta seemed to recognize the pattern of her own choices.

And in 1956, she realized she had to put a stop to it. She left William, took the kids, and struck out on her own. She was determined to give her children a better life, even if that meant working odd jobs to stay afloat, as long as no one could ever hurt them again. All her hard work seemed to pay off. Eventually, she had enough money to enroll John and his siblings in private school. Loretta hoped that a more structured environment would be good for them.

And it seemed like it was. As John entered his teenage years, he appeared to be well-adjusted. He was quiet, but polite. He made the honor role and played multiple sports, and he had a thriving social life. Not only did he have a lot of friends, but girls found him charming. He had no trouble getting dates.

But it wasn't until John entered a long-term relationship that his mask started to slip. The details of his relationship are unclear. But John's girlfriend was one of the first people to see how easily he lost his temper. He could go from perfectly calm to completely furious at the drop of a hat. Then as John neared the end of high school,

he stopped trying to conceal his anger issues. His relationships didn't last, but he kept dating around. And each girl he got involved with reportedly witnessed his short, violent temper. Not only that, but John was known to be sexually aggressive. The details of this behavior are unclear, but they may have only been the tip of the iceberg. Around that time, John's older sister got married and had a baby. It was a happy time for their family. John seemed especially pleased with the sense of normalcy they'd finally achieved.

But that changed when shortly after the new baby had arrived, John caught his sister hanging out with another man and he snapped. He attacked both of them, beating them brutally. John called his sister a tramp and kicked her until she bled. John's violent behavior is shocking because of how extreme it is, but the violence itself is not surprising given what we've just discussed about how violence is learned. but I want to talk about what is triggering it.

He was reacting to his sister's behavior, which suggests something much deeper, and it's one that actually fits with what we've already been discussing with regard to his mother's relationships with men. Because of the harm he likely associated with those relationships, and rightfully so, this may have been a reactivation of some core beliefs that he has made regarding relationships and control. That is also evident in the language he used. he called his sister a tramp. That's a very polarized belief regarding expectations of women and family.

Many people have strong feelings regarding infidelity. But this is his sister. This is not his partner. Her relational choices do not impact him personally and it should not impact him emotionally, but he's reacting as if they do. And because of that, it suggests he's trying to impose structure

and control on the family system, likely because he's feeling threatened by her choices. But why? Well, when someone's growing up feeling very vulnerable and helpless, control can become a very central aspect of their psychology. Okay, when someone's first violent act is this extreme, what does that usually signal going forward? Yeah, this is a great question because, you know,

this is a very disproportionate and very significant response, especially given that it's directed at his family. But it raises concerns about how he manages emotion or more accurately, his difficulty regulating emotions once they're activated. When we see a response like this, it can be a risk marker for future violence. Not a guarantee, but it suggests a greater likelihood of repeated aggression or more intense reactions in situations that trigger the same underlying core beliefs or dynamics. That said, context still matters.

If there were consequences from this incident, if there's any intervention or if there's absence of an intervention following this, any kind of environmental change or access to treatment, all of those can influence what happens next for John. It was the first time John had shown this level of violence, but it wouldn't be the last, especially since he faced no consequences. Neither John's sister nor the other man pressed charges, and the Collins family believed it was a one-off incident. Pretty soon, though, John found another reason to lash out at his family. He soon, learned that his mom hadn't been paying for his private school tuition on her own. She'd started

dating someone new and he was helping pay for it. John felt like this was a betrayal, like his mother had once again invited an unknown and therefore untrustworthy man into their lives. So once he learned the truth, it created a huge rift between him and his immediate family. John started spending more time at his maternal aunt and uncle's house, which was about an hour away. There, he finally felt a sense of stability. John's Uncle David worked in law enforcement and his aunt Sandra created a warm, welcoming home. John felt safe there, and they loved having him around. He'd play in roughhouse with his younger cousins like they were his own siblings. It was the life he'd never had for himself. So when it came time for John to decide on a college, he opted for Eastern Michigan University,

located in the city of Ipsilante, because it was close to where his aunt and uncle lived, and he chose to study elementary education. Once he got there, he fit right in. John joined a fraternity, made friends easily, and picked up odd jobs around campus. He even became vice president of the skiing club. From the outside, it looked like he was exactly where he was supposed to be, and like a lot of college kids, he loved being on his own for the first time. However, with that freedom came the opportunity to test limits and dabbling in more nefarious extracurriculars. John had always been interested in motorcycles, and once he started seeing them all over campus, he decided he wanted one of his own. Not only that, he wanted to build it himself.

But John also found another way to have fun with his new passion project. Instead of buying the parts, he stole them piece by piece from the bikes on campus. John wasn't concerned with the cost of the parts. He just wanted the thrill. So what we're seeing now is a pattern that's beginning to take shape. Earlier, with his sister, the issue was poor emotional regulation that led to a very disproportionate and significantly violent reaction. Here, theft behavior looks different on the surface, but it may reflect a similar underlying issue, which is impulse control deficits. His stealing isn't about need. It's not even really about the motorcycle parts themselves, at least by the sound of it.

It's about the process. He's attracted to the risk, the secrecy, and the thrill of it. that kind of behavior can be reinforcing because it creates excitement and it creates control over his environment. And when there aren't meaningful consequences in something like that, that can continue to escalate. Both of those require impulse control and in both contexts, that capacity appears to be limited. At this point in John's story, is it fair to think that his humble, hardworking image is intentional to avoid suspicion? and if so, do you think he's intentionally gearing up for more extreme offenses? From what we've seen so far, when he has a stable, structured environment like where he is now,

and where he feels safe, and there's no perceived threat, and there's nothing activating those earlier patterns, he appears to thrive. We don't see the same outbursts or reactionary violence, but that doesn't mean that those underlying issues aren't there. They might be. We know they are. But because he's functioning well on the surface and there's no. functional impairment being observed, no one's going to question him or intervene because there's no apparent need to. That allows for his behaviors and his stealing and even closeted rage to

continue undetected and without consequence and because of that it's being reinforced. He might not be intentionally or consciously gearing up for more extreme offenses, but his behavior is setting the stage for it. Now, regarding impression management, I think it's very likely as well. He's in a stable environment, and that provides a coverage for him, even credibility. So he's going to want to maintain that. But also that persona is keeping the system going. He learns that it has utility. It's a win-win for him.

So it might have started out that this persona was him actually thriving in a stable environment. He wanted to person or at least wanting to pretend to be this all-American good person. And then he realized that he could use it to his advantage in other ways. Well, much like the incident with his sister, John realized that he could push limits and face zero consequences. At the same time, that power came with a price. He knew he had to keep his dark side concealed. If people saw him for who he really was, no one would trust him, and he'd be unable to keep testing the limits. So to everyone else, John was a polite, put-together, colloquy.

kid, but underneath, he was becoming more comfortable with his double life, and pretty soon part of that life involved targeting more people on campus, specifically innocent young women. John's aggressive tendencies were about to reach new heights, and the more he indulged his dark side, the more deadly he became. Think about some of the cases that defined true crime in America. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, the Karen retrial. Some crime cases are so shocking, they don't just make headlines they forever change a country. I'm Katie Ring, host of America's most infamous crimes.

Each week, I take on one of the most notorious criminal cases, whether it's unfolding now or etched into American history, revealing not just what happened, but how it forever changed our society. Serial killers who terrorized cities, unsolved mysteries that kept detectives up at night, and investigations that change the way we think about justice. Each case unfolds across multiple episodes, released every Tuesday through Thursday, from the first sign that something was wrong

to the moment the truth came out or didn't. These are the stories behind the headlines. Listen to and follow America's most infamous crimes available now wherever you get your podcast. In 1966, John Norman Collins was in his sophomore year at Eastern Michigan University. John had always been a starstress. and that didn't change at EMU,

but none of his new friends or classmates knew about the violent past he'd left behind. They also didn't know that John had been stealing motorcycle parts as part of his new hobby. As far as anyone could tell, John was a well-adjusted, dedicated student, and he used that image to hide his true nature. But the more confident he became, the more John's grades started to suffer, because his confidence led him to start fixating on women, on women. It's not unheard of for college kids to get distracted with their social lives, and someone like John, who was tall, confident, and charming, was especially inclined to lose focus

on school in favor of having fun. John could walk into a room and strike up a conversation with a woman effortlessly. He had no problem getting women's phone numbers and taking them on dates, and he loved it. He'd often sleep with someone once and quickly move on to the next. It seemed like John was having the time of his life, but that changed when his deep-seated rage came to the surface. One night, John allegedly went to see a woman he'd been pursuing, hoping to finally get physical. But as things heated up, John realized the woman was on her period. In response, John wasn't just uncomfortable. He was angry. He called her disgusting and stormed out of her apartment. Well, this is another disproportionate reaction characterized by anger, disgust.

degrading comments, which suggests that he was once again activated by something deeper. And because it involves a woman, it points to a pattern, particularly when a woman's behavior or even her body now, doesn't align with his expectations or desires. That reflects very rigid views about women, especially around physical, sexual, or behavioral standards that he holds. And this happened after he's had a series of, we'll call them, one-night stance. So he's been having a lot of time flirting easily, getting numbers easily, but he can't maintain relationships or isn't maintaining relationships with women because of his angry outbursts and his controlling behavior or because he wants to be able to move on and find someone new. This has come easily

for him. But when his expectations aren't met, his response becomes hostile. The disgust is what really stands out to me. In that moment, she's no longer being seen as a person with a normal and involuntary biological experience, instead she's being reduced to whether or not she meets his needs. I think he's viewing this as a form of rejection. That's dehumanizing, and that ties back to what we've discussed around control and entitlement. If someone approaches relationships with the expectation that their desires need to be met by that person when they expect them to, then they're likely going to view anything less as a violation, regardless of what it is. And when you pair that with someone who has a low threshold for emotional regulation

or impaired impulse control, their reaction can escalate quickly into anger and hostility, as we've seen. Well, John's outburst served as another example of the side of himself he kept hidden. But the more he let it rise to the surface, the worse it became, because after this incident, John's treatment of women became more heinous than ever. Despite being unable to handle basic biology, John continued to fixate on women. And in the summer of 1967, he reportedly set his sights on someone new. Mary Flezar was 19 years old, studying accounting at EMU. She lived near John in off-campus housing, and they'd crossed paths a few times. They didn't know each other well, but John had been interested in Mary for some time, and on the night of

July 9th, he allegedly decided to make his move. It's believed that as Mary was walking home, to her apartment, John pulled up beside her in his bluish-gray Chevrolet. He offered her a ride, but to his surprise, and anger, she turned him down. John was so mad he was unable to simply drive away. Instead, he got out of his car, grabbed Mary and forced her into the passenger seat. Then he drove to a secluded rural area away from campus. Once he and Mary were completely alone, he sexually assaulted her. And he didn't stop there. At some point during the incident, John's lifelong rage boiled over. So he pulled out a knife and stabbed Mary dozens of times.

She didn't survive. Once John knew she was dead, he left her body near an abandoned farmhouse. He laid her on top of a pile of crushed cans and broken bottles that was partially hidden by brush, discarding her like trash. Finally, John returned home like nothing out of the ordinary had happened. It's shocking how he could carry out something this brutal and then go right back to his normal life. But when you look at his pattern,

it actually follows what he's already been doing. John's been doing this very thing for some time. On the surface, he presents the All-American College persona, one that is social, functional, and well-liked. At the same time, he's been engaging in theft, aggression, and boundary-pushing behavior privately. So he's been perfecting the art of, compartmentalizing his life, and that's largely because it's been reinforced. He's not been caught. It's

been working for him. He violently assaults his sister and her partner then goes back to normal. He steals repeatedly, then goes back to normal. No one detects anything. He has been consistently separating his behavior mentally so it doesn't interfere with other parts of his life. This doesn't suggest something like a split personality or dissociative identity disorder. That's very different and much rarer condition, but it is, like we talked about, a very common psychological mechanism seen in offender behavior, and that's compartmentalization. In terms of how John disposed of Mary's body, what might that signal about his psyche? Does this show a compulsive need to degrade women just the way he laid her there like trash? Maybe it helps him feel better about himself somehow?

Yeah. I mean, he drove her to a secluded area and left her partially hidden, discarded her on debris, like you said. On one level, as horrible as this sounds to say, that's practical. It creates distance from him and reduces the likelihood of immediate discovery or connection to him. But it's also dehumanizing because he doesn't see Mary as a person. He sees her as an object to throw away. Many offenders engage in post-mortem behaviors that reflect dehumanization like this. And we're talking about concealment, staging, or treating the body in any kind of way that's strips away anything that resembles them being a person. The more an offender is able to objectify and dehumanize, the easier it becomes for them to create distance from the act itself. And that

distance supports the compartmentalization we've just been discussing too. So yes, this restores a sense of power and control for John, which can in turn make him feel better about himself in that sense as well. John showed no remorse for what he'd done. In fact, by the next morning, he anxiously awaited the news of Mary's murder to break. John felt a twinge of excitement at the thought of someone discovering what had happened. This is meaningful. This suggests that he's very psychologically engaged with the crime and it didn't end for

him when he took her life. He's now reliving it through anticipation, which is an extension of that thrill-seeking behavior we've seen. Even though Mary was reported missing the day after she was killed, two weeks passed and no one had any clue where she was, except for John, and he was becoming more agitated than anyone. John wanted Mary's body to be found, and when that didn't happen, he couldn't take it anymore, so he drove back to the farmhouse where he found Mary's body right where he'd left it. He then dragged her body several feet into a nearby field where it would

be more visible. John once again returned home and continued waiting for the bombshell to explode, but still nothing happened. The headlines were silent, and the Ipsilani police made no progress. So, weeks later, John went back again. This time, he moved Mary's body closer to an area where people sometimes walked through the field. This time, his plan worked. On August 7, 1967, one month after Mary's murder, two local boys stumbled upon her mutilated and badly decomposed remains. All right, so we know he's psychologically invested in that the anticipation of Mary's discovery is part of the reward,

but returning to the scene and moving her body twice introduces real risk. So why would anyone do that, let alone twice? But for John, this actually fits with his profile. I think we can agree, obviously, that concealment was not the primary goal. Yes, he left her in a secluded area, but he only left her partially hidden. He expected her to be found, and when that didn't happen, we see the same pattern that we've already seen. When his expectations aren't met, he feels he's lost control, and he reacts. That's why he went back, and he moved her, and he tried to control the outcome. And when that still didn't work,

he did it again. But there's a level of confidence behind that behavior, because to do that, he has to believe that he can get away with it. And that confidence has likely been building over time. Again, he's been compartmentalizing two personas and living this double life. And because that compartmentalization has worked and no one has noticed or even intervened, it's been reinforced. And that has likely quietly been building his confidence all along. Okay, I have to point this out because this is shocking to me. John was comfortable, brutally stabbing someone and then handling her dead body weeks after. I mean, she's decomposing. It's awful just to think about, but he couldn't handle something as every day as a woman's period. That's a great question. So with John, it's more about

what he can tolerate psychologically. His reactions seem tied to how he experiences control and expectation. I don't think he was squeamish or disgusted by menstrual blood. I think it was more about the situation and how it was unpredictable, uncontrollable, and outside of what he wanted or expected. In contrast, during the assault and murder of Mary and after she was killed, the dynamics reversed. He's the one in control. The situation unfolds according to his actions, not hers, not anyone else's. He's regaining control. A sense of a control for him is central. And when that control is disrupted, like when he was rejected or when no one's finding her body, it's triggering a need for him to reassert control. And that can likely explain the level of brutality for her murder,

and it certainly explains why he's going back to Mary's body and why he's able and willing to handle her decomposing body, not once but twice. The fact that John was unbothered by revisiting the scene speaks to his sheer level of evil, because even the authorities could barely process what they were looking at. When investigators arrived, the scene was unlike anything they'd witnessed before. The level of violence was shocking. Not only that, but they were able to quickly determine that the victim had been moved multiple times because of the trail of blood left behind. The medical examiner was able to confirm Mary Flesar's identity through dental records. The ME also noted something else. At the time,

of her murder, Mary had been on her period. For investigators, this was simply noted as part of the findings and didn't seem like a meaningful detail. At least, not yet. Meanwhile, the news of Mary's brutal murder spread quickly through campus and sent shockwaves through the local community, especially among young coeds who realized that what happened to Mary could happen to them. But John didn't blink an eye. If anything, he continued to move through his life with ease, going to class, working and visiting his aunt and uncle.

It's also possible John did something shocking in the wake of Mary's death. While Mary's body was being held at a local funeral home, a young man showed up claiming to be a family friend. He told a worker he'd been sent to take a photograph of her in the coffin as a keepsake for her parents. The request immediately raised red flags. It was inappropriate, not to mention unsettling, and the funeral home employee told the young man it wasn't a life.

But the unnamed man wouldn't take no for an answer. He kept pushing until the employee seemed to notice that he didn't even seem to have a camera with him. At that point, the employee firmly turned the young man away. He left without saying another word. If that was John, then that would suggest a continuation of that psychological investment or engagement. Or rather, an intensification of that and a serious preoccupation. If he did indeed have a camera and plan to take a picture, then this would be trophy-like behavior. But because he didn't have a camera and he didn't take anything of hers that we know of,

then this is more likely a pathological need to reinsert himself into the crime, which aligns with the same post-offence revisiting behavior that we have already seen. It also shows how John, if this was him, has a difficult time accepting limits or boundaries and tends to push them until he is stopped or if he can be stopped. And that's something that is characteristic of a sexual offender, the boundary testing. And it's also showing that his risk tolerance is increasing even more because this behavior is very high-risk behavior. Getting away with murdering Mary and then moving her body twice has allowed that confidence to grow. Why do you think John was drawn to such risk-taking behavior, even if this wasn't him, his other behaviors as well,

stealing bike parts and things like that. Why was he drawn to that? Thrill seeking and a need for stimulation, I think likely play a significant role here. These are often seen in offenders with poor impulse control and difficulty regulating emotion just like John. And the risk itself becomes part of the reward because it creates adrenaline, excitement, and a sense of control. That can become almost addicting. It can start to function like a cycle where the person seeks out that same level of stimulation again. So you're going to see escalation of that thrill-seeking behavior. When investigators learned what had happened, they theorized that the man was likely Mary's killer. Unfortunately, this incident only gave them a few minor pieces of information.

Funeral home employees were unable to identify the man, but they told police he was tall with dark hair and drove a blue-gray Chevrolet. With only these details at their disposal, John remained off the police's radar. To everyone who knew him, he was just another college student who was shocked and horrified by the news, which meant no one was onto him. But the safer John felt, the more unhinged he became. And when he took his second victim, he showed everyone just how ruthless he really was. Hi, Crimehouse Community, it's Vanessa.

Are you interested in the mysterious parts of history? like when in 1518, an entire European city couldn't stop dancing, or in 1908 when something flattened over 800 square miles of Siberian forest in an instant. I'm excited to tell you about a new show, Hidden History with Dr. Harini Bott. Dr. Bott has spent her entire career demanding evidence and asking why. Now every Monday on Hidden History, she goes where history touches the unknown, Vanished civilizations, doomsday prophecies, paranormal phenomena, and events that science still can't fully explain. Dr. Bot treats these moments like open case files, not myths, not superstition, just incomplete explanations, waiting for a closer look.

At the end of every episode, she'll tell you exactly what she thinks happen and ask, what if it happened today? Hidden History drops every Monday. Follow now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. so you never miss a mystery. After killing Mary Flesar in July of 1967, 20-year-old John Collins went right back to doing what he did best, blending in. However, a normal, stable life could only sustain John for so long, so even though he knew he had to lay low

while police investigated Mary's murder, he sought out other cheap thrills. When he first arrived at Eastern Michigan University, about two years earlier, John had started stealing motorcycle parts from other student's bikes on campus. Now, he wanted to see what other forms of thievery he could get away with. So John started breaking into student housing and cars and taking anything of value. John pawned everything he stole, but he wasn't motivated by the money.

He simply loved the rush of getting away with it. It isn't unusual for some offenders to have a cooling off period after a murder, but that doesn't mean the underlying drives like the need for stimulation or control have gone away. More often, those drives are still active. They're just redirected. During these sleeper periods or the cooling off period, if they're not inactive because of life circumstances like incarceration or family obligations if they have one, many offenders engage in other lesser behaviors that satisfy those same psychological needs or urges. For example, Dennis Rader had long,

cooling off periods between his murders. But during those times, he admitted that he engaged in fetish behavior, fantasy, and even burglary because these were ways of maintaining that sense of control and stimulation without killing. For John, at least for now, that outlet appears to be theft. It's a different type of offense, but it still provides risk, excitement, and reinforcement. Why do you think John chose to continue targeting fellow EMU students? Was it just easier? they were there? Or do you think that victimizing his own peers was part of his M.O.? And if so, what might that suggest about his psyche? Part of this is practical. These are individuals who are accessible and familiar to him. He understands the environments. He knows where the motorcycles are

parked or who owns them. He knows their routines. And how to approach people without raising suspicion because it's an environment he lives in. But there may also be a psychological layer here, too, because he's well-liked and perceived as trustworthy, people aren't on guard around him there. So he's not just avoiding suspicion in this environment. He's actively benefiting from the trust of the people who know him there. And for someone like John, there can be a thrill in the idea that he is seen one way publicly

while victimizing those same people the next. But also we know he likes to reinsert himself in his crimes. And here, he's targeting, in the very environment he's already existing in. So that means he can be part of the gossip after the fact. He can go talk to the person whose home he broke into. So there are practical and psychological reasons he's targeting his fellow EMU students. It's possible that breaking into homes on campus was a way for John to feed that darker side of himself

just enough to keep it under control. And for a while it seemed to work, but it couldn't tie him over forever. because what John had building inside of him couldn't be contained. His urge to kill had only gotten stronger. By June of 1968, almost a year after he murdered Mary, John reportedly had his eyes on someone new, a 20-year-old art student named Joan Shell. Just like Mary, Joan was John's neighbor off campus,

but they didn't seem to know each other well. However, just like with Mary, John allegedly had his eye on Joan for a while, and on the night of June 30th, he may have found a way to get her alone. That night, Joan was planning to visit her boyfriend in Ann Arbor, which was just a short 14-mile drive from EMU. She didn't have a car, so she did what a lot of students did at the time. She went to a bus stop to try and hitchhike a ride. At around 10.45 p.m., Joan accepted a ride from three young men in a red and black car,

who said they were heading in the same direction as her. Joan's roommate, who was at the bus stop with her, tried to talk her out of it. The idea of her friend getting into a car with three strangers made her uneasy. But Joan didn't listen. She got into the car and promised to call her roommate as soon as she made it to her boyfriend's apartment. The details of what happened next are unclear. To this day, we don't know who the three men were or how long Joan was with them. But at some point that night, whether it was in that car or after getting dropped up,

off, Joan crossed paths with John Collins. A few hours after parting with her roommate, Joan still hadn't called, and she never showed up at her boyfriend's place. So her roommate phoned the police to report her missing. During that call, she gave a description of one of the men Joan had gotten into the car with, a good-looking male in his 20s with dark hair. Police waited until the next day to begin their search for Joan, and with limited information, they had no luck finding her.

It wasn't until a few days later, on July 5th, 1968, that anyone discovered the truth of what had happened. That day, a group of construction workers stumbled upon Jones' mutilated body on the side of the road near Ann Arbor. When police arrived at the scene, they determined that she'd been stabbed more than two dozen times,

and her throat was slashed. The level of violence was beyond extreme. But in their struggle to face the sheer brutality, investigators noticed something strange. There was no blood splatter in the vicinity, which made them think her body had been moved, just like Mary Flezars had been. While it doesn't seem like there were blood trails

like there had been at the scene where Mary's body was found, there were other similarities in their cases. The medical examiner in Jones case noted that she had also been sexually assaulted and that she was on her period when she was killed. Joan is now John's second victim, and she was also menstruating at the time of her death. Let's talk about that. This is something that is likely going to be noted in the medical report, because with every

sexual assault and every autopsy, they check if the victim is pregnant. That's important from an investigative and legal standpoint. We know that John had his eye on both Mary and Joan prior to approaching them, but unless we know that he had been stalking them, I mean surveilling them, and more important, somehow tracking their menstrual cycles, which I'm not sure how he could have done back then, I think it's unlikely that he is intentionally targeting women because they're menstruating. How would he have known otherwise? What I think is more likely is that they just so happen to be menstruating when he approached them.

There's about a one in five or six chance of that happening. And I think when he realized it, he reacted the way he's historically reacted to anything that deviates from his expectation. and feels unpredictable or out of his control. I think the moving of the bodies is more significant here. It's repeated now, and he learned from the murder of Mary. So what I think likely happened is he took Joan to a secluded location where he could assault and kill her without being interrupted or seen because he needs a controlled environment to do that,

and then relocated her to an environment where he can now control how she would be discovered. What's also notable is that both women had to be. boyfriends. If John had been observing them for some time, he had to have been aware of that. Given what we've discussed about his rigid expectations around women and relationships, that could be a factor in his victim selection. If he's seeing them when they're not with their boyfriends and he's thinking their behavior doesn't align with what he expects it to, and then he could choose them as a result of that. But that's purely speculative. What do you think John's apparent M.O. suggests about his level of premeditation versus impulse?

There was definitely targeted interest in forethought. He's not selecting victims entirely at random because there's familiarity. He's observing them. And there's some degree of anticipation, at least based on what you've described. That reflects a level of premeditation in terms of who he's drawn to and how he plans to approach them. But when you look at how the crimes unfold, especially the level of violence, there's strong evidence of impulsive escalation or rage. Once the interaction begins, particularly if something disrupts his expectations, his response appears to intensify quickly and disproportionately. So that means he's capable of patience in selection, but he still lacks regulation once he's triggered. Now, that doesn't mean every victim is going to be something that he anticipates or is,

you know, selecting it with patients. There could be instances where it is not premeditated, where, you know, it is something that's impulsive. But until this point, I don't see that it is. Because of how similar Mary and Jones attacks were, both young college women raped while menstruating and had their bodies moved, detectives ultimately concluded that their murders were the work of the same killer. So the authorities pulled together a small team of four detectives to focus full-time on solving the cases. Over the next several weeks, they worked tirelessly and interviewed hundreds of people chasing down anything that might point them in the right direction. They tracked down men who owned vehicles matching the description Jones' roommate had given,

and they released a composite sketch based on what she remembered about the men inside. And while one sketch actually bore a slight resemblance to John, no one. connected the dots. Detectives didn't uncover anything meaningful. By August 18th, 1968, just six weeks after Jones' body was found, investigators announced that they'd exhausted all possible leads. They weren't officially closing the case, but their resources were being scaled back. The department couldn't afford to have four detectives on the case anymore. It seemed like Marion Jones' cases were quickly going cold. However, things took a turn a month later. when an unnamed witness came forward to say they'd seen Joan walking with a young man the night

she disappeared. According to this witness, that man was John Collins. Police immediately tracked John down to interview him. When they did, he remained calm, cool, and collected. He said he hadn't been anywhere near EMU or the University of Michigan, where Joan's boyfriend went to school on the night she disappeared. According to John, he was at his mom's house that night, which was about an hour or way. Investigators felt like John's story was convincing enough, and they gave him the benefit of the doubt. It's possible John received special treatment because his uncle was a corporal with the Michigan State Police, or maybe it was the result of poor investigative work, because the authorities never even looked into John's alibi, and he was quickly cleared as a suspect.

This is infuriating because this is exactly the kind of experience that will fundamentally shift how he perceives himself. When law enforcement blindly believes him, without even checking his alibi, it's going to reinforce that he can present convincingly, control the narrative, and avoid consequences again, even under direct scrutiny. And it's the first time he's been scrutinized, no less. That ties directly into the pattern we've been building. He's already been successfully compartmentalizing, maintaining this All-American facade while engaging in very problematic behavior underneath it, murdering on the side, and this interaction elevates that because he's just now navigated contact with police and came out unchallenged. He's going to be even more confident in his ability to manipulate situations and people.

And that's going to lower any hesitation that he might have still had, if any, or any uncertainty he was carrying, and it's likely going to lead to more escalation. Now that John knew he was cleared, there was nothing holding him back. He'd proven to himself that his wholesome image was strong enough to protect him. And with that, he stopped trying to control his monstrous urges and unleashed them. John was about to embark on an all-out killing spree. But eventually, his confidence would get the better of him, and he would unwittingly lead investigators directly to his own front base.

door. Thanks so much for listening. Thanks again to our special guest, Katie Ring. She'll be back with us next time for the conclusion of our deep dive on John Norman Collins. And in the meantime, be sure to subscribe and follow America's most infamous crimes on audio and YouTube. Thanks again. Can't wait to be back. Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is a crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you're going to be in, heard today, reach out on Instagram at Crime House. 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 Crimehouse Plus on Apple

podcasts. You'll get every episode of serial killers and murderous minds ad-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, Alyssa Fox, Sarah Batchelor, Markey Lee, Sarah Tardiff, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening. I'm Katie Ring, host of America's most infamous crime. Each week, I take on one of the most notorious criminal cases in American history.

Listen to and follow America's most infamous crimes available now wherever you get your podcast.