Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: "The Ypsilanti Ripper" John Norman Collins Pt. 2 with Katie Ring from America's Most Infamous Crimes

Episode Date: May 28, 2026

Once again, 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 1969, John Norman Collins terrorized Ypsilanti, Michigan, murdering at least six young women and girls while hiding behind a charming, all-American persona. Despite being questioned multiple times, Collins evaded investigators until a single careless choice left behind the physical evidence that undid him. 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. Self-confidence plays a huge role in all of our lives. Whether it's career goals or personal aspirations, we need a healthy dose of confidence in order to achieve anything. However, some people's confidence can go too far. Maybe they think they're too good for others. or they don't realize when they're not as good at something as they think they are. And in other cases, overconfidence causes people to do horrifying things without a second thought. John, Norman Collins had that kind of confidence. Whether he was breaking into homes or brutally taking someone's life,

John believed he could do whatever he wanted with impunity. But John was his own worst enemy, and his hubris would be his downfall, because all it took was one wrong move for his gruesome crimes to come to light. 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 today, Dr. Engels and I are joined again by Katie Ring, host of the Crimehouse Original, America's Most Infamous Crimes. Hi again, so excited to be back. Honestly, Katie, join us anytime. And for anyone listening, if you didn't follow and subscribe to America's most infamous crimes after our last episode, make sure to do it now. Remember, you can find it audio only on podcasting platforms and with video on YouTube. Definitely subscribe.

And just like last time, Katie will introduce today's episode. And be sure to stick around at the end as we sit down for an extended discussion on today's case. Thanks, Vanessa. Before we get started, please be advised that this episode contains discussion of explicit sexual violence against women and minors, so please listen with care. Today, Vanessa and Dr. Angles conclude their deep dive into the mind of John Norman Collins, aka the Ipsilante Ripper, a seemingly ordinary college 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 why some violent offenders insert themselves into investigations, why they reveal information that could shed light on their guilt before they've been caught, and how past trauma can fester and serve as the driving force behind some killers' rage. And as always, they'll be asking the question, what makes a killer?

By the fall of 1968, 21-year-old John Norman Collins had allegedly killed 19-year-old Mary Flezar and 20-year-old Joan Shell. Both women were students at Eastern Michigan University, just like John. He'd seen both of them around before he attacked them, one year apart. John sexually assaulted and brutally stabbed both of his victims. and after disposing of their bodies, he likely went back to move them so they'd be found faster. John enjoyed the thrill of causing widespread fear, all while flying under the radar. Even though he was questioned as a suspect in Jones' murder, the police didn't even bother to check his alibi, possibly because his uncle worked for the state police,

which meant authorities were struggling to figure out who had killed Mary and Joan. Detectives in Ipsilante and Ann Arbor, where Jones' body had been found, had formed a task force and were on high alert. The Ann Arbor Police Chief even stated publicly that there was a psycho killer on the loose. Female students at EMU were living in fear. They walked around campus in groups or with trusted male friends, and John loved witnessing all the chaos he'd created.

At the same time, he knew he had to lay low before striking again. But he wouldn't wait forever. Eight months after allegedly killing Joan, he was ready to strike again. This time, he reportedly set his sights on someone with a different profile from his past victims. Marilyn Skelton did not attend EMU. In fact, she was only 16 years old, but she had friends at EMU and often hung out with them where they lived off campus, including an apartment complex where some of John's friends lived.

Most likely, John noticed Marilyn while spending time there. It's unclear how John got Marilyn alone, but on Marilyn. March 22nd, 1969, she had plans to meet up with a friend and failed to show up. So her boyfriend quickly reported her missing. Shortly after, things took a dark turn. The day after Marilyn's boyfriend contacted police, her parents received a phone call, an unfamiliar male voice told them they would find Marilyn, quote, laid out somewhere with bullets in her head. Marilyn was younger, but she still fits a pattern. She was someone that he had observed, someone within his environment, and again, someone

who had a boyfriend. That consistency is notable, but so is the phone call if it in fact was him. Calling her parents allows him to remain psychologically engaged in the crime, similar to what we saw with Mary. But this is also a psychological escalation. It crosses significant boundaries and reinserts him directly. into her family. That suggests that he is focused on the emotional impact that this crime had on her family, and given that he is already deriving excitement from the fear that is growing on campus

because of his crimes, this fits his pattern. It also reinforces his need for control, but more than that, authorship. He's now shaping how his crime is experienced, how it unfolds, and how it's communicated, and that reflects an increase in both risk-taking and confidence. And as we discussed, with each successful offense, that confidence gets reinforced. And this is a direct result of that. In general, why do violent offenders sometimes try to get close to investigations? Like by making contact with victims' family members, like in this case with John, police or anyone else involved? Why does that happen?

It's not much different than what we're seeing here with John. In general, it's a continued psychological investment in the crime. They want to remain connected to what they've done. and why that is can vary. Most often it's about control. In other cases, it's about reliving the event, especially for offenders who keep trophies or souvenirs. That proximity allows them to re-experience the intensity,

the emotions, and the sense of power that was tied to the act itself. There's also a clear risk-taking component. Reinserting themselves increases the chance of being caught, but for some, that risk becomes part of the appeal, especially if it's previously gone undetected. And for others, it's about recognition and authorship. It's also about shaping the narrative and maintaining a sense of control over how the crime is experienced by others, like the Zodiac Killer, for example.

And it can also be a combination of these things. If John was trying to scare Marilyn's loved ones, it worked. They feared she was the killer's next victim. And on March 25th, they were met with the tragic reality. That day, a construction worker found Marylin's. Marilyn's body at a building site, less than a quarter mile from where Joan Shell's body had been found. However, it didn't appear that the killer had come back to move Marilyn's body, like he had with his previous victims, but the level of violence was the same.

When the police analyzed Marilyn's body, they discovered that a shirt had been shoved into her mouth, and a belt was wound tightly around her neck. She'd been so badly beaten, her skull was crushed. Authorities weren't surprised by the brutality. After all, it matched what the first two victims had suffered, but they were surprised when Marilyn's autopsy results showed that she'd been on her period when she died, just like Mary and Joan.

It seemed like a pattern they couldn't brush off as a coincidence. Pretty soon they learned something else shocking. When the news broke, a local restaurant owner told police he'd seen Marilyn at his establishment on March 23rd just one day after she was reported missing, At the time, the owner hadn't recognized her, so he didn't have any reason to be suspicious when she pulled into the drive-thru to order four hamburgers. The restaurant owner couldn't recall whether Marilyn was alone at the time, but now the

task force realized that the killer was probably acquainted with each of his victims, which was how he was able to lure them in. Still, investigators weren't any closer to zeroing in on John, partly because there wasn't much evidence left at each scene. And while police considered other suspects, nothing panned out. Pressure to solve the case was building, so the authorities announced a $20,000 reward for information. Even though they received some tips, none of them pointed to John, and he knew it.

If anything, he was emboldened, so he started finding new ways to enjoy all the terror. John started talking to his friends and coworkers about the gruesome details published in the papers. Even though some people were bothered by it, John seemed to be doing the same thing as many others at the time, fixating on each story out of fear or morbid curiosity. But sometimes he'd take it a step further. John would mention other gory details he claimed hadn't been released to the public, saying he'd learned about it through his uncle who worked in law enforcement. This is controlled behavioral leakage, meaning he's sharing accurate, non-public details about his own behavior. but pairing them with a plausible cover story that gives him deniability, and that's his uncle. That suggests that he's aware of the risk and he's actively managing it.

But the question is, why even do that at all? And again, that ties back to his need for involvement. Sharing those details allows him to remain psychologically engaged in the crime, which is a pattern we've already seen and we talked about at length in episode one. He's not just observing reactions of people anymore, though. He's now trying to elicit the reactions himself. It started with calling Marilyn's parents, and now this. And because the information that he's giving is new and disturbing, that likely adds to the thrill.

It also fits with that reinforcement cycle. The need for stimulation increases when it doesn't produce the same effect, and to get that, the behavior needs to evolve. John is seeking new ways to get that same intensity and control. And also, once again, he's boundary testing. He's gauging how close he can get to the truth without raising suspicion, which keeps building confidence in his ability to deceive others and avoid detection. John showed no fear of getting caught, and in April of 1969, less than a month after Marilyn's death, he sought out his next suspected victim. This time, someone even younger.

13-year-old Don Bassem was a local middle school student. She lived across the street from a girl John used to date. Around 7 p.m. on April 14th, Don was walking home from a friend's house, who lived about a mile away from her. As she walked along some railroad tracks, John approached her, and somehow he got her into his car. Then he drove to an abandoned farmhouse nearby. When they got there, Don realized she was in serious danger and fought to get away, and at one point she did. But John quickly caught up and overpowered her. Then he removed her clothes, strangled her with an electrical wire, gagged her with a piece of cloth, and stabbed her multiple times.

She was not sexually assaulted. The fact that he did not sexually assault Don illustrates that sexual assault is often not about sex. It's about power, control, and dominance, which is the pattern we've seen with John up to this point. We also have seen that he holds rigid expectations, particularly when it comes to women. or more accurately here, females, because Don is a child. So what changed? Why didn't he sexually assault her? Well, Don fought back and even briefly escaped, and that shifts the dynamic. The situation moves from one where he is in control, as he expects and anticipates to be,

to one where that control is threatened. And based on his pattern, when his expectations are disrupted, his response escalates. He likely did not anticipate that level of resistance, especially from a child, and that deviation likely triggered anger or rage. So instead of sexually assaulting her, he went straight into a brutal attack, which are all behaviors that reassert dominance and restore control. In this situation, I think he had to deviate because of unexpected circumstances and a threat to his controlled system. Do you think the fact that Dawn was so young might have disrupted John's internal script and changed how we acted in that moment? It's possible. I'm not sure I think it's likely, though. When an offender chooses a victim that young, it's intentional. They are easy targets. Developmentally, they're easily influenced, they're trusting, and often they lack confidence asserting boundaries, especially with adults. And physically, they can't overpower someone John's size. John chose her for a reason. And statistically, it's likely because of her perceived vulnerability, her accessibility, and desirability.

And I think the only disruption in his internal script was the fact that she was a fighter, who almost won. And that was something he didn't expect. Whatever John's reasons were, he was clearly just as intent to kill Don as all his previous victims. And once she was dead, John left her body on a wooded roadside out in the open enough to be easily found. He didn't return to move her body again because less than 24 hours later, a truck driver spotted her, just like John wanted. The familiar pattern kept playing out from there. And just like John's other victims, the ME determined that Don had also been on her period at the time of her murder. But that wasn't the only connection to the previous murders, because when investigators surveyed the scene where Don's body was found,

they found a gold earring that had belonged to Marilyn Skelton. This is reminiscent of the Golden State Killer, where items that were connected to prior victims of his were brought into new crime scenes of his. This also supports the presence of trophy behavior, which I actually suspected because he had the traits, but we didn't yet have confirmation of that. Authorities believed the killer was mocking them. And less than a month later, the ridicule continued when the abandoned farmhouse where Don had been killed was destroyed in a fire. After investigators arrived on the scene, they noticed four lilacs placed in a neat row along the driveway. The number of flowers matched the number of victims John had killed so far. The authorities later arrested an arsonist in connection with the fire,

but that person wasn't John, which meant he was still on the loose. And as he grew more brazen, John embarked on his most depraved and vile act yet. You're no longer young people. You're just people. And people are either productive or dead weight. It's my first day of work, and I need to make a big impression. Were you just checking me out? No.

It's too bad. I see at least 15 ladies I need to talk to before my beta block and wears off. My coworkers don't take me seriously. It's not a human. It's just a piece of meat. Someone bring a gurney. 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 Catering, 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 their 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 April of 1969, 21-year-old John Collins reportedly murdered his fourth and youngest victim, 13-year-old Don Bassem. Despite his increased violence and hubris, authorities were still no closer to catching him. John finished his junior year at Eastern Michigan University and headed into summer without missing a beat. On the surface, he looked like any other college kid ready for a much-needed break. But John wasn't interested in taking time off to relax.

By early June, it's believed he'd focused his attention on someone new, 21-year-old Alice Kalum, who'd recently graduated from the University of Michigan and was taking a few extra classes over the summer. And on the night of June 8th, while Alice was walking home from a friend's house, he abducted and attacked her. The next day, two teenage boys found Alice's body near another abandoned farmhouse.

When police arrived at the scene, they once again noted the extreme violence that had taken place. Alice's stab wounds were so bad the officers could barely look at them. Soon, Alice's autopsy showed that she'd also been on her period. But there was one detail that set her murder apart from the others. Alice had been shot once in the forehead. There's a shift in method here.

Up until this point, John's behavior has been highly personal, and his violence had been all hands-on. His methods required that he be in close proximity, and it allowed for him to have full control. But a gun creates distance, and it's least. lethal and it doesn't require any physical interaction. So why use it? Why use it now? And I think the timing is very significant because it happens after dawn nearly escapes. I think that suggests that he's refining and adapting after a near miss so that he can eliminate any future risk, but more importantly

for John's psychology, he can anticipate future risk more accurately. That said, this isn't a full shift in his motive or his methods, the underlying pattern of control and domination and power are very much still present. It isn't unusual for serial offenders to refine their methods as they gain more experience or they gain more confidence. It's adaptation, and we often see it as competence grows. What do you make of the fact that Alice was shot once? Do you think this indicates that John wasn't really comfortable with using a gun or maybe the opposite? I think it suggests that the guns served just a specific function. It wasn't really. his preferred method. It was used once, like you said, but it was used alongside other equally lethal

forms of violence. And I think that indicates it wasn't a primary expression of his control. It was just used for efficiency. It doesn't appear to be central to how he carries out his violence. We know that, especially from his past. Instead, I think it's likely a tool that he used in that moment, but his core pattern is still there. It's still the same. I would be curious to know if the use of the gun happened after he killed her through his other methods, because if so, that would be a significant form of dehumanization. The use of a gun initially threw investigators off, but ultimately they determined that Alice had been killed by the same person as the previous victims, which meant the killer was escalating, and so was the pressure to catch him. With five,

Five victims so far, public fear was at an all-time high. The reward for information climbed to $42,000, which is well over $350,000 in today's money. More detectives were assigned to each case, and they interviewed more than 1,000 convicted sex offenders and followed up on hundreds of tips. But nothing led them to John. It's also important to remember that investigators were working within the limits of the era. DNA databases weren't around in 1969, so even if the authorities had been able to collect and preserve any biological evidence, there was no system to run it against.

Plus, John had no record anyway. The case seemed to be going nowhere fast. By July of 1969, the local community was so desperate for answers that they took matters into their own hands. And a self-described hippie vigilante group called the Psychedelic Rangers enlisted the help a psychic to create a profile of the killer. The psychic described the suspect as a strong white male under 25 years old, born outside of the United States who rode a motorcycle.

All traits that correctly matched John, who'd been born in Canada and started stealing motorcycle parts when he first got to college. When fear and desperation reach a certain level, especially in cases that are particularly brutal and unpredictable, it can cause collective panic. These crimes feel random, but they're also close to home, and authorities have no leads. And people respond to uncertainty of not knowing who's next, when it will happen next, and how it can be prevented. Everything that they've been accustomed to relying on, like evidence and standard investigative processes, isn't working. So the natural and human instinct is to find anything that will offer hope. And to

psychic can offer hope and the possibility of answers or direction. So turning to a psychic really reflects the emotional reality of these crimes in the community. It's a response to fear, lack of control, and a need for closure. And in this case, the psychic just so happened to be right. The same psychic also made one more prediction. They said that the killer would strike one final time and just days later, he did. On July 23rd, Third, 1969, 18-year-old Karen Sue Benaman, a student at EMU, entered a local wig shop. She browsed around a little before leaving the store and hopping onto the back of John's motorcycle. It seems like Karen believed they were on a date.

John's aunt and uncle, who lived nearby, were out of town. So he took Karen to their house. When he got there, he forced Karen down into the basement. What followed next was the most brutal attack yet. John sexually assaulted Karen, strangled her and beat her severely. He stabbed her repeatedly and forced her to drink a corrosive liquid that caused extreme burns and internal damage. He also stuffed a cloth into her mouth to silence her screams. When it was over, John drove Karen's body to a wooded area, then went back to his aunt and uncle's house to clean up the scene.

Meanwhile, Karen was reported missing, and the authorities looked at. into the timeline of her final movements. The owner of the wig shop told police that she'd left the store with a young man on a motorcycle, but they weren't able to give a more detailed description of him other than the fact that he had dark hair. It wasn't a lot to go on, and three days later, Karen's body was discovered. Investigators were dumbfounded to learn that yet another victim had been menstruating when she died.

And soon, they uncovered another peculiar detail. The medical examiner found several short blonde hairs all over Karen's body. Karen had a short bob, but her hair was brown. So authorities believed the killer had somehow left the blonde hairs behind. But based on the description of the man Karen had been seen with, the hairs likely didn't belong to the killer himself. Detectives kept this piece of information in their back pockets while they continued strategizing. It was becoming more and more clear that if they wanted to catch the killer,

than they'd have to think outside the box. That's when someone proposed a risky idea. It was no secret that the killer wanted each body to be found quickly and easily. In the past, he'd even gone back to move his victim's bodies if they hadn't been discovered. His compulsive need to watch the fallout of his crimes was a key part of his MO,

and detectives believed they could use it against him. Even though they'd already spoken to a few witnesses in Karen's case, they only revealed that she was missing. Authorities concealed the fact that Karen had been killed, and they placed a mannequin in the exact spot where her body was found. Then they set up a stakeout and waited for the killer's inevitable return. On the night of July 27th, an officer sat in his patrol car a distance away from where the mannequin lay. The area was completely dark, and in the midst of a torrential downpour,

so he struggled to maintain a good view of the car. the spot. Then, just before midnight, the officer suddenly noticed the figure of a young man running away from the mannequin. Because of the poor conditions, the officer couldn't see until it was too late. The killer had taken the bait, but realized what was happening and escaped. With John's growing sense of confidence and impunity, realizing he was being set up by law enforcement would have been a very pivotal moment for him. This is his first real direct confrontation with risk, and it's not one that he could have been able to talk his way out of. So in that sense, it likely triggered genuine fear because for the first time, the possibility of being caught was

very real to him. What happens after a near miss like this can vary. Some offenders become more cautious. They pull back, reduced risk taking. It may even go into one of those cooling off periods that we talked about. Others, particularly those who are sensation-seeking or whose behavior has already been reinforced by prior successes, can experience the opposite effect. Escaping becomes yet another form of reinforcement because yet again, they just got away with it. That's another thrill. And I think for John, given what we know about him and his history, it's likely the latter. John had outsmarted and even taunted the authorities before. The officer knew he couldn't let him get away.

But when he grabbed his radio to call for backup, he realized the heavy rainstorm had knocked out the signal. The call never went through, and the officer lost sight of John. Once again, John had slipped away. But it wouldn't stay that way for long, because his desperate and uncontrollable need to kill would soon push him to make an easy. irreversible mistake.

Most violent crimes that capture the public's imagination seem larger than life, but sometimes the most terrifying criminals are right next door. And he's just yelling. Matano miho, which translates to, they killed my son. On the Fear Thy Neighbor podcast from ID, we'll explore these true stories and hear what happens

when neighborly disputes reach the point of no return. What do you want? Just this. Listen to Fear Thy Neighbor. neighbor wherever you get your podcasts. By midsummer of 1969, 22-year-old John Collins had just reportedly killed his alleged sixth victim, Karen Sue Binaman. After Karen's body was discovered, police set up a stakeout at the scene where she'd been found. Unfortunately, even though John took the bait, he quickly realized it was a trap and escaped without being identified. And the haunting

thing is, he was already on their radar by this point. After Karen was reported missing, investigators spoke to employees at the shops surrounding the wig store where she'd been spotted before she disappeared, and one of those employees told them something interesting. Just like the wig store owner, this person had seen Karen getting onto a motorcycle with a young man with dark hair. Except this witness recalled an important detail. The motorcycle was made by a manufacturer called Triumph, which stuck out because it wasn't as popular as other brands. This information caught the attention of a rookie officer who'd recently graduated from Eastern Michigan University because he knew someone who owned a Triumph motorcycle, a former fraternity brother named John Collins.

When investigators showed John's photo to the wig shop owner and the other employee, both were adamant that he was the man they'd seen. So on July 25th, an officer went to speak to John. During the conversation, John admitted that he'd been riding his motorcycle in the area that day, but that he didn't know Karen and had never interacted with her. Just like in the past, when John was questioned in relation to the murder of Joan Shell, he didn't get defensive. He just told a casual, plausible lie.

Except this time, his plan didn't work. Police asked him to come in for further questioning and to take a lie detector test, but John refused. The next day, police announced to the prehist. press that Karen's body was discovered. The stakeout to find her killer didn't work, but thankfully, the police had a feeling John might be involved. Unwilling to let a suspect get away a second time, police formulated another plan. They knew John's uncle, David, was a state police officer, and when David and his wife returned from vacation on July 29th, officers immediately informed

them that John was a person of interest in Karen's murder. Just as they predicted, David David didn't want to stand in the way of an investigation, so he told police that John had been watching their house while they were gone. He didn't try to hide the fact that John was in town when the murder occurred, but he was also unable to tell them anything more useful. However, after the officers thanked David and left, his wife noticed some strange things down in the basement, including bottles of ammonia, detergent, and black spray paint that had gone missing. David and his wife felt sick at the thought that their own nephew, who was like a son to them, might be guilty of something so heinous. But still, they wasted no time notifying

detectives of what they discovered. Then they consented to a search of their home, and they were confronted with the most damning evidence yet. During the search, officers found small bloodstains in the basement, which were later confirmed to match Karen's blood type. But that was and all. Scattered near the stains were short, blonde hair clippings. When officers asked David about them, he reportedly explained that his wife often cut their children's hair in the basement. The clippings had come from them. Investigators rushed back to the station to compare those hair clippings to the ones that had been found on Karen's body, and they were a match. When it comes to John, I think what matters most about the environment is that it's a controlled one.

The abandoned homes and outdoor areas, they were secluded. They offered privacy and they allowed him total control over his victims. And he needed that to carry out every step of his MO uninterrupted because that way it could be carried out as he expected and anticipated. His uncle's house is an extension of that, only it's more familiar to him. Having personal familiarity means feeling completely in control of the environment. It can also be argued that this is riskier too because it's personally linked to him.

He will be leaving behind evidence that he has to be very careful to conceal. But again, that's part of his broader pattern. The more confident he gets, the more his sense of impunity grows, and the more he feels he can manage the risk. Doing this at his uncle's house is risky, but it's also thrilling to him.

John's overconfidence had caused him to make a crucial mistake. The hair clipping served as strong enough evidence for police to officially arrest and charge him for Karen Beneman's murder. John Collins was now behind bars, but he refused to confess to Karen's murder, even when confronted with the evidence. He swore he had nothing to do with it. Investigators weren't buying it. And now that he was off the streets and unable to hurt anyone else, they tried to connect him to the other five murders. They felt certain that John had committed those murders as well, since the M.O.'s were basically identical. Unfortunately, this was hard to prove. Investigators found no evidence in John's apartment,

which was frustrating to police and the victim's families, especially because John's roommate told police he'd seen John throwing out a box just days before his arrest. And the box looked like it was filled with women's belongings. But with those items long gone, there was nothing concrete to tie John to the other crimes. So on August 1, 1969, John was formally arraigned for only Karen's murder. Police just couldn't tie him to the other victims, but law enforcement elsewhere in the country thought they could. As Karen's case started to unfold, authorities all the way in Northern California reached out, believing that John might be connected to a seventh murder. As it turned out, a 17-year-old girl named Roxy Phillips,

had been killed that past June in a way that closely mirrored the violence seen in Karen's case and John's other alleged victims. Roxy had been strangled to death and stripped of all her clothes, which were never found. Her body was found partially buried in a wooded area. As investigators started piecing together John's movements, they realized something big. He had taken a trip to Northern California at the time of Roxy's death. He'd gone with a friend to visit John's mom and stepdad. The authorities confirmed this through rental car records in John's name.

He'd rented a camper for the road trip, and when police tracked it down, they discovered that it had been cleaned spotless, which meant any evidence John may have left behind was long gone. Detectives couldn't help but think that John had done that intentionally, and their suspicion only grew when they spoke to Roxy's friend, who said she'd introduced her to a man, referred to as John from Michigan.

This wouldn't be surprising because it's not unusual for serial offenders to vary the locations of their crimes, especially over time. There are a few reasons for that. Early on, some offenders are still figuring out what works for them. They may experiment with different environments to see where they feel most in control or least likely to be interrupted. And as their confidence grows, they may also become more willing to take risks or expand beyond familiar areas, especially when they've been successful, like we've seen with John.

Location can also shift because of practical factors like access, opportunity, or changes in routine, or they move. Sometimes the location is 15 minutes away. Sometimes it's in a different state. Another practical reason is to avoid detection. The more they spread out the crimes, the more random they appear at a law enforcement, making it harder to connect them to one another. But it still boils down to choosing locations that offer the most amount of control for them, where they feel dominant, confident, and able to manage the situation the best. Despite the strong possibility that John was to blame for Roxy's death, the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial. Plus, the issue of jurisdiction would have made it difficult to

bring charges against him anyway, so the focus stayed on Karen Bineman. John's defense tried to have the case dismissed, based on the fact that police didn't have a proper warrant to search his apartment. But their efforts were in vain. The case would move forward. John entered a not-guilty plea, and his trial began on June 2, 1970. In the courtroom, his mother stood firmly by his side, refusing to believe he was capable of any of it. She even went so far as to mortgage her own home so she could pay for John's attorney, but in the end, it didn't matter. The physical evidence was enough to convince the jury to find John, guilty of Karen's murder.

John showed no emotion when he heard the verdict, or when the judge sentenced him to life in prison. But he continued to maintain his innocence, although his team was never able to get his conviction overturned. In 1980, after 10 years behind bars, John made another attempt at freedom. He requested to be transferred to a Canadian prison. Because he held Canadian citizenship, it meant he would have been eligible for parole after just nine years. The request was initially approved, but once the public caught wind of it, the backlash was so strong, the courts reversed their decision. John would stay where he was. As of this recording, John remains behind bars and spends his days writing letters to female pen pals.

He continues to present himself as a man wrongfully incarcerated, never admitting the truth, and never acknowledging all the lives he took so many years ago. But despite John's claims, many people feel certain he committed each of the heinous crimes he was suspected of. And this belief has given rise to some troubling theories surrounding John's true motive. John's own cousin has expressed publicly that he believes John killed innocent women as a way to take his anger out on his mother. If you remember from part one, John's mother had multiple relationships with abusive men, all of whom gravely harmed John when he was just a child. Based on that, John's cousin and many others have been unable to ignore the fact that each of his alleged victims were petite brunettes just like his mother. That's a theory that makes sense on the surface, and it's not a new one.

I mean, for example, it was theorized that Ted Bundy and Ed Kemper did the same, though Kemper explicitly did say so. Ted, however, had clear evidence of this. John's profile is different, though. Yes, he did grow up in a chaotic, abusive environment, and a big part of that was watching his mother repeatedly enter relationships where he was harmed and, from his perspective, not protected. And that can be traumatic and confusing for a child. And we talked about that at great length in episode one. And I think it likely shaped how he understood relationships, trust, and what he believes women's roles are. if what he repeatedly saw was dominant abusive men and a more passive or constrained mother,

that can teach him that relationships should feel imbalanced and that they're about power and control rather than safety. And I do think those early experiences influenced how he later viewed women and relationships and created very rigid views and expectations surrounding that. That said, I think the fact that his victims may have resembled his mother was more likely due to circumstance or familiarity, meaning even if he's not aware of it, he was likely drawn to women who looked similar to what he's used to. It doesn't mean he's thinking, wow, she reminds me at my mother. I want to displace my rage under her. It's more that his brain is used to that type of person or maybe attracted to that type of person. So those aren't the people he notices and focuses on.

We don't see a very specific repeated pattern of selection that stands out beyond his environment, which is largely a college campus, and that is a saturated environment with overlap in demographics. His mom was not somebody who represented a college woman. And we don't have direct evidence like statements, writings, or behaviors showing that he connected his victims to his mother. So is it probable? Sure, definitely. But I would need to see more to say definitively if that theory holds up for him. It seems like John Collins intends to take his secrets to the grave. But despite his lifelong need for control, he's proven to be unable to maintain control of his own narrative. The vast majority of people

involved in the case believe he killed all seven victims, and there's nothing he can do to change that. And for the victims, Mary, Joan, Marilyn, Dawn, Alice, Karen, and Roxy. Their stories and memories live on through their loved ones. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for a deep dive into the mind of another murderer. Thanks so much to Katie Ring for joining. But before we get out of here, Katie,

Dr. Engels and I can't wait to get your thoughts on this case. I have a lot of thoughts and questions on this case. I think while we have Dr. Engels here, one of my number one questions I always ask myself, especially with serial killers, is the nature versus nurture question. And especially with people like John Collins who come from an abusive background, sometimes I ask myself if there's anything genetic, something that came from his father who was also an abuser, or if it's pretty much all, you know, in the environment that he was raised in. That's a really common question.

And it's something that a lot of researchers have been studying for decades. And when people ask that question, it's really not one or the other. other, but it's both things that are often working together. Some individuals have underlying traits, like John, for example, he's got impulsivity and he's got poor emotional response, especially to others, poor regulation skills. And there are others who have structural abnormalities in the brain, where there are different gray matter, different sizes in different areas of the brain that affect how they respond to things, affect impulse control. Early experiences, like you said, there's something with research where we've noticed that trauma is a very common factor with serial offending

and abuse, instability, or lack of protection are things that shape how those traits can develop over time, especially if there are no supportive factors, no intervention, no resiliency, no coping skills. Those all really do affect how all of those traits are influenced and developed. So it's not as simple as they're always just born this way because you see a lot of children who are born in traumatic households, who are raised in households just like Johns, for example, and they don't always develop and become violent offenders. And there's a big myth around abused people go on to abuse others. That's a huge myth. There are millions and millions of children who have been abused who have never, ever wanted to harm another person and have never ever harmed another person,

let alone an animal or an insect. That is a myth, one that I am very active about dispelling any chance I get. But it's the interaction between what's going on biologically, genetically, and what's going on environmentally and how those things work together and the interaction of those. You can have a predisposition, but with reinforcement of certain things

and the right conditions, those things can escalate. Or with proper stability, proper intervention, they may never escalate. And on the flip side, not everyone who experiences trauma, like I said,

they don't develop any of those behaviors at all. So I think a more accurate way to understand it is this. These patterns tend to emerge when there's underlying vulnerabilities that get reinforced over time rather than corrected. And that's the same with any predisposition. Like even just mental illness, you might be predisposed to having anxiety. You might be predisposed to having schizophrenia. You might be predisposed to having depression.

But it's your environment that can really bring those things out. Or it can help you to cope with those things and it can help you to stabilize those things. Yeah, that's why I always ask because there are so many people who grew up in abusive households who have decided that they were going to do the opposite with their life and have kids and build healthy families and not bring upon that generational trauma. Yes. And so sometimes I'm like, is there just something really, you know, if they're really predisposed to that? Exactly. If he, you know, maybe moved in with his aunt and uncle earlier. Right.

Right. Maybe that could have changed the direction of his life. Exactly. I mean, I never really know. I worked with a lot of violent offenders who, and one of the group topics that I taught them was the cycle of violence. And I taught them how it's learned. I taught them how it's taught intergenerationally. And when they started to really learn that and it started to really, you know, crystallize and they started to internalize that, they were able to locate in their own life where it started, how it was passed down, how it was modeled, how it was modeled, how. how is emulated and where to break it. And so that's when you really start to see meaningful change, is when you understand that

and you understand other ways of communicating, other ways of showing, hey, I'm upset. This doesn't have to be communicated this way. I can communicate it in a different way. There's a lot of that. And so really it's about, like you said, breaking the cycle, breaking intergenerational, you know, trauma. And it can be done. You just have to have that perspective. You have to have the resiliency, the coping skills, the support.

The desire. The desire. That's another one, too. And temperament's a big one as well. If you have the right temperament there, too. So, yeah, it can be done. Yeah. I feel like one of the biggest things, especially for male serial killers, is having that mother wound.

And, you know, what are your thoughts on the past? of that. And on another hand, you know, what I see is that so many men grow up, especially men whose fathers leave, they end up blaming their moms for them leaving where they were really just abandoned. But in this case, you know, she did get from one abusive relationship to another to another. And again, the blame's not always on the victim there. There is obviously something probably going on with his mother that was. Yeah, I think there's more to it, I'm sure, than we know. Obviously, with the research we have, it's limited.

We weren't, we're not in John's shoes. John, from what I understand too, hasn't really been open and talkative about any of this. He still maintains his innocence. He doesn't elicit a lot of information about his past at all. So really the source of understanding this to the, like, the root comes from him, but he's not a credible source right now. So that mother woman that you're talking about, mothers are often seen, especially in society,

as the nurturer, right? So when a father's abandoned a family and the mother is there, the mother is doing the best that they can. It's a hard job. They're doing it on their own, and that's really difficult. They have to take the burden of that.

And unfortunately, because of, you know, just societal demands on a woman, and as a mother, it's on them to pick up the absence of that father. That's the pressure that's put on them. They're being the mother and the father at the same time. And a child, unfortunately, projects a lot of that blame and displaces a lot of that anger onto that parent rather than the absent parent. And it's just, it's a reality that happens. And unfortunately, without intervention, without additional support and resilience, that narrative doesn't get corrected

unless that's there often. But as they age and as they start to developmentally and cognitively understand what's truly happening, because remember, he's really young. He doesn't understand what's going on. He doesn't understand the demands financially, physically, emotionally of one parent taking on the role of two,

trying to support a family, trying to support a child, trying to find another father for that child. Maybe, I mean, before we recall, John's mom was a teenager. I think she was, what was she, 14 or something, 14? I think she was 14, yeah. Or so when she had him, she was also developmentally far too young to understand what was, what she was doing, if we're being honest. So there's that also, there's a whole lot there.

So when they get to a developmental age where they can full, understand the situation. I think that's when they can reel in that anger. They can resolve that anger. They can cope with it a little better, understand it a little better. And generally, the relationship with their mother gets much healthier over time. Something I saw in an interview with the sheriff that happened just more recently. It was 30 years after he was arrested. And he said that part of his quote-unquote mother problems was because she was a prostitute and that he caught her with men. Do you think that changes anything in that relationship that could have? I mean, that's, that is traumatic for a child to witness your, your parent or parents, you know, having sexual

relations, especially with multiple different partners. And especially if those partners are not partners that feel safe. And he has a history of being around men. that have been brought in his, what should be a safe environment for him that were not safe for him. So that is a traumatic experience and that can materially change how he views relationships, especially between men and women, how he views power dynamics. If you, especially if, let's say, mom was a sex worker and she was working for somebody who controlled her as a sex worker. Yeah.

That also adds to a control dynamic and a control framework in, in relationships. And he's a child witnessing that. That's very, very influential and very powerful. So that could add to very rigid, rigid beliefs that we talked about in the episodes regarding his views on relationships with women, in particular, how women should be treated in relationships, how what expectations he has of women and certainly his own insecurities in those relationships with women and how he needs to be in control in those relationships. Yeah, definitely. So it reminds me of what he did to his sister when he found his sister with another man. She just got married and had a baby and then she was with some other guy and he snapped. There's so much anger there inside and that could have been from, especially if he saw his mom with different men and yeah. And threatened the stability and the security and the expectations that he had about what a family should look like and what felt safe for him. I say that loosely, obviously, because he's not safe person. Right.

And by any means, but yeah, definitely. It threatened the rigid beliefs and anticipation and expectations he had. One of the second questions I have is about the menstrual cycles. Because I find it so weird. Yeah. I don't know if all the autopsies mentioned in exactly. The sheriff definitely said that they were all on their menstrual cycles. And my thought is just either did he sexually assault so many women?

And then it just happened that these women were on their menstrual cycles at the time? Right. Or was he stalking these women and finding out when their cycles were? It's just like, it's wild to me that there was something, a common thread like that. Exactly. My thinking is that's the only way for him to have, like, for me to believe that he was intentionally choosing his victims because they were menstruating, I would need to see

clear evidence that he was like surveillance stalking them and maybe even some life invasion where he's seeing, going into their home and seeing, yeah, going through their garbage, seeing when their cycles are and literally tracking it to know. I think it's more likely than not that it just was happenstance because if you really were to break it down, you know, like doing math and statistics, one in five or six is the possibility that a woman would be menstruating when he would go to assault them. that's, you know, not out of the realm of probability. Yeah.

So it's likely coincidence. And it might have been discovered upon the assault and added to the rage in the moment because his assaults were arguably overkill. I mean, he assaulted them and killed them in ways that were beyond what was necessary to be lethal. So it could have been that. But, yeah, I would need to see clear evidence that he knew that and how, because especially back then. It's not like he could like track their cycle through an app. You know, I just don't, I don't know how. I know, truly. Or they're like, is he breaking in and seeing their birth control and going that way?

Like I would need to see clear evidence of that. And the only way we would know that is if they found evidence of that in their investigative process or John himself said so. But he's, again, to this day, claiming innocence. So the sheriff also said something weird. He said that. A lady came in and she said that she had gone on a date with him. And he dropped her off. And she was like, no, sorry, I have to go. You know, I have to finish some schoolwork. And he was like, are you sure? Like, let's just go on a drive. And she's like, no, I absolutely can't go.

And then he said, are you menstruating? She's like, what? She's like, how did you know? Yeah. And he was like, I can smell it. Wow. So I think it's more likely than not that that was, oh, you're just. me, this must be the reason. Right. Yeah. This must be why you're rejecting me. Because look at me. I'm

socially loved here on campus. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm attractive. I'm all American college boy. Right. The only reason you'd say no to me in getting in the car with me, because again, his expectations are very rigid. His anticipation is very rigid. The only way you're going to say no to me is if you're menstruating. Right. So like that, I think that's more likely in that situation. Only John would know. John, would you talk, please? Would you please tell us, John? We need answers. Pretty sure almost every one of his victims was in a relationship.

We talked about that all throughout. Yeah. I found that very interesting too. I think he had to have known that because he'd been eyeing them for a while. There's no way he didn't know that. And I think that also was like part of his victim selection. You're in a relationship, but why are you hanging out on college campus with all these people and not your boyfriend? It's going against my rigid beliefs.

And so I'm like maybe. Maybe that's part of why I'm targeting you. I mean, it's possible. It's very possible, yeah. We could talk about this for hours. Katie, any thoughts from a self-defense perspective here? How would you go about protecting yourself in case you end up in a dangerous situation? I mean, people on college campuses, people just in life dating.

We have a lot of women listeners too who would love to know this. I feel like the biggest thing is that, unfortunately, as humans, we tend to not be as suspicious as people of people we are. attracted to. People we feel like are clean cut. And so I think it's just unfortunately, you know, you can't judge a book by its cover. Someone, a lot of times the biggest narcissist and abusers are actually very attractive people. And, you know, there are, you never know, and I would never blame a victim because these guys are master manipulators and hide completely who they are. But there's simple things and I think you know back in those days it wasn't as stigmatized but like never no one nowadays is getting in a random man's car and accepting a ride I would hope not so yes I mean we do

get into ubers I mean that was something that freaked me out when it came out but yeah that is true but yeah I think definitely not accepting rides for anyone from anyone definitely and just kind of doing a thorough check on the people yeah you know you welcome into your life although again a lot of people are wolves and sheep's clothing but I think the best thing you can do is just be hyper aware of your surroundings yeah situational awareness was something I learned working in corrections I've taken that with me everywhere I go I'm always scanning my environment and people a lot of women especially have this feeling that the person who's most likely to harm you is the random stranger yeah the stranger danger in the alley stranger danger is not and it's not it's

always 90% of the time, someone you know, whether that's many times. It's someone you are in a relationship, have been in a relationship, or someone in these cases who just lives near you and has been maybe stalking you or keeping taps on you. Definitely. Oh my gosh, Katie. I know. Thank you so much for being here. We want you here. Thank you guys. Yes. And I could talk to you guys for hours. Yeah, I know. We love this. Yeah, we really do. And everyone, please remember to subscribe and follow America's most infamous crimes for more of Katie's insight. 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 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 crime house 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,

Laurie 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 Crimes. 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. Looking for your next listen, check out Hidden History with Dr. Harini-Burie. Every Monday, Dr. Bott goes where history gets mysterious, vanished civilizations,

doomsday prophecies, and events that science still can't fully explain. Follow Hidden History now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.