was this killer ever caught
by the ending it looked like the killer was shot in the leg but if he was he must of gone to a doctor
shareFirst of all, he was never shot in the leg or coming in close to being caught in that sense, so that was fiction on the story writer's part. The real murders hold in the case three assaults, including one that was very brutal, and 5 to 7 murders (although not all of them have been entirely linked together).
He technicly was never caught, really. That is to say, the person they most suspected of the murders, a man by the name of Swinney, for some reason or another wasn't held under interrogation long enough to be tried for the killings. He instead later was sentanced to life in prison for numerous accounts of other criminal acts and car thefts (him having a history of such, a related car theft leading to his first arrest for the murders). He was later released in 1976 in what I think was a bogus hearing, and then later died of natural causes in 1994 I believe.
So in that aspect, if he WAS the killer, then he did go to jail for some time anyway. He just didn't go to jail for it particularly, nor was he executed or truely in jail for his entire life either, which leaves that case less than satisfying if he commited the crimes.
However some were skeptical that it was actually him at all. What's silly about this case is that they had fingerprints from one of the 'Phantom's suspected murder scenes that they never for some reason were able to test Swinney for. That alone would of proved it, maybe, but who knows why his print were never taken.
In any case, if it WASN'T him, that means the killer was never even close to being caught. Which is kind of sad considering how sick the murders and assaults were.
I suppose while some urban legends have evolved from this case, and some movies made from them, the actual true story at hand would be a good one to remake and put into production using a better script and modern film making. My only explanation for it not already having been done, staying true to the actual story, is that many people would probably not enjoy it. It really doesn't have any resolving ending, and the badguy gets away in the end. Most people don't want to watch that.
Didnt his wife say that he did it? She refused to testify against him though. There were so many ways in which he could have been caught like the fingerprints but they didnt use them.
You got your passion you got your pride
But don't you know that only fools are satisfied?
Yes, the wife claimed that he was the Phantom and said she was with him when he killed each of his victims. They discounted her as credible, however, because of her own criminal background and because she presented different versions of her stories. What got Swinney off the hook (and possibly out of the electric chair) was that they administered him sodium pentathol to get a confession, but the dosage was too high and he simply fell asleep. They didn't get another chance to question him about the murders and, for some odd reason, never compared his fingerprints to those obtained from one of the crime scenes. The murders stopped during his incarceration, although an eerily similar murder apparently occurred in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida the same year. Cellmates of Swinneys, however, stated that he spoke of the murders and offered details never released to the public.
This is yet another example of how police managed to bungle a case when they probably had the right man. It seems like every serial killer escapes early in their sprees because of errors on the part of investigators or the legal system.
In every felony criminal case, there are details NEVER released to the public so that the real killer could be later convicted if more evidence is found.
For example, you discuss his fingerprints. But, not being one of the cops nor the killer, you make assumptions which are nothing more than uninformed conversation. Its possible that the fingerprints they had were only partial prints that couldn't be used to convict but were good enough to suspect the culprit.
You also state that "this is yet another example of how police managed to bungle a case.." Well, again, not being a cop nor a bad guy, you're making assumptions from a mere observers point of view. Again,in the police file, there might be references and evidence that the police KNEW was valid yet not good enough to convict and yet... they're not going to release that information to satisfy someone like you who claims they bungled the case. Unless, you actually can specify exactly WHY they bungled it and provide facts to back up your accusation, it doesn't seem like you should say something like you did. Your comment makes no sense... especially with all the time that has passed.... 60 plus years..... and all the details that you don't know.
Its easy to be a backseat driver or an armchair quarterback...... and much harder to actually be the one performing. I suspect the police did pretty well given the fact that police weren't well trained back then like they are today and have lab work (i.e. DNA, etc.) to back them up.
Another aspect to the problem... back then... people didn't have the same understanding that we do today of psychopaths.... people who kill because they're merely insane and kill without understanding why. I even watched a TV documentary on a serial killer currently in prison.... when asked why he killed he simply said, " I really don't know" ... and when asked if he probably would kill again if released,,, he said " I'm sure I would..." Prior to being caught, he was a teacher at a college, I think it was. A very unsuspecting kind of person.
What got Swinney off the hook (and possibly out of the electric chair) was that they administered him sodium pentathol to get a confession, but the dosage was too high and he simply fell asleep.
I realize this is an old post, but I just had to interject that the poster is sprouting complete nonsense. The police can not administer sodium pentathol in an attempt to get a confession. The notion is laughable. I don't know a whole lot about this particular case, but I suspect neither do most of those on this thread pretending they do. share
The suspect, Youell Swinney, was indeed injected with Sodium Pentathol. At the time, it was believed to be a "truth serum". The two officers who took him to Little Rock to have it done, did so in secret. One of them revealed this later in life. He was injected with too much and fell asleep, and so they didn't get the "truth" they were hoping for.
shareThe suspect, Youell Swinney, was indeed injected with Sodium Pentathol. At the time, it was believed to be a "truth serum". The two officers who took him to Little Rock to have it done, did so in secret. One of them revealed this later in life. He was injected with too much and fell asleep, and so they didn't get the "truth" they were hoping for.
I'm sure that sounds completely believable... to a simpleton. Did the officer reveal anything in regards to Bigfoot?
Newsflash: Law enforcement can't give a suspect sodium pentathol or any other drug. This is a clear violation of the suspect/prisoner's rights and would not only get any case they could assemble thrown out, it would open the cops up to civil lawsuits.
Just because you read something on the internet or in a trashy book doesn't mean it's true. Try to use some semblance of common sense. share
I know that this happened because I've been an extensive researcher on this case. Tillman Johnson, the last surviving lawmen during that time, said he and another officer took him to Little Rock to have this performed. There were a lot of questionable techniques that happened in the 40s. Some suspects were even "hypnotized" to draw a confession.
Oh, by the way, I have the FBI files to prove that this happened.
I know that this happened because I've been an extensive researcher on this case.
There are loads of supposed "researchers" who believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster as well. The fact that you say you "know" something because you heard it third hand gives a very clear picture of the sort of "researcher" you are. Were you there? Did you witness it happen? Then you don't "know" *beep* At best, you "know" someone claimed it happened. You are a moron. share
I realize this is an old post, but I just had to interject that the poster is sprouting complete nonsense. The police can not administer sodium pentathol in an attempt to get a confession. The notion is laughable. I don't know a whole lot about this particular case, but I suspect neither do most of those on this thread pretending they do.
Do you even know anything about sodium pentathol? Before I reveal to the public, "CardinalsBaseball", what an idiotic dumbass you are, I'd like to ask you if you think sodium pentathol was NEVER administered to criminals as an interrogation practice? If you think not, the notion is laughable, and you are sprouting complete nonsense. I happen to be someone who DOES know a whole lot about this particular case, so unless you're the one who wrote 99% of the Wikipedia article on the subject, was in a documentary about the topic, runs an online forum on the case, knows relatives of both the lawmen and victims, and helped put on a public forum about these crimes, no one should listen to you.
Do you know interrogation techniques that were administered in the forties (hint: there are books about it, you should read them before acting like you do). Were you there? You don't KNOW that they didn't administer the "truth serum" to him. There are more sources that say this did happen than those who claim it didn't (you). You sir, are the moron.
Newsflash: Law enforcement can't give a suspect sodium pentathol or any other drug. This is a clear violation of the suspect/prisoner's rights and would not only get any case they could assemble thrown out, it would open the cops up to civil lawsuits.
Just because you read something on the internet or in a trashy book doesn't mean it's true. Try to use some semblance of common sense.
Newsflash: this technique wasn't always rejected as an interrogation technique. Only in recent years it has been condemned. I've done a lot more reading than the internet or a "trashy book". I don't care to argue with someone with such little knowledge and research on the topics he sprouts no one has! Until you do more research, reading, can back up and prove your ridiculous claim, and actually learn something about this particular case, I suggest not responding back. share
Do you even know anything about sodium pentathol? Before I reveal to the public, "CardinalsBaseball", what an idiotic dumbass you are, I'd like to ask you if you think sodium pentathol was NEVER administered to criminals as in interrogation practice? If you think not, the notion is laughable, and you are sprouting complete nonsense.
Do you think civil liberties and due process didn't exist until the '50s? The '60s? The '70s? Forcing a suspect to take drugs as form of interrogation was illegal in the '40s, just as it is today. To claim otherwise is ridiculous and idiocy. Your knowledge of the judicial system apparently comes from watching old movies.
I happen to be someone who DOES know a whole lot about this particular case, so unless you're the one who wrote 99% of the Wikipedia article on the subject, was in a documentary about the topic, runs an online forum on the case, knows relatives of both the lawmen and victims, and helped put on a public forum about these crimes, no one should listen to you.
You think you know what you are talking about because you wrote the Wikipedia article on the subject? Seriously? Are you 12? You seem to think because you are obsessed with these historically unimportant crimes, you know what you are talking about. All it actually shows is that you are a *beep* whack job.
Were you there? You don't KNOW that they didn't administer the "truth serum" to him.
I'm not the nut job who claimed
I know that this happened because I've been an extensive researcher on this case. Your information came 2nd or 3rd hand, so you don't "know" anything. For some reason, this very simple concept eludes you.
There are more sources that say this did happen than those who claim it didn't (you).
What are these sources? The only source I've seen mentioned anywhere is that Tillman Johnson made this claim and I doubt even that can be verified. Did anyone else claim to be present when this supposed event happened? Anyone? Police? Doctor? Anyone? I didn't think so. Not surprisingly, you don't understand what a source is. Someone repeating the same apocryphal story doesn't make them a source. They are just repeating the same hear say.
You are an imbecile, a fool and are as crazy as a bed bug. share
You're really showing your non-intelligence. No one should take you seriously. In that exact same year (1946) during the height of the Phantom, it is well known that William Heirens was given Sodium Pentathol and interrogated. It happened, whether you like it or not. So what if it was illegal? So what if it wouldn't have held up in court? Doesn't mean it didn't happen! You know absolutely nothing. Johnson was one of the two arresting officers of Youell Swinney. He and Max Tackett took him to Little Rock to have this done. Swinney agreed to it at first, but tried rejecting it once they got him there. I don't understand why the arresting officers would claim something like that if it wasn't going to help them out anyway. Johnson said that he doesn't know why they took him to LR and that he believed they blew their case because of that.
Did anyone else claim to be present when this supposed event happened? Anyone? Police? Doctor? Anyone? I didn't think so. Not surprisingly, you don't understand what a source is
Yes, they did. Of course you didn't think so. In your own words, you "don't know a whole lot about this particular case". It seems you know NOTHING about it. I know that Johnson is a source (a primary source) and he did not die until 2008. Did you interview him? NO. Do you have FBI files? NO. I'm not wasting my time with you anymore. It's not worth explaining these things to an ignorant idiot. I'm done with you.
{drops mic} share
This is ludicrous. I have no idea whether sodium pentathol was administered to this particular person, nor would it matter if I did. But the naivete of anyone thinking the police would never resort to extra-judicial measures when dealing with a suspect -- especially back before a time when technology allowed for easy recording and dissemination of all manner of things people would prefer to keep quiet -- just beggars the imagination. Cops (not all cops, just some) have shown a distinct willingness to beat information out of suspects, elicit false confessions, torture, mistreat, deny basic liberties, lie, frame, and generally treat suspects in a manner no legitimate court would approve of. Why on earth would you have trouble believing that a cop or two administered an illicit drug to someone, especially someone accused of such heinous crimes? Just because it wouldn't be admissible, that doesn't mean they wouldn't use it on the off-chance that it could yield information that they could act on to discover evidence that would be admissible, and cheerfully lie under oath about how they obtained that lead in the first place.
As I said, I have no idea if that was attempted here. But I'm not stupid enough to believe no cop would ever try it, especially in an era where respect for authority was more deeply ingrained and the ability of victims of police malfeasance had a much harder time getting the word out to the public. They didn't have modern toxicology labs to easily find traces of sodium pentathol in a person's bloodstream, and, at least in this case, we're talking about a career criminal whose word was highly unlikely to be taken as truth over the word of a law enforcement professional. It's hard to understand why anyone would be so vociferously certain that such a thing could never happen. I mean, that was the era of Hoover at the FBI, when petty things like "legality" and "civil liberties" were frequently taken as inconvenient suggestions rather than actual rules.
[deleted]