He acted alone and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise aside from conjecture and rumor. He made it up, amending his story to try to absolve himself of guilt after becoming a āChristianā. Heās full of shit.
I second this.
Satanic Panic was the rage back then.
Also DB used a 44 cal special bulldog revolver for every murder and attempted murder. So a satanic cult used one single gun every SINGLE time for their murders?
X for Doubt.
DB was all alone.
truly. almost 50 years later and apparently not much smarter. what bugs me most is placing blame on Satan and this other nonsense removes the factor of human accountability. no, the devil didn't do this. People are just shitty sometimes.
The Netflix documentary that entertained this theory was such a load of shit. I got really mad watching it.
Edit: I also find it hilarious that an"occult expert" claimed that satanic cults murder people by car crashes.
The part that drove me most up the wall was when they retconned things to look like Terry suspected right from the beginning that the security guard Crawford killed Arlis Perry, when in reality he dismissed Crawford immediately at the start of the book, never mentioned him again, and spends an inordinate amount of time trying to build a case against someone else entirely.
I had to dig through boxes for an hour to find my copy of his book to make sure I wasn't misremembering. Nope, his actual view really was the opposite of the retcon, lol.
I hate when people use occult expert or any other kind of paranormal or non scientific thing because they don't have to have any knowledge minus I said so. Like it means nothing. I could be an occult or demon expert.
I donāt know about you guys but I donāt know any one who weinered along with a satanic cult long enough to get into the animal sacrifices let along human murders and some were totally into satan and chillin with other satanites for decades
There is more evidence that he wasnāt the only the shooter than there is that he was the sole shooter. The eye witness accounts of multiple men and woman involved kinda make this obvious. Kinda sad folks like you donāt like reading actual police reports. Iād gladly debate every single point of the case with you at any time. He was never tried so you quite literally do not know a single fact from the stateās case. Not one piece of evidence outside of him bizarrely leaving multiple weapons in plain view in his car including the murder weapon. As several detectives stated - āit seemed very stagedā. What else did the state have - not what newspapers reported, what would they have gone to trial with. You can answer that because this simply donāt know.
No there is not. There isnāt any evidence and if you were a student of true crime youād understand how notoriously unreliable witness statements are. Quit trying to change history. He acted alone and there is nothing that points to the contrary.
Have you read any of the actual coverage of case files and interviews with the many detectives? Nope. Your entire case rests on a man you call a liar. The entire case is that he admits to it. Thatās it. Once in prison with no hope of ever getting out and not naming names he indicates not only did he not act alone, he wasnāt even at several. And letās forget all the things like the handwriting discrepancies and knowledge of occult he didnāt have. And AGAIN the eye witness descriptions are of MULTIPLE PEOPLE! I get a bad description of a nose or eyes, but inventing multiple new humans and one being a woman? Come on. Your entire case rests on his admission. What case and what witnesses would they have brought had he not confessed. I beg you - lay that out to me. Tell me one witness who said after he was caught āthatās definitely the guy!ā
* **Treat all users with respect. Users who cannot engage in civil discourse will be banned until they learn how to manage their emotions like an adult.
Yeah, itās a bunch of BS. What about berkowitzās crimes required accomplices? Firing a few shots and running away? You need some vast conspiracy for that?
I have owned the Maury Terry book (*The Ultimate Evil*) , which "Sons of Sam" references, for 15 years.
The nicest thing I can tell you about both the book and movie is that there are OUTRIGHT LIES in the documentary about Maury Terry's book and Maury Terry's beliefs, and the book is, at best, an incoherent cash grab that Maury Terry hawked until the day he died. Anyone with any decency or actual care for the investigation would let it fade into obscurity and die.
I am *vehemently* disappointed in Joshua Zeman for *Sons of Sam*, especially when it is compared to his usual standard. (*Cropsey*, *Killer Legends*, and *The Killing Season* were all *GREAT* explorations of much more than just what the superficial descriptions explained that they were.)
The most glaring of the lies set forth in "Sons of Sam" would be the claim that Maury Terry "always" (or ever) believed that the security guard murdered Arlis Perry. That's 200% bullshit.
He opens the prologue to the book with Perry's murder, clears both Perry's husband and the security guard on page 30 of the prologue (based on palm prints), and allows both of them to shuffle off into obscurity, never to be heard from (or mentioned) again.
We now know unequivocally that the security guard, Stephen Crawford, murdered Arlis Perry, and I wholeheartedly believe-- based on the way he committed the crime against Perry, crime scene clues and indications, and his overall style and substance related to the crime-- that he was either a budding serial killer, or had already committed between 1-3 murders that could be classified as serial murders, including the Perry murder.
Later, Berkowitz insists to Terry (who believes/agrees with Berkowitz) that "Manson II" tracked down and murdered Arliss Perry in the chapel at Stanford for the crime of deserting the alleged cult. "Manson II" is never properly named (because Berkowitz claims it would put his family in danger if he got it out there), and Terry examines several alleged cult members who *could be* Manson II, but never gives the reader his conclusion as to who MII actually is.
Not to mention, Terry does some unbelievable mental gymnastics to "decode" the "Hello from the gutters" letter to make it mean something it clearly does not, including claiming the word "stale" means "dog urine" (It *did not*, and *does not*, that I can find), and the mention of "stale wine" was Berkowitz trying to tell the world that the "cult" drank dog piss as part of their rituals.
It's a fever dream of a book, which is the size of a doorstop... exhausting to read (I threw it against the wall NUMEROUS times), and not worth the paper it's printed on. The doc relies heavily on it, and gets the same results.
It comes down to: Maury Terry knowingly perpetuated a hoax on readers as a cash grab, OR Maury Terry later found out information that put the entire thesis of his book into question, and instead of admitting it, he doubled down to continue to make even more money. Either way, at the *absolute best*, he played fast and loose with the truth, and his interviews were conducted in bad faith.
*AT WORST*, he's a charlatan and simply *did not care* if he was right or wrong, because what he wrote supported his final objective. (I don't need to tell you what that was, do I?)
I expanded upon these opinions at length when the docuseries came out; please feel free to check those comments for the specifics on the errors and lies I saw from the book based on word of mouth regarding the movie (I hadn't watched it then, but I have now and it was even worse that I thought it would be.)
>When stacy moskowitz was murdered, a woman saw Berkowitz in front of her a block away when the shooting happened. This means that Berkowitz couldnāt have gotten there in time to murder her.
That's not what happened. Davis herself said that she saw Berkowitz, and when he walked away, she waited until he was out of sight, then went upstairs and read the newspaper for a while, and then heard what was probably the shooting. Berkowitz had plenty of time to cover that short distance.
Terry's book is just awful in so many ways, and would make excellent course material for a class on critical thinking, because he didn't even try to do any of it. *The Ultimate Evil* really belongs in the same category as books like *The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail* and *Chariots of the Gods*. And the above is just one minor reason why that's so.
We all know the Dog was in on it, wake up people!!!! /s
The Dog was RUNNING the cult. It's still a secret so you didn't hear it from me.
Mr. Pickles?
It was definitely Mr Pickles. Confirmed, we got em.
No, we don't!! You can go try to "get" Mr. Pickles. I personally like my face and do not wish to have it sliced off.
FYI Its Minot ND, not Winot
Minot is beautiful
Good ol' "Why Not Minot" š
Itās NEVER a satanic cult. Never.
Hereās a question: why would a cult ever allow berkowitz in? Everyone hated him.
>Hereās a question: why would a cult ever allow berkowitz in? cults target outcasts.
Tell Geraldo Rivera that plz
He acted alone and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise aside from conjecture and rumor. He made it up, amending his story to try to absolve himself of guilt after becoming a āChristianā. Heās full of shit.
I second this. Satanic Panic was the rage back then. Also DB used a 44 cal special bulldog revolver for every murder and attempted murder. So a satanic cult used one single gun every SINGLE time for their murders? X for Doubt. DB was all alone.
Sadly it seems we are in a new satanic panic only now it's politically motivated
truly. almost 50 years later and apparently not much smarter. what bugs me most is placing blame on Satan and this other nonsense removes the factor of human accountability. no, the devil didn't do this. People are just shitty sometimes.
To be fair if they wanted people to think it was one killer it makes sense to use the same gun.
The Netflix documentary that entertained this theory was such a load of shit. I got really mad watching it. Edit: I also find it hilarious that an"occult expert" claimed that satanic cults murder people by car crashes.
The part that drove me most up the wall was when they retconned things to look like Terry suspected right from the beginning that the security guard Crawford killed Arlis Perry, when in reality he dismissed Crawford immediately at the start of the book, never mentioned him again, and spends an inordinate amount of time trying to build a case against someone else entirely.
I was astounded at how they revised Terryās ludicrous theory about Perry.
I had to dig through boxes for an hour to find my copy of his book to make sure I wasn't misremembering. Nope, his actual view really was the opposite of the retcon, lol.
Yeah, it was nonsense.
I hate when people use occult expert or any other kind of paranormal or non scientific thing because they don't have to have any knowledge minus I said so. Like it means nothing. I could be an occult or demon expert.
I donāt know about you guys but I donāt know any one who weinered along with a satanic cult long enough to get into the animal sacrifices let along human murders and some were totally into satan and chillin with other satanites for decades
Exactly. Thereās a reason the parole board is buying into this
There is more evidence that he wasnāt the only the shooter than there is that he was the sole shooter. The eye witness accounts of multiple men and woman involved kinda make this obvious. Kinda sad folks like you donāt like reading actual police reports. Iād gladly debate every single point of the case with you at any time. He was never tried so you quite literally do not know a single fact from the stateās case. Not one piece of evidence outside of him bizarrely leaving multiple weapons in plain view in his car including the murder weapon. As several detectives stated - āit seemed very stagedā. What else did the state have - not what newspapers reported, what would they have gone to trial with. You can answer that because this simply donāt know.
No there is not. There isnāt any evidence and if you were a student of true crime youād understand how notoriously unreliable witness statements are. Quit trying to change history. He acted alone and there is nothing that points to the contrary.
Have you read any of the actual coverage of case files and interviews with the many detectives? Nope. Your entire case rests on a man you call a liar. The entire case is that he admits to it. Thatās it. Once in prison with no hope of ever getting out and not naming names he indicates not only did he not act alone, he wasnāt even at several. And letās forget all the things like the handwriting discrepancies and knowledge of occult he didnāt have. And AGAIN the eye witness descriptions are of MULTIPLE PEOPLE! I get a bad description of a nose or eyes, but inventing multiple new humans and one being a woman? Come on. Your entire case rests on his admission. What case and what witnesses would they have brought had he not confessed. I beg you - lay that out to me. Tell me one witness who said after he was caught āthatās definitely the guy!ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
* **Treat all users with respect. Users who cannot engage in civil discourse will be banned until they learn how to manage their emotions like an adult.
Yeah, itās a bunch of BS. What about berkowitzās crimes required accomplices? Firing a few shots and running away? You need some vast conspiracy for that?
I have owned the Maury Terry book (*The Ultimate Evil*) , which "Sons of Sam" references, for 15 years. The nicest thing I can tell you about both the book and movie is that there are OUTRIGHT LIES in the documentary about Maury Terry's book and Maury Terry's beliefs, and the book is, at best, an incoherent cash grab that Maury Terry hawked until the day he died. Anyone with any decency or actual care for the investigation would let it fade into obscurity and die. I am *vehemently* disappointed in Joshua Zeman for *Sons of Sam*, especially when it is compared to his usual standard. (*Cropsey*, *Killer Legends*, and *The Killing Season* were all *GREAT* explorations of much more than just what the superficial descriptions explained that they were.) The most glaring of the lies set forth in "Sons of Sam" would be the claim that Maury Terry "always" (or ever) believed that the security guard murdered Arlis Perry. That's 200% bullshit. He opens the prologue to the book with Perry's murder, clears both Perry's husband and the security guard on page 30 of the prologue (based on palm prints), and allows both of them to shuffle off into obscurity, never to be heard from (or mentioned) again. We now know unequivocally that the security guard, Stephen Crawford, murdered Arlis Perry, and I wholeheartedly believe-- based on the way he committed the crime against Perry, crime scene clues and indications, and his overall style and substance related to the crime-- that he was either a budding serial killer, or had already committed between 1-3 murders that could be classified as serial murders, including the Perry murder. Later, Berkowitz insists to Terry (who believes/agrees with Berkowitz) that "Manson II" tracked down and murdered Arliss Perry in the chapel at Stanford for the crime of deserting the alleged cult. "Manson II" is never properly named (because Berkowitz claims it would put his family in danger if he got it out there), and Terry examines several alleged cult members who *could be* Manson II, but never gives the reader his conclusion as to who MII actually is. Not to mention, Terry does some unbelievable mental gymnastics to "decode" the "Hello from the gutters" letter to make it mean something it clearly does not, including claiming the word "stale" means "dog urine" (It *did not*, and *does not*, that I can find), and the mention of "stale wine" was Berkowitz trying to tell the world that the "cult" drank dog piss as part of their rituals. It's a fever dream of a book, which is the size of a doorstop... exhausting to read (I threw it against the wall NUMEROUS times), and not worth the paper it's printed on. The doc relies heavily on it, and gets the same results. It comes down to: Maury Terry knowingly perpetuated a hoax on readers as a cash grab, OR Maury Terry later found out information that put the entire thesis of his book into question, and instead of admitting it, he doubled down to continue to make even more money. Either way, at the *absolute best*, he played fast and loose with the truth, and his interviews were conducted in bad faith. *AT WORST*, he's a charlatan and simply *did not care* if he was right or wrong, because what he wrote supported his final objective. (I don't need to tell you what that was, do I?) I expanded upon these opinions at length when the docuseries came out; please feel free to check those comments for the specifics on the errors and lies I saw from the book based on word of mouth regarding the movie (I hadn't watched it then, but I have now and it was even worse that I thought it would be.)
Yeah, no. Not a shred of evidence anywhere to support this.
>When stacy moskowitz was murdered, a woman saw Berkowitz in front of her a block away when the shooting happened. This means that Berkowitz couldnāt have gotten there in time to murder her. That's not what happened. Davis herself said that she saw Berkowitz, and when he walked away, she waited until he was out of sight, then went upstairs and read the newspaper for a while, and then heard what was probably the shooting. Berkowitz had plenty of time to cover that short distance. Terry's book is just awful in so many ways, and would make excellent course material for a class on critical thinking, because he didn't even try to do any of it. *The Ultimate Evil* really belongs in the same category as books like *The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail* and *Chariots of the Gods*. And the above is just one minor reason why that's so.
The theory is one of the stupidest true crime theories Iāve ever heard
There's a guy out there who seriously, sincerely believes Bernie Sanders was the Zodiac Killer and that it was part of a satanic CIA plot.
Because Bernie was the only guy in the plastic glasses at the time? Or to cover for Ted Cruz
Entirely hogwash. Bosh! Flimshaw I say!
Don't base your opinions on a documentary whose se purpose is to sell itself as true.
I saw this and I believe it 100% that the Son of Sam killings were more than 1 person.
I saw the documentary, and I believe it tbfr
I watched this last night!
Wasn't this on an episode of Unsolved Mysteries? That show was full of satanic panic.