Jack Levin's Lecture on "Serial Killers"

Jack Levin's lecture on "Serial Killers" was a surprisingly entertaining and informational lecture that I am thankful for attending despite my previous doubts on how interesting it actually would be. Levin's credibility was immediately established when a student from SCSU introduced Levin, naming all of the books that he had written including "The Functions of Prejudice", "Overkill: Mass Murder and Serial Killing Exposed, Hate Crimes" and many other titles. Levin then introduced himself and mentioned the numerous shows that he had appeared on including "20/20", "Oprah", and even "America's Most Wanted". He established his credibility by mentioning how we was involved in many high profile cases including "Ken Bianchi", "Edward Green", "Ted Bundy", "Columbine", "Virginia Tech", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and "The Gainsville Murders" and he later went into detail about each.

By establishing his credibility initially, this made the presentation much more effective. Personally, the thought of sitting through a lecture with an old guy speaking was painful, but once Levin began mentioning the shows he appeared on and the cases he played a role in, my whole mind set changed. This guy was the "real deal." The audience and I now had a connection to the speaker because we had all heard the interesting details from the media of these cases Levin mentioned, yet we knew hardly anything compared to what Levin obviously knew from visiting crime scenes and meeting several of these serial killers.

Th use of non-verbals in this lecture clearly played a key role in what made this lecture so worthwhile. There was never a dull moment on Levin's power point which allowed us to envision crime scenes, serial killers, and understand what Levin was trying to get across. Levin had a crucial picture for just about everything. The audience saw pictures of action figures when Levin discussed how serial killers are portrayed as heroes, pictures of the "trench coat mafia" t-shirts when Levin talked about Columbine, we viewed web sites including "http://mansondirect.com/" when discussing serial killer Charles Manson, and paintings that serial killers made in prison that get sold for thousands of dollars when they should not even be worth a quarter. These non-verbal examples kept the audience at the tip of their toes as they awaited what they would be introduced to next.

The lecture was very organized and easy to follow. Throughout the entire lecture, Levin continued to recite that "serial killers are not celebrities; they are not misguided anti-heroes." Levin went through several key points which he then restated briefly at the end of the lecture. These points included addressing the misunderstanding with serial killers, serial killers have become celebrities, serial killers are "extraordinarily ordinary," profit motivated murder, sadistic serial murder, sadism without sex, and protecting yourself. Since there was a lot of information that was being provided, the lecture was divided into key ideas to make it easier to follow. Levin did this in a way that would also portray his moral that serial killers get the attention that they want and they should not.

Besides the use of non-verbal messages, organization, and repetition, which all made Levins's lecture one of a kind, the way he was able to connect with the audience, his humor, as well as the morals he continued to preach also played a huge factor. At the start of the lecture, he made the audience laugh hysterically by saying "I want to get this out beforehand, so you do not get distracted by what I look like.." and then mentioned how everywhere he goes, he has gotten compared to looking like Albert Einstein, Mr. Monopoly, Captain Kangaroo, Captain Crunch, Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka, and even Beethoven! By more or less making fun of himself, he immediately had the audience right where he wanted them.

Levin also asked the audience questions in order to keep everyone involved and alert. He asked how many people would answer the door if someone was knocking and wanted to use the phone. Everyone said no. He then asked how many people would let a person use your phone if they were outside your house wanting to buy your car that they just saw on "Craigslist". Most of the audience said probably. Levin explained how the person is still a stranger in both cases and then introduced a case involving a serial killer who did exactly this. Levin's use of scenarios was effective because the audience was able to relate to several situations that they may have been in or could be in, and helped them realize that these situations are more dangerous then they think.

I absolutely loved when Levin mentioned serial killers and how they get the attention that they want. Levin said, "you want to be seen on the news, just kill someone. In fact, kill more; you'll better your chances." This was clearly sarcasm as its finest, but was a great tool in defining how people are getting attention for the wrong reasons. Levin's examples were just outstanding. He went into further detail about serial killers becoming celebrities and mentioned how they have their own comic books, web sites, magazine covers, action figures, and even trading cards that are similar to baseball cards but instead have the number of people the killer murdered on the back of the card instead of number of home runs. These examples were effective because we have witnessed several of them, yet do not think anything of it. These examples got the point across that serial killers do what they do because they want attention, and the media has given them that wish as long as the serial killers make their story interesting.

Levin used many stories as well to illustrate this but one in particular that caught my mind was the recent Virginia Tech Massacre. In between the shootings, Cho Seung-Hui sent pictures to NBC along with a letter and NBC actually televised both. Levin related this to his lecture by mentioning how Cho Seung-Hui got exactly what he wanted. He got attention, he became a celebrity and he left the public with the envision that he wanted before he killed himself. An average person does not even get this respect, yet a college student who killed so many did.

This lecture proved to be a great learning tool. No matter what mistake you make during a presentation, it can easily be all cleared up by a joke. Levin did this when he made fun of his appearance. At one point, Levin said something wrong and then said "Oh, here goes my verbal dyslexia again," which made the audience laugh but also made him relatable in the sense that everyone mixes words up once in a while. During his presentation, a women walked up and brought him two bottles of spring water, and Levin said "Two, I must be really thirsty huh?" also making the audience laugh. I learned that organization, repetition, as well as numerous pictures are key to keeping the audience alert and interested. Though I learned many aspects that will benefit my future presentations, there were a few things Levin did that he should not have. His presentation was 10 minutes late, and he was having lighting problems and the audience overheard him complaining how the lights were first too bright and then too dim because he had a power point but also had to be able to see his notes. On a few occasions, Levin forgot to mention something and went back and a few times he started talking about something and then said," Hold on, I will talk about that later." While this was negative, the amount of information that Levin provided made the few little misconceptions in his organization when talking about different topics clearly unnoticeable to the audience.

This critique was a great learning tool that made me realize the extraordinary lecturers that visit SCSU that are often not credited as much as they should be. Levin's lecture was a remarkable and unique lecture that should have had a much larger audience then the fifty or so people that attended. One thing is for sure, this critique has encouraged me to take some time out of my schedule to experience other lectures that will go on at our campus in the future. This lecture clearly shows the fundamentals of what a good presentation should be like, but I have also learned a tremendous amount on how to evaluate presentations by watching my peers present in class. Most students have done fairly well during presenting, but have always suffered with one particular aspect or another such as eye contact, organization, visuals, preparation, and even just establishing a relationship with the audience. I have used my evaluations to try my best to perfect my own presentations, and though I have definitely improved, watching this lecture clearly identifies my need to put even more into my own presentations in order to gain success. As for a comparison between now and the beginning of the semester, I without a doubt have new expectations when I watch a presentation. Things I used to think were acceptable, which include just reading off a pretty power-point, are now actions that I would look down to in agony.