Cynar,
You bring up some interesting points.
First, who is the second male he claims to have killed (other than Currier)?
I think everything he told the Alaska investigators or wrote down while in his cell, was essentially self serving. It all wasn't necessarily a lie; I think he was trying to create a "legend" for himself that would serve his interests somehow. It wouldn't surprise me if did have other kills but, if he did, they were not random "thrill kills" but motivated by rape, property gain, or covering up another crime.
I do agree that the detail he gave about the 2011 East Coast killing gives it a little more credibility than other claims. I'm not sure what to make of it.
Claiming a lot of random kills seems like an easy way to build up one's "stature" as a big time Serial Killer. Plenty of disappearances and unsolved murders across the country could be his but there is really no way to rule most of them in or out.
The one thing that I can't figure out is why he would admit/claim to have raped Mrs. Currier. She was 55 and not very attractive. Most Serial Killers deny or play down rapes even when they confess to the murders. Rapist, particularly rapist who target older women or children, are not looked kindly upon in prison.
Two things we may hear more about is further details of the Currier case and the mystery teenager who he claims to have raped in Maupin, Or in 1998. If it happened, the might come forward or girls who were high school age in that area in 1998 just wouldn't be that hard to track down. If that rape really happened, it greatly enhances his credbility about other crimes.
hi, Kemo,
The second male was discussed in the 11/29 (final) video interview. This is when the FBI has the writing from his cell that refers to "a couple" in Washington. They are talking about gun use when IK says he never shot anyone besides Bill Currier. Feldis asks if everyone else was strangled. Ik agrees, but with slight hesitation. Asked to clarify he says he hit someone over the head to "take them out of action" but not meaning to kill. Feldis asks if that was the male of the couple and IK agrees.
Other males were only hinted at when Ik allegedly said that men who disappear are assumed to have just walked away from their lives. This interview statement, whenever it was, was not publicly released, so I can't evaluate its context or truth value.
If women were raped and then killed, what was the plan for men? Robbery, torture, what? In terms of the couples it seems like he intended the men to watch/listen while their mates were attacked, then to kill the women in front of the men and then kill the men. I'm not sure if he ever got to fulfill this fantasy, seems like the men spoiled the plan both times we know about. (If, in fact, there was a Washington couple at all.)
As for admitting to raping Mrs. Currier, and Samantha for that matter, I don't know why he went into non-provable detail that was so repellant. For example, Samantha's body, dismembered and submerged for a month, would not have forensically revealed, probably, rape or torture. Similarly, LC's body, even if still in the basement of the house, was apparently doused in drano and decomposing for a year.
So I, too, am curious why he would reveal sordid/humiliating details about sexual deviance. Could he not have claimed to accidentally or humanely kill both women without admitting to raping/beating them? In addition, although we don't have the full-detail confession tapes for either event, references to those in other interviews tells us that he described their psychological torture and terrorization as he kept them alive for hours. Given that those were the exact details he was so anxious about *ever* being revealed publicly, why not admit to the barest of provable facts about the murders? In fact, we have only his own words about what happened in the hours between the abductions and murders; none of it can be forensically substantiated or was witnessed. Was that level of detail provided to ensure the death penalty? Is it true? If we doubt some of his statements, why is it we would unquestioningly believe his account of the attacks, beyond what can be independently substantiated? If we believe his detailed accounts of the murders that actually occurred, don't we also have to believe other, unproven statements?
ALSO, p.s. -- every time I type a reply and go to post it, I get logged out and the writing disappears. So frustrating! How does one stay logged in??