Serial killers, true crime and the imposter

Source: Art by K. Ramsland

Stéphane Bourgoin, a self-proclaimed French expert on serial killers, lived in a world of fantasy. While making low-quality films, he learned what captivated audiences: shock, sex, and gore. In the world of true crime, he discovered that playing the victim attracted supporters, financial backing, and fans. So he told a story (with several variations) about finding his boyfriend/girlfriend/wife murdered/beheaded/dismembered in Los Angeles—depending on which scenario worked. On the one hand, he mesmerized with his “poor me” account, and on the other, he convinced cops, the FBI, and some documentary filmmakers that he was a real expert on society's worst criminals. He validated his stories with fake references and built a lucrative, decades-long career through plagiarism and fraud.

It's not that he lied about everything. That was the key. He actually interviewed a few serial killers (we see some clips of him with Gerard Schaefer and Ottis Toole), and he got what he could from publications by real experts. He also interviewed FBI profiler John Douglas. It wasn't hard to stretch the truth about his expertise: his eight interviews became 30, then over 70. Nobody checked whether any of it was true, or whether the interviews had any clinical value. This went on for years, while Bourgoin was touted as France's leading authority on serial killers. He had gone from filmmaker to criminologist. He claimed to be accredited by the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit. How ironic that his own girlfriend/boyfriend/wife had been slaughtered by a serial killer. It was this incident that had moved him to study these monsters, he claimed, and write dozens of books. But “out of respect” he did not want to name either the victim or the murderer. That was his mistake.

In early 2020, a group of fans discovered the inconsistencies. They discovered that the girlfriend story was a lie and that some of Bourgoin's work was fabricated or plagiarized. They formed a group, the 4ème Oeil Corporation (Fourth Eye), to hold him accountable for his deception. For three years, they pressured him to come clean, apologize, and explain himself. He had made a fortune from plagiarism, fabulism, and false claims. He had exploited actual victims and hurt them for his own profit. He had stolen other people's ideas, even their experiences. Lauren Collins documented all of this in The New Yorker. Now, Nat Geo has done a three-part series on their investigation into Bourgoin's career, his downfall, his background, and his refusal to abandon the lie that underpinned his career. He confessed to some of the deceptions, including that he interviewed Charles Manson. He apologized. But he continued publishing.

The most interesting part of the documentary, available on Nat Geo and Hulu, is when Collins delves deeper into Bourgoin's motive. She refuses to accept a seemingly obvious reason: that he was trying to live up to his larger-than-life parents' impressive accomplishments. Instead, she discovers a darker side to the family that makes an insecure child lost in a fantasy world more understandable.

However, the various investigators seem to be missing an important point. Proving that someone lied about his life does not necessarily invalidate him as an expert in the field. You have to look deeper. We do see that he plagiarized John Douglas and Micki Pistorius (a South African profiler) and exploited Dahira Sy, but what about his alleged knowledge of the psyche of serial killers? Did anyone check his criminological credentials? Apparently not. But that's the serious stuff. It needs to be considered. He did indeed interview some serial killers. But was he a serious researcher or just a dilettante? What exactly did he contribute to our criminological knowledge?

I have a sort of second hand way of getting to know the guy. I saw a documentary about Bourgoin's interview with Elmer Wayne Henley, Jr. Since I interviewed Henley extensively to find out how he became an accomplice to serial killer Dean Corll in the 1970s, I could see how Bourgoin distorted the facts. First, he is shown reading a Time-Life Report that is superficial at best. Then he claims to have spoken to Henley for two days, while Henley says it was an hour. Bourgoin acts surprised that Henley will not talk about the murders, but Henley had attached those conditions to her interview before Bourgoin arrived. What Bourgoin says about Henley is taken from other authors, none of whom ever spoke to Henley. In the end, Bourgoin had to get the “carnage” from a doting detective who showed him the crime scene photos. Bourgoin went into the interview with little knowledge and produced an inaccurate story that added nothing to our understanding of the accomplices. I see no source of academic qualifications and no professional interviewing skills.

Nevertheless, he managed to recruit a documentary filmmaker.

He's not a criminologist. He's just a notorious liar who took advantage of the gullibility of an audience primed by his fabricated victim story and his numerous amateur interviews. There's not much at stake in exposing this fraudster, but the series is fascinating nonetheless as it follows those who want to expose him and those who want to uncover the reason for Bourgoin's fraud. There's more to be learned about this naive tolerance in true crime culture, but that's subject for another kind of documentary.