On a tragically regular basis, the sexual abuse and murder of children is only propelled into the news and into our minds when celebrity status is involved.
Prince Andrew, Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Phillip Schofield, Huw Edwards, all have put child sexual abuse in the spotlight … for a while. These headline grabbing cases are then followed by silence. This silence is a concern for me and a gift for those who we have not yet reached the headlines. Having worked for decades with men and women who sexually abuse children, I know for certain that silence is always a gift to those people who abuse.
High profile cases are useful in providing a disturbing reminder. I guess though, that such is the nature of this disturbance we are relieved when such a moment of time is over, and we can again… forget. Our wish not to know, our ability to forget, to remain silent is however in this context incredibly dangerous.
Sexual crime is not just about what happens at a given moment. The actual sexual crime is a very small part of a much wider and more complex picture which does indeed occur over time. A sexual offence does not ‘just happen’ many other dynamics, feelings, thoughts and behaviours are operating and often for many years leading up to the commission of an actual offence. It is this wider picture that is often missing in the polarised responses we tend to gravitate to.
In the 80’s we were faced with a whole series of high-profile sexual abuse cases. Consequently, I spent the following ten years doing nothing else but conducting investigative interviews with both victims and perpetrators. We did not know back then as much as we know now. We worked on the principle of identifying all the indicators to support the view that abuse had happened and then painstakingly we would, for each indicator, identify all the reasons why it should not be counted as an indicator. Once that picture was complete, we would then search for evidence on any remaining indicators, eventually that would inform an outcome in one direction or the other.
The process of elimination was very much victim led and not much consideration was given to the accused in terms of their behaviour, history and thinking. Over time of course that changed and many of us who had previously worked with victims started to work more closely with the accused and guilty. Eventually, the experience of both victims and perpetrators have informed a highly skilled and informed investigative and assessment process such as we have today.
Much has been learned from the men and women who commit sexual crime, and it is to their minds we must go if we are continue that learning.
The resistance to go into the mind of the paedophile I certainly appreciate, such a place it is not a nice place to be. I can also assure you, one is seldom welcomed. Our resistance to going into such a place is, in the face of such perversity, a healthy response. But also important to recognise that such resistance to thinking the unthinkable, although deeply uncomfortable, is essential in preventing further abuse and in achieving justice for victims.
The biggest obstacle to a victim speaking out about an experience of abuse is the fear that they will not be believed. This belief has, in nearly every situation, been instilled in them by the abuser. An abuser will go to extreme lengths to secure the silence of their victim. Silencing the victim is a crucial part of the grooming process. One victim I worked with was shown pictures of his mother and father which the abuser would then set alight in front of him, stating that this is what he would do to the boy’s parents should he ever tell anyone. Needless to say that child remained silent for many years.
It is not only the victim that is groomed, parents, siblings, relatives, friends, teachers etc can all be subject to the grooming influence of an abuser.
The environment will also be groomed to minimise the risk of discovery and to create a setting that will appeal to a child and look benevolent to others. In the case of those that have status such a professionals and super stars, they will also groom the public. The act of grooming is a process of control and all who come under its influence are impacted by the abuser’s power. There is never one victim there is always many.
Over many years, Michael Jackson and the high profile others systematically groomed all those in their reach. They created a childlike persona, an environment, connections and facilities to gain ultimate access to the most intimate occasions of childhood.
Their most effective tools of grooming; power and status, enabled extreme bizarre behaviour that would never have been accepted by any other individual to go unquestioned. So far reaching was the impact of their grooming, so effective was their grooming that others justified indicators of concerning behaviour to the extent that each did not need to utter a single word in his defence.
One of the most disturbing denials that we witnessed in relation to the Michael Jackson case, came from the mother of James Bulger, Denise Fergus, who publicly and viciously attempted to discredit one of Jackson’s victim’s. Few would recognise the truth that informed her denial. Fact is her murdered son had been totally obsessed with Michael Jackson. For Denise Fergus, to recognise the truth would surely mean yet another painful reality for her to bear. But her self -protection can never be a reason to deny another their painful reality and such self-interest can never be allowed to stand in the way of justice.
It is my assessment that each person advocating an ‘innocent’ Jackson, Andrew, Harris, Glitter .. whoever …. in every way becomes another of their victims. When in the face of overwhelming evidence, it remains possible for others to ignore this and declare ‘innocent’ then personal autonomy for individual perspective and thought has been overwhelmed, has been distorted and corrupted into what the likes of Jackson et al wish to determine. In recognising this, how many victims are these men responsible for? …
Thousands!
The silence that then follows is once again deafening and the forgetting is once again immensely dangerous. Let us take care never to forget.
The homicide of any child by their mother is something that is deeply shocking to society. The socially constructed and gendered role of mothers within a patriarchal society is to care and nurture children, to love them unconditionally and to protect them from harm (Meyer and Oberman, 2001). Sieff (2019) states that the archetype of the ‘Death Mother’ is evoked by women who commit filicide, which evokes such fear and alarm that it is banished to the `shadows of consciousness` (p15). Society therefore does not know how to respond, leading to the capacity for females to be violent being denied (Motz, 2020).
Whilst males commit the majority of violent offences, women who do commit violent offences are more likely to do this against people they have close relationships with, including their own children (Yakeley, 2010). Cases of filicide involving a mother, however, are rare and the vast majority of mothers pose no risk of harm to their children. In the U.K. between 2014-17, mothers were responsible for 27 deaths of children compared with 32 deaths caused by fathers and 8 deaths by step-fathers of cases subject to Serious Case Reviews (SCR) (DfE, 2020). Both parents together were responsible for 13 deaths (DfE, 2020). This was in the context of over 600,000 referrals to Social Care per year between 2014-17 (DfE, 2021), with a referral being defined as a request for a service from Children’s Services who is not currently in need and already accessing Social Work support (DfE, 2021). These referrals are for children and their families who may need support and those who may need protection. This suggests the difficult task professionals have in preventing filicide, given their rarity in the context of the demand for Children’s Services.
In the author’s experience there is a lack of training, research and learning for Social Workers about mothers who both harm and/or kill their children, with the focus often being upon the father or step-father. It is due to the experience of the author being involved in a case where a mother and father killed their two children that this specific area of practice has been focused upon. As the primary task of Children and Families Social Workers is arguably the protection of children (Finch and Schaub, 2015), this article focuses on reflections for this profession. Reflections will also be relevant, however, to other agencies working with children as safeguarding children is a multi-agency responsibility in the U.K.
This literature review is structured through first explaining how the literature was searched for and what definitions are used. It then considers the contextual overview from the literature, including statistical information, followed by types of maternal filicides before a discussion of complicating factors. Finally, the overall research is discussed before reflections are highlighted for Social Work practice and other agencies working with children.
Literature Search Strategy
The literature search was completed via Google Scholar using a mixture of journal articles and books. The following search terms were used to find research: `mothers kill children`, `mother neonaticide`, `mother infanticide` and `mother filicide`. The majority of articles and books found were written by professionals from Psychiatry, Psychology and Paediatric disciplines. Therefore the themes found in this literature review will be influenced by the knowledge base of these professions, which may limit the understanding of maternal filicide from alternative perspectives. Limited research has been undertaken from a criminological or sociological viewpoint in relation to maternal filicide (Shelton, Hoffer and Muirhead, 2015).
Articles were also searched for internationally to consider themes across different countries. `Backwards citation searching` was then used by looking at the references section of all articles and books to find further research.
For the purpose of this review, the following definitions are used:
neonaticide is used to refer to the homicide of a child in the first 24 hours of life.
infanticide is used to refer to the homicide of a child in their first year of life.
filicide is used to refer to the homicide of any child from birth onwards (therefore including both neonaticide and infanticide).
homicide is used to refer to the killing of a child unlawfully either intentionally or unintentionally.
Contextual Overview
The homicide of children from birth onwards is a feature of all civilisations (Oberman, 2003). Infanticide has been used historically to control population numbers, due to illegitimacy or eugenics (Meyer and Oberman, 2001). Factors found to influence maternal filicide include individual psychological factors, societal factors such as: overpopulation, poverty, the status of females in society, inheritance laws, children born out of wedlock and hormonal changes following birth (Meyer and Oberman, 2001).
In most societies today maternal filicide is evident, but determining an accurate understanding of numbers is problematic (Stockl et al, 2017). Not all countries record information on maternal filicide. In addition, the true rate of maternal filicide is difficult to determine because of the hidden nature of neonaticide and whether deaths classified by Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) were in fact filicide (Motz, 2014).
It is a consistent theme across studies that children under one are at most risk of homicide out of any age group in the UK and USA (Motz, 2014). A study in England, Scotland and Wales found children under one are four times more likely to be killed than any other age group with the first day of life being most risky (Flynn, Shaw and Abel, 2013). This remains consistent in 2020, according to the Office for National Statistics for England and Wales (ONS, 2021).
A review of the filicides by Stockl et al (2017), which looked at 126 studies in 44 countries, found that of the 33 studies which separated the gender of the perpetrator, that mothers committed 55.7% of all child filicides. In the case of infanticide, the same study found mothers committed the majority of these crimes (71.7% of all infanticides in the 12 studies that separated out this data). In relation to neonaticides, Stockl et al (2017) found them almost always to be committed by mothers. This could be explained by the fact that mothers are invariably the primary carers for young children post-birth.
In a study by Putkonen et al (2009) of filicides in Austria and Finland between 1995 – 2005 mothers were the perpetrators in the majority of cases (52% in Finland and 72% in Austria). Mariano, Choon and Myers (2014), who studied filicide cases over 32 years in the USA, found that mothers were just as likely to kill their children as fathers in the first year of life, with fathers thereafter being more likely. In a review of 297 filicides in England and Wales between 1997 – 2006, mothers were held legally responsible in 102 cases, compared with fathers in 195 cases (Flynn, Shaw and Abel, 2013).
The consistent theme across current research is that mothers kill more children under the age of one than fathers or step-fathers. Overall, there are differing statistics about whether mothers are more likely to kill their children than fathers across childhood. Mothers are thought more likely to kill their children than step-fathers.
Categories of Maternal Filicide
Several authors have tried to develop categories of maternal filicides. These are often subjective, however, based on small sample cases and are not always comparable across studies or countries.
Davies (2008) notes the most common categories across all systems are:
Neonaticide.
Mentally ill mothers – child killed due to mother’s mental illness.
Physical abuse related filicide – an incident of physical abuse which killed the child.
Other categories include:
Purposeful Filicide – a mother acting alone who purposefully and intentionally kills her child (Meyer and Oberman, 2001).
Filicide due to neglect – where the neglect of the child by the mother led to their death either through omission or commission. (Meyer and Oberman, 2001).
Assisted or coerced filicide – mothers who actively kill their children with their partners, or passively through the perceived failure to protect their children. (Meyer and Oberman, 2001).
Retaliatory – filicide with revenge towards a partner or ex-partner as the primary motive (Porter and Gavin, 2010).
Altruistic – parental desire to relieve the perceived suffering of the child including a subcategory of `mercy killing` where a parent kills a child with a severe or debilitating illness (Kauppi et al, 2010).
The Child Safeguarding Review Practice Panel (2021) uses categories to distinguish types of child deaths and/or harm experienced by children in England that lead to a Child Safeguarding Practice Review (the replacement for Serious Case Reviews). These categories do not distinguish statistically, however, between cases of maternal and paternal filicide and include all types of child deaths and harm. Given the focus of this article is on maternal filicide these categories have therefore not been included.
The research underpinning the different categories will now be summarised. Due to the mental illness of mothers being present across categories, this is included in the discussion of complicating factors instead.
Neonaticide
The act of neonaticide is distinct from other filicides because this crime is almost always committed by mothers when the perpetrator can be identified. A 1990 study found 64% of new-borns killed by neonaticide were found by accident and the parents could not be found (Crittenden & Craig, 1990, cited in Porter and Gavin, 2010). It is therefore often a hidden crime and difficult to determine its prevalence.
There is no clear correlation between diagnosed mental illness and neonaticide from studies undertaken (de Wijs-Heijlaerts and Verheugt, 2012). Friedman, Horwitz and Resnick (2005), who reviewed 39 studies on child homicide, found mothers in this category were mostly unmarried, aged in their late teenage years, often residing with parents or relatives and denying or concealing their pregnancies. The pregnancy is denied out of a fear that others will not accept the fact that the mother is pregnant (de Wijs-Heijlaerts and Verheugt, 2012). Mothers fear the loss of the social support network, or being shamed if they reveal they are pregnant (Oberman, 2003). The denial can lead to mothers no longer being conscious of being pregnant and lead to dissociation at birth (de Wijs-Heijlaerts and Verheugt, 2012). Cohen (2001) notes the paradox of denial in that one is both conscious and not conscious at the same time. Some awareness of pregnancy possibly develops, but the mind turns a blind eye to it, so no relationship with the baby develops. One mother said in relation to killing her three children after birth, `I was conscious of being pregnant, but not of being pregnant with babies… no relationship with the babies developed`. (The Guardian, 2009).
Physical abuse-related filicide
This category of filicide is where an incident of physical abuse led to the child being killed. This is often an impulsive act of a mother who has lost control emotionally and who may see her child as threatening her authority. The mother is not, though, intending to kill her child. Meyer and Oberman (2001) found that most of these mothers had previously hurt their children physically. Poverty, social isolation, alcohol and/or other drug use, issues in interpersonal relationships and past experiences of abuse are common themes in this category of filicide (Meyer and Oberman, 2001).
In physical abuse-related filicide, as well as neglect-related filicide, studies have found that mothers are often parenting alone, with young children who have high levels of need and with limited social support, which influences what happens (Davies, 2008). Smithey (2001) found in interviewing 14 mothers who fatally injured their children, that the child’s crying, difficulty in training (toileting and weaning) and illness led to the mother assaulting the child.
Filicide due to neglect
This category includes neglect-related deaths that are caused by omission or commission (Meyer and Oberman, 2001). Omission cases are when a mother fails to attend to the needs of the child, for example leaving a child unattended in the bath. In the majority of these cases studied by Oberman (2003) the mother was a lone parent and there was an absence of the father or any other support. In commission cases the mother reacted to the child’s behaviour to try to quieten them e.g. shaking the child, causing the death. Often these mothers were young, single, with a limited support network, had limited education and may have used alcohol or other drugs (Meyer and Oberman, 2001).
Purposeful filicide (Mother acting alone)
In Meyer and Oberman’s (2001) study in the USA of 219 cases of maternal filicide the majority fell into this category (79 cases). Oberman (2003) notes this category is often linked to a mother’s mental illness, social isolation and the fact she is parenting alone without support. Meyer and Oberman’s study (2001) also found a correlation in this category with threats of suicide, attempts of suicide or mothers committing suicide, in addition to the filicide.
The category of purposeful filicide is distinct because the mother meant to kill her child. It is different from neonaticide because of the fact these mothers do not deny the existence of their children and sometimes kill multiple children (Meyer and Oberman, 2001).
Although there is a possible link with the mental illness of the mother in this category, Meyer and Oberman (2001) note the difficulty of establishing a significant mental illness at the time of the filicide. Friedman, Horwitz and Resnick (2005), however, found that purposeful homicides in the USA were often linked to a mother’s mental health through psychosis and/or depression. Meyer and Oberman (2001) note that the mothers in this category in their study were often seen by others as loving and devoted mothers with no prior history of abuse or neglect.
Assisted or Coerced Maternal Abuse (including presence of domestic abuse)
The category of assisted or coerced maternal abuse is taken from Meyer and Oberman’s (2001) study of filicide cases in the USA. Out of a total of 219 cases of maternal filicide only 12 came under this category. This can either be active, where the mother kills the child, with the partner or passive, where the mother is convicted of failing to protect her child (Meyer and Oberman, 2001).
The passive category is perhaps controversial. There are cases where there is limited evidence the mother was directly involved in the filicide, but is convicted of failing to protect her child (Evening Standard, 2021). This suggests that the social construction of motherhood in that mothers are seen in society as being responsible for the safety of children, including whether their partner is safe to be around children, influences who is held responsible. In contrast, fathers are rarely charged with failing to protect their children from their mothers. Mothers are blamed for not leaving violent relationships when often they have been the victims themselves of these abusive relationships. It is therefore important that this category does not reinforce existing gender stereotypes.
Motz (2014) highlights that sometimes these relationships have an addictive and compulsive quality that can involve both partners participating in the destructive nature of the relationship. Motz argues this is driven by both adults` `disturbed attachment systems` (2014, p2), stemming from earlier childhood experiences where trauma is unconsciously repeated in the adult relationship. There is often no clear victim or perpetrator and a moral code can be formed where violence towards each other and any children can become condoned (Motz, 2014). Motz (2014) highlights the case of Mick and Mairead Philpott as an example who were convicted of manslaughter for killing their six children in a house fire.
Retaliatory/Spousal revenge
In this category the child is killed in the context of revenge against a spouse or partner due to envy or jealousy. The child is seen as an extension of the other person and revenge is sought through harming the child.
In a review of 200 filicides in Finland, Kauppi et al (2010) found only one case of maternal filicide where spousal revenge was evident. The Centre for Suicide Prevention (2009) found a limited number of these cases in their review of the literature (between 4-15% of cases, depending on the study).
Altruistic Motives
Altruistic filicide can be defined as `the motive of relieving the child of real or, most often, imaginary suffering and usually involves suicide by the parent` (Kauppi et al, 2010 p229). Mercy killings are often included in this typology because it also involves alleviating the perceived suffering of the child. Kauppi et al (2010) found in their review of filicide cases in Finland that most mothers killed for altruistic reasons often in combination with depression or psychosis and these mothers were often older, better educated and, more often than not, employed.
Friedman, Horwitz and Resnick (2005) found a correlation between mothers who committed suicide and also who killed their children, with a significant number of these cases being for altruistic reasons (90% of maternal suicide-filicides).
Complicating Factors
It is important to note that the reasons for every case of maternal filicide will be unique and no one factor can explain why a mother might kill her child. Adshead and Horne (2021, p105) use the bicycle lock model to explain that in an incident of violence there will be a final number specific to each case that causes the violence to be unlocked.
Poverty was one of the main reasons for filicide historically and is a consistent theme in the literature today (Friedman, Horwitz and Resnick, 2005). Poverty remains a significant issue in the U.K. today, with increasing numbers of children living in poverty (JRF, 2021). Most people in poverty do not kill their children, but the added stress of parenting under difficult social conditions and without adequate resources is a feature of many filicide cases. Meyer and Oberman (2001) found that in maternal filicide cases relating to neglect, poverty was a feature in 90% of the cases and was also evident across other cases.
Extreme poverty is also known to impact negatively on the mental health of people (Filer, 2019). Mental illness is also frequently cited in the literature as a factor in maternal filicide (Friedman, Horwitz and Resnick, 2005). The research shows that psychosis (post-partum psychosis or psychosis) can be a factor in maternal filicide, as can a major depressive illness and also personality disorder (Kauppi et al, 2010; Friedman, and Resnick, 2007; Davies, 2008). Suicidal history is also evident in maternal filicide cases (Shelton, Hoffer and Muirhead, 2015). It is also important, however, to note that most people who are mentally ill are not violent (Yakeley, 2010).
In a review of Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) by the Department for Education (DfE, 2020) the largest single factor prevalent in all of these was the mother’s mental health (47% of all SCRs, p53). Motherhood and the impact on mental health are arguably entwined. In the U.K. half of mothers develop a new mental health issue pre- or post-birth; post-natal depression affects 10-15% of mothers and suicide is the leading cause of death for mothers in the first year of their children`s lives (Glaser, 2021).
Jennings et al (1999, cited in Flynn, Shaw and Abel, 2013) found that in women with post-partum depression, 41% expressed violent thoughts about their children. Shelton, Hoffer and Muirhead (2015) found that in 19% of the 213 cases of maternal filicide examined the mother had expressed to someone else thoughts of harming her child prior to the filicide taking place. Kleiman et al (2021), however, argue that experiencing `scary thoughts`, including excessive worry, rumination, obsessive thoughts, intrusive memories and a misinterpretation of bodily sensations are a normal part of being a mother. Collardeau et al (2019) note in their research that nearly half of all mothers had thoughts of harming their infants on purpose and in their limited sample size this did not predict harmful behaviours towards the infants.
There are often difficulties in determining the extent to which a mother was mentally ill at the time of a filicide, particularly in those cases where a mother also killed herself (Friedman, Horwitz and Resnick, 2005). The literature also focuses primarily on mental illness rather than more broadly upon mental health. This might be due to the research being conducted mainly by Psychiatrists and Psychologists. Diagnosis continues to be an area of debate within the mental health profession and the reliance upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in order to categorise mental illness (Filer, 2019). Studies demonstrate that Psychiatrists are not always consistent in the diagnosis of mental illness (Filer, 2019), which does question the reliability and emphasis placed on diagnosis in the literature. Perhaps a broader consideration of the mental health of a mother should be considered instead, with the focus on preventive services.
Mental health can also be linked with the experience of past abuse and trauma and whilst not all mentally ill people have experienced past trauma, many have (Filer, 2019). Meyer and Oberman (2001) and McKee (2006) note that there is evidence to indicate that the majority of parents who are abusive have experienced past abuse in childhood. Davies (2008) and Kauppi et al (2010) found this evident in the majority of maternal filicides.
Marchiano (2021) suggests that becoming a mother forces mothers to confront those parts of their past experiences which may have been repressed and not integrated and as their children reach developmental milestones this can re-awaken a mother’s past trauma. Welldon (2018) states that it is the maternal attachment relationships (often over three generations) that are crucial in understanding the psychology of women who are violent to themselves and/or their children. Due to negative early attachment experiences, a mother may feel `unwanted, undesired, ignored or an unidentifiable part of her parents` lives (usually her mother’s)` (Welldon, 2018, p9). Welldon (2018) suggests that this creates an intense hatred of their own mothers which leads to these intense feelings of hatred and revenge being taken out on their own bodies or on the extension of their bodies, their children. Oberman and Meyer (2008) conducted interviews with 40 mothers convicted of killing their child(ren) and one of the consistent themes found was the complex relationship these mothers had with their own mothers, which was often characterised by abandonment or abuse. This is not to negate the role of the mother’s father who, in the same study, were found to either be absent or violent to the majority of the mothers. The intergenerational impact of abuse and trauma therefore appears to be a feature in many cases of maternal filicide.
Alcohol and other drugs can be used to manage the feelings associated with past abuse and trauma and both are also found as factors in maternal filicide. In a study of 55 filicidal mothers Lewis and Bunce (2003) found that, at the time of the filicide, alcohol and/or other drug was present in a quarter of cases and Shelton, Hoffer and Muirhead (2015) found a history of alcohol and/or other drug use in 41% of 213 maternal filicide cases.
Domestic abuse and issues such as separation or parental conflict are a feature of adult relationships either historically or currently in many cases of maternal filicide (Friedman, Horwitz and Resnick, 2005; Kauppi et al, 2010). Domestic abuse may also impact on a mother’s mental health and social support system as it may lead to the mother being isolated through the control and abuse of the partner. Social isolation is noted as a factor in maternal filicide in most studies (Meyer and Oberman (2001), Lewis and Bunce (2003), Friedman, Horwitz and Resnick (2005) and Kauppi et al (2010)). Spieff (2019) notes that mothers with better support networks develop better bonds with their children and are more nurturing, attentive and committed to them; and it is therefore an important factor in mothers successfully raising children. Oberman and Meyer (2008) found that for those mothers who committed maternal filicide who had some family and social relationships, these were often characterised by abuse and violence, meaning that in reality they had no-one they could rely on for support.
Previous contact with Children’s Services is also a theme in some studies. Shelton, Hoffer and Muirhead (2015) found in a sample of 213 maternal filicide cases in the USA that 34% had a history of past involvement with Child Protection Services.
The ethnicity of mothers who commit filicide or the ethnicity of their children has been given limited attention in the research evidence due to ethnicity not being consistently recorded in maternal filicide cases across countries. In England, Sidebottom and Retzer (2019) found that in cases of maternal filicide between 2011-2014 the children killed were more likely to be of Black and Minority Ethnic origin, albeit in a limited sample size (47% of 19 cases). The ethnicity of the parent and/or child, however, remains a gap in the available research evidence.
There are also a number of other different psycho-social factors that could be important considerations in individual cases of maternal filicide, such as: mother’s low intelligence, poor impulse control, limited educational achievements, housing and access to social resources, unemployment and the impact of dealing with multiple children as a single parent without adequate support (McKee, 2006).
Discussion
The literature highlights that whilst maternal filicide is rare, it is caused by a complex combination of societal, psychological and relationship-based factors. Although understanding the different categories of maternal filicides can be helpful, their application to cases is subjective and difficult to apply consistently. There are also significant limitations to the research presented due to the limited number of studies from different countries, sample sizes, consistency of research and reliability of the data.
Meyer and Oberman note that:
“Infanticide is not a random, unpredictable crime. Instead, it is deeply embedded in and is a reflection of the societies on which it occurs. The crime of infanticide is committed by mothers who cannot parent their child under the circumstances dictated by their unique position in place and time” (2001, p2).
In cases of maternal filicide mothers are often parenting in poverty, with limited support networks and with experiences of childhood trauma which in turn impact on their mental health. This could lead to alcohol and/or other drug use or forming relationships with abusive and/or dangerous partners. Attributing weight to what factor was more prevalent in which case is inherently problematic for any research to determine effectively.
The social situation of mothers is a consistent theme in the literature. Poverty, social isolation, a lack of effective support services, affordable childcare and housing issues can all be factors increasing stress upon them. In addition, gender-assigned parenting roles and the social construction of motherhood compound these issues, leaving mothers forming the majority of single parent families in the U.K. (90%, Gingerbread, 2022).
The impact of extreme poverty and inequality upon the mental health of mothers is arguably linked. This suggests that taking a public health approach to tackling inequality and poverty may benefit many mothers, improve their mental health and reduce the potential for filicides taking place. In addition, there is often limited space for alternative messages on mothering to be heard (Glaser, 2021). It is rare to see mothers being depicted in the media as struggling to parent or bond with their children. As such, when a mother struggles to live up to the societal norms of what is expected of mothers it creates internal conflict, stress and anxiety.
The socially constructed view of mothers being caring and nurturing also limits professionals from seeing mothers as having the capacity for violence and thus limits training, learning and research being undertaken. This arguably reinforces a societal gender bias, with men being seen as violent and women as passive victims (Adshead and Horne, 2021). Society does not want to think about a mother’s capacity to kill her children as it challenges patriarchal structures; so often the response is to split mothers into being `bad` or `mad` (Motz, 2020).
Gendered notions of violence being committed solely by men can be seen in the Triennial Review of SCRs between 2014 – 2017 (DfE, 2020) as there is no section relating to maternal filicide, but there is a specific section on fathers and male partners (Section 3.4.2.). The recent review into the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson, who were both killed by their step-mothers, notes that `the perception of women as unlikely perpetrators of harm to children` could have been a factor in both cases (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2022, p90). Whilst step-mothers may have different relationships to children in comparison with their mothers, this does suggest that gendered notions of violence may impact on how risk is assessed by Social Workers.
Motz (2020) argues that in order to understand female violence, we also need to understand the impact of past trauma upon mothers, which is often hidden. Many mothers who commit filicide will have experienced significant past trauma and the birth of their children can reawaken these wounds, creating complex psychological responses to their children. Children can take on specific meanings psychologically, which can lead to one child rather than the another being killed (Reder, Duncan and Gray, 1993). This can sometimes be related to the difficult relationships these mothers had with their own mothers (Oberman and Meyer, 2008), but also could be related to the impact of abuse from their own fathers and others in childhood and/or as adults. In addition, the impact of abusive relationships with the fathers of their children or their partners add to the specific psychological meaning children are given. This may then lead to one child within the house becoming the target for abuse, acting as a `poison container` for adults to `project disowned parts of their psyches, so they can control these feelings in another body without danger to themselves` (deMause, p1, 1998).
In the case of neonaticide these mothers are often living in extreme positions where to acknowledge their pregnancies would result in shame or rejection by their families and support networks so they deny the existence of the pregnancies. Tragically, these mothers will often give birth to their children alone before killing them either passively or actively. Their prevalence is therefore extremely difficult to determine and prevention, given their hidden nature, almost impossible.
Conclusion – Reflections for Social Work Practice
This research has shown that maternal filicide is a complex crime with many intertwined factors and it cannot be easily predicted. This needs to be understood nationally in order for a more realistic understanding of the complexity of safeguarding children from filicide to be developed. Without this there is a danger that a perception will develop that filicide is always preventable and in cases where children are known to Children’s Services that the actions of an individual social worker should have prevented the incident taking place. This may lead to people not training to be Social Workers or experienced Social Workers leaving the profession, which ultimately further weakens the effectiveness of services to prevent harm to children.
In a review of Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2021), 62% of children killed were previously known to Children’s Social Care. Thirty-eight per cent of children, however, were not and this indicates the importance of all agencies being aware of the learning from this article. Whilst improved multi-agency working could strengthen the protection of children nationally, the literature demonstrates that there are deep-rooted issues within society that lead to maternal filicide. Considering child protection from a public health approach through tackling inequality, social isolation and poverty (Featherstone, White and Morris, 2014) and ensuring mothers are given access to appropriate mental health support would arguably be effective ways to reduce harm generally to children.
Whilst this needs a national response and investment in the right support and services, Children’s Services and partner agencies should support families through tackling poverty, housing issues and increasing the social support a mother has to reduce social isolation and provide services to address this where necessary.
Social Workers and professionals working with mothers need a more specialist understanding around a mother’s mental health and the impact specifically of this on parenting younger children, as young children are at higher risk of maternal filicide. Children and Family Social Work departments should establish better links to midwifery and health visiting services as well as Perinatal Mental Health Teams and Adult Mental Health Teams and consider developing Parent Infant Mental Health Attachment Teams.
All professionals working with mothers should also be curious about the mother’s past experience of being parented and any previous trauma when undertaking assessments. This research has highlighted the potential impact upon mothers of the parenting they received from their own mothers which professionals should be aware of. In addition, the meaning of different children to parents psychologically should be considered when assessing family dynamics.
Importantly, this research has highlighted that across all studies mothers are more likely to kill their children than step-fathers. There remains an emphasis on the risk posed by step-fathers (and fathers) in practice and training, which arguably reflects the biased and gendered view of violence across society. Maternal filicide is not given enough emphasis in the past DfE review of SCRs (2020) and in a subsequent report by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (2021); male and female perpetrators of filicide are not separated statistically. There is also no specific advice available for professionals in relation to maternal filicide. The potential impact of this on practice could be professionals struggling to consider the risks posed by mothers to their children.
Whilst further training could address some of these issues there remains the impact of austerity and financial constraints that have also hampered the effectiveness of Social Work services (CPAG, 2020) and universal services to support families. Reduced caseloads, better and broader access to early intervention services would arguably enable Social Workers to have the time needed to complete more thorough and curious assessments.
Finally, in order to understand maternal filicide more there needs to be further comprehensive research. Although the categories of filicide may be useful to understand different types of filicides, it is difficult to categorise such a complex crime. The assisted or coerced category could potentially lead to victim-blaming of mothers in abusive relationships. The recent Star Hobson case (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2022) where the mother was convicted of causing or allowing the death of her child in the context of domestic abuse with her female partner, highlights the complex dynamics underpinning these relationships. Further research in this area with more specific advice and training for professionals would be beneficial. In addition, larger studies in the U.K., drawing on multiple sources of information and individual case studies, would support a better understanding of maternal filicide. This could also consider more broadly the specific reasons why mothers harm their children. In relation to neonaticides there needs to be further research in the U.K. to understand its prevalence and, in addition, the concealment or denial of a pregnancy should lead to a referral into Social Work services.
Maternal filicide is a complex phenomenon and prevention equally as complex. Social Workers and other agencies in this area could learn from this literature review. Social Workers and their multi-agency partners, alone, however, cannot prevent all filicides from happening. It is a problem that requires a multi-faceted societal and political response.
References:
Adshead, G and Horne, E. (2021). The Devil You Know – Stories of Human Cruelty and Compassion. London, Faber & Faber Limited.
Centre for Suicide Prevention – The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness. (2009). Filicide: A Literature Review. University of Manchester. https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=37579
Cohen, S. (2001). States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Collardeau, F, Corbyn, B, Abramowitz, J, Janssen, P, Woody, S and Fairbrother, N. (2019). Maternal unwanted and intrusive thoughts of infant-related harm, obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression in the perinatal period: study protocol. BMC Psychiatry, 19:94, p1-15.
de Wijs-Heijlaerts, K, J and Verheugt, A,J. (2012). The Psyche of Women Committing Neonaticide A Psychological Study of Women who kill their Newborn Children. In Oei, T. I., & Groenhuijsen, M. S. (Eds.) (2012). Progression in Forensic psychiatry, Deventer: Kluwer, 436-450.
Featherstone, B, White, S and Morris, K. (2014). Re-Imagining Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. Bristol, Policy Press.
Filer, N. (2019). This Book Will Change Your Mind About Mental Health. London, Faber & Faber Limited.
Finch, J and Schaub, J. (2015). Projective Identification and Unconscious Defences Against Anxiety: Social Work Education, Practice Learning and the Fear of Failure. In Armstrong, D and Rustin, M (eds.), Social Defences Against Anxiety, London, Karnac, 300 – 314.
Flynn, S, M, Shaw, J, J and Abel, K, M. (2013). Filicide: Mental Illness in Those Who Kill their Children. PLOS One, 8 (4), 1-8,
Friedman, S, H, Horwitz, S, M and Resnick, P, J. (2005). Child Murder by Mothers: A Critical Analysis of the Current State of Knowledge and a Research Agenda. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162:9, 1578 – 1587.
Friedman, S, H and Resnick, P, J. (2007). Child Murder by mothers: Patterns and Prevention. World Psychiatry, 6, 137 – 141.
Kauppi, A, Kumpulainen, K, Karkola, K, Vanamo, T and Merikanto, J. (2010). Maternal and Paternal Filicides: A Retrospective Review of Filicides in Finland. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38: 229 – 38.
Kleiman, K, Wenzel, A, Waller, H and Mandel, A, A. (2021). Dropping the Baby and Other Scary Thoughts. Abingdon, Routledge.
Lewis, C, F and Bunce, S, C. (2003). Filicidal Mothers and the Impact of Psychosis on Maternal Filicide. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31: 459-70.
Marchiano, L. (2021). Motherhood: Facing and Finding Yourself. Boulder, Sounds True.
Mariano, T, Y, Chan, H, C and Myers, W, C. (2014). Towards a More Holistic Understanding of Filicide: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of 32 Years of U.S. Arrest Data. Forensic Science International, 236, 46-53.
McKee, G, R. (2006). Why Mothers Kill: A Forensic Psychologist’s Casebook. New York, Oxford University Press.
Meyer, C, L and Oberman, M. (2001). Mothers Who Kill Their Children. London, New York University Press.
Motz, A. (2014). Toxic Couples: The Psychology of Domestic Violence. Hove, Routledge.
Motz, A (2020). Maternal Violence: Ordinary and Extraordinary. In Motz, A, Dennis, M and Aiyegbusi, A (eds.), Invisible Trauma: Women, Difference and the Criminal Justice System, Abingdon, Routledge, 17 – 32.
Oberman, M. (2003). Mothers Who Kill: Cross-cultural Patterns in and Perspectives on Contemporary Maternal Filicide. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26(5), 493-514. http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs
Oberman, M and Meyer, C, L. (2008). When Mothers Kill – Interviews from Prison. New York, New York University Press.
Porter, T and Gavin, H. (2010). Infanticide and Neonaticide: A Review of 40 Years of Research Literature on Incidence and Causes. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 11(3), 99-112.
Putkonen, H, Amon, S, Almiron, M, P, Cederwall, J, Y, Eronen, M, Klier, C, Kjelsberg, E and Weizmann-Henelius, G. (2009). Filicide in Austria and Finland – A register-based study on all filicide cases in Austria and Finland 1995-2005. BMC Psychiatry, 9:74. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/74
Reder, P, Duncan, S and Gray, M. (1993). Beyond Blame: Child Abuse Tragedies Revisited. Hove, Routledge.
Shelton, J, L, E, Hoffer, T, A and Muirhead, Y, E (2015). Behavioral Analysis of Maternal Filicide. Quantico, Springer.
Sidebottom, P and Retzer, A. (2019). Maternal Filicide in a cohort of English Serious Case Reviews. Archives of Women’s Mental Health. 22: 139-149.
Sieff, D, F. (2019). The Death Mother as Nature’s Shadow: Infanticide, Abandonment, and the Collective Unconscious. Psychological Perspectives: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought, 62:1, 15-34.
Stockl, H, Dekel, B, Morris-Gehring, A, Watts, C, Abrahams, N. (2017). Child Homicide Perpetrators Worldwide: a Systematic Review, BMJ Paediatrics Open, 1:e000112. doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000112
Smithey, M (2001). Maternal Infanticide and Modern Motherhood. Women and Criminal Justice. Vol. 13(1), 65-83
Yakeley, J. (2010). Working with Violence: A Contemporary Psychoanalytic Approach. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Welldon, E, V. (2018). Mother, Madonna, Whore: The Idealization and Denigration of Motherhood. Abingdon, Routledge
A version of this article first appeared in Practice: Social Work in Action, published on 20th June 2022 in volume 34 2022, issue-5, by Taylor & Francis.
‘The Sixth Commandment’ is an exceptionally written drama, matched in its excellence by the skilful portrayal of its main characters, particularly Ann Reid and Timothy Spall. I’m in awe. As the episodes unfold, we are taken into the world of a real-life crime story. A murder committed by Benjamin Field. The acted persona of Benjamin is accurate to perfection. Eanna Hardwicke manages to, look, sound, and move just like the real Mr Field. Again, I am in awe.
As crime drama goes this is not your highly charged gruesome sensationalist indulgence. It’s. not ‘Line of Duty’. It is calculated, measured, dignified, chilling, understated even. Just like in fact the real-life Benjamin. He most certainly was all those things. But that is where my awe ceases. Because we’re not getting the full story, the full picture and that I understand is intentional. The writers have made very clear statements that they didn’t want the focus on the drama to be on Benjamin. The reason for this, respect for the victims and their families. I get that and it disappoints me.
No victim of murder stands in isolation. Much like there is no such thing as ‘just a baby’, there is always a baby and a mother. There is also never ‘just a victim’ there is always a victim and a murderer. Whilst the human condition can get its head around mother and baby, it struggles to hold both victim and murderer in mind. This separation, this splitting, may enable a kind of comfort, but it is never helpful and is particularly unhelpful for the understanding of murder, what we need to do to prevent it and how best to respond to those who do.
A life’s work with those who have murdered and on occasions the victims’ relatives has never failed to keep me curious. My asking ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ has never ceased. What must be now hundreds of cases have all provided, eventually, their own unique answers to these questions and in so doing I’ve been able to make meaningful contributions to the management of risk and the task of public protection.
Key learning in this process has been recognition of the fact that focusing on the victims’ experiences tells us very little that we do not already know. It is to the behaviour and into the mind of the creator of victims that we must go. This task of course is much less attractive and is without the reward of making us feel good about ourselves.
For the last 7 years leading on the criminal justice response to chemsex crime for London, it has meant a lot of murder has come my way. 16 victims created by 12 perpetrators. The 4 victims of Steven Port will come easily to mind. But what about the others? No, most will struggle to name any of the other victims of chemsex context murder and certainly not those who murdered them.
When it comes to murder, we are in fact very selective in who and what is remembered, this despite the assertion that it matters terribly. This selective remembering, this selective knowing, this selective recall, and as reflected in the decision of those responsible for ‘The Sixth Commandment’ to only focus on the victim’s story does us no favours.
For the armchair detective, there is an excellent documentary on the investigation into Benjamin. ‘Catching a Killer ‘– Ep 5 ‘Diary from Beyond the Grave’ (Channel 4). It’s an inspiring example of highly professional and compassionate policing. But like ‘The Sixth Commandment’ it only provides part of the picture. There are however some teasing glimpses that hint at the fuller story of Benjamin. His exquisitely polite behaviour in the custody suit. His stretching exercises on being remanded and his request to the custody Sergeant for reading material delivered in the manner of requesting a copy of something by Socrates from his local library. ‘You’re in a Police Station sweetheart’ I think I said to my television screen. ‘You’ll be lucky if they can conjure up a stained aging copy of the Sun’, I continued amusing myself. His request however is met with equal exquisite politeness and that starts to reveal to us something of the bigger picture. It’s a great, example of offence paralleling behaviour, and it worked.
Fact is, if our fascination is to be more than indulgence, is to be more than ‘concern’. If our fascination can be harnessed to play a role in the prevention of crime, in the management of risk and in public protection then Benjamin deserves a drama all of his own.
The real-life drama of Benjamin would have started at least three generations before he was born. That’s the number of generational influences we all hold within our unconscious processes. From his birth there then would be a range of biological, environmental, and psychological factors that combined to enable a problematic personality structure or structures. It is these that played out and communicated themselves not just in his murderous behaviour but in all the ways he went about it and indeed in all the ways of his lived young life.
Benjamin has not stopped being Benjamin. Within our custodial estate he continues to be exquisitely polite, highly intelligent, charming, helpful to others and he will continue to be all of this and more on his release.
It is the ‘how?’ and ‘why?’, on release, that becomes crucially important for the management of risk and public protection. ‘Risk is Everyone’s Business’ is the title of ongoing training in this important task for officers within HMPPS. My conviction is however that ‘Everyone’ also needs to include the wider public including you. Benjamin committed murder in plain sight, as most people do in fact. It is that fact that needs to inform our awareness and thinking.
Benjamin is on my radar in the context of my current specialism, chemsex context crime, I and others have assessed him as ticking enough indicator boxes to be considered what we refer to a ‘chemsex nominal’. Suffice to say, from thinking about the whole picture of Benjamin the chemsex context could be very appealing to him on release and for all the reasons of power, risk, and vulnerability it encompasses.
Holding someone in mind who has murdered, thinking about them is the only way anyone can come to an understanding of the ‘why?’ and ‘how?’. It is thinking about them that repetition can be managed, and the influence of causal factors minimised. I’ve often wondered if the Benjamin’s of the world have any comprehension just how much thought is invested in them and of the sort that goes way beyond news headlines, documentaries, and television dramas, no matter now good.
Problem is that this thinking tends to happen after the event. Benjamin’s now known behaviour started long before he committed his crime and he’s not so unique. There will be other Benjamin’s building up to the commission of a similar offence right now. Only by us all having a mind for all of this will there be any chance of them being stopped or in the case of the Benjamin we know, being prevented from doing it all again. In relation to ‘Thou shall not kill’ we all have a responsibility.
Predator. Predatory. Predatory behaviour. Listen in on any of my professional conversations or read any of my reports and you would know that these words feature in my work many times each day. They are associated with many different types of crime.
In recent times, the same words have been banded around across all forms of media and particularly in relation to sexual crime. I’m not sure what the words conjure up in the public mind but, I observed on much more than one occasion, the thinking that somehow the behaviour was not so bad, not so serious, not so criminal as sexual offences themselves. Maybe such minimisation is, as remains common in relation to sexual crime, reflecting a wish not to know. If that is so, then it is a highly dangerous and permission giving wish indeed.
Being a predator and engaging in predatory behaviour is a complex business. Like much about crime, it does not ‘just happen’. Predatory behaviour is always supported by predatory thinking and predatory feelings, intelligence, fantasy, rehearsal, practice, preparation, intent. It will relate to and play a particular part in the dynamics of entitlement, power, callousness, objectification and victimisation. To do it well will also involve time, commitment, planning and resourcing. All of this, without exception, resides within the predator and makes clear the level of the risk and dangerousness they pose to others.
For once, I want to use an example of a female predator. There is a not insignificant number of predatory women in the criminal justice system. They are of immense concern. But at least we know about those. There will of course be many others that we don’t know about and need to.
Ms Ghislaine Maxwell is a useful example and in my professional experience she is no exception. Her internal world no different in content than the cohort of her fellow male sexual offenders. It is disturbing then to note that some still seek to minimise her crimes, risk and dangerousness by reasoning of her gender and lessening of the specific role she played. Nothing could be so further from the truth. The chilling testimony of her victims leaves us in no doubt of the predatory process:
“She was really the mastermind of this whole pyramid system he had working. She would go to spa’s and hand out cards saying that she had a very wealthy benefactor who’s going to help you with your schooling, make you a model, all these promises.”
Promises are seductive and especially so when targeted at the girls whom Ghislaine preyed on. Those preyed on were homeless and some were addicted to drugs. She and Epstein did not victimise girls who were Olympic stars and Hollywood actresses. They like the majority of sexual offenders victimised people they thought nobody would ever listen to. The silencing of victims, the disbelief they meet with, the wish of others not to know and the need of others to deny were, as with all predators, were all part of the criminal process.
Whilst promises and seductive threats are controlling. Predatory behaviour will always make use of fear. Ms Maxwell and, had he lived, her co-defendant, employed this means of control.
Investigators observed that many of the victims expressed fears about what Epstein might do to them, claiming that either he or Ghislaine had warned them to stay quiet. The bodyguards and private investigators employed by Epstein would have been experienced as a display of power, purposefully inducing fear.
A reporter from the Miami Herald observed; “I think they were extremely dangerous. I mean we don’t know, really, the lengths that he went to, to intimidate people who tried to expose what he was doing. But we know that there were plenty of people who were afraid and who felt that he was capable of doing really bad things.”
There is another fact that feeds the wish not to know and supports a well-established culture of denial about women who commit predatory sexual crime. It is the problem of male sexualisation and its inherent disavowing of vulnerability. Still in 2025, men are not allowed to own vulnerability and certainly not their victim experiences at the hands of women.
Over several decades now I have conducted treatment groups for men who have committed sexual crimes. Literally hundreds of men have sat in front of me in the familiar therapeutic circle. Without exception, in every group at least 3 or 4 men when accounting their sexual histories describe older women having sex with them whilst they were still children. They tell of these occasions with bravado, rampant male ego, often asserting that no harm was done, a rite of passage. But there they are, in treatment for the sexual crimes they have committed.
Seldom, if ever, have any of these women sexual offenders been investigated or brought to justice. But they exist and in much greater numbers than we would care to believe. Sexual abuse of a child can never be considered a ‘rite of passage’. Mrs Maxwell is not alone or unusual. Fact is, she and they are immensely dangerous.
Female or male, the task of predatory behaviour is not just about the supply of victims. It is equally about ensuring silence and power. Once these factors are established the rest is enabled. Ms Maxwell, her thinking and behaviour as with other predators, are not ‘less than’ in their role of commissioning crime. Indeed, one could argue that without the role of an accomplished predator such crimes could not be commissioned at all.
Friends and neighbours of Paul Doyle remain incredulous at the reality of his behaviour and from my experience, I think some professionals will be thinking the same.
I’ve never met the man, but I cannot and never did for one moment doubt the murderous intent he acted out on that day in Liverpool. Given my experience of assessing and working with men and women who have behaved in similar ways to Paul, it comes as no surprise to me that in his history there is evidence of previous concerning violence, some of it extreme. This known and documented history had seemingly faded from awareness. To the wider world he was no longer defined as the once violent person he was. The impression was that he was ‘sound’, ‘friendly’, ‘kind’, ‘helpful’, a’ diamond’. Whilst Paul showed to the world around him this impression, it was just that, an ‘impression’. It was absolutely not the whole picture.
My clinical froensic and criminal justice training, much like Paul’s violence, happened many decades ago and it’s has never left me, much like Paul’s violence. It is deeply grounded in my psyche and has informed all the encounters I have had with men like Paul. It was a training that held as a basic principle, a tenant of truth, an all-encompassing wisdom, that early histories of violence need to be considered when assessing risk and dangerousness, no matter how long ago they may have occurred. The passing of time cannot be and should not be used to interpret that the risk of repetition is over.
The risk of repeating past violence is increased of course if the initial violence has never been worked with, its causal factors explored and, its often many meanings made conscious. In the absence of consciousness history has revealed to us, times over, will repeat. Paul, the most recent example among many indeed.
Highlighting the risk of a violent presenting past is not a popular thing to do and especially so in the context of the current police, prison and probation services. Frighteningly, in these services risk has become a dirty word. Risk means more resources are needed. Risk means that skilled practitioners are called for, and risk means accountability. All of these things are in very short supply indeed. To be the messenger of risk, to be the one who names it and speaks out about it makes you a very unpopular person indeed. Times over in the last few years I found my assessment of risk was being called into question, often by managers who had never actually worked with highly dangerous individuals, who relied on manualised risk assessment and were more concerned about there spreadsheets than the reality of protecting the public. On occasions and along with other policing colleagues who shared my view, we were even barred from case discussions, not allowed into meetings. The presenting past, they did not want to know about.
I can understand why neighbours and friends of Paul are shocked to discover the full picture of the dangerous man he has always been, they knew no other. For professionals in the criminal justice system to minimise factors that contribute to risk and choose to ignore them, there is no excuse. Those who refused to take into account my, always thorough, risk assessments often referred to me as being ‘risk adverse’ an insulting term when used to minimise and disregard my sound clinical knowledge, judgement and experience.
But less of me …. important to return to this latest lesson and reminder of risk. It’s not only Paul’s history that is cause for concern but the comments he first made when still at the scene of his crimes also reveal much. “I’ve ruined the lives of my family”. In the face of the hundreds of lives he had just ruined his words communicate an immense callousness, self-concern and narcissism. Like his past his words also reveal much about him and his thinking. This too would not escape my assessment.
The passing of time did not make any difference to the risk held within Paul. It was, and always has been, a matter or time.
Being a victim does not make someone a safe person. Fact is that being a victim, can make someone very dangerous indeed. The wife of the sadistic predator John Smyth is no exception; she is indeed a chilling example.
The excellent documentary, ‘See No Evil’ makes very clear the manifest evil that was John Smyth an Anglican evangelical. His perversion of morality just as disturbing as his barbaric sadism, I actually found this case more disturbing than some of the satanic abuse cases I have worked on. I exaggerate not!
Smyths reign of terror created many young male victims over many years. Lives damaged forever. Smyth escaped justice for two reasons. One, the bastard had a heart attack and died before anything was done and two, those around his colluded with and covered up all his perverted criminal behaviour.
Collusion and cover up can sound slightly removed from the criminal act, making it crucial to remember that those engaging in such behaviours are in fact playing a very active part in the commission of offences. It is they who are enabling, giving permission and must thereby be considered totally complicit. In the case of Smyth, Mrs Smyth, in particular, stands out as an individual who did just that.
There appears not to have been a time when Mrs Smyth was not aware of the sadistic abuse occurring in her garden and in her home. Her role, cleaning up the boy’s blood as it seeped from the wounds inflicted by the beatings, some of which lasted for 12 hours. Mrs Smyth washed the cushions she put on the chairs to make sitting more comfortable for them. She also brought and gave them ointment. She did this, not once or twice but many hundreds of times. In addition, when Mr Smyth took groups of boys, for hours on end, to the garden shed, his torture chamber, she never once ventured there herself. No, what Mrs Smyth did was to never mention any of this to anyone. Mrs Smyth stayed silent. It takes some special kind of mind to know what she knew and not do anything to stop it. It’s a mind not unlike the mind of a sadist.
Towards the end of the documentary the focus shifts to Mrs Smyth. Her role in the crimes become frighteningly clear, including also the horrendous and equally sadistic treatment of her two children. We see them sitting by her struggling to make sense of her and then horrifically falling into the trap of once again becoming victims of their father and indeed victims of their mother. Like so many, they fail to see that as well as their mother being a victim, she is also an enabler of sadistic abuse. Her own victimisation does not absolve at all her responsibility for what she did by not doing.
Victims of a whole variety of abuses hurt others all the time. Not all victims, but many. Such repetition cannot be excused just because it is repetition. It can be understood as a causal factor, but it does not change the fact that someone who is hurt has also hurt another and in so doing is guilty of a crime and needs to face justice.
We in criminal justice do not always get things right, but what we do very well indeed is to work and think in a way that enables us to accept the fact that someone who has experienced danger can also be very dangerous indeed. That someone who has been hurt can also hurt others. That pain so often becomes violence. Just like Mrs Smyth. Is she deserving of punishment? Yes. Is she deserving of treatment and healing? Yes. For a true experience of justice, both are crucial. One or the other? NO! that is not justice.
At some point in the documentary one of the male victims describes how following a beating by Smyth, Smyth, naked, would lay over the boy across the bench on which the boy had been beaten and caress him in his arms and kiss him on the neck. Later, towards the end of the documentary, Mrs Smyth is asked if she would like to say anything to the victims? ‘Yes’, she says, ‘I would like to hold you tight in my arms and kiss you’…… In that instant a number of people came into my mind and further told me all I need to know about Mr and Mrs Smyth; …. Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, Fred and Rose West, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr, Marc Dutroux and Michelle Martin, to name a few.
Outrage can achieve many things one of which it would seem is to prevent intelligent thinking. Look no further than the front page of the daily papers. They are often full of outrage in relation to the latest murder or threat to life.
Along with such headlines, comes calls for a whole variety of measures to be taken. These measures can range from replacing key figures within criminal justice, building bigger prisons and if this Government is in power for much longer Braverman and her like will be calling for the return of the death penalty. Fact is, such suggestions are nonsensical for the very fact that they are informed by delusion and a distorted belief that the world is a safe place .
The buy in, to the delusional belief that the world is a safe place and, on the occasions when it is not, that we can make it safe is delusional in the extreme. Such, has never been possible and never will be possible. Of course, as with many delusions its seductive, it sounds nice and many buy into big time.
‘See it, Say it, Sort it’ has been brainwashed into our thinking every time we board any form of public transport. In the face of occasions when we are reminded that mass murder can and does happen, ‘See it, Say it, Sort it’ quickly becomes delusion in action. Its purpose, to have us all seduced quickly back into the sense that we were still in control and safe. It does not require much intelligence to recognise that in the face of seemingly random bombing, backed up by a belief system and carried out by those sacrificing their own lives, safety is not possible and we are most certainly not in control. The delusion would, at best, last until the next bomb goes off, as indeed they do and will. The mantra is now so frequent that I doubt if anyone really hears it anymore and given that intelligence gets suspended so readily, they may also have well forgotten what it’s all about.
The expressions of outrage no matter who they are about are so without insight that if applied, then no one, absolutely no one is to be ever trusted again. How mad is that!
There is no analysis in the news headlines of today, just emotive re-action. No invitation to consider how or why people come to be a threat, arrive at being dangerous, and present to the world as high risk. Also fact is, murderousness and other dangerous actions fit totally within the range of the human condition, that also includes you and I.
To refer to recent examples, Lucy Letby and Benjamin Field are not unique or alone. Allitt, Dr Chapman and others all went before and others will be, as I write, engaged in similar behaviour, just not yet known about. Within noble professions the esteemed or in positions deemed less professional odd jobbers like Fred West , will be at it right now…. prepare to once more be outraged.
It is not just the fact that the world is a dangerous place that we are constantly invited to deny. We are also invited to deny the full reality of those who murder. This is especially so when those who murder come into conflict with idealisations and saintly archetypes held within us.
Just because someone is an enforcer of the law, a nurse, a priest, a doctor, a mother, does not mean there are without the capacity and motivation to murder. Some do and some will. Experience tells me also that it is many who are never discovered, that being because our upheld belief which goes something like ‘they could just not’. In terms of permission giving, that is a gift.
A delusion of ‘safety’ rather than connection with reality is not the only investment such denial invites us to make. We are also told to think that those who murder are ‘monsters’. To sight another case, how quickly was the identity of ‘police officer’ removed from Wayne Cousens and replaced by ‘Monster’. You could almost feel the collective relief, with the application of just one word, he was no longer one of us, he was no longer like me. Another lie. Another delusion.
The truth remains that Wayne may have done something monstrous and criminal, but that does not make him a monster. He remains, as you and I, deeply human and with all that implies. I don’t know if I will meet him in the coming years, but I know for certain that, if so, he will sit opposite me in his entirety, the full picture and I will listen to that full story, albeit too late.
The human condition is raw and primitive. Combinations of factors, conscious and unconscious come together in the immediacy of murder and other behaviours. All of us are vulnerable to this. These are the dynamics and features that do not get talked about and for which the media headlines like those of today and no doubt tomorrow do not allow. But the dynamics of murder can be much closer to home that many would like to acknowledge.
Failure to be able to embrace this truth is the greatest danger we face. Such failure gives rise to the delusional thinking writ large in the headlines today. Delusion stops our capacity to see, hear and to discern. We buy into it at our peril and the stories when they need to be told then remain untold, unheard and in time honoured fashion are then tragically acted out.
‘The Fall’ is one of those TV dramas that many revisit and of course it’s invitation to have murder in mind. …..
James Dornan, the immensely talented Irish actor, will forever sit in the mind of many as a serial killer. A lasting impact I guess, of the unrelenting intensity he conveyed in his portrayal of Paul Spector via the awesome production of ‘The Fall’.
Just as the books about ‘Fred and Rose’ flew off the shelves in their millions, so too does the darkness of ‘The Fall’ appeal to a society which still struggles to really comprehend the capacity of the human condition for the vilest of offences. The only way it seems that we can get our heads around the fact that the human condition can be murderous is to convert it into entertainment.
As long as we place the dark capacity of the human condition into a book, painting, play, poem, dance or TV series, especially one as good as ‘The Fall’, then we can keep all our primitive darkness, murderousness, perverse desires, violence’s, rages and destructiveness separate, away from us, unintegrated and, just as dangerous as the serial killer does, ‘split off’.
Evidence of our need to ‘split off’ our capacity for primitive violence is also expressed by many who conveyed their surprise at how handsome, sexy and good looking was Paul Spector. Such comments, and they were many, reminded me of the very first group therapy I facilitated for men who, like Paul Spector, had raped and murdered.
In the weeks leading up to starting the group myself and my co-clinician met with about fourteen referred men to carry out individual assessments to see if they were ready and suitable for intervention. We needed a group of no more than eight. Over several weeks we divided up the men and conducted the assessments on a one to one basis. My co-clinician and I shared an office. I remember well him returning after conducting one assessment looking red in the face, slightly energised and unsettled but grinning all over his face. He noticed my immediate curiosity, sat down and said to me “Oh my God! that one was absolutely gorgeous”, We laughed long and loud.
Murderers, rapists and especially serial rapists are not meant to be ‘gorgeous’ and certainly not sexy. The fact of course is, that there is absolutely no reason why they should not be and, having met many, I can evidence that many are indeed ‘gorgeous’. The issue for the forensic setting, for the wider community and my co-therapist, is not that they cannot be ‘gorgeous’ but that we should not be seduced by it. Gorgeousness and dangerousness are not as incompatible as we like to think.
I loved the fact that Paul Spector was not only sexy, he was also a bereavement counsellor. What a great role for us and for him to fulfil the task of ‘splitting off’. Both, accurately fly in the face of the monster we need him and other men and women like him to be.
My business is public protection, working with the human condition to make our world a safer place. The biggest challenge to achieving this is not the Paul Spector’s I meet; the real dangerousness and risk is in the minds of those who need monsters to look and sound like monsters. It is in the mindset that can entertain Fred and Rose when they dwell in the chapters of a book but not if they are living next door.
Fred and Rose did not do what they did once we knew about them, it all happened when they were just neighbours. Paul Spector did what he did at the same time when he was busy being a; bereavement counsellor, a loving father, a boring husband and of course, being gorgeous.
If we can bear to think what ‘The Fall’ invites us to, it could well be the biggest public protection crime prevention campaign we have ever known. We, and the unintegrated monster in us, needs it.
A murderer once said to me … “She said nothing … so I killed her, so nothing was said”. This statement made me think about the power of silence and how we experience it. Here are my thoughts:
“The dumb silence of apathy, the sober silence of solemnity, the fertile silence of awareness, the active silence of perception, the baffled silence of confusion, the uneasy silence of impasse, the muzzled silence of outrage, the expectant silence of waiting, the reproachful silence of censure, the tacit silence of approval, the vituperative silence of accusation, the eloquent silence of awe, the unnerving silence of menace, the peaceful silence of communion and the irrevocable silence of death Illustrate by their unspoken response to speech that experiences exist for which we lack the word”. – Leslie Kane (1984)
For me, the sacredness of silence, I have come to recognise, has more often than not been experienced away from and outside of the environments commonly associated with prayer, contemplation, adoration and reflection. Yes, I love the early first hours of each new day, the closing hours of darkness and daily visits to the Blessed Sacrament, but these occasions are relatively short to what unfolds hour by hour in my daily work.
For the majority of each day I am in constant dialogue and relationship with others. The context of a Police station, a court room, probation office and a prison wing, is one of immense business, the noises of distress, internal and external conflicts, negotiations, relief and … the list goes on. I guess the same can be said about many different working environments including yours.
But of course, sacredness and its many manifestations of silence is to be found in all of these places, experiences and contexts and is not limited to the cloister, church or chapel.
My awareness that silence and its sacred contents did not come from known holy saints, priests or spiritual directors. My eyes and heart were opened to silence by the very first prisoners and offenders I met and by others who worked with them.
In the early days of my forensic training, I was privileged to be taught by Consultant Psychotherapist, Dr Murray Cox. Murray was also a Shakespearian scholar and integrated his immense knowledge fully into his clinical thinking at Broadmoor. He inspired me as no other, to understand silence as one of the most meaningful communications and introduced me to the work of Kane as quoted above.
Murray died many years ago now. I continue to be reminded of him daily as I now consult to younger clinicians, police and probation officers helping them to develop ways of being with people who often no other wants to be with. When seeking to support them in this challenging task, it is not unusual for them to express relief and delight because their client is talking about his or her offence with great ease “He’s doing very well Stephen, he talks about his offence all the time”. My response is seldom one of joy. In this situation I am only too mindful of one client who declared; “She said nothing….. So, I killed her, then nothing was said”.
This powerful statement on silence enabled me to recognise that when a client, tells their story easily, this usually signifies that it is not the part of the story that needs to be told. Casual telling, always indicates that there is story, a much earlier story, that the client may not be able to bear to tell at all. It is this story that needs to be told and it is this story, if no more people are to be killed, that needs to be heard.
We all have stories that need to be told and we all need silence in which to tell them. Silence alone can take us beyond our initial telling. Beyond the story what we first tell ourselves, others and God. It is this story that needs silence to emerge in its fullness, no matter what it sounds like and no matter what it holds. Even our untold stories can have a murderous effect.
The importance of allowing and staying with silence is not only crucial for my forensic clients but is also crucial for us all. We can all move through the day being more aware of the many communications within silence. Not only we will start to hear the important untold in our own stories, but a myriad of other communications will also open up to us in the lives of others. The sacredness of this process can of course happen in all the places we have been conditioned to consider ‘holy’ and in many other places, equally ‘holy’, but outside of our conditioning. Perhaps, even more often than we allow ourselves to notice, the sacredness of silence happens and is happening in the groundedness of our untold stories, in the fullness of life and in all its glorious noisy mess and messy places …
But first I guess we have to learn to shut the fuck up!
It’s not unusual for me to have been the first person to inform a man who has committed a sexual crime that he is to be placed on the sex offender register. At the start of a court assessment, it’s one of the first things I’ve learned to check out. The many other criminal justice professionals dealing with the individual before me may well have avoided the issue. I get that. The responses are varied; tears, sobbing, shouting, screaming, laughing and perhaps the most common “fuck off you cunt”. It’s usually a substantial wait before some resemblance of calm is restored.
I’m good at waiting.
Bewilderment often accompanied with incredulous laughter is nearly always the response I witness in men who have committed the specific crimes of sexual assault, exposure, outraging public decency. It is these men who often say to me “I just don’t see it”, “I just don’t get it”, “I don’t understand it”. In terms of justice, how they perceive their behaviour doesn’t matter of course. How it sits in their mind; ‘groping’, ‘flashing’, ‘grabbing’, ‘having a bit of fun’ ‘trying it on’ ‘drunken tomfoolery’ whatever they call it does not stop it from being a serious sexual crime. After all, it’s why they’ve ended up talking to me.
These men (and sometimes women) literally think they have done no wrong. Neither do they acknowledge that they have, by their behaviour, created a victim. They struggle to comprehend that someone has been violated and caused all the psychological consequences that defines being a victim.
As I explain, “it is likely you will be placed on the sex offenders register”, I usually follow it up with a question “can you tell me why you think that may be?” Few are able to answer.
Month by the month the media is not short of examples of men, notable men, famous men, men often literally in the spotlight, powerful men who, even in the face of immense evidence, still claim they have done no wrong and cannot allow themselves to answer such a question. Just look at the statements of denial they make in an often-pathetic attempt to defend themselves. “It was just a bit of fun”.
The response to these predatory men by those who often rush to support them (the list is varied but predictable, Government ministers, fellow celebrities, naïve partners, fellow predators, those also invested in collusion, etc) gives us an indication as to why the men I work with struggle to take responsibility for the crime(s) they have committed and the victim(s) they have created. Stark truth is, in relation to sexual crime, it can at times be difficult to find anyone willing to name predatory behaviour for what it actually is..
Some find it possible to joke about ‘groping’. Much like exposure, exhibitionism or outraging public decency these crimes are often reduced to a music hall style humour of having a titter about flashing etc. In this process of minimisation, the denial of the fact that a victim has been created gets writ large.
Let’s be clear groping, ‘flashing’ pinching or touching a bottom / breast, crotch etc is a sexual crime. These behaviours are sexual assaults. It does not become anything less just because the individual doing it had ‘had too much too drink’ or ‘embarrassed himself’. No, it is a sexual crime because it is a transgression, an invasion of personal boundary. It is a sexual crime because it is lacking in consent, and it is a sexual crime because it is an abuse of power.
In such cases, it is not for a government committee’s, a management board, an internal private investigation etc, to investigate, that is the responsibility of the Police.
No matter how much some may titter and no matter how much these men protest about their self-concern, it does not change the fact that they have created victims. Minimisation and all the denial in the world cannot, should not allow for a hierarchy of offences. All sexual crimes have victims. Neither should we think that their behaviour would have occurred in isolation, no, my experience tells me that there would have been other occasions and they will have other victims.
It’s not fun telling a man that he is to be placed on the sex offender register. The implications of such are massive, life changing. But when there is such little regard for what constitutes a sexual offence, when some men think that because they get a bit pissed, that its ok to have a bit of a laugh … a bit of a grope or, as in many of these cases, that it’s all about them, then such a register, such holding to account is needed and is right. The victims of powerful, famous and well known men, as with all others, are deserving of this justice.
As for those who seek to defend them, they too must be held to account, even when they have or are living their lives in the spotlight. Their silence, collusion and acceptance of these crimes can only be considered as permission giving. Sexual offenders the world over depend on exactly the likes of all those that, like the offender themselves, cannot bear to face the horrific truth.
