803829

research-article2018
IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X18803829International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyPettigrew

Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
The Preference for Comparative Criminology
2019, Vol. 63(5) 781­–796
Strangulation in a Sexually © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Motivated Serial Killer sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18803829
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18803829
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Mark Pettigrew1

Abstract
The existing literature on the killing method of choice for sexually motivated serial
killers suggests strangulation as the preferable means of homicide, when the victim
is female. When homicide victims are male, however, existing research suggests that
firearms and blades are preferable methods of causing death. A case is presented
here of a sexually motivated male serial killer who exclusively targeted males and
who chose strangulation as his means of killing. Analysis suggests that not only is the
psychological constitution of the killer an important factor in understanding how they
kill victims but, also, the nature of the sexual act is an important determinant in the
method of killing in male on male sexually motivated killing.

Keywords
strangulation, serial killing, male victims, killing method, homicide

Introduction
How a person chooses to kill provides insight into their motivation and the underly-
ing psychological constitution that prefaces premeditated homicide (Kamaluddin
et al., 2014). That choice is particularly insightful into the character of the killer,
particularly when the effect of that choice is the increased suffering of the homicide
victim. Yet, as also observed by Kamaluddin et al. (2014), the psychological traits
underlying particular methods of homicide are still understudied, somewhat surpris-
ingly given the abundance of psychological and criminological literature devoted to
homicide and serial killing. Statistical studies provide some overview of different

1Leeds Beckett University, UK

Corresponding Author:
Mark Pettigrew, Department of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, Calverley
Building, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK.
Email: m.pettigrew@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
782 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(5)

killing methods, generally, and their prevalence in homicide, which can range from
subsets of murderers, such as sexual murders (see, for example, Chan & Beauregard,
2016; Chan, Heide, & Beauregard, 2017), to a generalised overview in the form of
national statistical compendiums (see, for example, Office for National Statistics
[ONS], 2017) and their time span analysis (see, for example, Fischer, Kleemann, &
Tröger, 1994).
Very little is known, specifically, of homicidal strangulation (Häkkänen, 2007), yet
it is relatively well accepted that male on male killings frequently involve the use of
blades and firearms while strangulation is more common when victims are female
(Beauregard & Proulx, 2007). Indeed, it is the use of a weapon which distinguishes
sexual murders of males from the sexual murders of females (Beauregard & Proulx,
2007). Yet, with relatively little research on killing methods, within the context of
serial killing, knowledge on the rationale for choosing to kill with a specific method is
limited.
How a person kills his or her victim forms not only part of his or her modus ope-
randi but also part of his or her signature—the psychological footprint left at a crime
scene, the “calling card” of the offender (Douglas & Munn, 1992, p. 3). Generally, the
modus operandi translates into how a crime, a murder, was committed while the sig-
nature is the why aspect, why the offender did what he did to the victim during the
crime (Geberth, 2015). So, strangulation is a means to cause the death of a victim, but
how that strangulation was carried out, using bare hands, using a ligature, increasing
and decreasing pressure, for example, constitute the signature of the killing. The
modus operandi can change with successive crimes; those elements that facilitated the
successful perpetration of a crime will be carried over to the next, those elements that
did not work will be changed. The signature, however, remains constant even if it does
evolve. The signature, the “why element of the homicide,” is a fantasy driven process,
and in sexually motivated killings, it is the enactment of those fantasies that have
developed over time. As noted by Geberth (2015), “The victim is treated as a prop to
be used to fulfil their violent sexual fantasies as they progress from victim to victim
leaving their imprint at the scenes” (p. 1013). Indeed, the prefacing fantasies of the
offender, as Douglas and Munn (1992) note, “give birth to violent crime” and when
those fantasies are finally acted upon, some aspect of the homicide, or other violent
crime, will demonstrate a unique and personal expression of the offender based on
those fantasies (p. 3).
An in-depth analysis of one serial killer, and his choice of how he killed, provides
some understanding of the thought process involved in choosing how to commit mur-
der; such is presented here. Pivotally, however, crime scene behaviours, indicators of
how those weapons are used, part of the killer’s signature, provide insight into subcon-
scious motivations that may even lie unknown to the killer. Given such an insight,
clinicians are more able to identify sexual paraphilias present within an individual, as
well as possible personality disorders, while investigators can build a more accurate
psychological profile of the killer they seek to apprehend.
As noted by others, the majority of literature regarding serial killing has been based
on cases from the United States, yet differences in culture, national identity, and
Pettigrew 783

political and social circumstances necessitate recognition of the different contexts in

which serial murder takes place (Sorochinski, Salfati, & Labuschagne, 2015).
Sorochinski, Salfati, and Labuschagne assert that the local context of killing is impor-
tant in two regards: first, with respect to tool availability and physical environment and,
second, with respect to psychological factors. The first factor will affect the planning
and execution of the crime, how it is carried out, dependent upon weapon availability,
such as firearms, or where the body might be disposed of, according to the local land-
scape. The second factor relates to the socioeconomic, the customs, and societal atti-
tudes that can impact upon the way the offender interacts with the victim (Sorochinski
et al., 2015).
The following study is premised on an offender in Great Britain, and in relation to
the assertion of Sorochinski, Salfati, and Labuschagne, the context is noted with regard
to both tool availability and psychological factors. First, there is a great restriction
placed on firearms, and without specialised connections, the means of killing a person
would largely be restricted to everyday items, bludgeoning instruments, knives, or the
offender’s own hands; the latter of which was relied upon by the offender presented
here. With regard to psychological factors, it is important to note that the killer was
homosexual and victims were suspected of being homosexual; all victims would be
forced into the submissive role in the offender’s necrophilic role play fantasy. The
means of killing would reflect the offender’s own perspective of his sexuality, and that
of wider society, the submissive role being equated with femininity and passivity
(Kippax & Smith, 2001); he wanted to be dominant. He would never, for example, in
his consensual sexual relationships, allow himself to be penetrated, to be subservient
to his partners.

Literature
There has been a corpus of research on the phenomenon of sexually motivated homi-
cide but that research has predominantly been founded upon a heterosexual relation-
ship, a male perpetrator and female victim, thus to the exclusion of homosexual victims
and perpetrators (Bartlett, 2007). Existing research regarding male offenders and male
victims, killings perpetrated with a sexual motivation, is relatively scarce. Moreover,
what literature that does exist on same sex homicide needs to be disaggregated; with
reference to male on male killing, a large amount of research, inclusive of research on
killing method, is focused on hate killings (see, for example, Bell & Vila, 1996;
Gojanovic, 1998; Kelley & Gruenewald, 2014; Mouzos & Thompson, 2000; Tomsen,
2002). Comparatively, there is very little existing research regarding male on male
sexually motivated killings (Beauregard & Proulx, 2007).
Notwithstanding the paucity of research regarding male on male sexually moti-
vated killings, there has been some attempt at classifying the phenomenon. Geberth
(1996), from a law enforcement perspective, proposes six classifications of homo-
sexual murders: interpersonal violence–orientated disputes, murders involving forced
rape or sodomy, lust murder, homosexual serial murders, robbery and/or homicide of
homosexuals, and homophobic assaults (Geberth, 1996). Elaborating upon the
784 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(5)

classification which the current case falls into, homosexual serial murders, Geberth
distinguishes three types of killer: the homosexual serial killer who exclusively targets
other homosexual victims, the homosexual serial killer who targets heterosexual and
homosexual victims, and the homosexual male pedophile serial killer who attacks
young men and boys (Geberth, 2015). The killer presented here attacked, he believed,
only other homosexual men, procuring them from gay bars around the city in which he
lived. Yet, at least one survivor would later tell police, memorialized in the first line of
his witness statement, that he was not homosexual and nor did he believe, at the time,
that his attempted killer was homosexual. The difference here, however, is somewhat
arbitrary; in the present context, a somewhat more edifying classification is the second
offered in the academic literature, by Beauregard and Proulx (2007): the avenger, the
sexual predator, and the nonsexual predator. Under that tripartite classification, the
killer scrutinized here would be classified as a sexual predator, not only by virtue of
the sexual component but by the length of time that was spent with victims; the ages
of victims; and the victims all being strangers to the killer.
Strangulation, as a means of killing, has a strong correlation with sexually moti-
vated attacks (Häkkänen, 2007) but most often adult victims are female (Abder-
Rahman & Abu-Alrageb, 1999; Beauregard & Proulx, 2007; Häkkänen, 2007; Rogde,
Hougen, & Poulsen, 2001). However, in male on male homicides, even when sexually
motivated tools, such as firearms or blades, are the most common cause of death
(Beauregard & Proulx, 2007; Chan & Beauregard, 2016; Geberth, 1996; Miller &
Humphreys, 1980). Although contested by some, such as by Häkkänen and her study
of homicidal strangulation in Finland (Häkkänen, 2007), when strangulation is the
chosen method of killing, previous research has found a strong association with sexual
sadism. That association is not limited to single homicides but extends to cases of
serial killing (Dietz, Hazelwood, & Warren, 1990). For Dietz (1986), there is a correla-
tion between serial murder and strangulation in that the sexual sadist wishes a greater
intimacy with his victim which is not available when using other weapons, such as
firearms. Similarly, in their study of three samples of sexual offenders, Gratzer and
Bradford (1995) found that strangulation, particularly ligature strangulation, is more
commonly associated with sexually sadistic murderers than non-sadistic murderers,
allowing the perpetrator to exert more power over his or her victim. Kocsis, Cooksey,
and Irwin (2002) found an association between ligature strangulation and cruel and
deliberate crime scene behaviours which would indicate a predatory murder pattern.
Additionally, Holmes and Holmes (2009) assert that serial killers choose their method
of homicide with great care and that the choice of more hands on methods reflects a
triad of reasoning: so he may touch the victim, because the touch terrorizes the victim,
and because the touch degrades the victim (Holmes & Holmes, 2009). All such studies
that have found a correlation between sexual sadism and strangulation are in fact an
endorsement of the observations made by Brittain nearly 50 years ago.
In what might be considered one of the original, modern essays on the sexually
sadistic murderer, Robert Brittain offered his insight into such offenders based on his
20 plus years of experience in the fields of forensic psychiatry and forensic psychol-
ogy, as well as observations of scenes of crime, and his study of sexual murderers. In
Pettigrew 785

his influential essay, Brittain (1970) offers a profile of the sexually sadistic killer: he
is introspective; withdrawn; described by those around him as quiet and reserved; suf-
fering with low self-esteem; vain; without remorse or conscience, and able to resume
normal life after killing; sometimes of a weak physique; often without a prior criminal
history; and unmarried. The method of killing is nearly always asphyxia, to the excep-
tion of gross mutilation or multiple stabbing. When killing by asphyxiation, the killer
can increase or decrease pressure as they wish, generating a feeling of omnipotence, of
mastery over life and death (Brittain, 1970). On Brittain’s view, this feeling of power,
the recognition and enjoyment of the helplessness of the victim, is central to the psy-
chology and motivation of the predatory sexually sadistic killer. By degrees, research
that has followed Brittain’s work, as relates to how a victim is killed, largely supports
his assertions (see, for example, Gratzer & Bradford, 1995; Holmes & Holmes, 2009;
Kocsis et al., 2002).

Method
When the majority of existing literature regarding methods of homicide is based on
cohorts of offenders, thus offering a statistical picture of different means of killing
(see, for example, Chan & Beauregard, 2016), it is of limited utility in seeking to
understand the subjective rationale for the choice of killing method, particularly as
relates to serial killing. As such, analyses of individual killers are required. A case
study, a theoretical investigation, is presented of a male serial killer who chose to
asphyxiate his victims by both manual and ligature strangulation, supplemented by
drowning. The case study method has been successfully utilised by others in the study
of serial killing (see, for example, Hickey, 2016) and is similarly adopted here. Indeed,
such an approach has been posited as a necessity in studying the motive and rationale
for the choice of killing method, “a case by case analysis is ultimately necessary to
uncover the offender’s rationale behind his specific weapon of choice” (Chan &
Beauregard, 2016, p. 85). As Valsiner notes, “the study of individual cases has always
been the major (albeit often unrecognized) strategy in the advancement of knowledge
about human beings” (cited in Robson & McCartan, 2017, p. 151). Similarly, Stake
asserts that “case studies prove invaluable in adding to understanding, extending expe-
rience and increasing conviction about a subject” (cited in Gray, 2014, p. 266). While
Nee (2004) notes, “ . . . aside from a thin but tenacious strand of empirical research,
we rarely pay heed to offenders’ view of things, and relatively little investment is made
into looking at their perspective” (p. 3). That paucity of offender perspective is recti-
fied here and although the findings from once case cannot be generalised, this investi-
gation will add to the currently understudied topic of killing methods, generally, and
in particular with regard to male on male sexually motivated homicide.
The focus on the method of killing arose within the context of a wider study on the
rationales and motivations of a convicted serial killer. For that study, data were gath-
ered over a 3-year period in the same manner used by others in case study research,
through correspondence (Culhane, Hilstad, Freng, & Gray, 2011), but additionally
supplemented with face to face meetings, after approval was given by an institutional
786 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(5)

ethics board. The data were then cross referenced to other sources of information such
as diaries, letters, an unpublished autobiography, and the killer’s confession, as well as
witness statements given to police which are stored at the National Archives. Through
that process, of triangulation, the veracity and accuracy of the data supplied by the
killer could be assured (Lynes & Wilson, 2015).

The Case
The offender, at the time he was killing, was in his mid-30s and working in a semi-
skilled occupation. In the months prior to committing his first murder, there was an
escalating use of alcohol to the point where the offender describes himself as being a
chronic alcoholic. Alcohol abuse grew out of a worsening depression brought about by
social isolation, loneliness, and the inability to maintain a romantic relationship.
Describing himself as openly gay, he had engaged in a number of one night stands but
found them, and the gay scene, tiresome and unfulfilling. As he found himself spend-
ing increasing amounts of time alone, his fantasy world became a place of solace.
In the wake of suffering childhood sexual abuse, as a prepubescent, the offender
developed deviant sexual fantasies around the theme of passivity, of one male being
completely helpless and subject to the will of and intentions of another male. Isolated
and withdrawn as a child, he would spend copious amounts of time fantasising and
daydreaming of being molested and sexually abused while unconscious or doing the
same to other boys and men he found attractive. As he grew into adulthood, the fanta-
sies became more detailed, and more elaborate. After acting out his fantasy on a coma-
tose friend, sexually abusing him, fearing eventual discovery, he came to sexually
fantasise about corpses.
After a night of drinking in a bar, the killer befriended a man and took him home
on the pretext of a sexual encounter. The following morning, overcome with the fear
that his sexual partner would leave him, returning him to his state of loneliness and
depression, he reached for a neck tie, discarded on the floor, and partially strangled
his first victim. Once rendered unconscious, he fetched a bucket and filled it with
water from the tap, submerged the head of the victim and waited until the air bubbles
stopped exhaling from his mouth and nose. After death, the victim was used in nec-
rophilic role play activities for several days, before being placed under the floor-
boards and later burned on a bonfire constructed in the killer’s back garden. It would
be another year before the killer struck again, after which the frequency of killings
increased, but all, with the exception of a vagrant he encountered on the street, using
the same modus operandi. Over a 5-year period, at least 12 young men, all in their late
teens or 20s, would be killed after luring them to his home from gay bars on the pre-
text of a consensual sexual encounter. Manual strangulation, strangulation using a
ligature, sometimes followed by drowning in a bucket or in the bathtub to ensure, and
even experiment with, death were used interchangeably. Some men were subjectively
appraised as being physically stronger than the killer which, he claims, was a deter-
minant in whether they were killed manually or using a ligature. When either was not
enough to cause death alone is when drowning would be employed, to finish the task.
Pettigrew 787

At least seven men escaped from an unsuccessful strangulation, some of whom gave
witness statements to the police and testified at his trial. The police were called to the
killer’s home on more than one occasion after a victim had reported being attacked,
each incident though was regarded by the police as nothing more than a lovers’ quar-
rel. Retrospectively, the killer blames intoxication for the application and decreasing
of pressure during strangulation; he claims to have taken no enjoyment from the act
of killing and rejects the label of “lust murderer.” Yet, on more than one occasion, he
chose to prolong the killing process, applying and decreasing pressure using a liga-
ture, or holding a victim under water and releasing them before submerging them
once again.
In his claims that intoxication was the cause of failing to kill in a singular strangula-
tion effort, the killer is adamant that there was no enjoyment in the killing process:

The act of killing was the result of a psychological demand [his emphasis] for a passive
and anonymous body and not an end in itself. I do not remember having [an erection]
during the killing. I might have had in one or two cases but that would come from rising
sexual expectation of favours to come.

After death, anal intercourse was attempted only once, but he was dissatisfied with the
sensation and could not maintain his erection. After having intercrural sex with one
victim, the sexual contact became more tactile with future victims, performing fellatio,
caressing the corpse, but always accompanied by masturbation, a specific behaviour
recognised by Brittain in his profile of the sexually sadistic murderer (Brittain, 1970).
It is pivotal to note, however, that more than sexual contact he wanted to use the
corpses as props in his sexual fantasies, behaviour that Hickey would term necrofetish-
ism (Heasman & Jones, 2006). Necrofetishism translated into enjoyment from the
presence of the dead, eating together, conversing, watching television, bathing, and
sleeping with corpses. That intent, to enjoy a quasi relationship with his victims, post-
mortem, is crucial in understanding the choice of how he killed, if not how he enacted
that method. He himself notes,

Method, with its surface variant is, by itself, no explanation without understanding both
method and motive as a converging constant.

To choose any method that would maim the body would subvert his intent to use the
corpse in his necrophilic role play, in that regard, the killer recalls a deliberate deci-
sion-making process,

I thought of beating him on the head with a blunt instrument but could not do it. I thought
about stabbing him to death with a kitchen knife but could not do that either I . . . could
not overcome some restraining inhibition blocking the forefront of my mind.

The necrophilic intent provoked the rational thought, the pragmatism of killing, and its
aftermath.
788 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(5)

Was it pure cowardice or something else? I remember feeling it was important not to
damage his body in such a way as to mar the purity of the image in the fantasy. I could
not bear to think of his smashed head or any stab wounds on him. I had visions of his
blood fountaining all over the walls and ceiling as he struggled, dying against an
unremitting bludgeoning. The noise of his last desperate screams would, no doubt wake
up the whole street.

The idea of cowardice is, however, neutralised by choosing strangulation as the means
to kill, an approach that leaves the killer more susceptible to a counter attack. Beyond
the pragmatic considerations of how he killed his victims, the manner in which he
enacted strangulation is telling of his psychological state, in varying between manual
and ligature strangulation, augmented by drowning, to occasionally allow victims to
partially regain consciousness before reapplying pressure. In response to the conten-
tion that resuscitation was deliberate, the killer recalls,

Strangulation and resuscitation [were] mostly due to me not being that inhibited through
drink and snapping back into moral reality with the return of moral inhibition.

Yet, at the same time, by his own admission, he was sometimes sexually aroused dur-
ing the killing event. As Brittain (1970) notes,

. . . in asphyxia, by increasing or decreasing the pressure, they have it in their power to

give their victims their lives or to take their lives from them. They can feel this as a god-
like power, and they can play with their victims like a cat with a mouse. (p. 204)

The God-like feeling that Brittain associates with the lust murderer and strangulation
is compounded by the lack of police interest in his activities. In this case, the killer
recalls that exact sensation but, consciously, not with regard to the act of killing,

On reflection, the next day, because there seemed to be little or no interest in my activities,
being allowed to carry those things out unhindered that I was taking on a quasi God role.
I thought I could do anything I want. While this was going on there were people upstairs,
people next door but nobody knew. I went to bed, had some sleep and within a few hours
I was up again and I put him under the floorboards.

So, the God-like feeling was not confined to postmortem euphoria but became a pres-
ence in his everyday life. This is how he was able to continue killing for such a pro-
longed period and not only avoid detection but go about his daily activities, feeling
invincible. That same feeling explains the continued use of strangulation even after sev-
eral occasions when the murder could not be completed and the killer risked exposure.

Analysis
The offender was found fit to stand trial after being subject to psychiatric assessment,
although diagnosed as suffering from personality disorder not otherwise specified
Pettigrew 789

(PD-NOS), a defence of diminished responsibility was ultimately rejected and thus he

was convicted of murder and not manslaughter. Upon conviction, he was sentenced to
life imprisonment and did not appeal either conviction or sentence; he has never been
considered as in need of confinement and treatment in a psychiatric facility.
Prison reports have continually lamented the offender’s poor engagement with
rehabilitative efforts, particularly noting his refusal to address his offending behaviour.
The entire duration of his prison term has been spent in the highest security classifica-
tion and consecutive reports by psychologists have assessed him as a continual risk
and thus ineligible for transfer to more relaxed conditions of security.
In his correspondence and when discussing his killings in person, there is a detach-
ment, he addresses his crimes and victims in a matter of fact way, to the extent that
psychiatric reports have assessed the offender as having no genuine remorse. The lack
of remorse, attending psychologists have asserted, is symptomatic of his continuous
emotional detachment which originally facilitated his offending. One psychological
evaluation of him during his imprisonment notes,

[He] prefers to provide intellectual explanations for his offending behaviour than explore
the emotions he experienced and continues to experience . . . He described how he would
not feel anything if his mother ceased contact with him or died. This is another example
of [his] inability to express his feelings openly.

Consistently, reports attendant to his progress during his imprisonment note very little
change in his mind-set,

The areas identified as requiring further work were his level of victim empathy and his
minimising the consequences of his actions . . . He tries to explain why he committed the
offence through writing . . . although there is an inherent risk that by doing so he continues
to confirm many of the cognitive distortions he holds. His insistence that he is best placed
to identify his needs continues to reveal unresolved personal issues of personal insecurity
and the wish to exert power and control.

Even during his imprisonment, the killer is described as wishing to exert power and
control, the same wish that he sought to fulfill with regard to his victims.
In contrast to Brittain’s (1970) profile, the killer here, the sexual sadist, is a homo-
sexual. His sexual orientation notwithstanding, many of the points described by
Brittain can be seen in this case, the most salient being that which relates to strangula-
tion as his chosen killing method, and its reflection of a desire to dominate and control
the victim. As such, this killer contradicts the majority of literature regarding homo-
sexual homicides and killing method where sharp instruments, firearms, and blunt
force trauma are the common methods used to kill (Beauregard & Proulx, 2007; Chan
& Beauregard, 2016; Rogde, Hougen, & Poulsen, 2001).
Beauregard and Proulx (2007) posit two possible explanations for the relative rarity
of strangulation in homosexual homicide: male victims are generally stronger than
female victims and are more able to physically repel an attack, or it is possible that a
790 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(5)

weapon is used to threaten and control a victim in the perpetration of another crime,
such as burglary or sexual assault. Häkkänen (2007), on the basis of her Finnish study,
supports a preference for “distance” weapons such as firearms as the result of fearing
the physical dominance of the intended victim, as often occurs in female perpetrated
homicides (p. 74). A similar finding, termed the physical strength hypothesis, was
found by Heide (1993) in her American study of juveniles and those who killed their
parents. The killer in this case, however, sought to neutralise any potential physical
threat with alcohol. In Häkkänen’s study of homicidal strangulation over a 7-year
period in Finland, she found 66% of offenders suffered from alcohol dependency, and
72% of offenders were intoxicated at the time they killed (Häkkänen, 2007). The killer
presented here would always lure victims to his home from bars where he would ply
them with drink to lower their resistance. While alcohol consumption formed part of
the killer’s modus operandi, the contention that alcohol can disinhibit rage and stimu-
late sexual desire is not a new one (Yates, Barbaree, & Marshall, 1984). In this case, it
may indeed be true but it also served to render the offender less capable to subdue with
strangulation in all instances. It is noteworthy, however, that the killer did not resort to
any other method to ensure death. The restriction on firearms explains resorting to a
more accessible weapon, the killer could have resorted to bludgeoning, for example,
but in the light of failure continued to favour means of asphyxiation to the exclusion
of all other killing methods. The intent to use the corpse in postmortem role play
activities may explain the lack of overkill in the murders he committed but it does not
explain why victims could not be dispatched in some way other than strangulation
which would not mutilate the body; once unconscious, there would be no screams
from the victim or noise of a struggle to alert neighbours. Indeed, the struggle from the
initial attempt at strangulation could be enough to alert the attention of others.
Universally, strangulation is regarded as an exercise of power, in both lethal and
non-lethal forms. It is a widely recognised gendered act of violence thus accounting
for its high prevalence in male/female domestic violence cases worldwide (Gorman,
2017; Stubbs & Wangmann, 2017; Thomas, Joshi, & Sorenson, 2014). Indeed, even in
jurisdictions where access to firearms is far less regulated than in Britain, the perva-
siveness of strangulation as a means of killing women has resulted in it being labelled
a public health concern (Suffla, Van Niekerk, & Arendse, 2008). Although the killings
here do not involve the male/female dynamic, they do involve comparable themes of
dominance and submissiveness (Kippax & Smith, 2001). The killer had always been
attracted to passivity, his necrophilic desires, and means of killing, a manifestation of
his desire to dominate a helpless body.
A corpus of research suggests that the choice of weapon is often determined by the
killer’s motive (Chan & Beauregard, 2016), in this case necrophilic activity. Not only
would mutilating or wounding the body would impair the corpse’s ability to take its
place in the postmortem sexual rituals and fantasies of the killer, but it would also fail
to satiate the killer’s craving for dominance which could be manifested in strangula-
tion; in that regard, poisoning or bludgeoning would similarly fail to satisfy the killer.
There is a uniqueness in asphyxiation and, in this case, a devotion to the gratification
that it alone could bring the killer. As noted by Geberth, strangulation is imbued with
Pettigrew 791

significance, the killer is able to manipulate and control the victim’s movement to
enhance their terror thus satisfying a psychosexual need; the hands on power over life
and death serves to make the offender feel powerful and it is that feeling of power that
can act as a driver of fantasy and then homicide (Geberth, 2010). Suspending a victim
between life and death, by commanding mastery and dominion over it and them, feeds
sexual fantasy and is, at the same time, the product of that fantasy.
Strangulation murders, generally, account for between 10% and 20% of homicides
in various countries such as Canada, Scotland, Japan, and Finland (Häkkänen, 2007).
Sexual murderers, though, are more likely than other types of killers to use more inti-
mate methods of killing such as, in this case, strangulation (Chan & Beauregard,
2016). As Chan and Beauregard (2016) note in their study of American homicides,

Compared with the more “distant” type of killing method, such as the use of firearms,
close-contact killing methods are able to provide fantasy prone SHOs a means by which
to achieve their psychological gratification, or sexual euphoria, through the expression of
power, anger, or a combination of both . . . (p. 71)

Following the assertion of Chan and Beauregard, the killer in the present study
could be considered a sadistic killer, even though he asserts no pleasure from the mur-
ders, only postmortem activities; the partial strangulation of victims, applying and
decreasing pressure, is indicative of a sadistic murderer.
Researchers and practitioners have long asserted that necrophilia, and by extension
the necrophile, is inherently sexually sadistic (Burg, 1982; Drzazga, 1960; Hucker,
1997; Rosman & Resnick, 1989). So, while the two elements may be separated in this
case, the act of killing and the uses of the corpses after death, on the view that necro-
philia is a sadistic practice, there is a constant, from killing to using the bodies for
sexual gratification. That necrophilia is inherently sadistic, however, is not settled and
disputed by several researchers (Hazelwood, Dietz, & Warren, 1992), but even on the
acceptance of that latter view that necrophilia is not, in itself, sexually sadistic, it does
not dismiss the sadistic quality evidenced in strangulation, and how it was carried out.
Dietz et al. (1990) found that the ultimate control, of life and death, of resuscitating
near dead victims was a core element of sexual sadism. Building on Wilson and
Seaman (1992) who referred to Roman emperor syndrome to describe the need of
serial killers to subjugate and to exert total dominion over their victims, in the manner
of Nero or Caligula, Stone (1998) specifically used the term to describe the act of
resuscitating victims to further inflict injury.
Geberth (2010) asserts that lust murderers and necrophilia are intimately connected
and even when the suffering of a victim is not witnessed by the necrophile, he is likely
to call upon his imagination and fantasy to supply with the necessary engram to satiate
his craving for “his depravity” (p. 398). While necrophilia and the lust murderer are
intimately connected, according to Geberth, so is a propensity for torturing victims;
“most lust murderers are viewed as behaviours of sadistic sexual psychopaths” (p.
398). In corroboration of Geberth’s viewpoint, a review of American serial killer Ted
Bundy, perhaps the prototypical lust murderer, and the killings ascribed to him, East
792 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(5)

(1995) asserts that Bundy had a preference for necrophilic sexual contact with his
victims and strangulation served as a type of lethal foreplay. That finding, with regard
to Bundy, is somewhat underscored here. The killer admits to being sexually aroused,
at least occasionally, as he launched his strangulation attack, but so keen to avoid the
label of “lust murderer,” he retrospectively claims that arousal was only due to the
prospect of sexual contact with the resulting corpse. It is impossible to differentiate the
truth objectively, but it is submitted, neither is it possible to do so subjectively. It is
telling, however, that when he attempted anal sex with the corpse of one victim, he
could not maintain his erection, but he did have an erection as the victim struggled to
breathe as he was being strangled.
In their study of 71 Malaysian male murderers, Kamaluddin et al. (2014) found
those who used multiple killing methods were more aggressive and sadistic than those
who used a single method to kill. The crucial point, however, is whether to go beyond
differentiating varieties of asphyxia to analyse them as distinct methods of killing or
to remain with one broad categorization of killing method. As others have distin-
guished between types of strangulation and asphyxia (see, for example, Häkkänen,
2007), the same approach is taken here even if, on analysis, the same conclusion is
reached. The killer assessed the physical threat posed by potential victims, their
strength, their level of intoxication, and then made a decision whether to strangle using
his hands or using a ligature. Both approaches, however, allowed the killer to increase
or decrease pressure as he chose, both approaches terorrised the victim, and both
approaches allowed him to touch the victim. As such, there seems veracity in the claim
of the killer that the choice was made based on the physical characteristics of the vic-
tim, both approaches yielding the same satisfaction and sensation. Similarly, in their
analysis of the homicides committed by American serial killer Richard Cottingham,
between 1977 and 1980, Keppel and Birnes (2009) associated Cottingham’s use of
strangulation to feelings of power and control,

[strangulation] allowed the killer the tactile stimulation of squeezing the victim into
symbolic or real death. For the sadist, the process of strangulation feeds the ego so that
he believes his power is so great he can control life and death. Hence, Cottingham
controlled his victim’s consciousness as he repeatedly strangled, resuscitated, and again
compressed her back into what he perceived as a state of nothingness. (p. 90)

Cottingham would use his hands to strangle his victims, as well as his bare hands, both
of which gave him a sense of power, control, and dominance. His victims, however,
were all female.
It would seem in this case, strangulation was a means of lethal foreplay, a deliberate
choice. The killer could have, for example, surreptitiously adulterated the drinks which
he gave to his victims and provoked an overdose, there would be no struggle then,
whatsoever, in causing their deaths and he would have secured the corpses that he
wanted for his necrophilic role play and sexual activities. Choosing to strangle his
victims, combined with sometimes resuscitating them, and the admitted, on occasion
at least, sexual arousal that it caused in him, corroborates the body of research that
Pettigrew 793

posits strangulation, in the context of sexual homicide offenders, as sadistic but, pivot-
ally, now with regard to male victims.

Conclusion
The killer presented here, according to his subjective assessment of the victim’s physi-
cal strength, varied the manner of strangulation between using a ligature and manually
strangling a victim to death. Despite the attendant risk of victim resistance, which
occurred on more than half a dozen occasions, the method of strangulation was faith-
fully adhered to, even when unsuccessful attempts at killing resulted in, albeit limited,
police attention. Fantasy is the driver of sexual homicide and a means of killing not
previously featured in the prefacing fantasy will not satiate the sexual appetite and will
neutralise the purpose of the murder. To resort to another method, even as the preferred
method fails, is untenable, it is, in fact, better to relinquish the victim. The feeling of
God-like power that Brittain described nearly 50 years ago spilled over from the kill-
ing act, encouraged by police refusal to thoroughly investigate the claims of survivors,
and ensured that strangulation was always the initial attack. That it was supplemented
by drowning only underscores the sadistic need for dominion and mastery over the
victim and over life and death, being able to resuscitate and terrorise the victim at will
and the adjunctive sexual excitement that it caused. Such a finding is important for
those clinicians who encounter such offenders, the sexual motivation only part of the
psychological dispensation to kill; the means by which that killing was achieved is of
equal importance for understanding and treatment. It is recognised, however, that the
results of one case analysis cannot be generically applied to all such instances of male
on male sexually motivated killing. The necrophilic intent is an important caveat in
this case although, as discussed, other methods such as poisoning could have accom-
plished the same goal, of a corpse not mutilated by stabbing weapons, and yet the
killer remained allegiant to asphyxiation despite its failure to cause death in all
instances. Further research in this area, it is recommended, should be of a comparative
nature using a cohort of sexually motivated male offenders who strangled their victims
but with rationales other than necrophilic activity.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Abder-Rahman, H. A., & Abu-Alrageb, S. Y. (1999). Killing tools in mechanical asphyxia.
Legal Medicine, 1, 2-5.
794 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(5)

Bartlett, P. (2007). Killing gay men 1976-2001. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 573-595.
Beauregard, E., & Proulx, J. (2007). A classification of sexual homicide against men.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 420-432.
Bell, M. D., & Vila, R. I. (1996). Homicide in homosexual victims. The American Journal of
Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 17, 65-69.
Brittain, R. P. (1970). The sadistic murderer. Medicine, Science and the Law, 10, 198-207.
Burg, B. R. (1982). The sick and the dead: The development of psychological theory on necro-
philia from Krafft-Ebing to the present. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences,
18, 242-254.
Chan, H. C., & Beauregard, E. (2016). Choice of weapon or weapon of choice? Examining the
interactions between victim characteristics in single victim male sexual homicide offend-
ers. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13, 70-88.
Chan, H. C., Heide, K. M., & Beauregard, E. (2017). Male and female single victim sexual
homicide offenders: Distinguishing the types of weapons used in killing their victims.
Sexual Abuse, 1-24.
Culhane, S. E., Hilstad, S. M., Freng, A., & Gray, M. J. (2011). Self-reported psychopathology
in a convicted serial killer. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling,
8(1), 1-21.
Dietz, P. E. (1986). Mass, serial and sensational homicide. Bulletin of the New York Academy
of Medicine, 62, 477-490.
Dietz, P. E., Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. (1990). The sexually sadistic criminal and his
offenses. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 18, 163-178.
Douglas, J. E., & Munn, C. (1992). Violent crime scene analysis: Modus operandi, signature,
and staging. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 61(2), 1-10.
Drzazga, J. (1960). Necrophilia. In J. Drzazga & C. Charles (Eds.), Sex crimes and their legal
aspects (pp. 199-204). Chicago, IL: Thomas.
East, B. (1995). Social control and the violation of human rights: The relationship between
sociological variables and serial murder. Criminology Australia, 6(3), 21-25.
Fischer, J., Kleemann, W. J., & Tröger, H. D. (1994). Types of trauma in cases of homicide.
Forensic Science International, 68, 161-167.
Geberth, V. (1996). Practical homicide investigation: Tactics. In Procedures, and forensic tech-
niques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Geberth, V. J. (2010). Sex related homicide and death investigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Geberth, V. J. (2015). Practical homicide investigation: Tactics. In Procedures, and forensic
techniques (5th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Gojanovic, M. D. (1998). Homosexual homicides. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 5,
191-194.
Gorman, W. K. (2017). Recent developments in domestic-violence law in Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand. Court Review, 53, 4-8.
Gratzer, T., & Bradford, J. (1995). Offender and offence characteristics of sexual sadists: A
comparative study. Journal of Forensic Science, 40, 450-455.
Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing research in the real world (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Häkkänen, H. (2007). Murder by manual and ligature strangulation. In R. N. Kocsis (Ed.),
Criminal profiling: International theory, research, and practice (pp. 73-87). Totowa, NJ:
Humana Press.
Hazelwood, R. R., Dietz, P. E., & Warren, J. (1992). The criminal sexual sadist. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 61(2), 12-21.
Pettigrew 795

Heasman, A., & Jones, E. (2006). Necrophilia. In E. Hickey (Ed.), Sex crimes and paraphilia
(pp. 273-280). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heide, K. M. (1993). Weapons used by juveniles and adults to kill parents. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law, 11, 397-405.
Hickey, E. W. (2016). Serial murderers and their victims (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage
Learning.
Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2009). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool. London,
England: Sage.
Hucker, S. J. (1997). Sexual sadism: Psychopathology and theory. In R. D. Laws & W. T.
O’donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 213-230)
London, England: Guildford Press.
Kamaluddin, M. R., Shariff, N. S., Nurfarliza, S., Othman, A., Ismail, K., & Mat Saat, G. A.
(2014). Psychological traits underlying different killing methods among Malaysian male
murderers. Malaysian Journal of Pathology, 36, 41-50.
Kelley, K., & Gruenewald, J. (2014). Accomplishing masculinity through anti-lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender homicide: A comparative case study approach. Men and
Masculinities, 18(1), 3-29.
Keppel, R. D., & Birnes, W. J. (2009). Serial violence: Analysis of modus operandi and signa-
ture characteristics of killers. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Kippax, S., & Smith, G. (2001). Anal intercourse and power in sex between men. Sexualities,
4, 413-434.
Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., & Irwin, H. J. (2002). Psychological profiling of sexual mur-
ders: An empirical model. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 46, 532-554.
Lynes, A., & Wilson, D. (2015). Driving, pseudo-reality and the BTK: A case study. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 12, 267-284.
Miller, B., & Humphreys, L. (1980). Lifestyles and violence: Homosexual victims of assault
and murder. Qualitative Sociology, 3, 169-185.
Mouzos, J., & Thompson, S. (2000). Gay-hate related homicides: An overview of major findings
in New South Wales (Trends & Issues in Criminal Justice No.155). Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Nee, C. (2004). The offender’s perspective on crime: Methods and principles in data collection.
In A. Needs & G. Towl (Eds.), Applying psychology to forensic practice (pp. 3-17). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Office for National Statistics. (2017). Homicide. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peo-
plepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexu-
aloffences/yearendingmarch2016
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2017). Real world research (4th ed.). London, England: Wiley.
Rogde, S., Hougen, H. P., & Poulsen, K. (2001). Asphyxial homicide in two Scandinavian capi-
tals. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 22, 128-133.
Rosman, J. P., & Resnick, P. J. (1989). Sexual attraction to corpses: A psychiatric review of
necrophilia. The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 17, 153-163.
Sorochinski, M., Salfati, G., & Labuschagne, G. N. (2015). Classification of planning and vio-
lent behaviours in serial homicide: A cross-national comparison between South Africa and
the US. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 12, 69-82.
Stone, M. (1998). Sadistic personality in murderers. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birketsmith,
& R. D. Davies (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal and violent behavior (pp. 346-
355). London, England: Guilford.
796 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(5)

Stubbs, J., & Wangmann, J. (2017). Australian perspectives on domestic violence. In E. Buzawa
& C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Global responses to domestic violence (pp. 167-188). New York,
NY: Springer.
Suffla, S., Van Niekerk, A., & Arendse, N. (2008). Female homicidal strangulation in urban
South Africa. BMC Public Health, 8, 363-374.
Thomas, K. A., Joshi, M., & Sorenson, S. B. (2014). “Do you know what it feels like to drown?”
Strangulation as coercive control in intimate relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
38, 124-137. doi:10.1177/0361684313488354
Tomsen, S. (2002). Victims, perpetrators and fatal scenarios: A research note on anti-homosex-
ual male homicides. International Review of Victimology, 9, 253-271.
Wilson, C., & Seaman, D. (1992). The serial killers: A study in the psychology of violence. New
York, NY: Carol Publishing Group.
Yates, E., Barbaree, H. E., & Marshall, W. L. (1984). Anger and deviant sexual arousal.
Behavior Therapy, 15, 287-294.