Stalking and risk of homicide

1. Stalking and risk of homicide Dr Jane Monckton Smith

2. Risk Assessment • Risk assessment dominates police and professional responses to stalking • Risk assessment is complex and dynamic, very difficult in a crisis situation • Actuarial and clinical approaches in stalking clinics

3. Focus for the research Develop knowledge around escalating risk for use on the frontline

4. What we know • Clusters of risk markers are more helpful than numbers of markers • Motivation is more helpful than actions • Patterns are more helpful than incidents

5. Two positions which may help with assessing risk • 1. Measuring time investment of the stalker • 2. Tracking an escalation progression in intimate partner stalking

6. Non-serious stalking? We tend to consider small gestures, remote surveillance, and trivial breaches as non-serious We should re-consider from the perspective of fixation and obsession, and time invested

7. A non-serious stalking case? • The person is tracking your facebook posts • You have seen the person in your street twice in the last week • They have texted you at least a couple of times every day • There was damage to the wipers and mirrors on your car • They breached the terms of a restraining order by texting you • They left some flowers by your front door • Is this a High Risk case of stalking?

8. Re-interpret… • The person is tracking your facebook posts: How much time do they spend looking at your cyber activity? Lets say they look at your facebook and other activity at least every day – one hour, two hours? • You have seen the person in your street twice in the last week – Where do they live? How long does it take to get to your street? How much time are they taking out of their day to be in your street? Travel time, waiting time, getting back home – maybe an hour or more every time you see them • They have texted you a couple of times every day, sometimes more – Every time they text that takes a few minutes at least – but more importantly the victim is on their mind. The texting may take another hour out of their day • There was damage noted to your car – How long to get to your car? how long to wait so no-one was around? How long to damage the car? How long to get back home? – at least one hour? • They left flowers by your front door – how long to plan and go to flower shop, how long to your address, how long to get home? • They breached the terms of a restraining order by texting you – what are the potential repercussions? Why is the person willing to do something which is not in their own best interests? The campaign is more important than their own well being

9. High Risk? Four hours? That’s only what we know about. That’s a part time job Willingness to breach orders or bail conditions indicates that the stalking is more important to them than what might happen as a result

10. When does risk escalate? • Tracked the chronologies of hundreds of intimate partner homicides • A dominant eight stage pattern was identified

11. Temporal sequencing • The later stages in the sequences are preceded by the earlier stages

12. Eight Stages • Pre relationship history: criminal record, allegations • Early relationship behaviours: early commitment • Relationship behaviours: risk markers • Potential homicide trigger: separation, ill health, financial problems, threats or rumours • Escalation – frequency, seriousness, stalking, persistence • Change in thinking – • Planning – buying weapons, grave digging, manipulate meetings, letters, organize papers • Homicide – homicide/suicide, confession, missing person, denial, accident, multiple victims

13. Stage 1:pre r/ship: Warning Signs • The person has a history of stalking or domestic abuse (with or without an arrest record) • Dhillon: History of stalking previous girlfriends • Peche: History of coercive control

14. Stage 2:Early Relationship: warning signs • Early cohabitation • Early pregnancy • Early declarations of love using possessive language (you’re mine, together forever etc) • Pushes for early commitment • Possessive at early stage • Jealous at early stage • Resist attempts to slow down or end the relationship • Dhillon: had not even met Alice before he was pushing her to commitment and to describing him as her boyfriend • Peche: became obsessive very quickly. Early declarations of love and seeking commitment from Clare

15. Stage 3:R/ship: warning signs • Coercive control • Stalking • Violence (even low level pushing and shoving) • Sexual aggression • Possessiveness • Jealousy • Threats to suicide or kill • Isolation of victim from family and friends • Enforces routines on victim or family • Threats to pets or children • Quick temper and thin skin • Drug or alcohol problems (not causal but can exacerbate) • Depression (not causal but can exacerbate) • Dhillon: controlling of Alice’s time and friendships • Very possessive – everywhere together • Jealous – did not like her talking to other men • Isolated from her friends very quickly • Suicide threats • Clare: Similar to Alice

16. Stage 4:trigger warning signs • Separation • Threat of separation • Imagines a separation (constant accusations of an affair for example) • Bankruptcy or financial ruin • Physical health deteriorates in offender or victim • Mental health deteriorates in offender or victim • Redundancy, retirement • Event which prompts retaliation or revenge on victim • Dhillon: Separation – Alice ended the relationship and he would not accept that. • Texting Alice’s parents with reasons why they should not split • Begging, threats • Stalking • Peche: separation, threats, stalking, escalation, breaches,

17. Stage 5:escalation warning signs • Concerning behaviours become more frequent • Concerning behaviours become more serious or severe • Stalking (even low level) • Threats to kill or suicide • May use language like ‘I won’t let you leave’, ‘I cant live without you’, ‘if I can’t have you no-one can’ • Dhillon: Escalated stalking : • Hacked facebook account • Tracking software on Alice’s phone • Hanging around outside her home • Leaving gifts and messages • Peche: following, texting, threats, violence, if I can’t have you…

18. Stage 6:change in thinking - warning signs • Last attempts at reconciliation (take a holiday, begging, crying, temper, force and violence, threats) • Stalking • Victim does not respond to threats, or cannot respond • There is a new relationship for victim • Financial or reputation ruin is imminent or irreversible • Mental or Physical health deterioration is irreversible • Status irretrievably diminished • Dhillon: Alice would not go back to him • Another man on the scene • Ignoring Police warnings • Peche: Clare wold not go back, ignoring police warnings

19. Stage 7:planning warning signs • Stalking • Change in usual behaviour • Possible withdrawal • Increased menace • May tell people of plans, or may continue to make threats • Internet searches • Gathering of weapons or other tools to incapacitate the victim, or dispose of them • Suicide threats • Isolate children • Dhillon: Taking photos of the back of the house • Watching the house and movements of the occupants • Pech: travelled to purchase a gun and to train to use it

20. Stage 8: homicide characteristics • Clear homicide with confession • Homicide with suicide of offender • Homicide made to look like suicide • Homicide made to look like ‘mercy killing’ • Homicide made to look like accident • Homicide made to look like misadventure or natural causes • Stage missing person • Children targeted for homicide • Children collateral damage • Children witness homicide • Victim blaming – claiming self defence or provocation • Dhillon: broke in to Alice home, denied involvement • Peche: shot Clare at her place of work then shot himself.

21. Observations • Travel through the stages is not inevitable (we saw interventions at stage 7) • Where the early stages 1-2 are positively identified there is much higher likelihood that attempts at separation later on in the relationship will be met with resistance. • Where there is progression through stages 3-5 there is much higher likelihood that separation may be very difficult, impossible, or even dangerous. (Challenging disputes may produce fatal violence where violence is an issue). • Where there is progression to stages 5-7 there is much higher likelihood that there may be an attempt on the victim’s life

22. References • Adams, D. (2007). Why do they kill? Men who murder their intimate partners. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. • Brennan, D. (2016). Femicide Census. Retrieved March 30, 2018, from http://www.northwales-pcc.gov.uk/Document-Library/Advice/Femicide-Census-Report-2016.pdf • Dobash, R.E., & Dobash, R.P. (2015). When Men Murder Women (interpersonal violence). Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Johnson, M. (2008). A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press • Luckenbill, D. F. (1977). Criminal Homicide as a Situational Transaction. Social Problems, 25, (2), 176-186. • Monckton Smith, J., Williams, A., & Mullane, F. (2014). Domestic Abuse, Homicide and Gender: strategies for policy and practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan • Monckton Smith, J., Szymanska, K. & Haile, S., (2017). Exploring the relationship between stalking and homicide. Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Retrieved March 30, 2018 from http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/4553/ • Mullen, P.E. (2004). The autogenic (self generated) massacre. Behavioural Science and Law.22, (3), 311-23. • Schlesinger, L.B. (2002). Stalking, Homicide, and Catathymic Process: A Case Study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, (1), 64-74. • Stark, E. (2009), Coercive Control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press • UNODC (2013). Global Study on Homicide. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved March 30, 2018 from https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_Report_ExSum.pdf