by Suruthi Bala
Copyright © 2021 by RedHanded Ltd.
Interior and cover illustrations copyright © 2021 by Kavel Rafferty
Cover copyright © 2021 by Hachette Book Group, Inc.
Hachette Book Group supports the right to free expression and the value of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to encourage writers and artists to produce the creative works that enrich our culture.
The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a theft of the author’s intellectual property. If you would like permission to use material from the book (other than for review purposes), please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your support of the author’s rights.
Running Press
Hachette Book Group
1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104
www.runningpress.com
@Running_Press
First Edition: September 2021
Published by Running Press, an imprint of Perseus Books, LLC, a subsidiary of Hachette Book Group, Inc. The Running Press name and logo is a trademark of the Hachette Book Group.
The publisher is not responsible for websites (or their content) that are not owned by the publisher.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021932908
ISBNs: 978-0-7624-7379-3 (hardcover), 978-0-7624-7380-9 (ebook)
E3-20210730-JV-NF-ORI
Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Introduction
1. Genetics Bad Genes, Brunner’s Boys, and Bundy’s PCL-R
2. Childhood and Adolescence Mommy Issues, Morbid Knights, and Murder Prodigies
3. Insanity: Cacodemonomania, Culpability, and Christ-themed EDM.
4. Misogyny: Black Pills, Blue Balls, and Basement Virgins
5. Cults: Agriculture, Artillery, and a Ukiah Utopia.
6. Relationships: Hormones, Hybristophilia, and Horse-Drawn Carriages
7. Bigotry: The Less-Dead, Lingerie, and Looking the Other Way.
8. Sex: Torture Trailers, Tribal Tats, and Truth or Consequences
Discover More
Conclusion
Bibliography
About the Authors
For my family, who patiently
put up with me while I wrote.
And for all you Spooky Bitches who
made this book possible.
—SURUTHI
For my sister, Isabel, without whom I
would have run away to Nepal to live as a goat.
And for all the Spooky Bitches who have
changed my life forever.
—HANNAH
Explore book giveaways, sneak peeks, deals, and more.
Tap here to learn more.
Introduction
HELLO, READER. WE’RE GOING TO GUESS THAT YOU’VE PICKED up this book either because you’re a Spooky Bitch and avid listener of RedHanded, the podcast… or because you’re just a bit morbidly curious.
Either way, clearly you have great taste.
And if we’ve read you right, you’ll probably be very much on board with what’s to come, since this book is a deep dive into the extremes of human behavior, as shown by everyone’s favorite mass murderers, serial killers, and general bad-news Berthas.
Chapter by chapter, we’re going to delve into some of the most brutal murders from across the world and ask the obvious question at the heart of them all: What makes a killer tick? But before we get to that, let’s get better acquainted.
In 2017, two twentysomethings happened to meet at a party. Suruthi Bala had just gotten back to the UK after a year of traveling, during which time she had discovered the magic of true crime podcasts. These podcasts had accompanied her on all those 27-hour-long bus journeys across Asia and solo hikes around South America, and served as a welcome distraction from all the dodgy tummies, mosquito bites, and motorbike crashes. After this trip, Suruthi was set to return to the exciting world of corporate conference production, in all its high-stress, high–jet lag glory—but first, to get herself back into the swing of life at home, she was saying yes to anything and everything. It was one such yes that led her to a party in deepest East London that November night.
At this party was Hannah Maguire; she was whipping up a vegan Thanksgiving dream feast for her American housemate and his entire extended family (all of whom were crammed into her tiny flat for the holidays). Story-loving, supremely dyslexic Hannah had fallen in love with podcasts while living in Korea (South, don’t panic) and avoiding the snotty children she was supposed to be teaching English. By the time of the fateful Veegs-giving, Hannah was back in London, living the dream working in commercial musical theater, washing other people’s crusty mugs and frequently napping at the back of the dress circle. She made almost no money doing this, which is how Hannah ended up in a house share overrun with Americans on air beds.
Over aquafaba meringues, the two ladies struck up the usual polite chitchat one makes with a random they don’t know at a party. But as they sipped their wine, they discovered a surprising shared obsession with the case of JonBenét Ramsey. As they drank more wine, they did the very drunk-ladies-in-the-bathroom thing of promising to become best friends and open up a dogs-only ice cream shop—or start a true crime podcast together.
Sadly, Cones and Bones never came to be, but Hannah and Suruthi did meet up again—this time at the Blind Beggar pub on Whitechapel Road, the infamous hangout of the notorious Kray twins. Hannah and Suruthi hit it off again, and, realizing that they were both desperate for a creative outlet, decided to start that true crime podcast. And with that, RedHanded was born.
At first it was just meant to be a bit of a hobby; neither woman had any experience whatsoever in the world of true crime, podcasting, broadcasting, sound editing, audio production, research, or script writing. But why let small details like that stop you when you can buy a mic for £10 and talk about murder in the cupboard under your stairs with a total stranger?
Fast-forward to today, and RedHanded is an internationally renowned, award-winning, hit podcast with thousands of self-proclaimed Spooky Bitches tuning in for their weekly dose of murder, wit, and WTFs. But despite how far it has come, RedHanded continues to transport listeners back to that first-ever party at which Suruthi and Hannah sat together engrossed, discussing a case that fascinated them.
Week in and week out, we at RedHanded explore a veritable smorgasbord of murder cases with the aim of dissecting not only the story, but also the social, cultural, political, and psychological aspects that feed into every crime. During our years of research and exploration into the world of violent offenders, we have seen it all, but we keep coming back to one question: What drives a killer to kill?
And while the nature versus nurture debate has started to feel a little outdated—because the answer is of course both—we’re fascinated by the mind-bending interplay between genetics, environment, and experiences, and how they impact who we are.
So after getting a few hundred podcast episodes under our belt, we decided it was time to pull together everything we’d learned and write this book about what sets a killer apart from the rest of us.
The answer to this question is of course incredibly complex, and the path that leads someone to kill another human being is a complicated and twisty-turny one. If you listen to RedHanded (once again, top marks), you’ll know that no matter how bad some of these cases are, we never once refer to the killers as “monsters.” To do so implies something otherworldly about them and conveniently removes such people from being our societal responsibility. It dehumanizes them. And that just doesn’t make much sense to us, because what leads a person to deviance and depravity is usually something very human indeed.
<
br /> So let’s get started…
1
GENETICS
Bad Genes, Brunner’s Boys, and Bundy’s PCL-R
IN 2019, 26 MILLION PEOPLE TOOK AN AT-HOME DNA TEST. Compared to just four years earlier, that’s a 1,633 percent rise in people spitting in vials and swabbing their mouths to see if they can still eat bread or to find out just how Irish they are. We can’t think of anything else that has grown in popularity that much recently. (Except maybe true crime podcasts and craft avocado beer.)
This astronomical rise in DNA testing shows us two things: our endless fascination with who we are genetically, and how the fields of genetics and molecular biology have evolved over recent decades. The first human genome, which was published in 2003, revealed some startling things—for a start, we have way fewer genes than anyone ever predicted! It also led to some amazing advances, like being able to screen for certain diseases, facilitating the discovery of incredible and novel therapeutics, making genome sequencing easy, and even making gene editing possible.
But what about the more complex elements of what makes us who we are, like personality and behavior? Can we simply take a look at someone’s DNA sequence and predict that person’s future, or are we just updating our tea leaves and tarot cards and calling it science?
These days it’s hard to ignore the regular drumbeat of headline-making discoveries—claims that a gene has been identified for anything from procrastination to liberalism to adultery—and even for when a person will lose their virginity! (We’re not kidding.)
So, what about a gene that predicts criminality? The notion that criminals are born rather than made is not a new one—since the 1930s, with the rise of new techniques within the field of genetics, the fervor to find a link between criminal behavior and genetics has been steadily ramping up. Why? Well, of course, if a genetic marker that predicted violence, depravity, and murder could be found, then perhaps interventions could be put in place; a person with that genetic vulnerability could be treated and maybe the future human cost of their offenses could be avoided. But we can’t help but feel that there is also a flip side to this and the way it might offer some the chance to label killers “monsters.”
If a clear genetic difference could be found between those who commit murder and the rest of us, wouldn’t that be great? Wouldn’t it mean then that they really are “other”? And wouldn’t it be a huge relief, because then, we as a society could also stop worrying about taking any responsibility for the creation of these killers? After all, if these people are genetically predetermined to be murderers and criminals then we don’t need to worry about inequality, poor housing, lack of access to healthcare, or substandard education systems—some people are just born bad.
We suspect that for some, such a simple premise would be ideal, but of course it’s a lot more complicated than that, but stick with us; we’re going to cram a lot of brain science down your throat in the next chapters as we explore the validity and the implications of the search for a “killer” gene…
Genes, Take the Wheel!
Let’s start off by acknowledging that deciphering the interaction between genes and behavior is one of the most difficult tasks in biology. There is a lot of disagreement within academic circles over the science itself, and the topic of behavioral genetics, while fascinating, is often highly controversial. (Like watching Ancient Aliens with supreme glee, while still knowing it’s some racist bullshit.) And it gets particularly dodgy when it comes to behavior (or even predisposition) linked to criminality.
There are many reasons for this societally, clinically, and legally, all of which we’ll discuss in this chapter, but let’s start with the legal side of things. Consider what it means to say that an individual is being driven to kill by their genes. It implies that the behavior isn’t a choice and that it is out of their hands, and therefore the killer may not be responsible for their actions at all.
Bradley Waldroup: Born to Kill?
Let’s explore this idea by heading to the mountains of rural Tennessee, where on October 16, 2006, Bradley Waldroup was sitting in his trailer home, waiting for his estranged wife, Penny, to arrive with their four kids who would be staying with him for the weekend.
The Waldroups recently had separated after several years of marriage, and Penny was obviously worried about what her husband was capable of. She had actually told her neighbor that if she wasn’t back by seven thirty that night to call the police. And it appears that she didn’t fancy dropping the kids off on her own, either, as she’d asked her friend Leslie Bradshaw to come along.
When Penny, Leslie, and the kids arrived at the trailer, Bradley met them holding a .22 rifle, and clearly he had been drinking. Penny hastily unloaded the kids’ belongings. When the two women tried to get into their van to leave, Bradley said he wanted to talk. Penny desperately wanted to go; talking to her husband when he had been drinking was useless, so she said that she had to get to work but that they could talk when she returned to pick up the children.
But Bradley wasn’t having any of it. He tore the keys to the van from Penny’s hands and threw them into the woods, and then he began to scream at his wife. At this point, Leslie got out of the van and demanded that Bradley let them leave immediately and that he stop making a scene in front of the children.
Bradley was furious—as far as he was concerned, Leslie was the reason Penny had left him. Leslie was the one turning his wife against him. So, he picked up his rifle and opened fire on Leslie. Horrified, Penny got out of the van and ran, but suddenly she heard a crack of the gun and a bullet hit her in the back. Within seconds Bradley was on top of her; he had his pocketknife out and he began stabbing Penny repeatedly. He then dragged her back toward the van, where he threw Penny down on the ground next to Leslie’s body. Still seething with rage, Bradley proceeded to attack Leslie’s body with a machete, slicing her head open. When Penny screamed at Bradley to stop, he slashed at his wife with the machete, chopping off her little finger.
He grabbed Penny by her hair and dragged her into the trailer. She was bleeding everywhere, so Bradley called for one of their daughters to bring her mother some water and towels for the blood. Bradley Waldroup then told all four of his children to come and say goodbye to their mother because it would be the last time they would see her.
Sobbing with fear and weak from blood loss, Penny kissed each of her children and told them that she loved them. Bradley Waldroup then told the bewildered kids to leave the room; he wanted to have sex with Penny. But he thought she was too messy and dirty (you know, after he’d chased her, shot her, stabbed her, and cut her finger off with a machete), so he asked her to go and shower first. Penny refused; she wasn’t going to make cleaning up after her own rape and murder easier for him. So, Bradley shrugged and forced Penny onto the bed and began to tear her clothes off.
Just then their daughter ran into the room saying that the police were outside. Penny, clad in just her underwear and bleeding from the gunshot and stab wounds covering her body, ran out of the trailer and jumped into the police car. She begged the officer to please go inside and save her children.
Thankfully, Penny Waldroup survived her harrowing ordeal, but her friend Leslie was already dead. Bradley Waldroup didn’t put up any fight when the police approached him; he simply admitted to having attacked Penny and killed Leslie. In August 2008, prosecutors charged him with two counts of aggravated kidnapping, one count of first-degree murder, and one count of attempted first-degree murder. It seemed obvious to them that Waldroup’s actions showed clear intent and premeditation. He had a gun and a machete to hand that day, and even if you disregard that, he told his children to say goodbye to their mother… he knew what he was going to do.
Remember: Premeditation doesn’t mean you need to have sat down, worked out an intricate plan, and left the house with your murder go-bag and to-do list. It just means that during the commission of the offense, you had time to stop, think, and change your behavior. The very fact that Bradle
y Waldroup told Penny to take a shower so that he could rape her, to us at least, indicates that he was very much in control of what he was doing.
Prosecutors were certain that Waldroup would be found guilty on all counts and they wanted the death penalty. It was all absolutely horrific but seemed like a straightforward case. That is, until the case went to trial…
The Verdict
Following what had been a horrendously graphic four-day trial, the jury in the case of Bradley Waldroup deliberated for just 11 hours before reaching their decision. On March 21, 2009, audible gasps rolled around the courtroom as the verdict was announced: voluntary manslaughter. Not murder.
In an interview with NPR in 2010, prosecuting attorney Drew Robinson described how “flabbergasted” he was. It seemed unbelievable that a man who had shot a woman to death and then hacked up her body with a machete (and shot and brutalized his wife in front of their children) could have escaped a murder conviction. Especially in Polk County, Tennessee, which strikes us as a “tough-on-crime” kind of place.
So what had happened? Well, the answer lay in Bradley Waldroup’s genes.
Waldroup’s defense attorneys knew that they had to pull something out of the bag, so they went to forensic psychiatrist William Bernet of Vanderbilt University and asked him to give Waldroup a psychiatric evaluation. Bernet agreed, and he also took a blood sample to analyze Waldroup’s DNA. As it turned out, Bradley Waldroup had just what the defense was looking for: he had the “warrior gene.”
Monoamine Misadventures: The Warrior Gene
At the time of Bradley Waldroup’s trial, the warrior gene was getting some serious media buzz and living its best headline-grabbing, spotlight-loving, Dr. Phil–special-appearing life. But to understand why people were absolutely losing their minds over this gene in the noughties, first we need to go back to 1978 and skip over to the Netherlands.