Gay Life, Straight Work

by Donald West

  Several cases among the murder-suicides consisted of old people in failing health dying together. When it is clear that there has been a suicide pact in which each member of the pair kills themselves independently there is no question of murder, but one or two cases in the sample were not altogether clear. In the following example a woman most probably took the initiative in killing her helpless husband. Their problems began shortly after they retired from running a successful business together, when the husband suffered a serious stroke and was permanently paralysed. The wife was left looking after an increasingly dependent husband, to whom she appeared devoted. She became seriously depressed. The husband’s brother and his wife came to live in the house, but there were disagreements and just before the tragedy they decided to leave. Although not short of money, the wife hardly went out, ate unnecessarily frugally, and spent all day in the kitchen with her husband, who sat near the cooker rarely speaking. She was talking so often of “ending it all” that the in-laws and a nephew who visited her had become so used to it they did not take her seriously. Eventually she agreed to her husband going into a nursing home, but the day before he was to be admitted the couple were found dead from gas poisoning. Her brother-in-law had visited that afternoon and recalled that she had seemed distressed at the idea of her husband leaving and was again talking of suicide. A neighbouring couple called round and they too heard talk of suicide and actually telephoned the nephew, but none of them thought it serious. However, when the nephew did decide later to make a call, he found them both lying on the floor with their heads near the cooker, dead from inhaling gas.

  At the inquest the coroner mentioned the possibility of some prior agreement between the couple, but there was no note of intention left behind. The husband would have been incapable of going to the cooker unaided to turn on the gas himself. The jury agreed that the wife must have carried out her declared intention to kill herself and to have her husband die with her, so the presumption of murder rested. We did not in this case discover what happened about the disposal of her estate.

  Among the sample of 78 incidents examined in detail, 45 (58%) involved perpetrators judged to have been psychiatrically disturbed, most of them (21 women and 9 men) having been severely depressed at the time of the crime. Women killing their own young children predominated. For example, Mrs D was in her early thirties when her husband, returning from work, found her dead in their child’s bedroom. The seven-year old girl and her mother were lying together on the bed, asphyxiated by coal gas, with the unlit gas fire fully and firmly turned on. Mrs D had had bouts of depression over many years and on a number of occasions she had made ineffectual attempts at suicide. There was evidence of inherited predisposition as her mother had been hospitalised for recurrent depression. Soon after the birth of her daughter, Mrs D became increasingly depressed, with ideas of helplessness and inadequacy, eventually spending five months in a mental hospital. Over the next five years she remained relatively stable, before relapsing and being re-admitted to hospital, where she received electro-convulsive therapy, the only really effective treatment then available. After discharge she resumed a regular job, although still on sedatives, but after a few months her husband detected signs of oncoming depression. On the day of her death she appeared to be carrying on her usual routine when her husband left for work.

  Even when well, Mrs D seemed anxious and over-conscientious. She was a caring mother and it was only on account of her precarious health that the couple did not try to have another child. Her GP suggested that she had taken the child’s life out of devotion and close identification. The case was typical of its kind. There was no lack of awareness of the woman’s vulnerability and no lack of treatment effort, albeit unsuccessful. Her husband was watchful and caring, but he was obliged to work long hours away from home. In other cases of the kind there was failure to appreciate the seriousness of the symptoms until too late and sometimes premature release from hospital with inadequate after-care. In reality, such incidents are not always easy to predict or prevent, and it is easy to be wise after the event. When the killer survives the suicide attempt she is likely to be detained in a psychiatric hospital. When her depression and delusory ideas subside and she is released, in the absence of the murder victim, the family has to contend with a difficult process of reintegration.

  Of course only a proportion of murder-suicide incidents are to be explained in purely psychiatric terms. Of the 78 offenders in our main sample, 24 men and 9 women were judged ‘relatively normal’. Because the sample included only those who committed suicide simultaneously or shortly after killing someone, suicides to avoid arrest or suicides during subsequent imprisonment were not included. Nevertheless, some suicides appeared reactions to circumstances that were rational, or at least understandable. For example, Mr E was a bachelor in his fifties in regular post office employment, still living with and caring for his aged mother, who had been crippled with arthritis for many years and who was unable to walk and was totally dependent upon his very devoted care. He had been off work for two months with severe chest pains and was due to be taken into hospital by ambulance for ‘deep X-ray’. He suspected, correctly, that he had cancer, and this was confirmed at post-mortem and found to have been advanced and presumably in-operable. His mother seemed to be getting worse and remained in bed instead of slumped in her usual chair. A neighbour visited frequently and knew the situation. The last time she called the door was locked and a note found outside read “Call the police”. Mother and son were found asphyxiated by gas, which was still hissing from a displaced pipe leading from the supply point at the fireplace. All the windows were closed and a folded cloth placed against the crack under the door. The inquest concluded that, feeling his situation hopeless and his mother unable to cope without him, Mr E had decided they should die together. The mother would have been unable to stop him.

  V was a student preoccupied with his studies and much concerned that he might not have passed the examinations he had just taken. For some time he had been deeply involved in a relationship with a young lady. She would not agree to marriage, but she continued to allow him to visit and take her out. He blamed her for distracting him from his studies, but he would not break away. One of her flat-mates thought she was bored with him, but was uncertain how to deal with his persistence and his threat to kill himself on her account. In the evening after his exams, she agreed to have dinner with him, but from their comments to friends the next morning they both felt the occasion had gone badly. His outward behaviour that day was more or less normal and he drove a friend to work, but then went to a gunsmith and bought a shotgun, ostensibly for a pigeon shoot near his family home in the country. Meantime the girl was alone in her flat preparing to move to different accommodation. V called on her that afternoon and a few hours later both were found lying dead on the floor, shot through the head. There was no sign of struggle or assault. A well-composed suicide note was left in V’s room, addressed to his mother, with a bitter reference to his girlfriend’s rejection.

  This case could well be classed as a ‘crime passionelle’, committed by an individual not usually criminally inclined, but aroused to desperate rage by rejection or infidelity. In another case, a married man reacted to his wife leaving by going after her with threats to murder her and her lover. Failing to locate them, doubtless feeling the situation unbearable, he returned home and gassed himself together with his children. Some ten years earlier he had made a serious suicidal attempt when a girlfriend broke off their engagement. On being revived he had protested that he wanted to die and had nothing left to live for.

  At least one case was an example of morbid jealousy. The man’s preoccupation with often mistaken ideas of infidelity reached a level of intensity and irrationality that amounted to psychotic delusion. He kept his wife and child almost prisoners in the house, accusing her of going with other men. He was at times so violent that she fled to the police for protection. The couple were found gassed together in bed, the husband having
apparently waited for her to fall asleep before turning on the gas. He left behind a suicide note making unfounded allegations against one of his male friends, whom he held responsible.

  The last two examples illustrate the dangers of unstable personalities forming intense, dependent relationships so that life without the partner seems untenable. This is a different situation from the depressed mother or the mercy killing spouse who cannot conceive of their victim living on without them. There were no cases of women killing themselves after murdering their partners. When a wife kills her husband it is often a response to his maltreatment, and she does not want to die herself.

  The most obvious difference between the murder-suicide cases and ordinary murders was the higher prevalence of general criminality among the latter. Far fewer of the (148) murder-suicide killers had a history of convictions for crime than did the (156) non-suicidal murderers. (In both samples the female killers rarely had any criminal conviction.) Unlike the convicted murderers, none of the suicidal killers were guilty of murders incidental to burglary or robbery. However, among the 78 suicidal murderers studied in detail there was one case of a man with a long criminal record who committed a pre-planned murder of his wife to obtain access to money. This case might well stand as the exception that proves the rule!

  D was in his forties and in many respects an intelligent and resourceful man who had been a naval officer. At age twenty he married a woman with some private means and together they travelled widely, at times living in some style. He committed a variety of offences of smuggling and fraud and served several terms of imprisonment. The marriage broke down on account of his extra-marital affairs and the couple had been separated for some years. He was currently living abroad with a mistress, but he continued to visit his wife asking for either reconciliation or divorce. She persistently refused. There was a trust fund in their joint names which he would acquire if she died. He had told several people that he wished her dead and even suggested paying someone to kill her. Eventually, he travelled to England under a false name, using a borrowed passport. He went to his wife’s address and entered the house stealthily one evening. She had an alcohol problem and was drinking alone in her room. Doubtless taking advantage of her condition, he was able to push her into the bathroom and drown her in the bath. He then wiped the place clean of fingerprints, intending to fake an accident. However, his mother-in-law, who lived in another part of the large house, appeared on the scene. She was his long-time enemy and would obviously be a witness to his crime, so he battered and strangled her to death, after which he hid her body and tidied up the room to conceal the signs of struggle, hoping to delay discovery and allow time to escape abroad, which he did. However, on reading an account of the crime in the press, and realising he had little chance of evasion, he walked into a wood and shot himself, leaving behind a letter addressed to his mistress, expressing his love, denying his guilt, and urging her to lay claim to the trust fund. He had also written to his solicitor asking his support for this. In the event, the money reverted to the crown. The case was unique in the sample for the gap of a few days between the killing and the suicide and for the denial of guilt.

  Apart from this case, the suicidal murderers who might be classed as criminal types were nearly all men with gross personality disorders and prone to violence at slight provocation, but their killings were certainly not for financial gain. F was in his mid-thirties at the time of his death. He was intelligent, but left school at fourteen without taking advantage of a scholarship he had won. He came from a stable home background, but was considered a wild boy. He was never able to keep a job for long and had a history of persistent petty crime, stealing motor cycles in youth, receiving a three-year sentence of detention in Borstal and later on serving several sentences of short term imprisonment for false pretences and minor forgeries. He married young and had two children, but the marriage was beset by incessant violent quarrels that worsened after he spent a period in the army. He was drinking heavily, both alcohol and wood spirit, with the result that his sight became severely impaired. The couple at one time had reasonable accommodation, but he smashed much of the furniture in his violent tempers. He was resentful about his situation and unco-operative with professionals trying to help him. F’s parents were concerned about the situation and fearful for the wife’s safety, although they thought she did little to help the situation and should be kinder to F and their children. They took their grandson to live with them for a time, finding him nervous and neglected. The couple fell into debt and were evicted and for more than two years they camped in incredible squalor on the landing outside their former flat. A neighbour living in the building tried to befriend them, but was careful to stay away during their noisy quarrels. In a final outburst, armed with two pistols, D shot dead his wife, teenage son and younger daughter, and then himself.

  The dry language of the police and pathologists’ reports, and the official records of witness statements in the dossiers, did scant justice to the miseries exposed by these sad incidents, tragic for those whose lives came to a sad finale and for the remaining family members. At least some incidents might have been prevented had medical and social services been more alert to risks to children from depressive mothers or to women living in mutually dependent relationships with unstable and violent men.

  The sample was small and drawn from a particular time and place. Murder-suicides are more frequent in deprived areas where violence is prevalent. Motives for murder-suicide are varied and to some extent culture-bound. Incidents arising out of domestic turmoil have little in common with Japanese wartime kamakaze pilots, suicide bombers trained to sacrifice themselves for a religious or political cause, or disaffected individuals shooting multiple victims at random in states of vengeful frenzy. Suicides by imprisoned murderers may have more to do with their unbearable situation than the circumstances of their crime.

  The picture has changed since the 1960s. Despite circumstances calculated to discourage them, murder-suicides in the UK continue, but at a somewhat lower rate. With the introduction of a less poisonous gas supply, and the restricted prescription of barbiturate sedatives, where a relatively small overdose can be fatal, impulsive suicide has become less easy. In addition, effective drug treatment for clinical depression is now available. In contrast murders in general have significantly increased. Although a majority remain domestic affairs, murders in a criminal context, such as robberies, conflicts between youth gangs and between drug dealers, now make up a larger proportion of homicides and greatly outnumber murder-suicides.

  A visit to New York

  Seven years after completion of the murder-suicide survey I was given a short period of sabbatical leave to visit Columbia University in New York and deliver a series of seminars on the psychological approach to criminology. On arrival, I was shown the large office I was to occupy, incomparably grander than my attic office in Cambridge. Unfortunately, it was the year of student unrest and the very next day the building was occupied by rebellious students so that I never got to make use of the room or to deliver the planned seminars.

  Radzinowiz, who was a visiting professor at Columbia and had arranged my visit, was staying at the time at his favourite hotel on Fifth Avenue. When he returned to England soon after my arrival, I took the opportunity to quit my hotel and move to the YMCA on the West Side of Central Park. Apart from being much cheaper, the all-male venue enjoyed a reputation for gay encounters. As far as I remember, that prospect was never fulfilled. The only memorable incident was leaving the bedroom door slightly ajar, a common practice for those wanting visitors, lying ostensibly asleep and listening to someone creeping around in the dark. On stirring expectantly in bed, there came the sound of a quick retreat by an intruder who was, to my disappointment, intent on theft rather than pleasure.

  Looking for something else useful to do during this sabbatical, I managed to obtain permission to examine a haphazardly selected sample of 100 local police records of murders in Manhattan in 1966, to be u
sed for comparison with the sample of 156 London murder records previously collected for the murder-suicide study. All these offenders had been indicted for murder and had not been acquitted or permitted to plead to any lesser charge than manslaughter. Some significant contrasts emerged. The murder rate per head of population was much greater in Manhattan, where in one year there were as many murders as in the whole of England and Wales. The proportion of female killers was slightly smaller (8.0% against 11.5%), but there were more killers under twenty-one years old (22.0% against 11.5%). Victims under sixteen were less frequent (6.7% against 33.5%) and startlingly fewer offenders killed spouses, lovers or relatives (20.0% against 56.5%). The contrasts would have been even greater had we not deliberately excluded murder-suicides from the London murder sample. Killings in the course of violent quarrels or in the furtherance of robbery or crimes for material gain accounted for the majority of the Manhattan cases and accomplices were common among the robbery incidents. Alcohol or illicit drugs were involved in a third of cases. Of the 100 killers 65 were blacks and, of the 35 whites, 15 were immigrants from Puerto Rico. As expected, firearms were used commonly in Manhattan, rarely in London. Fatal nocturnal robberies were frequent in a gay cruising area in Central Park, close to where I was staying.

  Details of this survey were published in Medicine, Science and the Law, (1968) 8, 249–255. To sum up, compared with murders in London, murders in Manhattan were many times more frequent, less predominantly a matter of intra-family conflict, more often a reflection of the greater level of violence outside the home, and more often linked to other forms of crime. The high proportion of murderers from racial minorities was particularly striking. In recent times, in keeping with the general trend towards Americanisation, the murder picture in Britain has crept closer to that of the United States, but with still a long way to go.