Women Who Kill: Profiles of Female Serial Killers

by Carol Anne Davis

  Luckily for Karla, she had looked after the dalmatian of a top lawyer when she was a vet’s assistant. She now contacted him for legal representation and he agreed to help, assuming she had a history of being a battered wife. Karla was downplaying her part in the murders and he didn’t realise she had actively taken part in the sexual assaults on Leslie and Kristen and had carried their bodies to the river and a dump respectively.

  Karla now booked herself into a psychiatric unit and took every sedative available and asked for more. Again, she talked to people on the phone every day, something which doesn’t fit the pattern of the withdrawn abused woman. She wandered around in tiny baby doll nighties, wrote letters to friends about how misunderstood she was and started to read books on victimhood and repressed memory. Her parents visited, and it was then that she handed them a note which admitted her part in her sister Tammy’s death.

  The plea bargain

  It’s a well known fact that whoever squeals first gets the lightest sentence. Karla’s legal reps presented her as a victim who had been forced to participate in Kristen’s abduction by Paul Barnardo. She accepted a plea bargain of twelve years if she testified against her husband in court.

  Some time after this the tapes were discovered - and they showed Karla instructing the girls how to sexually satisfy Paul and herself. They also showed her performing oral sex on them and making them perform it on her. She did not look at all victim-like in any of the films, saying to Paul ‘I got some good mouth shots there’ when directing the fellatio part of the videos. And when Kristen was licking Karla, Karla instructed ‘A little deeper, please.’ She would also show a complete lack of empathy with the terrified girl, telling Paul that Kristen was getting off on it.

  Kristen, clearly trying to form a bond with her captors, at one stage says that Karla is experienced in ‘this’, meaning lesbian activities. Karla denies it, but it was, of course, true. Paul thought only of his pleasure in bed so it was easier for Karla to find sexual satisfaction with other women - and as she was a psychopath she didn’t care if the other women consented or not.

  The judge ordered that Canadians couldn’t legally read of Karla’s crimes until Paul had also been tried. This sent many Canadians into a frenzy. Thousands crossed the American border to buy American newspapers covering the story. Others found information on the internet.

  Court

  The Homolkas now told friends and co-workers that they didn’t know where they’d find the money to buy Karla’s temporary freedom, but her father eventually put up their house as bail. Her friends were equally loyal. But as the facts leaked out the Canadian public were understandably incensed and she was spat upon in the street. She would write to a friend that the public were wrong to hate her, that she was as much Paul’s victim as anyone else.

  The police and certain psychiatrists had initially assumed that Karla was a compliant victim - and had thus unwittingly given her a defense. By the time she went to court Karla had become a lay expert on post traumatic stress disorder and was presenting herself as Paul’s helpless pawn.

  During the trial she showed little emotion, only dabbing theatrically at her eyes with a handkerchief when the mothers of the dead girls made statements. She smiled when she heard about the local news ban. So many indignities had been carried out on the young victims that it took almost half an hour to read the charges out.

  The trial was attended by Mr and Mrs Homolka. Witnesses report that Karel wore a look of resigned despair and Dorothy tried to maintain a detached expression. Karla’s remaining sister, Lori, continued to support her but often wept.

  When asked why she’d brought one teenager to the house and drugged her, she said she hoped that if she got another girl involved with Paul he would leave her, Karla, alone. She proved again and again that she cared nothing for anyone else.

  The videos of herself and Paul with the victims weren’t shown, but the court did see videos of Karla having enthusiastic sex with two other women. It was clear that she wasn’t just doing whatever Paul desired. She had also written to a friend, saying ‘take as much as you can while you can.’

  At first Karla was softly spoken and in full victim mode, but this facade soon slipped and at times she became cold and angry. Like most of the Team Killer females in this book, she attempted to blame the deaths entirely on the man.

  On the 6th July 1993 Karla was charged with manslaughter, and given twelve years on each charge to run concurrently. She was given two extra years for her part in Tammy’s death.

  Prison

  She was sent to Canada’s Kingston Prison For Women and soon segregated with other ‘at risk’ prisoners. There she still earns a few dollars daily doing prison work. She told a friend that prison wasn’t so bad, that it gave her a chance to catch up on reading books and that she also had access to the internet.

  She’s gone on to take a correspondence degree course in women’s studies and psychology, continues to read about victimology and presents herself as the battered wife. Incredibly, she suggested to friends that, when freed, she might like to counsel abused women. She’s apparently forgotten she abused women herself.

  Karla obtained a divorce from Paul (who is serving a life sentence of at least twenty-five years) in 1994. One of their victims tried to sue them and Karla seemed amazed, writing to a friend that ‘Paul and I are broke.’ She still seems unaware of the enormity of her crimes, telling everyone that she intends to make herself into a better person than she was before she met him. Most of this betterment seems to involve styling her hair, playing badminton in the gym and doing her nails.

  Psychological profile

  So what kind of person lives inside Karla Homolka’s head? Burnside and Cairns, who wrote a book about the case, Deadly Innocence, state that ‘Karla had a pitiful, pathetic needy obsession with Paul. Its genus seemed to lie more within her own troubled psyche than solely in Paul’s charm or magnetism.’ This is true of the females from most killing teams - the man sees some weakness in them and exploits it. But the fact that he manipulates her doesn’t rob her of responsibility for her actions - she still makes the decision to help him kill.

  Stephen William’s book on the case, Invisible Darkness, suggests that Karla might have been a hybristophilic, someone who is only turned on by a partner who is a rapist or similar criminal. It’s certainly clear that Karla was one of the dominant five percent of women - and she wanted an even more dominant male partner. Given that she had no empathy with other young women, the thought of Paul raping them might well have been exciting to her. This is partly borne out by the tape that Paul made after Karla left him, in which he says that he tried to be larger than life because that is what she wanted him to be.

  The third book on the case, Lethal Marriage by Nick Pron, states, rightly, that Karla wanted her pretty house and garden so badly that she wasn’t prepared to let anything get in the way. Nick Pron quotes what she said in court about how she felt after she left Paul. It perfectly sums up her selfish state of mind. ‘I forgot about Tammy. I forgot about Leslie. I forgot about Kristen. I forgot about everything and went out and had a great time.’

  Psychological tests presented by Karla Homolka’s defense said that she was captivated by Paul at a young age, that she was desperate to be in a romantic relationship with a dominant male. They would add that Paul offered her a much wanted lifestyle (she believed he would become a millionaire) and that she feared abandonment.

  For Paul Barnardo’s trial both the crown and defence hired various psychiatrists to examine Karla, expecting them all to come up with the abused and brainwashed woman explanation, but Patricia Pearson (in the landmark text When She Was Bad) explains they didn’t. Instead, the reports used terms like a ‘degree of callousness and insensitivity of major proportions’ and ‘an immature, moody, shallow, rigid, hostile individual, preoccupied with themes of violence and victimisation.’ Karla was angry at her parents for creating a tense household, had been angry at Tammy, her love rival, and was now
vengeful towards Paul.

  She simply doesn’t fit the Battered Wife Syndrome profile. (I have worked with battered women who, as shellshocked survivors, were a million miles removed from the dancing, flirting Karla.) Yes, Paul Barnardo hit her badly at least once, but she wasn’t originally in the isolated position most battered wives find themselves in. Karla was living with her family when she met him and she continued to visit them throughout the relationship.

  Battered wives who go on to inflict violence on others have invariably had abused childhoods, but we simply don’t know enough about Karla Homolka’s childhood to infer this. She may have been someone’s victim, however, as she hinted to friends at school that something bad had happened to her and she talked of suicide.

  The most likely explanation is that Karla was a shallow psychopathic woman from an unhappy home who had been brought up to see marriage as the most important goal. How things looked were more important to her than how things actually were so whilst she had a large engagement ring on her finger and Paul calling her his Princess she was happy. He was the only person she’d ever loved, and to keep this crumbling facade of love she was willing to let innocent girls die.

  She also had a high libido and enjoyed having the girls perform sex acts on her - and she had a dramatic side so enjoyed videotaping the experiences to replay afterwards.

  It’s hard to build up a full picture of her thought processes during the rapes and killings. Her family said that she never looked depressed when with Paul - so presumably most of her letters to friends about being happy were genuine. Her parents saw her at least once a week and didn’t notice any bruises. They approved of her marriage to Paul.

  One police investigator would tell her ‘You’re innocent, you’re the victim,’ clearly finding it hard to believe that this well spoken attractive woman would willingly take part in such atrocities. And a prison psychiatrist would suggest she should quickly be let out. To an extent, the legal system would help bolster this false picture of Karla’s innocence, for the tapes of Lesley and Kristen’s abuse were not played at Karla’s trial but were played at Paul’s.

  Karla continued to have an emotionless viewpoint of the deaths, telling friends she might write a book on the subject in which she herself was profiled as the victim. And Dorothy told colleagues that Karla would be very rich when she got out of prison because she could write a book about the crimes.

  A psychopath

  Some crime books have suggested that Karla can’t be a psychopath because she loved animals and psychopaths don’t usually care for anyone, far less so-called inferior creatures. But a closer look at Karla’s love for pets shows something is awry.

  First, as a child she taught one of her cats to perform tricks - something that got Karla attention rather than something which was good for the cat. Second, when working as a vet’s assistant, she sent a friend a puppy’s tale and a note which said it was ‘neat’ that they removed the tails without an anaesthetic. A true animal lover would be shocked by this.

  Similarly, when Karla wanted a dog she spent ages pouring over breeding books before choosing an expensive pedigree Rottweiler puppy. Again, this was about attention and the way things looked to others - rather than rescuing a mongrel Karla chose a breed that is impressive and possibly dangerous. Less impressively, the Rottweiler would urinate copiously each time someone entered the house so it’s not clear that it felt secure and loved.

  Finally, she brought home a sick iguana, another designer pet, and nursed it back to health. But it bit Paul and he cut off its head in front of friends - at which point a genuine animal lover would surely have become very emotional. Instead, Karla autopsied the three foot lizard for her friends and then they barbecued it and Karla ate a little bit.

  Psychopaths use people for their own ends - and it seems that Karla used animals in the same way, seeing them as designer objects. Chillingly, after she got the iguana and the Rottweiler she started telling friends that she wanted a child…

  An outcry

  Three hundred thousand people signed petitions against Karla getting out, but the judiciary said that it couldn’t go back on its plea bargain. Soon her lawyers were trying to get her out of prison and into a halfway house though the authorities - at the time of writing in 2000 - have so far refused. But by 2001 she is eligible for parole and by 2004 she must be released.

  Her family are allowed to visit her every six weeks, staying in a little trailer in the grounds. Mr Homolka sometimes stays at home to look after the Rottweiler. Karla has told them that she wants to return to the area where she briefly lived with her aunt after having her eyes blackened by Paul. She continues to celebrate Christmas, explaining that Tammy wouldn’t want her to be miserable during a time of year that she herself always enjoyed.

  Update

  In July 2000 Court TV broadcast a programme on the internet about Karla Homolka as part of their Mugshots series. There, psychologists from both standpoints put forward their assessment, with one seeing her as a ‘vulnerable young woman… terrorised’ whilst another had real doubts about the Battered Wife Syndrome defence.

  Some of her friends were interviewed and they described her as ‘strong willed, independent’ and ‘a leader, not a follower.’

  It emerged that Karla had told psychologists that within the first six to seven months Paul subjected her to intense psychological abuse and advised her that she was worthless. Again, her friends disagreed saying that Karla and Paul were totally in love, totally into each other. The programme broadcast photos of them together looking exuberant.

  Karla would initially tell police that her first three years with Paul were happy - but by the time she spoke to psychologists and to the courts she had decided that they were bad years, and that fear of him had led her to drug and sexually assault her sister Tammy. She said that Paul hadn’t told her that he was the Scarborough Rapist until they were on their honeymoon.

  But Lesley was killed before they married - and Karla suggested in court that they couldn’t let Lesley go because they’d find Paul’s sperm in her and link it to the sperm they’d taken from him as a rape suspect. This suggests that she knew of his rapes before she married him.

  Karla relayed most of the information about the crimes without showing undue emotion - and the police said she was matter of fact when talking about Lesley’s death.

  At one stage they took her back to the house she’d shared with Paul, the house that Lesley and Kristen had been murdered in. Karla asked what would happen to her furniture and asked if she could have some of the perfume in the bathroom for her sister. She seemed completely oblivious to the fact that this had been a house where young women had been forcibly held, raped, sodomised and ultimately killed.

  The prosecutor said that when he got tough in court that Karla got tougher and that her claim of being a subjugated woman clearly wasn’t true.

  Stephen Williams, the author of Invisible Darkness, was asked by the programme makers what he thought the motive for the deaths was. He said that it was to conceal the sexual crimes. He added that Paul didn’t kill any of the women he raped in the street, so why would he start killing those he’d blindfolded and brought home to rape? It was Karla who was terrified of being caught, of going to jail - therefore Lesley and Kristen, whose bodies contained Paul’s sperm, had to die.

  The programme makers explained that Karla had been given her deal before the hellish videotapes had come to light, but that the tapes showed her part in the atrocities was much bigger than originally suggested. They added that the prison sees her as ‘a model prisoner… no danger to the public’ who will be released in 2004.

  14 We are family

  Classifying female serial killers

  As the profiles in this book have shown, women can kill multiple times and kill brutally. Yet the reality of the female serial killer has never entered popular consciousness in the way that the male serial killer has. Indeed, many newspapers wrongly dubbed Aileen Wuornos - who killed between 1989 and
1990 - as the first ever American woman to fall into this category.

  Though the FBI doesn’t fully classify such multiple murderesses - putting them all into the inadequate category of compliant victims - other criminologists and true crime writers have defined specific motivations for such female crimes.

  The much respected author Brian Lane identified seven motives in his Encyclopedia Of Women Killers. That is, Gain, Jealousy, Revenge, Elimination, Lust, Conviction and Thrill. He believed that Thrill Killers were distinct from Lust Killers in that the main motivation was the taking-of-a-life thrill, though they might engage in sexual abuse as a secondary stimulus. The Gwen Graham & Catherine Wood team fit into this category.

  More recently (1999) Michael and C.L. Kelleher have outlined various categories in Murder Most Rare. The classifications they offer are Question Of Sanity, Black Widow, Revenge, Angel Of Death, Team Killers, Profit Or Crime, Sexual Predator, Unexplained and Unsolved. Some killers fit into more than one category.

  Brian Lane’s motive of Conviction is similar to the Kelleher’s classification of Question Of Sanity in that conviction usually involves the woman hearing voices or having religious delusions that urge her to kill.

  The following paragraphs give my interpretation of various female serial killer typologies.

  Question Of Sanity

  Such Question Of Sanity murderesses kill in a seemingly haphazard way and as a result their mental health becomes suspect. This insanity may be episodic: for example, women can become temporarily unbalanced following childbirth as huge hormonal surges and falls cause them to behave in uncharacteristic ways. Question Of Sanity cases are thankfully rare - of the women profiled here, only child killer Jeanne Weber fits into that camp and even then I suspect Weber only drifted towards insanity at the end of her killing spree.