Confessions of a Serial Killer: A Neutralisation Analysis

• Date: 01 February 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767918793674
• Author: Mark Pettigrew
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767918793674

Homicide Studies

2020, Vol. 24(1) 69 –84

© 2018 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1088767918793674

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

Confessions of a Serial Killer:

A Neutralisation Analysis

Mark Pettigrew1

Abstract

An analysis is offered of a confession given to detectives by a serial killer who, at

the time of his arrest, admitted to the murder of 15 men. Qualitative analysis, using

Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization as a theoretical base, reveals several

attempts to mitigate his crimes and offer some justification to his killings. Through

such analysis, it is possible to discern some psychological mechanisms that facilitate

the commission of multiple homicides over a period of time, allowing a mentally fit

offender to retrospectively rationalize his killings, and even provide some insight into

how victims were selected.

Keywords

serial killing, confession, techniques of neutralization, victims, homicide

Introduction

As noted by Culhane, Hilstad, Freng, and Gray (2011), the serial killer is the most

demonized but least understood of criminals. Pivotally, we know very little of such

offenders that comes by way of interviews; information gathering is problematized by

issues of access and even the varying definition of serial killing among researchers.

Definitions of serial killing have ranged from a minimum number of two to four vic-

tims, with a cooling off period of varying lengths of time between murders (Fox &

Levin, 2015). As such, in the myriad of structural and situational accounts and theories

of serial killing, there is no singular theory that explains the phenomenon. However, as

with other areas of offending behavior, it is doubtful a unifying theory will ever

account for all examples of serial killing; how the offending behavior was created.

Capturing the killer at the earliest opportunity is a particular challenge for law

1Leeds Beckett University, UK

Corresponding Author:

Mark Pettigrew, School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, Calverley Building,

Leeds LS1 3HE, UK.

Email: m.pettigrew@leedsbeckett.ac.uk

793674HSXXXX10.1177/1088767918793674Homicide StudiesPettigrew

research-article2018

70 Homicide Studies 24(1)

enforcement and, so, in that regard, there has been some shift of focus from explaining

serial killing to identifying serial killers at large. Harold Shipman killed 250 people

over 20 years before he was captured; Peter Sutcliffe the “Yorkshire Ripper” attacked

at least 20 women, 13 fatally, over a 5-year period before he was apprehended; Fred

and Rosemary West, together, murdered at least 10 young women and girls for over 15

years before being discovered. When killers are able to operate for so long without

detection, there are obvious questions as to how they were able to do so. In that regard,

James and Gossett (2018) note that very little is known of how serial killers manage

their identities, how they use verbalized neutralizations to negotiate and present self-

conceptions, or how such statements allow for the maintenance of morally decent

selves through impression management (James & Gossett, 2018).

To offer some justification or excuse for killing is not uncommon, derivations of

“he asked for it” or “he had it coming” not only are frequent but also have been incor-

porated into profiling typologies. Even in the seminal, if now somewhat relegated

typology, advanced by R. M. Holmes and DeBurger (1985), a distinct category of

killer, the mission-orientated killer, will justify his actions on the basis that he is per-

forming a service in eliminating a certain group, ridding the world of prostitutes, for

example. Yet, such justifications need not be the rationale for killing and can be found

at a much lower level. Even throwaway comments made by some killers can reveal

some personal sense of mitigation, excuse, or justification for the murder(s) they have

committed. British serial killer Myra Hindley, for example, somewhat famously

remarked, in reference to her youngest victim, whom she procured for her partner and

sexually abused with him, “That girl shouldn’t have been out at that time of night”

(Roberts, 2002). Rationalizing and justifying to themselves, their crimes, mitigating

their responsibility, speaks to how they are able to go about their daily lives without

arousing the suspicion of those around them.

Several authors have noted that despite serial killing being the site of consider-

able academic interest, there is no theory, sociological or psychological, that ade-

quately addresses the etiology of the serial killer (see, for example, Edelstein, 2015;

S. T. Holmes, Tewksbury, & Holmes, 1999). In that vein, S. T. Holmes et al. (1999)

offer their theory of fractured identity syndrome. Building on Cooley’s (1902) the-

ory of actual social identity and Goffman’s (1963) theory of virtual social identity,

the authors assert that the serial killer, often in his or her adolescent years, suffers

a social event, or series of events, which results in a fracture of his or her personal-

ity. The fracture does not destroy the personality and is not visible to the outside

world but is acutely felt by the individual. The authors cite examples such as Ted

Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Andrew Cunanan as examples of killers who main-

tained a public persona while keeping the fractured part of their identity hidden.

Serial killers have exerted great amounts of energy to keep their fractured identities

secret. A managed identity is constructed and consistently presented in social encounters;

this virtual identity presents the individual as a regular normal member of society. The

fractured identity is hidden from public view. (S. T. Holmes et al., 1999, p. 269)