Going Berserk,Running Amok,or Following Scripts: Mass Killers with Links to Domestic Violence

Mass Killing and Domestic Violence

The connection between mass casualty attacks and violence against women continues to hide in plain sight. Even our latest mass attacker, the man responsible for the deadly New Year’s attack in New Orleans, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, discussed planning to kill his family but changed his mind as he was concerned the news headlines would not focus on the war between the believers and the disbelievers.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is often a precursor to a mass casualty attack. 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were domestic-violence (DV)-related, and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV (Geller et al., 2021).

This majority of mass killers are not turning violent but switching the target of their violence from known women to random members of the public. The initial violence against the female victim is not less significant than the killing of strangers and is typically part of the same incident or event. The idea of a “triggering event” does not imply the woman victim is in some ways to blame for the violence.

IPV perpetrators often use firearms to emotionally abuse and coercively control victims. While female victims are more commonly killed using sharp force and asphyxiation, IPV perpetrators often use firearms to emotionally abuse and coercively control their victims (Logan and Lynch, 2014). Firearm ownership is associated with higher levels of domestic homicide (Kivisto, 2015). Firearm use is associated with an increased incidence of multiple homicide victimization, particularly in domestic situations (Kivisto and Porter, 2020). For example, in a recent study examining homicide deaths of females over 4 decades (1978–2016) in King County, Washington, victims commonly knew their assailant(s) (79.3%) and were commonly intimate partners (31.4%). “Domestic violence” was the most cited motive (34.3%) and most occurred in a residence (58.7%) (Jetson et al., 2024).

IPV is often perpetuated by a process of trauma bonding that parallels Stockholm Syndrome and is far more common in trauma bonding, coercive control, and narcissistic or psychopathic victim abuse than in hostage situations (Logan, 2018).

Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm Syndrome is an unconscious, emotional response to the terror of being captive and believing that protection is entirely in the hands of the captor or abuser. This puts the aggressor right where they want to be: in complete control (Logan, 2018).

Trauma Bonding

Trauma Bonding is evidenced in any relationship wherein the connection between intimate partners defies logic. This bonding is perpetuated by the imbalance of power and the manipulative nature of intermittent cycling of abuse with acts of kindness. It is a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The fear of outbursts from the abuser becomes a controlling factor in the victim’s life. The abused person becomes preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abusive, controlling person.

Coercive Control

Coercive control is a pattern of ongoing intentional domineering tactics used with the intent of governing the victim’s thoughts, beliefs, or conduct through fear, and punishing the victims for resisting the abusers’ rules. Tactics or behaviors exhibited by perpetrators of coercive control may include: emotional; verbal; social; economic; psychological; spiritual; physical; and sexual abuse.

The United Kingdom’s Serious Crime Act (2015) created a new offense, which acknowledges this violence as “a purposeful pattern of behavior that takes place over time in order for one individual to exert power, control, or coercion over another.”

The United States Department of Justice (Office on Violence Against Women (OVW, 2020) also defines domestic violence as “a pattern of abusive behavior … that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.”

In Canada, the latest Private Members Bill before the Senate is Bill C-332, which went through Third Reading in Parliament on June 12, 2024. This enactment would amend the Criminal Code to create an offense of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health, or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities. The proposed offense is:

264.01 (1) Everyone commits an offense who repeatedly or continuously engages in controlling or coercive conduct toward a person with whom they are connected that they know or ought to know could, in all the circumstances, reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on that person and that has such an impact on that person.

Proprietorship is a seldom-used word in this context but denotes “ownership” and total domination of another in a relationship context. It also describes the mindset of the individual who uses coercive control to dominate an intimate partner, seeing their partner in relationship as “my wife” but also as “my property” (Logan, 2023). “In the author’s professional career, hearing the assailant state ‘If I can’t have you nobody can,’ prior to the attack is not infrequent.” When the victim finally gathers the courage to leave the assailant, it is taken as a deep rejection or loss of control.

Narcissistic or Psychopathic Victim Abuse

In 25 years as a psychologist in the Criminal Justice system, I have assessed over 200 psychopaths. In that same period of time, I have assessed only four individuals that I would refer to as malignant narcissists. Only one of them was clearly psychopathic, although the other three had Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R, 2003) scores in the 20–26/40 range. In my years as a police officer, I may have encountered more but was not at that time educated in detecting and understanding psychopathology. Dr. Robert Hare, my mentor and dear friend for the past 25 years and the world expert on psychopathy, has continuously clarified the definition of psychopathy:

Psychopathy is a personality disorder that includes a cluster of interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial traits and behaviors, including deception, manipulation, irresponsibility, impulsivity, stimulation-seeking, poor behavioral controls, shallow affect, a lack of empathy, guilt or remorse, sexual promiscuity, a callous disregard for the rights of others, and a range of unethical and antisocial behaviors (Hare, 2003). Probably most of the violence committed by psychopaths has nothing to do with the threat to their ego. It’s just what they do. There’s an opportunity, and if it requires violence, they’re going to do it. This is part of the predatory stance that they take with the world. In most cases, it’s not a slight. They’re engaging in violence because something else doesn’t work, and they want something; they can’t get it through manipulation, conning, deception, and intimidation, so they use violence (Personal communication; with R. D. Hare, May, 2015).

Psychologist Erich Fromm (1964) first coined the term “malignant narcissism”, describing it as a “severe mental sickness;” “the quintessence of evil;” “the most severe pathology and the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity.” Psychologist Kernberg (1998) describes the malignant narcissist as one who suffers from a more pervasive lack of empathy than someone with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) alone. They are highly reactive to the slightest negative assessment, whether real or imagined, and they can easily lose control of their rational faculties, with sadism often considered a feature. Kernberg believed that malignant narcissism should be considered part of a spectrum of severity of pathological narcissism. At the high end was psychopathy, then malignant narcissism, and then NPD at the low end.

In my experience, there are some key differences, along with similarities, between the psychopath and the malignant narcissist. The malignant narcissist is an individual who has created an identity in order to protect a fragile ego; a constructed identity, or what can be termed as an idealized self. Being wrong would shatter the individual, so the constructed identity allows them to change reality and protect the fragile ego. The constructed identity mitigates the sense of inferiority, the shame, the fragility, the vulnerability. The constructed identity also keeps them from admitting to behavior that is not consistent with the new identity.

Both the psychopath and the narcissist are adept at making the captive feel sorry for them by telling stories of their own abuse as children and making excuses for their temper and aggressive/assaultive behavior. They are masters of coercive control and often select intimate partners who are vulnerable to their need for control and techniques to create trauma bonding.

Case Study—University of Texas at Austin

In 1966, 25-year-old Charles Whitman killed his wife and mother at their respective homes before shooting and killing 14 strangers and wounding 32 at the University of Texas.

A week after the shooting took place, a Travis County Grand Jury declared that Whitman was an individual who had “suddenly gone completely berserk, with no warning to his family or friends.” Far from suddenly “going berserk,” perpetrators often rehearse their abuse in settings with people who are socially expected to endure it, as was the case with Kathy Leissner. Charles Whitman sought to isolate her from her friends and family, prohibiting her access to a telephone. He monitored her body obsessively, requiring she adhere to exacting physical standards, and he was emotionally abusive and physically violent. Leissner’s once-bright spirit was worn down by Whitman’s cruelty and the sense that she could never satisfy his ever-shifting demands and expectations (Time, March 11, 2024).

Case Study #2—Canada’s Worst Mass Shooting—Portapique, Nova Scotia April 18, 2020

Gabriel Wortman, 51 years of age, murdered 22 people (not including the unborn baby of one of his victims) in a shooting rampage that shocked Nova Scotia and Canada.

When describing her relationship with the shooter, his intimate partner of 19 years stated, “kinda, like, he could be so sweet one-on-one uh, when it was bad, it was really bad, and when it was good, it was great. But there was no even keel ever. It’s how our relationship with him always was. It’s just the way he was. Uh, you know, because of his parents and the volatile relationship he had with them. He would always say stuff about hurting my family, so I was afraid to leave.

His grandiosity and entitlement were excessive; “he thought he was smarter than everyone.” One time he said, “I went to school 7 years longer than a dentist, so I’m 7 times smarter.” “He always had an angle—always something in it for him”.

Based on the file review, we found evidence of both Antisocial and Borderline Personality Disorder traits. Further to the DSM-5 (2013) analysis, there were many psychopathic traits and evidence of malignant narcissism present. The author scored Wortman on the PCL-R (PCL-R, 2003). He scored a 26 out of a possible 40. Traits particularly relevant to the shooter include conning/manipulative, poor behavioral controls, lack of remorse or guilt, callous/lack of empathy, and grandiosity.

The term “Injustice Collector” was truly personified in Wortman, who kept a mental checklist of those he perceived to have wronged him. He systematically killed not only those with whom he had a conflict but also others that reminded him of those people. (O’Toole, 2014) defines it as someone who sees injustices in many, if not most, things that happen to them in life. Injustice collectors can misperceive the smallest slights and turn them into major events, and they can accumulate these injustices for years. Their response to these injustices—real or perceived—can be extremely disproportionate to the original grievance”.

The precipitating or trigger event was on the evening of April 18, 2020. The shooter and his partner were celebrating their 19th anniversary when an argument broke out and the shooter’s partner left him. She felt bad and returned, but it was too late; he was angry and smashed her iPhone & iPad. She retreated to the cottage, but he followed her shortly afterwards, pulled her out of the bed, and led her back to the warehouse. The shooter then placed his partner into the back of his self-designed police car and shut the silent patrolman, locking her in the back of the car. He then set fire to his cottage and collected firearms that had been secreted in his warehouse on the property. For him, it was time to enact a fantasy that had festered for some time. His anger raged even brighter when he discovered that his captive had escaped from his mock police car. Rejection can create intense anger and aggression in those with a fragile ego. Even mild rejection can lead some to take out their aggression on innocent bystanders. The author believes that he wanted to transport his partner in the back of that police car and make her watch as he killed people, including members of her family. It was to be the ultimate humiliation and blame for rejecting him by leaving.

Wortman was shot and killed by police as he was preparing to drive to the location where we believe he would have killed his partner’s family in his final act of revenge.

Case Study #3—Canada’s Worst Mass Stabbing—James Smith Cree Nation, Saskatchewan September 4, 2022

Myles Sanderson, 32 years of age, murdered 11 people and injured another 17 in a knifing rampage that shocked Saskatchewan and Canada. This incident is the largest mass stabbing in modern-day Canada.

Antisocial Personality Disorder traits and Intermittent Explosive Disorder traits were evident. There was a past diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Further to the DSM-5 (2013) analysis, there were many psychopathic traits present in Sanderson. A score of 33/40 was assigned to Sanderson on the PCL-R, 2003). A score of this magnitude indicates strong similarities in personality and behavioral characteristics with those who are most antisocial. His score falls at the 94th percentile in comparison with a male prison population.

The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA; Kropp et al., 2021) placed him in the “High” risk category for both violence against a partner and for violence against others in the context of a relationship. Factors associated with his risk for violence toward a partner included substance use/abuse, poor emotional control involving anger and jealousy, poor problem solving and consequential thinking, along with his own history of being witness to domestic violence and/or abuse.

The precipitating event occurred on September 3, 2022 after Sanderson had assaulted Vanessa Burns by hitting her with an object, strangling her in her vehicle, and then trying to run her down. The relationship Sanderson had with his wife, Vanessa, was fraught with jealousy, abuse, control, and assaultive behavior. Physical abuse was constant both while he was drunk or sober and involved kicking, hair pulling, and choking. Later that night, Myles’ brother, Damien Sanderson, texted his wife to say that Myles Sanderson had not yet calmed down. The intensity of his anger was fully revealed the next day when Myles killed his brother Damien.

Sanderson then went on to kill another 10 individuals. He did not kill in a “berserk” or “amok” manner, but in a cold, calculated manner, selecting those who he had previously designated as being part of or having a family association to a particular gang. In selecting those individuals, he bypassed a number of others whom he could have easily harmed.

Sanderson was intercepted by police as he was preparing to drive to the location where we believe he would have killed his partner in his final act of revenge.

In an extensive literature review on domestic violence, mass killings, and their possible intersections, Huff-Corzine and Marvell (2021) noted that “the literature did not indicate that a history of domestic violence offenses is a risk factor for committing a public mass shooting. However, when considering domestic mass murders, any connections should be examined in more depth. Criminal justice professionals would be wise to record domestic violence abusive offenses as part of a process for assessing risk for carrying out other types of violence, including a mass shooting, especially a domestic mass shooting or murder” (Huff-Corzine and Marvell, 2021, p.6).

Note: The author was the RCMP psychologist on a team that conducted a post-mortem behavioral analysis (often referred to as a psychological autopsy) on Cases 2 and 3. The goal of this analysis was to answer the following questions: Why? Why Now? Why these victims? Why in this manner?