Bias and Bystanders in the Case of Fred and Rose West

Would you be able to spot if there was a murderer living next door? How about two murderers?

Most of us would like to think so, especially if the crimes were carried out over many years, offering numerous opportunities for detection. However, the reality is that our belief in a just and "normal" world can prevent people from recognising the signs of criminal behaviour, even when the clues are right in front of them. And even if they do spot it and recognise a potential problem, the instinct to not get involved can prevent them from ever acting on their concerns.

The Case of Fred and Rose West

Between 1967 and 1987, Fred and Rose West murdered at least 12 people, and abused several more, with much of the violence taking place within their home at 25 Cromwell Street in Gloucester, England. There are many reasons why the Wests were able to get away with their criminal behaviour for so long, from the deliberate selection of vulnerable victims who would not be immediately missed, to the careful disposing of the bodies in the house and garden at Cromwell Street, making use of Fred West’s skills as a builder.

While blame for the crimes lies entirely with Fred and Rose West, the social norms and biases of the people living around them may have made it more difficult for the violent actions of the Wests to be recognised and acted upon. Several neighbours and acquaintances reported seeing young people, particularly young women, living at the West’s home and vanishing almost overnight.

One neighbour told the press that she spoke to a young girl, who said she was living at number 25 but hated it and wanted to move out. After that conversation, they never saw her again. The same neighbour reported being woken in the night by raised voices from the West’s home, and hearing a young woman crying; however, they did not report what they had heard until much later.

Why Did No One Step In?

When viewed together, this may seem like a clear case for recognising there was a problem and intervening. However, there are several reasons why that may not have happened, including normalcy bias and the bystander effect.

1. Normalcy Bias

Nobody wants bad things to happen or evil things to be true; that’s just human nature. According to Toyana & Nagamine (2022), the desire for a situation to be non-threatening or "normal" can lead us to underestimate the likelihood of something bad actually happening—even in the face of significant evidence that the bad thing is taking place.

Thus, the neighbour of Fred and Rose West who spoke to the frightened girl may well have had an instinct that something was "off"—but they may not have wanted to believe, or even been able to comprehend, the seriousness of what was actually taking place at number 25. This suggests that they may have been affected by the normalcy bias, where the truth was too awful to comprehend. As a result, they may have underestimated the likelihood that the girl’s fear was the result of anything sinister, in line with the findings of Toyana & Nagamine (2022), and assumed that the reason must be non-problematic, even if they didn’t actually know what it was.

This can be seen in another example, in which a teenage girl had asked to use a back route through a neighbour’s home as she was scared of going past the West’s house. The neighbour later told local press that the girl had been scared of something, but they hadn’t thought to ask her what, again suggesting that they did not want to believe that it could be anything serious.

2. The Bystander Effect

The bystander effect can cause people to assume that someone else will take action in a problematic situation, meaning that they don’t have to act themselves. This may have prevented those living around 25 Cromwell Street from acting on any concerns that they may have had, even if they had recognised that there was a serious problem.

Bennett, Banyard, and Garnhart (2014) identified a range of potential barriers to bystander intervention, including diffusion of responsibility, fear of retaliation, and a reluctance to breach social norms. The neighbour who reported hearing a young woman shouting stated that she was conscious of the social norms of the area, and it wasn’t the type of place where neighbours talked to each other. This would potentially have been a significant barrier to intervention, as to act on what they had heard from the West house would have breached these social norms and forced the neighbour to raise their heads above the social parapet.

Bias Essential Reads

A Light in the World

The Most Pleasing Names to Hear, According to Science

Rational choice theory (Lovett, 2006) suggests that the neighbours would likely have weighed up the pros and cons of intervening before making their choice, and would have considered a range of factors which affected the need to take action. For example, one neighbour told the press that as there was a woman present at 25 Cromwell Street, she was reassured and felt that there was less need for her to intervene (or "interfere," as she described it).

Of course, we now know that the woman living there, Rose West, was actually involved in the criminal behaviour—but to a neighbour who was trying to make up her mind about what to do, it’s understandable why that might have seemed like a compelling argument at the time. It provided an absolution of responsibility, or at least the appearance of one.

What Can We Learn from the West Case?

Ultimately, Fred and Rose West were caught as a result of two things. Firstly, their children bravely spoke up about the abuse that had taken place in the house at Cromwell Street and the family "joke" that their sister Heather was buried under the patio.

Secondly, when the children did speak up, people listened and believed them, including social workers, teachers and eventually police officers. This highlights the importance of not only taking action but also listening to those who do find the courage to speak up.

To be clear, the only people responsible for the crimes of Fred and Rose West are the couple themselves. However, there is much to be learned from this case about how to recognise what is happening around us and overcome barriers to intervention.

Hopefully, there will never be another case like the Wests—but learning from what happened on Cromwell Street means that if it does happen again, those around them will hopefully be better equipped to spot it and take action.