Relationships
Of Love and Murder
Is “being smitten” an adequate defense for murder?
Posted February 14, 2016
As preparations for a trial approached in Pennsylvania for Jamie Silvonek and Caleb Barnes, a psychologist offered an excuse for her: love. She was 14 and Caleb was 20 when they allegedly stabbed Jamie’s mother, Cheryl, to death in her car, buried the body, and shoved the car into a pond.
The two were arrested and their cell phones examined. Jamie offered a couple of lame stories about not knowing where her mother was, but it soon became clear from text messages that Jamie had wanted her mother dead. Her father as well. She seemed to have resented her mother’s attempts to end her relationship with Caleb.
There was a hearing to decide whether Jamie should be tried as a juvenile or an adult. A psychologist who’d spoken with her described her as a young girl in love who’d developed a warped sense of reality and poor judgment. For each question the judge asked about her mental state, it came back to the same thing: She was in love. As if this explained it.
(Side note: Since that hearing, she has shifted her position and admitted to being a "monster.")
It’s not the first time that someone has used “love” as the reason they did bad things. And it’s not always a female saying it. In Australia, James Miller allegedly picked up girls for Christopher Worrell, who raped and killed them. Miller then took care of the bodies. Seven women died before Worrell was killed in a car accident. Police arrested Miller and he led them to several burial sites. His explanation: He’d loved Worrell, so he’d done whatever Worrell had asked.
I think that anyone who has fallen into and out of love can see how it can change your perceptions. In love, you’re willing to overlook bothersome things and reframe them in benign ways; out of love, not so much.
But, we should still ask, is emotional cognitive distortion, influenced by love, a viable defense for crime? Does it amount to diminished responsibility? Even temporary insanity?
I’ve written a lot about team killers, and one study that’s often cited involved interviews with the wives and girlfriends of twenty sexual predators, some of whom were murderers. Four of the women had participated. They’re called “compliant accomplices.” Former FBI Special Agent Robert Hazelwood and Professor Janet Warren conducted the study.
The women were not mentally ill, although many had backgrounds of physical and sexual abuse. Once merged with their sadistic partners, the researchers concluded, they could not make their own decisions because "the sadistic fantasy of the male becomes an organizing principle in the behavior of the women." The males had targeted females with low self-esteem, isolated them and gradually reformed their thinking.
Criminologist Eric Hickey Hickey interviewed Carol Bundy, one of the “Sunset Strip Killers,” and found her to be “a follower” who’d willing committed murder to prove her devotion to Doug Clark. “He’d exploited her psychological trauma,” Hickey concluded. She became a murder participant and then a killer herself so that she could develop true emotional intimacy.
In another Pennsylvania case in 2013, Miranda Barbour, 19, set out to kill someone with her new husband, Elytte. She found him eager to please. Barbour placed a Craigslist ad for “companionship,” to which Troy LeFerrara responded. Elytte hid in the back seat as Miranda picked up their victim. At her signal, Elytte disabled LeFerrara with a cord around his throat while Miranda repeatedly stabbed him.
Infamous “Moors Murderer” Myra Hindley admitted to placing herself in Ian Brady’s path because she was smitten. They became a couple and she accepted his increasingly rough demands. During a picnic, Brady proposed that they kill a child. Hindley acquiesced. She lured five victims for Brady to rape and kill. She also ate lunch with him on top of their graves. Desperately in love, she thought it was preferable to do whatever Brady wanted than to lose him.
Some people accept the love excuse. Others dismiss it. When I look at the evolution of attitudes toward murdering couples, I see less tolerance today than in the past for the supposed weakness of will that accompanies emotional entanglement. The “compliant accomplice” study was a start toward appreciating the cognitive malleability of emotional need, but it relied entirely on what the women could grasp and express. Thus, it was limited.
“She was in love” needs more sophisticated study before we can explore it as a force that might obliterate moral judgment.
