Necrosadism: exploring the sexual component of post-mortem mutilation of homicide victims

ABSTRACT

It is only relatively recently that necrophilic behaviour has been recognised as diverse in nature, the importance of which is directly linked to correct treatment options. The distinct paraphilic disorder of necrosadism, the sexual arousal derived from the mutilation of corpses, is presented in a case here to clarify existing definitions of the disorder, describe its manifestation in cases of homicide, and explore the psychology driving the behaviour. In so doing, it is hoped that the behaviour is more succinctly defined and better understood so appropriate and tailored treatment options for the disorder can be discussed and formulated.

KEYWORDS:

• Necrosadism
• paraphilic disorder
• homicide
• necrophilia
• knife wound analysis

1. Introduction

Necrosadism is an under researched area of necrophilic behaviour and, as a result, is not only poorly understood but poorly defined. The lack of understanding and an accepted definition is despite the behaviour being first reported by Krafft-Ebing in 1886. Indeed, over a century later necrosadism has been simplistically and erroneously described, with little practical or theoretical utility, as ‘sexual contact with a dead body’ (Arrigo & Purcell, 2001, p. 10). Unfortunately, such blunt and unedifying definition has been repeated in the research literature (see for example, Purcell & Arrigo, 2006), thus perpetuating a misconception and, pivotally, impeding understanding of the behaviour. Indeed, the sources incorrectly labelling the behaviour are relatively numerous and frequent, Kumar, Rathee & Gupta, for example, incorrectly describe necrosadists as ‘people who commit murder in order to have sex with the victim’ (Kumar et al., 2019, p. 609) (if categorising such offenders, they would more accurately be labelled homicidal necrophiles (Aggrawal, 2009)). The definition of necrosadism is, in fact, contended to be relatively simple, the post-mortem mutilation of a corpse undertaken for sexual gratification. It is thus Aggrawal who has offered a definition of the behaviour that most succinctly describes necrosadism, ‘The [sexual paraphilic disorder] involves deliberate assaults on dead bodies, subjecting them to considerable indignities, and wanton mutilations’ (Aggrawal, 2009, p. 293).

The term ‘necrosadism’ is somewhat oxymoronic, for the essence of sadism is domination and degradation. According to the definition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), sadism is the gratification derived from the infliction of pain through either psychological or physical suffering. If the recipient of such behaviour is a corpse, not a living being but an object, it would logically follow that sadism cannot be present in those behaviours but, instead, they are simply acts of wanton destruction. Moreover, such perspective is reflected in the number of jurisdictions that do not recognise necrophilic acts as sexual in nature. As an example, Troyer (2008) offers the infamous ‘Grunke’ case in which three men in Wisconsin were disturbed by police as they interfered with the grave of a recently deceased female. Although they were unable to reach the body, the men admitted that they wanted to exhume the corpse so they could have intercourse with ‘her’. As such, the men were charged with, amongst property offences, attempted third degree sexual assault. At trial, however, the court dismissed the charges of attempted sexual assault finding that the relevant statute which criminalised attempted sexual assault did not criminalise necrophilic acts (a ruling upheld by the court of appeals, but since overturned by the State Supreme Court¹). As the victim was deceased ‘she’ was no longer a person but was instead human remains. So, even if the men had succeeded in reaching the body and removing it, they could only have been charged with property theft as the corpse ‘belonged’ to her parents, the next of kin (Troyer, 2008).

Recognising the contradiction of the term ‘necrosadism’ Mellor (2016) has attempted to rename the behaviour as necromutilophilia. However, whilst the rationale for changing the name is sound, the behaviour remains consistently labelled necrosadism in the majority of the research literature (see for example, Chan & Li, 2019; Hervey et al., 2016; Hickey, 2018; Meloy, 2018; Pettigrew, 2021). As such, although the oxymoronic nature of the term ‘necrosadism’ is apparent, that is the term that persists.

2. Literature

First described in the late nineteenth century by Krafft-Ebing in his seminal work ‘Psychopathia Sexualis’, necrosadism, the infliction of post-mortem mutilation with a sexual motivation, is a behaviour that has largely escaped singular scrutiny and has, instead, been discussed as a corollary to homicide or as a permutation of necrophilia more generally (see for example, Boureghda et al., 2011). Indeed, although the scholarly attention to post homicide behaviours has increased in recent years, body disposal (see for example, Reale & Beauregard, 2019; Sea & Beauregard, 2018); posing of corpses (see for example, Geberth, 2010; Keppel & Birnes, 2009); crime scene staging (see for example, Ferguson & Petherick, 2014); foreign object insertion (see for example, Koeppel et al., 2018) and sexual interference/necrophilia (see for example, Chopin & Beauregard, 2021), post-mortem mutilation has only received marginal attention and without an explicit focus on sexual gratification. In their study of mutilation in Korean homicide, for example, Sea and Beauregard (2019) observed mutilating behaviours in 5.4% of their sample of 1200 cases. However, in that research mutilation was broadly defined and six of the 12 research variables pertained to the method of mutilation: foreign object insertion; setting fire to the corpse (particularly the face and fingers); scattering a foreign object over the body (such as sulfuric or hydrochloric acid); necrophilic rape; and cutting into pieces. It is unclear, however, how post-mortem stabbing wounds were recorded in the study and no reference is made to any sexual motivation for their infliction.

Post homicide behaviours are important areas of analysis in two different but connected ways: offender psychology and law enforcement. Whilst an offender’s modus operandi (MO) may change as he/she adapts according to experience, their crime scene signature remains relatively unchanged. In reference to sexual homicide, Geberth describes the crime scene signature as,

… a unique and integral part of the offender’s behaviour, which refers to the psychodynamics of the event. The psychodynamics are the mental and emotional processes underlying human behaviour and its motivations … The victim is treated as a prop to be used to fulfil their violent sexual fantasies as they progress from victim to victim leaving their imprint at the scenes. (Geberth, 2015, p. 595)

When an offender poses a homicide victim, inserts foreign objects into them, or, as in the case described here, mutilates their corpse, they are acting out a sexual fantasy in which the victim is the central prop (Geberth, 2015). Moreover, it is not uncommon for multiple post homicide behaviours to be exhibited by one offender who may, for example, engage in foreign object insertion in addition to posing the victim (Keppel, 1995).

The recent scholarly interest in sexual homicide offenders has coincided and intertwined with interest in the development and enactment of paraphilic disorders and behaviours, with a particular emphasis on necrophilia and its various forms (see for example, Aggrawal, 2009; Stein et al., 2010; Chopin & Beauregard, 2021; Heasman & Jones, 2006). A paraphilia is defined as,

… recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving i) non-human objects, ii) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or iii) children or other non-consenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months (McManus et al., 2013, p. 6)

Recent interest has, undoubtedly, been encouraged by the increased recognition that the correct identification and treatment of paraphilic disorders and behaviours is essential to reduce future offending (Wakeling et al., 2021). Moreover, not only is the risk of recidivism reduced by understanding of paraphilias but so too is the risk of harm by their enactment. Indeed, there is a body of research which indicates that paraphilic behaviours can escalate without appropriate intervention (see for example, Arrigo & Purcell, 2001; McNally & Fremouw, 2014; Seligman & Hardenburg, 2000). Yet, of the burgeoning interest in post crime behaviours of sexual homicide offenders generally, and those exhibiting paraphilic behaviour specifically, the explicit focus upon male on male offending has largely been missed.

The sexual homicide of men, broadly, has received only meagre scholarly attention. To date, what literature there is largely focuses upon classifications of offender (see for example, Beauregard & Proulx, 2007; Geberth, 1996), a focus which is only rarely punctuated by a focus on crime scene behaviours (see for example, Bartholomew et al., 1978; Bell & Vila, 1996). As well as illuminating necrosadistic behaviour and motivation generally, the research presented here attempts to fill that knowledge gap and support existing studies on male on male sexual homicide.

3. Method

Given the rarity of necrosadistic behaviour, the case study approach was necessitated. Yert, as Hickey (2006) notes, case studies of crime scenes are particularly useful in demonstrating the interconnectedness and pervasiveness of paraphilic behaviours to violent crime. Indeed, this has become the main method for the analysis of unusual or extreme paraphilic behaviours and disorders (see for example, Bağın & Hocaoğlu, 2017 (telephone scatalogia); Beck & Frohberg, 2005 (coprophagia); Lauerma, 2016 (somnophilia); Yasir Arafat et al., 2020 (urophilia).

To facilitate this research access was granted to a wide range of case materials: police interviews; scene of crime reports; autopsy reports; crime scene photographs; witness statements; the trial judge’s summation; and an appeal ruling given by the European Court of Human Rights. The main source of information was the several hours of interviewing conducted during the criminal investigation which was cross referenced to the report of the attendant pathologist. A thematic analysis was undertaken to identify key themes in the offender’s account, resulting in the identification of knives; sexual dominance; and post-mortem crime scene behaviours, as the three recurring and central themes in the offender’s narrative. Using all other materials, through a process of triangulation, the veracity of the offender’s account could be better assured.

4. Case analysis

The offender observed in this case was a single white male who was 49 years of age when he committed the four homicides for which he was subsequently convicted. Although he was single and lived alone he did enjoy a number of sexual relationships with men, some which persisted for a number of years. Within those sexual relationships he was able to indulge in bondage, discipline, sadism, masochistic (BDSM) activity in which he would always be the dominant partner. Indeed, his sexual arousal was inextricably linked to the subjugation and humiliation of his sexual partners. This behaviour, a display of dominance over others, was also exercised in the form of unprovoked and violent assaults on unsuspecting victims over a two decade period. The offender would select a man at random to attack, either with a knife or wooden truncheon, and then subject him to verbal and physical humiliation. It was out of that behavioural pattern that four homicides were perpetrated.

Figure 1. victim 1.

The first victim was approached at night, at his home, which was situated in a remote area. When the offender arrived at the property his presence activated security lights which drew the victim outside into the courtyard driveway. After a verbal exchange, the offender lunged at the victim with a knife and stabbed him in a frenzied manner. In total, the victim received 27 different stabbing wounds, 14 to the front of the body and 13 to the back. Some wounds were inflicted post-mortem, as noted by the attending physician,

There was a small dribble of blood from the left buttock wound but not from the right. On lifting his jumper and jacket there appeared to be multiple stab wounds similar to those on the buttock, varying between approximately 10 and 20 mm in length, again compatible with a double edged blade. There appeared to have been no bleeding from these wounds … multiple stab wounds had been inflicted after death (Report of the Deputy Divisional Police Surgeon).

In such a frenzied attack it is conceivable that the offender had proceeded to stab the victim, post-mortem, whilst unaware that the victim had already succumbed to previous stabbing wounds. As such, during the police interview, after his arrest, detectives sought to establish the offender’s cognisance of the exact point of the victim’s death. The offender confirmed that he knew the victim was dead when he pulled down the victim’s underwear, stabbed his buttocks, and posed the body (Figure 1).

Figure 2. victim 2.

Post-mortem analysis of the second victim was rendered problematic by virtue of the amount of time taken to discover the corpse (Figure 2). Upon its recovery the body displayed significant purification and decay. Indeed, both the right arm and head were missing, although there is no indication that the offender had amputated body parts but, rather, crime scene evidence suggests that they were removed by carnivorous wildlife. As a result of the decomposition, the intent of the offender in this instance relies largely upon his own testimony.

When interviewed by detectives, the offender admitted to a necrosadistic desire to inflict post-mortem stabbing wounds to the body of the victim,

Detective:

You’d mentioned that you went back to look for him?

Offender:

Yes, the following night … [although unable to find the body] I might well have mutilated the body further.

Detective:

Yeah, this was …

Offender:

The second night.

Detective:

Had you found him?

Offender:

I might well have mutilated the body further.

Detective:

Did you find him?

Offender:

No.

Detective:

Ok, so you feel that when you went back to recover [your lost] keys you might have …

Offender:

I might have mutilated it further.

Figure 3. Victim 3.

The third victim was found in a supine position with his underpants pulled down; he had been stabbed a total of 11 times (Figure 3). Located between the upper thigh and chest, knife wounds were predominantly inflicted to the front of the body, including at the base of the penis.

As with the first victim, the offender admitted to intentionally inflicting post-mortem stab wounds and, as with the second victim, the offender returned to the body under the pretence of retrieving possibly incriminating evidence, but with the intended purpose of inflicting further mutilating knife wounds after death. It was on returning to the corpse that the penis of the victim was stabbed.

Figure 4. victim 4.

As with the previous victim, the body of the final victim was found in a supine position. The victim was found on a Pebble Beach; he was clothed but the zip fly of his trousers was open and his penis was exposed. The homicide occurred at a cruising spot where gay men would look for anonymous sexual encounters.

Offender: I followed him down [to the shoreline] and when I got there he’d got his trousers round his ankles playing with himself. I walked all round him, looked at him … . I just took the knife out and stabbed him.

The pathology report detailed, as well as defence wounds to the hands, six stabbing wounds to the victim, five to the front and one to the back (Figure 4). Although the number of stab wounds inflicted were less than with previous victims, their severity was greater, one wound was inflicted to a depth of 7.5 inches and another left the small intestine exposed through the entry point of the knife. Given the severity of the wounds inflicted it is possible that the offender knew at least some injuries were inflicted after death. However, unlike previous victims, the offender did not admit to returning to the body with the intention of inflicting further knife wounds.

5. Discussion

The four victims described in this case were all murdered within a period of four months. Whilst the offender’s modus operandi was varied, particularly in where and how he would approach victims, the manner of killing remained constant; all were stabbed to death. The first victim was purposefully stabbed in the buttocks and left posed so that evidence of those wounds would be the first thing seen when the body was found. The wounds were inflicted after death and the offender admits to knowing the victim was deceased when he inflicted them. The offender, in police interviews, admits to returning to the scene of the second homicide and searching for the body with the intention of mutilating it. Whilst unsuccessful in finding the body, he was able to do so with the third victim and in that instance he stabbed the man’s penis post-mortem. Whilst the offender did not return to the body of the fourth victim the injuries inflicted, in that instance, were of such severity that one or more of the six stabbing wounds had to be inflicted when the victim was dying or already dead.

Behavioural evidence in the homicides is suggestive of piquerism. The offender was sexually aroused by the infliction of knife wounds, as noted in a psychiatric report completed after his conviction,

Although he described himself as never engaging in sexual activity with these victims he became sexually aroused during the course of the assaults and would subsequently engage in homosexual activity with a willing partner or masturbate, elaborating in fantasy and reinforcing by the excitement of his masturbation his violent fantasies.

There is, in addition to the presence of piquerism, a necrosadistic motivation that can be discerned in this case. Regarding at least three of the four victims, the offender desired, specifically, to inflict post-mortem stab wounds and, when he could find the body, was successful in doing so.

It is the time factor that confirms the necrosadistic impulse, between the initial attack and the further infliction of wounds. An offender may stab, slash or mutilate a victim during the homicide event and some of those wounds may be inflicted post-mortem but that, however, is not necessarily indicative of necrosadism. The necrosadistic behaviour in this case is confirmed by the time lapse between death and the infliction of post-mortem wounds; the offender specifically wanted to return to his victims after several hours to inflict further wounds to their corpses. So, whilst there is evidence of a piquerist impulse, evident in the infliction and variation of ante-mortem wounds, it is the certainty that the victim was dead that provides evidence for necrosadism. As such, it is reasonable to claim comorbidity or overlap between the sexual paraphilic disorders of piquerism and necrosadism in this case. They are, however, clearly demarcated by the knowledge of the victim being alive or dead. However, they do share the same underlying psychodynamics; the knife acts as a substitute for the penis (Keppel & Birnes, 2009). That is to say, a strong indicator of piquerism and/or necrosadism, aside from the number or location of stabbing and cutting wounds, often targeting sexual areas, as evidenced here in the stabbing of the buttocks and penis, is the lack of an overt sexual attack (Geberth, 2010). Indeed, it is one of the points on which Keppel et al. (2005) assert Jack the Ripper as a piquerist. In such cases, the knife is a sexualised weapon, penetrating the victim and resulting in sexual gratification for the offender.

In their seminal work Püschel and Koops (1987) assert four general motivations for mutilation: defensive; aggressive; offensive; and necromaniac. Defensive mutilation is carried out to prevent identification or dispose of a body. Aggressive mutilation refers to those homicides that are borne of rage and post-mortem mutilation is a behaviour originating from that same emotion. Offensive mutilation can originate in necrophilic desire or a sexual urge to inflict pain where mutilation may occur upon a living person and continue after death. Necromaniac mutilation is carried out on an already dead body and can occur in instances where the cause of death was not homicide. The offender presented in this case would seem to exhibit behaviours that are a combination of offensive and necromaniac mutilation. With some victims the killing and post-mortem mutilation would occur in a single event, in others the offender would return to a body some time after death with the intention of inflicting further stabbing and mutilating wounds.

In their study of necrophilic behaviours in sexual homicide Chopin and Beauregard (2021) include the mutilation of genitals as a variable in their classification of offenders. Ultimately, they found evidence for four offender types: opportunistic; experimental; preferential; and sadistic. Although to differing degrees, mutilation of victims’ genitals was found in each category. The behaviour was least observed in the opportunistic category in which most offenders had consumed alcohol prior to the homicide which was prefaced by a home invasion robbery. At a slightly higher rate of mutilation were experimental offenders. These offenders were usually in a relationship, used alcohol or drugs prior to the crime and assaulted only female victims. In addition, they were more likely to vaginally and anally penetrate the victim as well as insert foreign objects into the corpse. In another slight increase of frequency in mutilation, the preferential offenders were more likely to report sexual dysfunctions and struggle to achieve normal social and sexual relationships. Some offenders in this group tried to have ante-mortem sexual interaction with their victims and in those cases where there was no such attempt the aim of the offender was to obtain a corpse for sexual purposes. The highest rate of mutilation incidence was found in the sadistic offender category. Such offenders were often well socialised and in a relationship. Crime scene behaviours frequently included the use of restraints; ante-mortem sexual acts; acts of torture; and strangulation or asphyxiation as the dominant methods of killing. However, the offender presented in this case does not wholly fit into any of the categories proposed by Chopin and Beauregard. Yet, as mutilation was recorded in each offender category they offer it is unsurprising that the offender in this case cannot be so easily categorised.

To understand the necrosadistic impulse in this specific case, it is important to note the self image of the offender as a homosexual man. That self conception is evident when he tells detectives,

This business I think all boils down to being a dominant gay. I never actually had intercourse with any of them. I never tried that really … I am the boss in all sense[s],

I am the boss of the business, I’m the one who’s in charge, you do what I do, I say you do, or you do it how you do it sort of thing. I’m the boss. I don’t stand for misbehaviour with staff, and certainly in the sexual world I’m very much the dominant side of things.

The offender freely admits that in consensual sexual relationships, as well as in the sexually motivated assaults he perpetrated which prefaced the four homicides, he enjoyed a feeling of power and dominance. Indeed, this is a central finding in the psychiatric report completed upon conviction. It is the sexual gratification from a feeling of superiority and dominance that motivated his behaviour and not, as the psychiatrist noted, any mental disorder or abnormality of mind,

He enjoyed domination and the feeling of power associated with ritual humiliation and assault of others when under stress. This is associated with sexual arousal and subsequent sexual relief. He also relieved tension through killing. The killings were anticipated and planned. He went deliberately equipped to kill. In my view, however, although frightening and very unusual I do not consider that these aspects of his personality amount to an abnormality of mind.

However, enjoyment and sexual gratification from the subjective feeling of superiority and dominance do not necessarily wholly explain a necrosadistic impulse. The enjoyment of a power imbalance, in this case, must be explained with reference to an incident of sexual abuse the offender was subjected to as a child. This incident is also referenced in the post conviction psychiatric report,

[The offender] is by inclination homosexual. He recalled that he was sexually abused when he was 11 by a man. He said that he was fondled and that he quite enjoyed the experience. This had occurred whilst he was working in a fairground. Throughout his teens he had homosexual fantasies and he had no sexual relationships until he was about 30. From his early 20ʹs [he] told me that he would go out under cover of darkness and assault men who were usually drunk. He would threaten them, remove their clothing and humiliate them by making sexual threats to degrade them. Sometimes he would grab their penises and pull them to hurt them … The feeling of power that he experienced during these episodes led to a feeling of sexual arousal and erection of his penis. In between episodes however he would masturbate whilst fantasising and developing both the memories and new fantasies of degradation.

Although the offender claims to have enjoyed the abuse he suffered, it is telling that, although he had always been cognisant of his homosexual orientation, he did not engage in any consensual homosexual activity with another man until he was 30 years old. It is also notable, in that regard, that it was not until he was 21 years old that homosexual activity was even legalised in the United Kingdom.² The offender grew up in a rural area characterised by legal and social disapproval of homosexuality and was surrounded by negative attitudes towards that part of his identity. Even a decade after the passage of legalisation permitting homosexual activity, opinion polls conducted during the 1970s persistently recorded a 70% negative attitude amongst the general public towards homosexuals (De Boer, 1978). It is also important to note that the offender’s claim of his sexual abuse being a positive experience is after the commission of these homicides and more than twenty sexual assaults which preceded them. It is contended that the combination of his sexual victimisation and the constraints on the free expression of his homosexuality combined to form a contempt for homosexuality and, particularly, homosexual men. It is also significant that necrosadistic injuries inflicted upon victims targeted sexual areas; all victims were found with sexual areas exposed; and the final victim, who exposed himself to, and masturbated in front of the offender, suffered the most severe of all knife wounds inflicted during the series of homicides. Sexual gratification from dominance and the pleasure taken from the humiliation of homosexual men was exacerbated by the infliction of post-mortem knife wounds, the degradation inflicted, and power exerted after the homicide event. Notably, from each victim a ‘trophy’ was taken, a piece of clothing, a wallet, or a watch for example, and the offender was able to relive the memory of his activities long after their commission. As such, the feeling of dominance over, and destruction of his victims could be recalled to support masturbatory activity and the development of, as the attending psychiatrist noted after his conviction, new fantasies of degradation, including those that were necrosadistic in nature.

6. Conclusion

As a specific subcategory of necrophilia and necrophilic behaviours, necrosadism is a particularly under-researched condition. As a case study, the results here can only be suggestive and not necessarily representative of necrosadism more generally. It is telling, however, that such a paraphilic disorder is not necessarily the product or feature of an abnormality of mind.

Future research which, given the statistical rarity of even necrophilia more generally, will likely be individual case studies in nature, should focus upon the gratification yielded from such behaviour and then map that gratification upon the offender’s sexual history and their perception of self, as well as desired love objects.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

No funding was awarded for this research. No financial benefit has resulted from this research.

Notes

1. State v. Grunke, 752 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. 2008).

2. Legalisation of homosexual acts between two men aged twenty one and above was legalised under the Sexual Offences Act 1967.