Domestic estrangement and familicide: nothing is as it seems
| Published date | 08 February 2013 |
| Date | 08 February 2013 |
| Pages | 5-20 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14636641311299040 |
| Author | Corine de Ruiter |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Public policy & environmental management,Sociology |
Invited paper
Domestic estrangement and familicide:
nothing is as it seems
Corine de Ruiter
Abstract
Purpose – Mental health evaluation in criminal cases is a complex and challenging task. The purpose of
thispaper is to highlight the value of semi-structured interviews for diagnosis, the use of literature review to
increase understanding of a case, and the importance of looking ‘‘beyond’’ the criminal offence itself.
Design/methodology/approach – The author conducted a forensic mental health assessment of a man
who killed his wife and two young daughters. The case is presented in the order in which information
reached the psychologist, so her clinical reasoning becomesapparent. Findings from the police file are
integrated with psychological test results and a literature review on familicide and uxoricide.
Findings – The case analysis illustrates the perpetrator fits a personality profile found in empirical
research on male spousal killers, who often suffer from dependent, avoidant and over-controlled
personality pathology. Four mental health experts who previously reported on this case had not agreed
on a diagnosis. Using a more structured approach to assessment, the current analysis sheds newlight
on the relationship between mental disorder and offence.
Practical implications – The use of semi-structured interviews for psychiatric diagnosis increases
diagnostic reliability. Since there is so much at stake for the assessed in a criminal investigation, the
importance of reliability and accuracy of diagnosis cannot be overestimated. Forensic mental health
experts serve the court best by integrating findings from structured assessment instruments, file
information and empirical research on comparable offender types.
Originality/value – This paper can be useful for teaching purposes and provides guidance to both
novice and experienced forensic experts.
Keywords Mental health, Forensic practice, Psychology, Murder, Forensic assessment, Uxoricide,
Familicide, Personality disorder
Paper type Case study
There are cases in forensic psychological practice that stay in your mind long after you have
submitted your mental health report and the court has given its final verdict. The case I present in
here is one of them. It alerted me to a number of very important issues in forensic psychological
assessment. First and foremost is the need to keep a neutral, objective stance, and to not be led
astray by the nature of the crime. Seemingly ‘‘normal’’, law-abiding individuals do commit
heinous crimes. This point is particularly relevant if there have already appeared numerous
media reports which have painted a particular portrait of the suspect’s psyche. Prejudice and
cognitive bias arealw aysat bay (Miller, 2004). Second, this case was evaluated by many different
mental health experts, who could not agree on a diagnosis. This could be avoided by employing
semi-structured interviews for DSM Axis I and II diagnoses, as suggested by differentscholars i n
the field (Heilbrun et al., 2008; Slobogin, 2007). And finally,the case illustrates that integration of
empirical evidence with the findings from forensic psychological assessment of the individual
increasesour understanding of the perpetrator and his offence. This ultimately resulted in helping
the offender gain insight into his offending behavior and the acceptance of his verdict.
DOI 10.1108/14636641311299040 VOL. 15 NO. 1 2013, pp. 5-20, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
PAGE 5
Corine de Ruiter is based at
the Department of
Clinical Psychological
Science, Maastricht
University, Maastricht,
The Netherlands.
The author gratefully
acknowledges the consent for
publication Mr Richard H. gave
for the use of his case,
including the test results and
the information provided by his
parents, to assist in the
advancement of forensic
mental health assessment.
Media reports on ‘‘The Zoetermeer Case’ ’
The Dutch national evening news on Monday April 11, 2005 reported a wife and her
two daughters were missing from their middle class home in the suburb of Zoetermeer, not
far from The Hague. The wife was a kindergarten teacher who purportedly had called in sick
that Monday. The daughters (five and three years old) had not appeared at their
elementary school on Monday morning. Their father Richard H. a 33-year-old computer
programmer, reports the three as missing at the local police station that Monday evening.
He tells the police he has no idea why his wife would run away because ‘‘I can assure you our
relationship is good’’ (p. 15, police file, interrogation notes of April 16, 2005).
The police investigation starts with the checking of Richard’s claims that he had spent the
morning of Saturday April 9 with his family at the Tropicana swimming pool in Rotterdam.
However,Richard nor his wife and children are seen on video footage entering the swimming
pool. In the subsequent weeks, reports on the ‘‘disappearance’’ trickled down in the media,
and what started as a tale of a sorrowful husband who claimed his family was kidnapped,
ended in a story that included marital estrangement, an extra-marital affair with a Polish
girlfriend and the brutal killing of the wife and daughters at the hands of their husband and
father. Richard is charged with murder/manslaughter on Thursday April 21. He confesses
having killed his wife and children in the night from Wednesday April 6 to Thursday April 7.
Upon directions from Richard, police dig up the three corpses on Friday April 22 in a forest in
the Southern province of North-Brabant, about 75 miles from the family home. The girls’
favorite stuffed animal was buried beside them. How could a loving father, as colleagues and
friends had known Richard, suddenly have turned into a seemingly cold-blooded murderer?
Had they missed something during all those years of their acquaintance with him?
Richard was put on trial before the regional criminal court of the city of The Hague.
Twomental health exper ts, a psychologist (V.) and a psychiatrist (M.), were appointed by the
court to conduct an assessment of criminal responsibility and future violence risk, including
an advice on the possible need for psychiatric treatment to diminish the latter risk, if present.
The media’s reports on the contents of these assessment reports were rather sketchy,
but what they did make clear was that the two experts did not agree on Richard’s diagnosis.
The psychiatrist saw nothing mentally wrong with Richard and considered him criminally
responsible. However, the psychologist classified Richard with a personality disorder not
otherwise specified, with borderline and dependent features, and considered him as having
diminished criminal responsibility. This left the court with two opposing expert opinions,
which led to a decision to admit Richard to the Psychiatric Observation Clinic (POC) of the
Department of Justice.
The POC is a specialremand prison, where suspects canbe held for a period of seven weeks
with the goal of performing a thorough mental health evaluation, including personality,
neuropsychological, neurological (EEG, MRI) assessments. Suspects are housed in small
livinggroups where they areobserved by group workers.They attend sports and work activities
inside the POC. A social worker from the POC conducts a social network investigation,
including interviews with family members, friends, colleagues, former co-workers, etc.
The social worker also collects relevant collateral information, including school records,
records from possible previous mental health contacts,medical records. Police and criminal
records are already available as part of the current criminal file. The outcome of the POC
evaluation wassomewhat equivocal. According to the evaluatingteam, Richard was suffering
from a defective development of the personality. However, this could not be classified as
a personality disorder, as the symptoms were not severeenough according to the team.
All experts, the first two and the ones from the POC, were heard at the criminal court in
The Hague. Prosecution officer Belie
¨n demanded a life sentence for Richard, because
according to him, Richard had acted out of pure self-interest, and had killed his wife and
children in a planned, premeditated manner in order to be able to receive his Polish girlfriend
at his home. The defense pleaded to a time-limited prison sentence with or without a
mandated treatment order on the basis of psychologist V.’s opinion who stated Richard was
suffering from serious personality pathology, including lack of ego strength and problem
PAGE 6
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2013
To continue reading
Request your trial