Stand by Me: Kids and Killers

If your buddy shows you a body, what would YOU do?

By Dr. Katherine Ramsland

Tyler Hadley’s sentencing hearing has been running for over a week. When he was 17, he bludgeoned his parents to death with a framing hammer. His father took 39 deadly blows, his mother 36. This wasn’t on impulse. It was planned. So was the party he threw afterward. With his parents’ bloodied, battered corpses locked in the bedroom, he invited dozens of kids to his home to party like there was no tomorrow.

During the party, Hadley confessed to his best friend, Michael, what he’d done. Although Hadley could be weird, this was a stunner. Michael didn’t believe him until Tyler showed him that his parents’ cars were both parked in the driveway. Michael still didn’t believe him.

Tyler showed him the bedroom, with blood spatters and gore everywhere one looked. A white leg sticking out from under bloody sheets convinced Michael that Tyler had done it. He’d slaughtered his parents. Brutally, with malice aforethought.

According to Nathaniel Rich for Rolling Stone magazine, Michael rushed from the room. But he didn’t leave the house. He didn’t immediately call the police. He said later that Tyler had asked him to stay there until the others left. He didn’t want to, but he complied. He remained at the party for another 45 minutes. He even took a selfie on his phone with Hadley, out in the garage.

Ultimately Michael turned on his friend, but he stood by for a while, aware of a terrible crime and doing nothing.

When another party-goer learned about these events later, his comment was, “Wow. I just went to the party of a lifetime…Twenty years from now, I’ll be able to say I was there… that’s kind of cool.”

Journalist Nathaniel Rich noticed this attitude. In another article, he said, “I was amazed to learn how many kids at the party seemed to have known that Tyler’s parents were dead—and kept partying anyway.”

What is it with these kids? Are they callous? Confused?

This incident and the ones below remind me of a movie, The River’s Edge, which was based on a murder in California in 1981. Anthony Broussard, 16, raped and strangled Marcy Conrad, 14. He took her body in his truck and dumped it down a ravine. Then he bragged to his high school buddies about what he’d done. He even took people to his body dumpsite.

At least ten kids saw it, possibly more. One person tossed a stone at the corpse, according to an article later published in Time. Yet the crime went unreported for two days. When students who knew of the murder were asked why they hadn’t come forward, they said they hadn’t wanted to get into trouble.

Other kids have stood by like this, too. In 2009 in New Hampshire, four teenagers planned a home invasion. The goal was theft. They chose the home of Kimberly Cates. Group leader Steve Spader decided they should eliminate whoever was there. Christopher Gribble followed him to a bedroom while William Marks and Quinn Glover looked for things to steal.

Spader used a machete to hack Mrs. Cates to death and Gribble repeatedly stabbed her eleven-year-old daughter, Jamie. Marks stood in the doorway and watched. He did nothing to stop it. Glover put his hands over his ears to block out the thud of the machete and the victims’ screams. He, too, did nothing.

Jamie played dead, which allowed her to survive and get help. The boys were arrested the following day.

The prosecutor said that Marks initially had lied about his involvement. Just a few weeks after the crime, he talked with his father about contacting media outlets to sell his story. He’d wanted to profit from it.

A fifth co-conspirator, Autumn Savoy, helped conceal evidence and had an alibi for Gribble and Spader. In court, he apologized, admitting he had a chance to do the right thing, but hadn’t.

At his own proceeding, Glover told the judge, “Every moment that I close my eyes I see what I could have done and how I could have prevented this horror that I helped set in motion.” He recognized that he’d been a coward.

In Philadelphia in 2003, three boys and a girl participated in the fatal bludgeoning of Jason Sweeney. The girl lured him into the woods while the boys—including his best friend—attacked him with a hammer, hatchet, and rock. As he lay dying, they stood over him in a group hug. Then they took his money and went to the home of a friend.

This person, unnamed in the press, would later tell the police that he’d overheard their plans and had helped to wash out their bloody clothing. He knew what they’d done and he did nothing to report them.

As I watch The River’s Edge, and now read stories like these, I wonder what I would have done as a teenager had I been shown an unreported murder victim. My first instinct is to judge these kids harshly for their cowardice and indifference. But I’d rather try to understand what goes on in the mind of an adolescent who knows about or watches a friend commit murder.

We know about compliant accomplices—people who reluctantly participate on killing teams. The traits generally associated with them are youth, low IQ, deficient education, insecurity, and mental instability. Many have a background of abuse. Sometimes they’ve already crossed a line by committing petty crimes. They compartmentalize easily and yield to moral compromise if they need something their partner can supply.

Perhaps some of these factors figure into the reasons why some kids who know about murder just stand by. Those who’ve admitted to cowardice were not apathetic. In retrospect, they were horrified (or said they were). Some were embarrassed. A few didn’t quite know how to betray a friend.

It’s possible that the neurophysiological immaturity of the adolescent brain plays a role, although this is generally more relevant to stupidity during risk-taking behavior. Maybe it’s that adolescents tend to be self-absorbed so they’re buffered from full comprehension of what should be done.

A friend of mine, who is the mother of three sons, said to me that parents step in so often these days to decide for their kids that perhaps these kids expect someone else to make the right move. Maybe they just don’t know how to make tough decisions.

So kids, I realize that it can be difficult to break a bond, but your friend, the killer who asks for your allegiance, has already betrayed YOU. Think about it.

*     *     *

Dr. Katherine Ramsland has published 44 books and over 1,000 articles, and recently had a #1 bestseller on the Wall Street Journal’s nonfiction list. She teaches forensic psychology and criminal justice at DeSales University in Pennsylvania and offers trainings on psychological aspects of investigations. She writes a blog, “Shadow Boxing” for Psychology Today, speaks widely on serial killers and psychopaths, and is a frequent commentator on crime documentaries. She has appeared on 20/20, 48 Hours, Larry King Live, and numerous cable programs.

When Psychopaths Find Love

Pichushkin often targeted the elderly. He’d invite his victim to drink with him in a secluded area. Once they were drunk, he’d bash in their heads with a hammer. Often he’d dump them into a sewer pit. In an interview, he stated, “A life without murder is a life without food” and had described his killing career as a “perpetual orgasm.”

This is the creep that Natalya intends to marry. “I go to bed thinking about him,” she said in a TV interview in Russia, “I wake up thinking about him.”

It’s no surprise to learn that she’s survived an abusive first marriage, which had led to substance abuse. This is common to significant perceentage of women who get involved with incarcerated killers. Then she saw Pichushkin and began to correspond with him. “He became my ray of sunshine.”

And it wasn’t like he admitted remorse. “He told me in detail about the murders he committed, and how it was ‘interesting for him to turn the living into the dead.’”

For some reason, she doesn’t grasp that she’s one of these “living” that he’d probably like to kill.

So, what’s with a person like Natalya who can dismiss such egregious behavior? Can love produce that much of a cognitive distortion? You can name almost any infamous killer – Ramirez, Bundy, Gacy, Bianchi – and you’ll find a groupie bound to him, possibly in lawfully wedded bliss.

Well, maybe it’s the danger. Some women find violence exciting. With their lover safely locked up, they’re free to fantasize. Psychologist Michael Apter suggests that once something is labeled “dangerous,” it can exert a magical attraction that makes us feel alive. “Protective frames” diminish the anxiety, so we develop narratives about evildoers that include buffers of safety. Thus, we can enjoy danger and allow ourselves close. Some of the groupies have clearly spun a “protective narrative.”

For example, the Beauty and the Beast syndrome. Some women who love killers imagine getting close to a dangerous alpha-male who will probably not hurt them – but there’s always the slight chance. In fact, for women who’ve been abused, this scenario can feel so familiar they confuse it with finding a soul mate.

However, many serial killer groupies are educated and attractive. Some have money and careers, and some are already married. Quite a few are mothers, and many have worked in some field related to law enforcement or rehabilitation. Clearly, there’s something else going on than desperation, delusion, or insecurity.

Many of these women devote themselves entirely to the inmate and make significant sacrifices, sometimes sitting for hours every week to await a brief face-to-face visit in prison. They may give up jobs or families to be near their true love. A few even go deep into debt. Some have lied about the offender to try to get him a new trial or early release.

Experts who’ve taken the time to learn about women like Natalya have offered a variety of reasons why they get involved with men who kill.

Some women have “rescue fantasies,” in which they believe they can reform someone as cruel and powerful as a serial killer. They view their love for him as the magical ingredient he was lacking. Or they might find a maternal need to nurture met, as they “see” the little boy the killer once was.

Some women seek celebrity status and media exposure – even if there’s a dubious quality to it. Natalya went on TV and even dressed as a bride for photos.

In addition, some women believe they cannot find a man and since men in prison are desperately lonely, it’s an easy way to get romantically hooked up. They align themselves against the world in defense of their beloved. Thus, they gain purpose and feel loved. (Also, they don’t have to do his laundry or answer to him. There’s that.)

Whether the Bittsa Maniac can actually love anyone, Natalya included, is unclear. News reports suggest that she hasn’t actually met him. Still, this relationship has improved her outlook on life. So, for Valentine’s Day, when romantic fantasies flourish, we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.

*     *     *

Dr. Katherine Ramsland has published 44 books and over 1,000 articles, and recently had a #1 bestseller on the Wall Street Journal’s nonfiction list. She teaches forensic psychology and criminal justice at DeSales University in Pennsylvania and offers trainings on psychological aspects of investigations. She writes a blog, “Shadow Boxing” for Psychology Today, speaks widely on serial killers and psychopaths, and is a frequent commentator on crime documentaries. She has appeared on 20/20, 48 Hours, Larry King Live, and numerous cable programs.