European Journal of Academic Essays 2(7): 45-55, 2015 ISSN (online): 2183-1904 ISSN (print): 2183-3818

www.euroessays.org

Nine Types of Childhood Environment That

Actually Produced Mass Murderers Based on the

Information in Lay Literature and on the Internet <Kenji Abe>

Department of Biomedical Engineering, Toin University of Yokohama.

1614 Kurogane, Aoba, Yokohama 225-8503, JAPAN

[email protected]

Abstract: Mass murderers have received relatively little academic interest compared with serial murderers. Although a solid

basis set for understanding mass murderers already exists, there seem to be certain inconsistencies in the understanding of the

environmental backgrounds of mass murderers, especially from the viewpoint of the presence or absence of abuse, bullying,

and isolation. This study examines the environmental backgrounds of 28 mass murderers to see if there are some patterns that

appear repeatedly. In particular, this study focuses on clarifying whether these patterns are neglect-oriented, abuse-oriented,

or both and whether various factors are of equal importance in creating mass murderers. This preliminary research

intentionally used lay literatures on true crimes and Internet-based information that are normally overlooked in academic

research.

Keywords: etiology of mass murder, childhood backgrounds, family environment, environmental factors, neglect, pattern

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction Mass murderers have received relatively little scholarly

interest compared with serial murderers [1]. Fox and Levin

suggest that this could be because mass murderers are either

found dead at the crime scene or ready to surrender after

their mission, their crimes lack sexual/sadistic

characteristics, and they do not cause the same degree of

anxiety or media sensation as serial killers due to their short

acting period [2]. Nonetheless, they are of great interest to

behavioral scientists and mental health professionals [3],

and there is already a solid basis set for understanding mass

murderers.

Mass murder is defined as the slaughter of four or more

victims by one or a few assailants within a single event,

lasting for a few minutes to several hours [4]. Mass

murderers have a clear-cut motive most of the time, which

is often revenge for what the victims have done or represent

[5], [6]. According to Bowers et al. [3], some of their traits

are antisocial personality, narcissism, oversensitivity,

rigidity, obsession, self-righteousness, grandiosity, and

impulsivity. For mass murderers, every day is a constant

battle with surrounding influences and their own negative

thoughts. Mullen coined the term autogenic massacre to

describe the actions of those who “indiscriminately kill

people in pursuit of a highly personal agenda arising from

European Journal of Academic Essays 2(7): 45-55, 2015

46

their own specific social situation and psychopathology” [7,

p. 311]. In 1986, Dietz grouped mass murderers into three

categories [8]. The head of the family who murders his

entire family out of jealousy, revenge, or loyalty is a family

annihilator. A pseudocommando is the type who takes

anger out on society to draw attention to himself or to teach

society a lesson. A set-and-run killer bombs buildings or

vehicles, sets fires, or tampers with foods or products,

escaping before the murder actually takes place [8]. In place

of the set-and-run killer categorized by Dietz, Holmes and

Holmes added the disgruntled employee, someone who

takes revenge on his former work-place to right a perceived

injustice [9].

2. Research questions However, despite these basic understandings, there seem to

be certain inconsistencies in the understanding of the

environmental backgrounds of mass murderers, which seem

to need clarification. Levin and Madfis argue that many

school shooters had experienced chronic strain for years at

home and were quite hostile toward their parents and other

members of their family [10]. They claim that almost half

of the school shooter sample in their study came from

homes wrought with conflict. Harper and Voigt and Fox and

Levin also seem to agree that parental abuse is a part of the

family backgrounds of homicide-suicide subjects [11], [5].

On the contrary, Kimmel and Mahler claim that almost all

the adolescent shooters came from intact and relatively

stable families, with no history of child abuse [12]. Others

point out that social isolation and bullying experiences are

key factors in the development of the mass murder

personality. Knoll asserts that pseudocommandos were

bullied or isolated as children, turning into loners who felt

despair over being socially excluded [13], [14]. Ferguson,

Coulson, and Barnett also describe the popular image of a

school shooter as a socially inept loner experiencing

constant bullying [15]. Mullen seems to support this

position, characterizing offenders as: “(i) male, (ii) under 40

years of age, (iii) a social isolate, (iv)unemployed or

marginal work, (v) bullied and/or isolated as a child, (vi)

fascinated with weapons, and (vii) a collector of guns” [7, p.

319]. Based on their view that mass murderers are from

abusive family backgrounds, Levin and Madfis further

hypothesized five stages by which school shooters develop

[10]. First, the subject experiences long-term negative

experiences at home, school, work, or in his neighborhood

early in life or in adolescence (chronic strain). This leads to

the subject’s lack of bonds with family and society, and he

is less restricted by conventional standards of behavior

(uncontrolled strain). A particularly devastating short-term

event then occurs, which triggers the desire to carry out a

murderous act (acute strain). After this, the subject actually

starts planning his actions. Finally, he acts out his school

massacre. Levin and Madfis called this whole

developmental process cumulative strain, in which each

stage builds on the previous stages. Although their model

was originally designed to describe school massacres, Levin

and Madfis indicate the possibility of extending this process

to mass murders in general, comparing each stage with the

corresponding stage in the development of adult mass

murders. They characterize school massacres “as one

particular subset of the mass murder phenomenon” [10, p.

1229].

Thus, regarding what happens at the chronic strain stage,

there are stances which assert abuse, no abuse, and bullying

and isolation. However, these inconsistencies are

significant; neglect, physical abuse, and psychological

abuse each have a different psychological effect on a child’s

development. Although physical abuse produces aggression

toward others, psychological attacks and criticism by

parents appear to be specifically associated with low

self-evaluation [16, pp. 360–361]. Neglect, on the other

hand, is associated with more severe cognitive and

academic deficits, social withdrawal and limited peer

acceptance, and internalization of problems than physical

abuse [17, p. 690]. Thus, it seems necessary to look into the

details of mass murderers’ environmental backgrounds to

clarify what exactly caused their chronic strain, including

whether the chronic, acute, and uncontrolled strains are

indeed of equal importance in generating mass murders,

which Levin and Madfis seem to imply.

European Journal of Academic Essays 2(7): 45-55, 2015

47

3. Data source

Unlike serial murders, there are official data sources

available for mass murders. However, they are mainly used

to assess prevalence and patterns, such as offender age, race,

sex, weapon use, and the nature of the victim/offender

relationship [2]. These do not necessarily cover offenders’

upbringings. Thus, it is highly difficult to obtain official

records of the detailed personal backgrounds of a wide

range of mass murderers. Family problems are also not

directly perceptible by traditional measures [10].

In general, lay literatures and the internet have been

considered unreliable and thus inappropriate sources of

information for academic research, and as such, these

sources have never been turned to. The authors of these

sources often tend to emphasize shocking details to attract a

larger number of readers. In addition, their sources are often

suspicious, and their factuality is not fully confirmed.

However, despite the lower credibility of these source, the

information they offer is also obtained through some level

of research conducted by the authors and could include

some accurate information. Thus, if a wide range of such

information is gathered and compared to discover

commonalities, there is a possibility that untruthful

information could be discovered and eliminated, leaving

only limited true information. Considering the current

official tendency to largely ignore mass murderers’

backgrounds, such research could serve as pilot research,

which could inspire further research on this subject.

Furthermore, in this age of information, information from

lay literatures and the web cannot simply be ignored. Thus,

in this research, we made the very first attempt to utilize lay

literatures and on-line information as the sources to look

into mass murderers’ backgrounds. At the least, this

research could reveal the patterns of what authors who have

a strong interest in this field consider important to the cause

of mass murders, which influence the formation of public

views on this subject. Because mass murder develops

unintentionally, often due to environmental factors beyond

control, and because a strong body of research on which

this research could build is absent, it was also considered

more desirable to—as much as possible—avoid any special

conditions in the selecting process of subjects.

4. Methodology

In this study, the environmental backgrounds of 28 mass

murderers were examined to see if there are some patterns

that appear repeatedly. We particularly focused on

clarifying the types of chronic strains, specifically whether

they are neglect-oriented or abuse-oriented or both, and

whether the chronic, acute, and uncontrolled strains are of

equal importance in generating mass murders. The

information used in this preliminary research was mainly

derived from lay literatures on true crimes and internet sites

such as Murderpedia, Crime Library on truTV, Wikipedia,

radford.edu, YouTube, and so forth, which contain a great

deal of information from sources directly connected to the

subjects. The subject was included as long as ample

information was available from either of the two types of

sources to help clarify the above questions. As a result,

most of the cases included turned out to be those that were

once most extensively reported on by the media. Because

this research was qualitative, we avoided examining too

many cases, for this might hinder a careful examination of

each case. At the same time, too few cases would not

produce the credible common patterns we discussed.

Considering the limited availability of information on mass

murderers compared to that available for serial killers [1],

we initially set the number of the cases that we would

examine at around 30. (All the lay literatures referred to are

listed after the references.)

Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the

collected data. Because this research was preliminary in

nature, specific assumptions were not set in advance, as in

deductive qualitative analysis [18]-[20]. We first extracted

from the sources all the information pertaining to mass

murderer subjects’ childhood backgrounds. First, the

outstanding features that characterize the backgrounds of

half of the cases were underlined. They were condensed by

European Journal of Academic Essays 2(7): 45-55, 2015

48

deleting all unnecessary words and paraphrased into a short

form. These short forms were transcribed on a coded sheet,

and common categories were generated. These categories

were then checked with the remaining half of the cases and

revised, when necessary, to assure inter-coder consistency.

Finally, the one category that best represents the

environmental background of each case was decided by

comparing it with similar cases. Although each case

actually involves multiple factors, the subject was placed

under this one category.

5. Results

The results are shown in the tables below:

Table 1 Nine Types of Environmental Backgrounds That Produced Mass Murderers

Type Subjects under Category

Type 1a

Left alone unattended due to parental unconcern/financial

reason/self-interest

Thomas Hamilton, Ronald Simmons,

Joseph Wesbecker, James Huberty

Type 2a

Intentionally left out of the family/scapegoated

One Goh, James Ruppert, Eric Borel,

Andrew Kohoe

Type 3b

Postnatal neglect/no skin contact due to peculiar

personality/mental disorder of mother

Martin Bryant, Anders Breivik,

Howard Unruh, Adam Lanza, Dylan

Klebold

Type 4

No normal communications between parents due to their cold

relationship/personalities

James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho

Type 5c

Highly rigid parent(s)

Baruch Goldstein, Nidal Hasan

Type 6d

Overprotective mother

Michael Ryan

Type 7e

Cannot express true feelings due to insecure/demanding family

condition

Timothy McVeigh, Charles Whitman,

Julian Knight, Jacob Roberts, Mark

Lepine, George Hennard, Eric Harris

Type 8f

Highly intoxicated secondary psychopath

Richard Speck, George Banks

Type 9

Drug-induced schizophrenia

Jared Loughner

European Journal of Academic Essays 2(7): 45-55, 2015

49

Note. aThe difference between type 1 and type 2 is whether there is malicious intention by parent(s)/parental figure(s). bIn

type 3, the subjects were deprived of basic care after birth. This type was separated from other types of neglect that occur

after the neonatal stage due to its even greater damage [21], [22]. cType 5 killers often take on religious/philosophical

outlooks. However, it is the parent’s inflexible personality that contributes to the violent urges, and not the religious or

philosophical viewpoint itself. dThe overprotective mother is highly intrusive and does not allow the child to behave

independently. As a result, the child becomes depressed. In the worst case scenario, the child could even develop

schizophrenia [23]. eIn the family that “cannot express true feelings,” the subject acts as an ideal child, being afraid of his

parents’ divorce or losing his own niche at home. f“Secondary psychopath” refers to those who cannot stop their habitual

offenses despite the guilty feelings they experience each time [24].

Table 2 Experience of Isolation and Bullying at School

The subjects suspected of having been isolated at

school (9)

Marc Lepine, Martin Bryant, Adam Lanza,

Howard Unruh, Seung-Hui Cho, James Ruppert,

Michael Ryan, George Banks, George Hennard

The subjects suspected of having been bullied at

school (8)a

Timothy McVeigh, Martin Bryant, Adam Lanza,

James Ruppert, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold,

Michael Ryan, George Banks

Table 3 Major Incident(s) in Mass Murderers’ Childhoods and their Age at that Time

Subject Incident Age

Timothy McVeigh Parents divorced 10 years

Julian Knight Adopted

Parents divorced

10 days

12 years

James Huberty Contracted polio

Mother abandoned family

3 years

8 years

Ronald Simmons Father died

Mother remarried

3 years

4 years

Marc Lupine Parents separated (lived with

other families, seeing mother

only on weekends)

7 years

Eric Borel Sent to mother’s parents after

divorce

Until 5 years

Joseph Wesbecker Father died (passed from place

to place, including orphanage for

almost a year)

13 months

Andrew Kehoe Mother died (a family of 13

children/fought with

stepmother)

5 years

Jacob Roberts Mother died (later lived with

aunt)

2 years

European Journal of Academic Essays 2(7): 45-55, 2015

50

Adam Lanza Parents divorced (diagnosed

with Asperger’s syndrome/judge

ordered a parenting education

program(

16 years

Seung-Hui Cho Immigrated to U.S. 8 years

Anders Breivik Parents divorced

Two reports filed concerning his

mental health to instruct removal

from his parents

1 year

4 years

Richard Speck Father died 6 years

6. Discussion

There were nine types found from the environmental

backgrounds of 28 mass murderers. Almost one third of

these 28 subjects were isolated or bullied at school,

including those who felt they were bullied. In regard to the

type of maltreatment, neglect is clearly prevalent, at least

from type 1 to type 4.

Some of the confusing cases are discussed below. Some

researchers point out that Adam Lanza’s mother doted on

him. This could be true. However, from the fact that she

was shot four times in the head before his rampage at

school, it seems that Lanza harbored some anger toward his

mother. An unidentified witness reported that Lanza, who

had Asperger’s syndrome, thought that his mother loved her

students at Sandy Hook elementary (where she volunteered)

more than him. The witness also stated that Lanza hated his

mother because he was jealous of her students (Mail

Online). Considering this, it is more likely that, at least in

Lanza’s own mind, his mother neglected him. It is also

pointed out that Nancy Lanza was rigid, indicating her strict

and emotionally distant disposition (Yahoo News) and that

Lanza did not allow anyone to enter his room; he and his

mother communicated only via e-mail. Nancy allegedly

stayed at a New Hampshire hotel for two days before the

shooting as part of an experiment in letting her son stay

home alone to be independent (Mail Online). Considering

Nancy’s trial to leave Adam alone before the incident, it is

quite likely that this type of rigid attitude toward him

started very early. Abe and Kato suggest that environmental

factors might facilitate symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome,

such as dissociation, anxiety, depression, persecutory

delusions, and antisocial behavior [25]. Thus, Lanza was

placed under postnatal neglect/no skin ship.

The true backgrounds of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

of the Columbine High School Massacre seem unclear.

Some researchers point out that they were the bullies rather

than the bullied. Indeed, there are cases suggesting that

those once bullied later turn into bullies [26]. However,

when considering the etiology of their criminal acts, their

initial “bullied” aspect better shows their original

personalities. Eric, who was considered the principal

offender of the two, called himself a “God of Sadness,” and

once said, "I hate you people for leaving me out of so many

fun things.” Dylan likewise wrote down in his journal, "I

have always been hated by everyone and everything"[27].

Princeton sociologist Katherine Newman points out that

they were not loners; they were just not accepted by the

kids who counted. The parents of his then close friend

Brook Brown stated, “[Dylan’s parents] weren’t touchy,

feely parents… It was more clinical, but they cared about

their kid” (YouTube). It is also pointed out that, although

Dylan enjoyed getting dirty, Sue Klebold was an intellectual

and a stickler for cleanliness, and the Klebold house was

always orderly [28]. Because of his mother’s academic

orientation, Dylan was placed in a special elite course

during his elementary school years. Dylan later developed a

quick temper.

European Journal of Academic Essays 2(7): 45-55, 2015

51

Eric’s father was in the army, and he moved around

frequently. Eric was a solitary boy who could not put down

his roots anywhere. A minister later testified that although

the Harris family was a great family—friendly, outgoing,

and caring—Eric’s father did not tolerate misbehavior in his

home, and punishment was swift and harsh, which

happened all in his family undiscernible from outside [28].

A little league team mate commented that Eric was the

shyest of the group. His coach added that he was not afraid

of the ball, but he just did not want to fail. Principal Frank

DeAngelis described Harris as a deceptively polite teen,

saying "Eric was the type of kid who, when he was in front

of adults, would tell you what you wanted to hear" [27].

Around age 12, Eric walked around burning things [28].

There was also an episode in which Eric’s father turned a

deaf ear when the mother of Eric’s friend Brook informed

him that Eric intentionally broke the front shield of her

son’s car. Eric’s father allegedly disregarded her claim,

saying that it was just a trifling thing between kids. Eric

himself later confessed that he was forced to be railed to be

an angel [29], hinting that he was forced to pretend to be an

obedient child under the unspoken family pressure.

Considering all these pieces of information, Eric was placed

under “cannot express true feelings,” and Dylan under

“postnatal neglect/no skin ship” under the suspicion that his

mother’s cold attitude started right after Dylan’s birth.

There are some researchers who claim that Seung-Hui Cho

spoke with his family weekly, and that they were an integral

part of his life. However, according to a child psychiatrist

who counseled Cho’s family, he did not talk much about his

life, even with his sister, who was supposedly one of the

very few people that Cho felt comfortable with (YouTube).

His dormitory roommate testified—based on interactions he

observed, such as when Cho’s mother dropped Cho off at

campus—that there was unusual coldness between Cho and

his parents, and there were no normal family interactions.

Cho’s psychiatrist also disclosed that his father described

himself as being an introvert. Both of Cho’s parents worked

long hours—sometimes seven days a week—and were

rarely at home. Cho was diagnosed with selective-mutism;

thus, he was placed under “no normal communication.”

After losing his father—with whom he was very close—to a

heart attack at the age of six, Richard Speck was

psychologically abused by his stepfather. George Banks was

constantly bullied because of his mixed-racial status as the

son of a white woman and a black man. Both of them seem

to have developed normal affects: Speck also had caring

sisters, while Banks had a close relationship with his

mother and some friends. However, because of their

adverse environments, they developed secondary

psychopathy; they got into fights and repeated petty crimes.

At the time of each crime, Speck was high on both alcohol

and drugs, and Banks on a mixture of prescription drugs

and straight gin, which he took the night before. In both

cases, the ingestion of the substances was believed to play a

major role in triggering the mass murder. Thus, Speck and

Banks were labeled specifically as highly intoxicated

secondary psychopath, although they share characteristics

with other categories.

Jared Loughner’s family was described by his neighbor as

being very private. Loughner also kept to himself, not even

responding to others. His girlfriend when he was 15 also

points out that he had a difficult relationship with his

parents; his father “picked on him” [30]. Loughner’s

girlfriend also stated that his parents never let her come into

his house, and she claimed that he had definite dysfunction

in his family; his parents rarely acted as parental figures.

Eventually, she left him because of his anger management

problem. His close friend at high school testifies that there

was a change in his personality after he broke up with his

girlfriend. Loughner began to abuse alcohol and other drugs,

specifically LSD and Salvia divinorum (a natural

hallucinogen illegal in some states), and his life began to

unravel. Thus, although he shares traits of “intentionally left

out of family,” taking into account that his drastic

personality change happened after his drug abuse, Loughner

was labeled specifically as drug-induced schizophrenia.

European Journal of Academic Essays 2(7): 45-55, 2015

52

After carefully examining the types—except for the last two,

which include abuse of alcohol and drugs—one can

conclude that “highly rigid parent(s),” “overprotective

mother,” and “cannot express true feelings” also seem to

belong to neglectful environment type as with type 1

through type 4. Rigid parents do not respond to—and thus

neglect—their child’s needs. Both maternal overprotection

and psychological control are kno