making sense of ‘facebook murder’? social networking sites and contemporary homicide

Making Sense of ‘Facebook Murder’?Social Networking Sites and

Contemporary Homicide

ELIZABETH YARDLEY and DAVID WILSONElizabeth Yardley is Reader in Criminology and Director of the Centre for

Applied Criminology and David Wilson is Professor of Criminology,Birmingham City University

Abstract: This article sets out to establish whether, and to what extent, homicides involv-ing social networking sites (SNSs) are unique and to identify the ways in whichperpetrators of homicide have used SNSs in their crimes. It does so by identifying andanalysing relevant cases of homicide from around the world and comparing the charac-teristics of these cases with the general literature on homicide. We argue that the cases inour sample are largely typical of homicide in general and identify six ways in whichhomicide perpetrators have used SNSs – as reactors, informers, antagonists, predators,fantasists and imposters.

Keywords: homicide; social media; Facebook; social networking sites (SNSs)

A recent journal editorial was entitled ‘Are “Facebook Murders” a growingtrend?’ (Wiederhold 2013). The piece outlined brief details of four suchhomicides, the common element being that Facebook featured in thecrimes – for example, where reactions to content on Facebook or escalationof arguments on the site had been followed by homicide. Several otherongoing homicide cases featuring social networking sites (SNSs) were inthe news at the time of writing this article – for example, the US case ofFlorida man, Derek Medina, who is alleged to have killed his wife andafterwards posted a picture of her body on Facebook (Sloane 2013). InNigeria, preparations were under way for the trial in relation to the deathof Cynthia Osokogu, a 24-year-old woman found dead in a Lagos hotelroom following an alleged encounter with men she had met throughFacebook and the BlackBerry Messenger service (Duthiers 2012). Thenotion of ‘Facebook Murder’ however remains a largely-unchallengedconstruct – presented by the media as a new crime, the presence of an SNSproviding additional novelty to an already newsworthy topic (Jewkes 2004).

Whilst scholars from a range of disciplines have produced a significantvolume of research on SNSs in contemporary relationships (see Wilson,

bs_bs_banner

The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12109ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••

1© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons LtdPublished by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK

Gosling and Graham (2012) for an overview of Facebook research), crimi-nologists have not explored SNSs in the context of homicide. This fallswithin the remit of what Maguire (2012) – one of the few criminologists totackle the topic of technology more broadly – identifies as secondary harmsinvolving such technologies. Here Maguire is referring to what happens asa side effect of online interaction and notes with reference to criminologi-cal inquiry in this area: ‘It is not so much, then, that there are not examplesof secondary harms involving ICTs [Information and CommunicationTechnologies]; more that, at present, the way we evaluate them needsgreater rigour’ (p.63). This lack of rigorous criminological inquiry doesnothing to challenge the technological determinism that is inherent in thereporting of violent crime involving the Internet more broadly (Wykes2010). Such spurious causal links combine with the negative news valueattached to homicide (Jewkes 2004) to make SNSs a much-discussed butlittle-understood feature of such cases.

Therefore in this article, we address this gap in the literature by iden-tifying the ways in which perpetrators have used SNSs in the homicidesthey have committed and considering whether, and to what extent, thesehomicides are unique and worthy of labels such as ‘Facebook Murder’. Wedo not offer a definition of ‘Facebook Murder’ here for two reasons. First,as already stated, there is a lack of criminological literature to support sucha term, therefore its use is somewhat premature. Second, the term istechnologically determinist, which again, is not currently supported byevidence. Therefore, whilst the term ‘Facebook Murder’ prompted us toinvestigate SNSs in homicide, we hesitate to perpetuate its use as a descrip-tive term in the absence of robust criminological evidence. We begin byoutlining the nature and extent of homicide in contemporary society inorder to identify key trends and characteristics with which to compare asample of homicides in which an SNS had been noted in reporting. Wethen explore the existing literature around SNSs, drawing particularattention to research of potential relevance for homicide. Thereafter wedescribe how we identified our sample and present our findings, describ-ing how perpetrators used SNSs in relation to these killings and consid-ering whether, and to what extent, these crimes represent a unique type ofhomicide. We then suggest a typology of six ways in which perpetratorshave used SNSs (reactors; informers; antagonists; fantasists; predators;imposters) and consider future directions for research in this area.

Homicide in Contemporary Society

Defining homicide is contentious, given the socially-constructed nature ofcrime categories, but in its very broadest sense it refers to the taking of alife, to which a range of legal penalties can apply, based on the extent ofculpability and intention (Brookman 2005). It is widely acknowledged thatdespite intense media coverage, homicide is relatively rare compared withother types of crime (D’Cruze, Walklate and Pegg 2006). In England andWales, there were 542 homicides in the year ending September 2013 – a

The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••

2© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

significant fall from over 800 per year in the early 2000s (Office forNational Statistics 2014a). Similar downward trends have also beenreported in the USA, where the homicide rate declined by nearly halfbetween 1992 and 2011, reaching its lowest level since 1963 (Smith andCooper 2013). Examining some of the key socio-demographic features ofhomicide, scholars suggest that this is a largely male-perpetrated crime,with men over-represented as victims, and where the victim and perpe-trator have a close social connection (D’Cruze, Walklate and Pegg 2006;Polk 1994; Rock 1998). Ninety per cent of homicide suspects in Englandand Wales in 2010/11 (Office for National Statistics 2014a) were male, andmen’s victimisation rate in the US between 1992 and 2011 was 3.6 timesthat of the rate for women (Smith and Cooper 2013).

In terms of a close social relationship between victim and perpetrator,the nature of this relationship varies. Brookman’s (2005) typology iden-tifies domestic homicide as the most common, representing around athird of all cases, where connections are based on family relationships orsexual intimacy. In relation to the former, male and female infants agedunder twelve months have the highest victimisation rate in England andWales, with the majority killed by a parent (Brookman and Maguire2003). Regarding the latter, these cases predominantly feature a maleperpetrator and a female victim – for example, in England and Wales,female victims were more likely than men to be killed by a partner or anex-partner, 45% and 4%, respectively (Office for National Statistics2014a). Whilst female and infant victims feature heavily in domestic cases,male victims are over-represented in cases based on other types of socialconnection. Men are more likely than women to be killed by strangers –in England and Wales, rates are 35% and 11%, respectively, but wherethe perpetrator is known to the victim, this person is more often a friendor acquaintance (Office for National Statistics 2014a). Polk (1994) andBrookman (2003, 2005) highlight the maleness of confrontational homi-cide, representing around one-fifth of all homicides (Brookman 2005). Inthese cases, fights or assaults have escalated and the homicide is theoutcome of attempts to maintain honour and reputation (Toch 1969),particularly amongst working-class or underclass males (Polk 1999).Brookman (2005) identifies men aged 16–35 years as most at risk ofinvolvement in a homicide as a victim or suspect, with black and Asianmen particularly vulnerable. This is certainly the case in the USA, whereindividuals who are young (particularly aged 25–34 years), black andmale, have the highest victimisation rate (Smith and Cooper 2013).Brookman (2005) further argues in relation to age and gender: ‘It isplausible that young males are more preoccupied than their older coun-terparts in accomplishing their gender identities and “proving theirworth”’ (p.138).

Having identified a range of homicide trends and characteristics, wenow move towards exploring SNSs in contemporary homicide. In order todo this it is necessary to provide a description of SNSs and consider theexisting literature relating to their use – particularly in terms of what thismay suggest in relation to homicide.



The Dark Side of SNSs

SNSs such as Bebo, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter are a prominentfeature of contemporary digital communication, described by boyd andEllison (2008) as:

. . . web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-publicprofile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom theyshare a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and thosemade by others within the system. (p.211)

SNS profiles include a range of information about an individual – photo-graphs, socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicityand relationship status, and lists of hobbies or interests. They also typicallyinclude friend lists of others with whom the individual has established anonline connection and may include family members, partners, work col-leagues, as well as friends (Baym 2010; Chambers 2013). Most use SNSsnot to establish new relationships but to maintain existing ones (Baym2010; boyd and Ellison 2008; Chambers 2013) – they are networked publiccultures, where people with commonalities create a social space and interactwithin that space (boyd 2007, 2011). Chambers (2013) draws on the termmediated intimacies to emphasise the blurring of boundaries between publicand private in SNSs: ‘features of personal culture draw on or are negoti-ated through a public lens . . . the technological expression of the familial,the personal and the emotional in a public or semi-public setting’ (p.54).SNSs are, therefore, environments in which individuals can engage indialogue with friends, display their connections with others in front of abounded audience and receive regular updates, giving participants a‘general sense of those around them’ (boyd 2011, p.45).

It could, therefore, be reasonably argued that SNSs were designed forprosocial purposes, and indeed, several studies have highlighted theirpositive impact, for example the building of social links for those with lowself-esteem (Steinfield, Ellison and Lampe 2008) and help adjusting to newsocial situations (Kalpidou, Costin and Morris 2011). That SNSs areappearing in cases of homicide is, however, not particularly surprising – asoutlined above, a close social relationship between victim and perpetratoris a well-established characteristic of this type of crime and such relation-ships are increasingly likely to be displayed and performed on SNSs.There are several relevant examples of social science research sheddinglight upon the darker side of SNSs, which may contribute to our under-standing of how perpetrators of homicide have used them.

Runions (2013) suggests that hostilities are exacerbated on SNSs asindividuals strive to retain status among peer audiences but misinterpretthe meanings and intentions of others in this informal environment, giventhe paucity of social cues and opportunities for empathy. Scholars explor-ing the lack of interactional characteristics in digitally-mediated commu-nication more widely call this the cues filtered out approach (Baym 2010),related to online disinhibition (Dyer et al. 1995; Joinson 2007; Suler 2004).



Suler (2004) discusses toxic online disinhibition, concerned with harmfulbehaviour online and argues that an absence of social cues is central to this:

Seeing a frown, shaking head, a sigh, a bored expression, and many other subtleand not so subtle signs of disapproval or indifference can inhibit what people arewilling to express . . . In everyday relationships, people sometimes avert their eyeswhen discussing something personal and emotional. Avoiding eye contact andface-to-face visibility disinhibits people. Text communication offers a built-inopportunity to keep one’s eyes averted. (p.322)

This position is reinforced by Lapidot-Lefler and Barak (2012) whoclaimed that lack of eye contact ‘leads participants to feel less exposed andmore anonymous and thus, more inclined to engage in flaming-relatedbehaviors’ (p.440). Other features of online disinhibition include asyn-chronicity and data permanence. Asynchronicity refers to interaction nottaking place in real time – with delays between sending a message andreceiving a response – which can be disinhibiting: ‘where there are delaysin that feedback, people’s train of thought may progress more steadily andquickly towards deeper expressions of benign and toxic disinhibition thatavert social norms’ (Suler 2004, p.323). Linked to this is data permanence,where communications can be stored and revisited. It is argued thatinterpretation of content will differ outside of the context in which it wascreated, with some assuming provocative intentions and becoming aggres-sive having spent time ruminating over the meaning (boyd 2011; Runions2013).

Despite the insights outlined above, a considerable shortfall of this bodyof research is a tendency to dichotomise online and offline behaviour(Wilson, Gosling and Graham 2012). Notable is work on cyberbullying –which includes sending mean messages, gossiping, spreading rumoursand making derogatory comments about photographs (Law et al. 2012).Whilst scholars present evidence to suggest that cyberbullying lacks apower differential – where introverted or physically weaker victims retali-ate more often in the absence of immediate physical threats to theirwell-being (Carpenter 2012; Law et al. 2012; Runions 2013) – this litera-ture rarely explores whether, and to what extent, there are continuitiesbetween online and offline bullying. The cyberstalking literature, however,does acknowledge such an overlap (Sheridan and Grant 2007; Spitzbergand Hoobler 2002). Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke and Cratty (2011), claimedthat monitoring of ex-partners by US college students via the SNS Face-book is sometimes reflected offline, although the direction of causationremains contentious. This overlap has been attributed to the way in whichthis particular SNS enables individuals to access jealousy-evoking informa-tion, which is open to misinterpretation (Muise, Christofides andDesmarais 2009). In addition, a small body of research exploring the useof SNSs in gang-related activity also suggests continuities (Baker 2011;Briggs 2012; Patton, Eschmann and Butler 2013). Notable is the work byPatton, Eschmann and Butler (2013) on the gang activity of Internetbanging – arguing that this is the preserve of young, disenfranchised men,



they explicitly identify ‘a link between virtual hostility and actual violence’(p.55).

Further understanding the relationship between online hostility andoffline violence involves exploring how norms develop around onlinebehaviour. Online self-presentation is key to this, and it is well establishedthat people actively engage in online impression management (Tufecki2008). Scholars have drawn upon Goffman (1959) in arguing that onlineand offline presentation of self are similar; we perform a range of selves inanticipation of different online audiences (Baym 2010; Chambers 2013;Robinson 2007). These same authors, with the addition of Holdsworth andMorgan (2007), also draw upon Mead (1934/1962), arguing that SNSaudiences are akin to the generalised other, whose presence continuouslyinfluences our online construction of self. This has been reflected instudies of children and young people’s use of SNSs, particularly in termsof seeking approval for their fledgling social identities (Chambers 2013).We are likely to conform to the prosocial or antisocial norms of ouraudiences online (boyd 2011; Donath 2007; Lim et al. 2013). However, weare still standing on shifting ground as we continue to adopt and adaptSNSs and many point to a distinct lack of norms around appropriatebehaviour in specific situations (Baym 2010; Chambers 2013; Gershon2010).

It is clear from the above that the study of harm in online environmentslike SNSs is well established. However, this literature has only recentlyshown signs of acknowledging the continuities between online and offlinebehaviours. Linked to this is a tendency to examine SNSs in isolation fromother communication technologies (Madianou and Miller 2013). SNSusage does not happen in a vacuum – we use a blend of communicationmediums or polymedia (Madianou and Miller 2013), which reflect thecomplexity of our relationships with each other – closer relationships tendto be played out through a range of different mediums (Baym 2010).Furthermore, and reflective of well-established concerns with the impactof new technology upon young people, much of the research into prob-lematic SNS usage focuses very specifically upon this social group – rela-tively little is known about adults’ experiences. Given that the broaderevidence base around SNSs is somewhat underdeveloped, exploring theway in which perpetrators have used SNSs in the homicides they havecommitted is challenging. However, it also presents opportunity to gener-ate insights from homicide that will contribute towards this developingarea of the literature. In the next section, we describe and explain ourapproach to the research.

Exploring SNSs and Homicide – Approach to the Research

In order to examine the ways in which perpetrators have used SNSs in thehomicides they have committed, it was necessary to identify the param-eters within which we would collect data. We decided to focus upon oneparticular SNS – Facebook. Established in 2004 exclusively for Harvard



University students and opened up to all users in 2006, Facebook is one ofthe world’s best-known SNSs (boyd and Ellison 2008; Kirkpatrick 2011).Considered unique in its informal nature and range of applications, itenables a ‘flamboyant’ performance of self (Papacharissi 2009, p.211). It isimportant to emphasise that we do not intend to demonise Facebook orpropose a causal link between Facebook and homicide without clear evi-dence – it is regrettable that many media reports of the alleged negativeaspects of Facebook have been based largely upon single cases and anec-dote, characterised by technological determinism and lacking criticalrigour. We chose to focus specifically upon Facebook for three reasons:first, our research had been prompted by the term ‘Facebook Murder’;second, variation in the architecture and affordances of SNSs might limitthe ability to draw wider conclusions had we included other SNSs in ourresearch – a point highlighted by Wilson, Gosling and Graham (2012) intheir review of the social science research around Facebook; third, giventhe significant scale of Facebook, it was likely to generate more cases ofinterest than might be true for other SNSs. An obvious limitation is thatFacebook is most commonly used in the English-speaking world (boyd andEllison 2008), therefore this research is clearly limited to reported cases inthat context. In order to identify cases, we carried out systematic searchesusing Nexis, an electronic database encompassing national and interna-tional news media outputs. We searched for outputs using the termsFacebook AND Homicide, Facebook AND Kill/Killing/Killer/Killed, Facebook ANDMurder/Murdered/Murderer, Facebook AND Manslaughter, up to and including31 December 2013. These searches generated around 1,000 results, fromwhich we excluded duplicates and applied our inclusion criteria – thatarticles described cases where there was a conviction for a homicideoffence (for example, murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide) in whichthe perpetrators’ use of Facebook had been noted as central to the crimein media reporting of the case. We opted to include all cases of homicide– not restricting this to murder – as convictions for lesser offences may bethe outcome of plea bargaining rather than an indicator of any significantdifference in the nature of the offence. We discarded articles concernedwith the following: general comment; cases where no conviction wasreported; campaign pages in unsolved homicides; jurors or court official’susage of Facebook during criminal trials; tribute pages for victims. Wethen logged details of the cases in a spreadsheet and used the Lexis andWestlaw databases to obtain further information. We recorded socio-demographic details of the victim and perpetrator including age andgender, details of the crime including dates, locations and methods usedand the relationship between the victim and perpetrator. We also includeda ‘notes’ column within the spreadsheet in which to record details relatingto the circumstances of, and suggested motives for, the homicides, includ-ing the way in which the perpetrator had used Facebook.

There are clear limitations in using Nexis: this search would notcapture unreported cases and the accuracy of the information is notassured. However, the technopanic literature – highlighting the tendencyto overemphasise the harms of online activity (Marwick 2008) – and



evidence around newsworthiness (Jewkes 2004) would seem to imply thathomicide cases involving Facebook are perhaps amongst the most likely tobe reported. In response to the second limitation, as might be imaginedwith incidents of this kind, news media sources were rarely impartial inreporting the views of surviving family members, neighbours, acquaint-ances and friends, about the crimes, and may not have accurately depictedwhat actually took place. To attempt to minimise issues raised by thischallenge, we read the various accounts of the homicides independently ofeach other and came to a consensus through discussion as to what infor-mation to record and where possible, drew upon legal sources includingcriminal trial transcripts to establish the facts of each case. In the followingsection, we present our findings relating to the cases we discovered.

Findings

Our search identified 48 cases outlined in Table 1.Regarding the countries in which the homicides took place (see Table 2),

the majority occurred in the UK (n = 26, 54.2%) or USA (n = 15, 31.3%),with four cases (8.3%) in Australia and one case each (2.1%) in Canada,Netherlands and Guatemala. The number of homicides increased fromfive (10.4%) in 2008, to six (12.5%) in 2009, to 14 (29.2%) in 2010, beforedeclining to twelve (25.0%) in 2011, seven (14.6%) in 2012, and four (8.3%)in 2013 (see Table 3). It should be noted that the figure for 2013 may notinclude all relevant homicides that occurred in that year as cases may stillbe going through criminal proceedings. Aside from no homicides in June,there do not appear to be any clear seasonal peaks or troughs (see Table 4).

Turning to examine the nature of the homicides (see Table 5), in justover four out of five cases, the perpetrator did not commit suicide (n = 39,81.3%) and in just under one out of five cases (n = 9, 18.7%) they did.Homes were the most common location (n = 24, 52.1%) – with the homeshared by the victim and perpetrator in ten (21.7%) cases, the home of thevictim in ten (21.7%) and the home of the perpetrator in four (8.7%) (seeTable 6). Just under four in ten (n = 18, 39.3%) occurred in a public placeand four (8.7%) took place in other locations. The most common methodwas stabbing (n = 22, 34.9%), followed by shooting (n = 12, 19.0%),bludgeoning (n = 8, 12.7%), strangulation (n = 6, 9.5%), and beating (n =4, 6.3%). Drowning and cutting the victim’s throat were used in two caseseach (3.2%), and there was one instance each (1.6% each) of shaking,ramming with a car, fire, attacking with a hammer and suffocating (seeTable 7).

Turning to examine the characteristics of those involved, the over-whelming majority of perpetrators were male (n = 46, 90.2%), whilst theminority were female (n = 5, 9.8%) (see Table 8). The age range of perpe-trators was 14–62 years, with an average of 28.2 years. This is based on theage at which the perpetrators of homicide-suicide committed their crimesand the age at which all other perpetrators were convicted of their crimes– there were several cases where the age at the time of the crime was not



TA

BL

E1

Sam

ple

ofC

ases

Dat

eof

hom

icid

eD

etai

lsof

perp

etra

tor

Det

ails

ofvi

ctim

Rel

atio

nshi

pof

perp

etra

tor

tovi

ctim

Loc

atio

nof

hom

icid

eM

etho

d(s)

Perp

etra

tor

use

ofFa

cebo

ok

Nam

eG

ende

rA

ge(y

ears

)N

ame

Gen

der

Age

18/0

2/08

Way

neFo

rres

ter

Mal

e34

Em

ma

Forr

este

rFe

mal

e34

Part

ner

Perp

etra

tor

&vi

ctim

hom

eB

ludg

eon,

stab

bing

Ang

erat

cont

ent

01/0

5/08

Gar

yG

rinh

aff

Mal

e44

*Tr

acey

Gri

nhaf

fFe

mal

e42

Part

ner

Perp

etra

tor

&vi

ctim

hom

eB

ludg

eon,

stra

ngul

atio

nA

nger

atco

nten

t

12/0

5/08

Edw

ard

Ric

hard

son

Mal

e41

Sara

hR

icha

rdso

nFe

mal

e26

Form

erpa

rtne

rO

ther

–ho

me

ofvi

ctim

’sre

lativ

eSt

abbi

ngA

nger

atco

nten

t

12/0

7/08

Leo

nC

raig

Ram

sden

Mal

e19

Paul

Gill

igan

Mal

e31

Acq

uain

tanc

ePu

blic

plac

eSt

abbi

ngA

nnou

nce

inte

ntio

nto

kill

10/1

0/08

Mar

kTw

itche

llM

ale

31Jo

hnny

Alti

nger

Mal

e38

Face

book

-bas

edfa

lse

profi

leO

ther

–re

nted

gara

geSt

abbi

ng,b

ludg

eon

Supp

ort

fant

asy

12/0

3/09

Bri

anL

ewis

Mal

e31

Hay

ley

Jone

sFe

mal

e26

Part

ner

Perp

etra

tor

&vi

ctim

hom

eSt

abbi

ng,

stra

ngul

atio

nA

nger

atco

nten

t

03/0

4/09

Paul

Bri

stol

Mal

e25

Cam

ille

Mat

hura

sing

hFe

mal

e27

Form

erpa

rtne

rV

ictim

hom

eSt

abbi

ngA

nger

atco

nten

t

30/0

8/09

Ron

Felic

iteM

ale

28M

arie

Felic

iteFe

mal

e29

Part

ner

Perp

etra

tor

&vi

ctim

hom

eSt

abbi

ngA

nger

atco

nten

t

16/0

9/09

Ada

mM

ann

Mal

e29

Lis

aB

ever

ley

Fem

ale

30Fo

rmer

part

ner

Vic

timho

me

Bea

ting,

ham

mer

atta

ck,s

tabb

ing

Ang

erat

cont

ent

26/1

0/09

Pete

rC

hapm

anM

ale

32A

shle

igh

Hal

lFe

mal

e17

Face

book

-bas

edfa

lse

profi

lePu

blic

plac

eSt

rang

ulat

ion

Est

ablis

hre

latio

nshi

pw

ithvi

ctim

20/0

9/09

Unn

amed

due

tope

rpet

rato

r’s

age

Mal

e16

Salu

mK

ombo

Mal

e18

Acq

uain

tanc

ePu

blic

plac

eSt

abbi

ngA

rgum

ent

esca

latio

n

17/0

1/10

Sela

miO

zdem

irM

ale

42*

Shen

gylR

asim

Fem

ale

25Pa

rtne

rPe

rpet

rato

r&

vict

imho

me

Shoo

ting

Ang

erat

cont

ent

20/0

1/10

Ale

xand

raTo

bias

Fem

ale

22D

ylan

Lee

Edm

onds

onM

ale

9m

ths

Pare

ntPe

rpet

rato

r&

vict

imho

me

Shak

ing

Supp

ort

fant

asy

31/0

1/10

Step

hen

Gar

cia

Mal

e25

*W

yatt

Gar

cia

Mal

e9

mth

sPa

rent

Publ

icpl

ace

Shoo

ting

Ann

ounc

ein

tent

ion

toki

llan

dho

mic

ide

com

mitt

ed25

/03/

10C

hris

toph

erO

mor

egi,

Obi

Nw

oken

,Sa

mso

nO

degb

une

Mal

e,M

ale,

Mal

e

19,

20,

19

Sofy

enB

elam

ouad

den

Mal

e15

Acq

uain

tanc

ePu

blic

plac

eSt

abbi

ng,b

eatin

gA

rgum

ent

esca

latio

n



TA

BL

E1

(Con

tinue

d)

Dat

eof

hom

icid

eD

etai

lsof

perp

etra

tor

Det

ails

ofvi

ctim

Rel

atio

nshi

pof

perp

etra

tor

tovi

ctim

Loc

atio

nof

hom

icid

eM

etho

d(s)

Perp

etra

tor

use

ofFa

cebo

ok

Nam

eG

ende

rA

ge(y

ears

)N

ame

Gen

der

Age

03/0

4/10

Yahy

aG

ulM

ale

18A

liza

Mir

zaFe

mal

e18

Part

ner

Publ

icpl

ace

Stab

bing

Supp

ort

fant

asy

22/0

4/10

Cam

eron

Scho

field

Mal

e17

Cod

yTu

rner

Mal

e17

Acq

uain

tanc

eV

ictim

hom

eSt

abbi

ngA

rgum

ent

esca

latio

n21

/05/

10C

hris

toph

erD

anne

vig

Mal

e21

Non

aB

elom

esof

fFe

mal

e18

Face

book

-bas

edfa

lse

profi

lePu

blic

plac

eD

row

ning

Est

ablis

hre

latio

nshi

pw

ithvi

ctim

24/0

5/10

Sam

Wes

tbro

okM

ale

24Pe

ter

Wes

tbro

okM

ale

52E

xten

ded

fam

ilyV

ictim

hom

eSh

ootin

gA

nnou

nce

inte

ntio

nto

kill

and

hom

icid

eco

mm

itted

22/0

7/10

Torr

ieLy

nnE

mer

yFe

mal

e23

Ale

sha

Abe

rnat

hyFe

mal

e21

Non

ePu

blic

plac

eR

amm

edw

ithca

rA

rgum

ent

esca

latio

n28

/08/

10Pe

ter

Moo

nan

Mal

e62

Kar

enA

nnR

oone

yFe

mal

e62

Form

erpa

rtne

rV

ictim

hom

eSh

ootin

gA

nger

atco

nten

t

23/1

0/10

Josh

uaD

avie

sM

ale

16R

ebec

caA

ylw

ard

Fem

ale

15Fo

rmer

part

ner

Publ

icpl

ace

Blu

dgeo

nA

nnou

nce

hom

icid

eco

mm

itted

17/1

1/10

Ram

azan

Aca

rM

ale

24Ya

zmin

a(n

osu

rnam

epr

ovid

ed)

Fem

ale

2Pa

rent

Publ

icpl

ace

Stab

bing

Ann

ounc

ein

tent

ion

toki

ll

13/1

2/10

Mic

hael

Kel

lyM

ale

46Sa

llyC

ox,

Mar

tinFa

ulkn

erFe

mal

e,M

ale

43,

22Fo

rmer

part

ner,

form

erpa

rtne

r’s

son

Vic

timho

me

Blu

dgeo

nA

nnou

nce

inte

ntio

nto

kill

and

hom

icid

eco

mm

itted

18/1

2/10

And

rew

Lin

doM

ale

29M

arie

Stew

art

Fem

ale

30Pa

rtne

rPe

rpet

rato

r&

vict

imho

me

Stab

bing

,blu

dgeo

n,st

rang

ulat

ion

Impe

rson

ate

anot

her

02/0

2/11

Isra

elN

ieve

sM

ale

21Ja

son

Rod

rigu

ezM

ale

19A

cqua

inta

nce

Publ

icpl

ace

Stab

bing

Est

ablis

hre

latio

nshi

pw

ithvi

ctim

03/0

2/11

Clif

ford

Mill

sM

ale

50L

orna

Smith

Fem

ale

45Fo

rmer

part

ner

Perp

etra

tor

hom

eB

ludg

eon,

stab

bing

,th

roat

cut

Impe

rson

ate

anot

her

27/0

2/11

Kay

laH

enri

ques

Fem

ale

20K

amis

haR

icha

rds

Fem

ale

22E

xten

ded

fam

ilyO

ther

–ho

me

ofvi

ctim

’sre

lativ

eSt

abbi

ngA

rgum

ent

esca

latio

n

04/0

4/11

Ada

mSi

nger

Mal

e30

Sally

Ann

Har

riso

nFe

mal

e24

Form

erpa

rtne

rPe

rpet

rato

r&

vict

imho

me

Blu

dgeo

nIm

pers

onat

ean

othe

r

12/0

4/11

LaS

hand

aA

rmst

rong

Fem

ale

25*

Lan

den

Arm

stro

ng,

Lan

ceA

rmst

rong

,L

anai

naA

rmst

rong

Mal

e,M

ale,

Fem

ale

5, 2, 11 mth

s

Pare

ntPu

blic

plac

eD

row

ning

Ann

ounc

ein

tent

ion

toki

ll

30/0

5/11

Man

uelG

uzm

anJu

nior

Mal

e19

Edd

ieL

eal

Mal

e23

Face

book

-bas

edfa

lse

profi

lePu

blic

plac

eSh

ootin

gE

stab

lish

rela

tions

hip

with

vict

im



TA

BL

E1

(Con

tinue

d)

Dat

eof

hom

icid

eD

etai

lsof

perp

etra

tor

Det

ails

ofvi

ctim

Rel

atio

nshi

pof

perp

etra

tor

tovi

ctim

Loc

atio

nof

hom

icid

eM

etho

d(s)

Perp

etra

tor

use

ofFa

cebo

ok

Nam

eG

ende

rA

ge(y

ears

)N

ame

Gen

der

Age

10/0

7/11

Rob

ert

Der

ekFa

rrow

Mal

e24

Ash

antia

Lin

dsey

Fem

ale

19Fo

rmer

part

ner

Vic

timho

me

Shoo

ting

Ang

erat

cont

ent

22/0

8/11

Edu

ardo

Che

n,Sa

ulG

arci

aA

rria

zaM

ale,

Mal

e25

,no

tkn

own

Hey

diM

ontu

far

Lor

enza

na,

Hei

ser

Ale

xand

raM

erca

doSa

ntos

Fem

ale,

Fem

ale

16,

18Fa

cebo

ok-b

ased

fals

epr

ofile

Not

know

nN

otkn

own

Est

ablis

hre

latio

nshi

pw

ithvi

ctim

18/0

9/11

Kar

eem

Till

arM

ale

21Ja

mel

Cob

bM

ale

19A

cqua

inta

nce

Publ

icpl

ace

Shoo

ting

Ang

erat

cont

ent

29/1

1/11

Step

hen

Stre

ener

Mal

e49

Jacq

uelin

eG

rant

Fem

ale

48Pa

rtne

rPe

rpet

rato

rho

me

Bea

ting,

stra

ngul

atio

n,fir

eSu

ppor

tfa

ntas

y

10/1

2/11

Bar

tH

elle

rM

ale

43E

rin

Jehl

,R

yann

Tip

ton

Fem

ale,

Mal

e19

,19

Form

erpa

rtne

r,fr

iend

offo

rmer

part

ner

Perp

etra

tor

hom

eSh

ootin

gA

nnou

nce

inte

ntio

nto

kill

26/1

2/11

Tony

Bus

hby

Mal

e19

Cat

heri

neW

ynte

rFe

mal

e19

Part

ner

Hom

eof

vict

im’s

rela

tive

Stab

bing

Supp

ort

fant

asy

04/0

1/12

Mel

anie

Rey

esFe

mal

e20

*U

nnam

edM

ale

6m

ths

Pare

ntPe

rpet

rato

r&

vict

imho

me

Shoo

ting

Ann

ounc

ein

tent

ion

toki

ll

14/0

1/12

‘Jinh

ua’

Mal

e15

Joyc

eW

insi

eH

uFe

mal

e15

Non

eV

ictim

hom

eSt

abbi

ngA

rgum

ent

esca

latio

n11

/03/

12Ia

nL

owe

Mal

e24

Lea

nne

McN

uff

Fem

ale

24Fo

rmer

part

ner

Vic

timho

me

Stab

bing

Impe

rson

ate

anot

her

06/0

7/12

Luk

eE

lliot

tM

ale

23C

raig

Hep

burn

Mal

e19

Acq

uain

tanc

ePu

blic

plac

eB

eatin

g,st

abbi

ngA

rgum

ent

esca

latio

n01

/09/

12G

raha

mA

nder

son

Mal

e36

*Ja

ckA

nder

son,

Bry

nnA

nder

son

Mal

e,M

ale

11, 3

Pare

ntPe

rpet

rato

rho

me

Suffo

catio

n,th

roat

cut

Ang

erat

cont

ent

06/0

9/12

Fran

klin

Dav

ies

Mal

e31

Shan

iaG

ray

Fem

ale

16Fa

cebo

ok-b

ased

fals

epr

ofile

Publ

icpl

ace

Shoo

ting

Est

ablis

hre

latio

nshi

pw

ithvi

ctim

01/1

0/12

Mar

kB

ridg

erM

ale

47A

pril

Jone

sFe

mal

e5

Non

eN

otkn

own

Not

know

nSu

ppor

tfa

ntas

y28

/01/

13Ty

Med

land

Mal

e26

Sam

anth

aM

edla

ndFe

mal

e24

Form

erpa

rtne

rPu

blic

plac

eSt

abbi

ngA

nger

atco

nten

t31

/05/

13W

esle

yW

illia

ms

Mal

e29

Yvo

nne

Wal

sh,

Har

riso

nW

alsh

Fem

ale,

Mal

e25

,7

mth

sFo

rmer

part

ner,

form

erpa

rtne

r’s

son

Perp

etra

tor

&vi

ctim

hom

eSt

rang

ulat

ion

Ann

ounc

eho

mic

ide

com

mitt

ed15

/07/

13D

anie

lEke

mba

Mal

e17

Has

san

Mah

moo

dM

ale

15A

cqua

inta

nce

Publ

icpl

ace

Stab

bing

Arg

umen

tes

cala

tion

18/1

1/13

Mer

rick

McK

oyM

ale

22*

Mia

Phan

thav

ongs

aFe

mal

e2

Pare

ntV

ictim

hom

eSh

ootin

gA

nnou

nce

inte

ntio

nto

kill

(Not

e:*

indi

cate

spe

rpet

rato

rco

mm

itted

suic

ide

imm

edia

tely

afte

rth

eho

mic

ide(

s).)



TABLE 2Countries in which Homicides Took Place

Country n %

UK 26 54.2USA 15 31.3Australia 4 8.3Canada 1 2.1Netherlands 1 2.1Guatemala 1 2.1

Total 48 100.0

TABLE 3Year of Homicides

Year of homicide n %

2008 5 10.42009 6 12.52010 14 29.22011 12 25.02012 7 14.62013 4 8.3

Total 48 100.0

TABLE 4Month of Homicides

Month of homicide N %

January 6 12.5February 4 8.3March 3 6.3April 5 10.4May 6 12.5June 0 0.0July 5 10.4August 3 6.3September 4 8.3October 4 8.3November 3 6.3December 5 10.4

Total 48 100.0



TABLE 5Homicides and Homicide-suicides

Nature of homicide n %

Homicide 39 81.3Homicide-suicide 9 18.7

Total 48 100.0

TABLE 6Grouped and Specific Location of Homicides

Location – grouped Location – specific n % n %

Homes Home of victim and perpetrator 10 21.7 24 52.1Home of victim 10 21.7Home of perpetrator 4 8.7

Public places Street 8 17.4 18 39.3Parkland 5 10.9Bar 1 2.2Hiking trail 1 2.2River 1 2.2Wood 1 2.2Railway station 1 2.2

Other Other 4 8.7 4 8.7

Total 46 100.0 46 100.0

(Note: Figures are excluded for the two cases where location of the homicide is unknown – the2012 homicide of April Jones and the 2011 double homicide of Heydi Montufar Lorenzana andHeiser Alexandra Mercado Santos.)

TABLE 7Method Used in Homicides

Method n %

Stabbing 22 34.9Shooting 12 19.0Bludgeoning 8 12.7Strangulation 6 9.5Beating 4 6.3Drowning 2 3.2Throat cut 2 3.2Not known 2 3.2Shaking 1 1.6Rammed with car 1 1.6Fire 1 1.6Hammer attack 1 1.6Suffocation 1 1.6

Total 63 100.0

(Note: n = 63 because in 11 cases, more than one method was used.)



available. The age range of the perpetrator in cases of homicide-suicidewas 20–62 years with an average age of 35.4 years (n = 9) whilst the agerange of all other perpetrators at conviction was 14–49 years with anaverage of 27.4 years (n = 39). Examining age groups at date of conviction(see Table 9), the majority of perpetrators were aged 30 years or younger(n = 31, 75.6%), with 31.7% (n = 13) 20 years or younger and 43.9% (n =18) between 21 and 30 years.

There were fewer male than female victims, 21 (38.2%) and 34 (61.8%),respectively (see Table 10). Victim age ranged from six months to 62 yearswith an average of 20.7 years. When grouped into categories (see Table 11),the largest concentration was in the 11–20 years age group (n = 20,

TABLE 8Perpetrator Gender

Perpetrator gender n %

Male 46 90.2Female 5 9.8

Total 51 100.0

(Note: n = 51 because there were multiple perpetrators in two cases.)

TABLE 9Perpetrator Age Group at Conviction

Age group at conviction (years) n %

20 or under 13 31.721–30 18 43.931–40 5 12.241–50 5 12.2

Total 41 100.0

(Note: n = 41 as there was one case in which there were three perpetrators and a further case inwhich there were two; this also excludes the perpetrators of homicide-suicides.)

TABLE 10Victim Gender

Victim gender n %

Female 34 61.8Male 21 38.2

Total 55 100,0

(Note: n = 55 as there were five cases where there was more than one victim.)



36.4%), followed by 21–30 years (n = 15, 27.3%) and ten years or under (n= 11, 20.0%). Cases where a male perpetrator killed a female victim werethe most common (n = 27, 56.3%). This was followed by male perpetratorsand male victims (n = 13, 27.1%), with other combinations ranging fromone to three victims (see Table 12). Table 13 shows that family-based rela-tionships between victims and perpetrators were the most common (n =28, 58.3%), including former partner (n = 10, 20.8%), current partner (n= 9, 18.8%), parent (n = 7, 14.6%) and extended family member (n = 2,4.2%). In eight cases (16.7%) the perpetrator and victim were acquaintedoffline. In six cases (12.5%), the perpetrator had befriended the victimonline through a fake Facebook profile (n = 5, 10.4%) or a dating profile(n = 1, 2.1%), which they used to develop a relationship with the victim. Inthree cases (6.3%) where there was more than one victim, the perpetratorhad multiple relationships with the victims, for example Wesley Williams,who killed his former partner and their son. In a further three cases (6.3%)there was no relationship between victim and perpetrator, for exampleJinhua – the 14-year-old Dutch hitman hired to kill 15-year-old JoyceWinsie Hu.

TABLE 11Victim Age Group

Victim age group (years) n %

10 or under 11 20.011–20 20 36.421–30 15 27.331–40 3 5.541–50 4 7.351–60 1 1.861–70 1 1.8

Total 55 100.0

(Note: n = 55 as there were five cases where there was more than one victim.)

TABLE 12Gender of Perpetrator and Gender of Victim

Perpetrator and victim gender n %

Male perpetrator/female victim 27 56.3Male perpetrator/male victim 13 27.1Male perpetrator/male and female victims 3 6.3Female perpetrator/male victim 2 4.2Female perpetrator/female victim 2 4.2Female perpetrator/male and female victims 1 2.1

Total 48 100.0



Examining news media and, where possible, legal records – for example,trial transcripts and sentencing remarks, we explored how perpetratorshad engaged with the SNS, identifying eight categories (see Table 14). Themost frequent was Anger at content (n = 13, 27.1%), where the perpetratorhad reacted in a hostile manner to information posted by the victim –examples included cases where victims had updated their relationshipstatus to single having ended their relationship with the perpetrator, andcases where the perpetrator had taken offence at a comment posted bythe victim. The next most prominent category was Argument escalation(n = 8, 16.7%), where hostilities had been exchanged between victim andperpetrator on the SNS prior to the fatal face-to-face confrontation. TheSNS was also used by perpetrators to communicate information about thehomicides in three ways – to Announce intention to kill (n = 6, 12.5%), toAnnounce homicide committed (n = 2, 4.2%), and both (n = 3, 6.3%). In a

TABLE 13Grouped and Specific Relationships between Perpetrator and Victim

Relationship – grouped n % Relationship – specific n %

Offline preceded onlinerelationship

39 81.4 Former partner 10 20.8Partner 9 18.8Parent 7 14.6Acquaintance 8 16.7Other – multiple 3 6.3Extended family 2 4.2

Online preceded offlinerelationship

6 12.5 Facebook-based false profile 5 10.4Dating site false profile 1 2.1

No online or offlinerelationship

3 6.3 None 3 6.3

Total 48 100.0 Total 48 100.0

TABLE 14Perpetrator Engagement with Facebook

Type of engagement n %

Anger at content 13 27.1Argument escalation 8 16.7Announce intention to kill 6 12.5Support fantasy 6 12.5Establish relationship with victim 6 12.5Impersonate another 4 8.3Announce intention to kill and homicide committed 3 6.3Announce homicide committed 2 4.2

Total 48 100.0



further six cases (12.5%), perpetrators had used the SNS to Establishrelationship with victim, with whom in most instances, they did not have anoffline relationship – the exception to this was Franklin Davis, who used afake profile to lure 16-year-old Shania Gray, whom he had allegedly raped– she was due to testify against him in a forthcoming trial. Facebook wasalso used by killers to Support fantasy, where they had performed a desiredself on the SNS or used it to indulge deviant desires (n = 6, 12.5%). TheSNS was also used to Impersonate another (n = 4, 8.3%), including caseswhere the perpetrator controlled the victim’s SNS account to maintainthe illusion that they were still alive and where the perpetrator took on afalse identity to monitor the victim, with whom they had had an offlinerelationship.

Discussion

Within this article, we set out to consider whether, and to what extent,homicides involving SNSs were unique and worthy of labels such as ‘Face-book Murder’, and to explore the ways in which perpetrators had usedSNSs in the homicides they had committed. The discussion will addressthese aims respectively.

Are Homicides Involving SNSs Unique and Worthy of a Category of their Own?It was established earlier that recorded incidences of homicide havedeclined in recent years (Office for National Statistics 2014a; Smith andCooper 2013). The cases we identified peaked in 2010, declining year-on-year thereafter, so it may appear that homicides involving Facebook areshowing a similar downward trend to homicide in general. However, it ischallenging to draw conclusions because we base this study upon reportedcases, so whilst the number of homicides in which Facebook featuresappears to be declining, this does not necessarily reflect the reality. It couldbe that as social media become domesticated and socialised into everydaylife (Baym 2010; Chambers 2013), their presence in homicide casesbecomes less unusual and, hence, is not reported. So as reporting ofhomicide may not draw attention to the perpetrators’ use of more estab-lished communication technologies – telephone calls, text messages, emails– SNSs may similarly blend into the background. In addition, the largernumber of reported cases in the UK than the USA may be attributed to themore established nature of the SNS in the latter.

The highest victimisation rates for homicide in general are seen in theinfant age group, with those aged under twelve months being the mostvulnerable (Brookman 2005). This was not the case in our sample, wherevictims had an older age profile. However, the age of victims and perpe-trators across all 48 cases was relatively low, with averages of 20.7 years and28.2 years, respectively, so the cases of homicide involving Facebook thatwe discovered would appear to disproportionately affect younger people,for whom SNSs are an established feature of social life (Chambers 2013).

The literature emphasised the gendered nature of homicide – a maleperpetrated crime, where victim and perpetrator have a close social



connection and men are over-represented as victims (D’Cruze, Walklateand Pegg 2006; Polk 1994; Rock 1998). Whilst our findings are consistentwith the first two propositions, they do not support the third – in oursample, women rather than men, are over-represented as victims. Explor-ing the high rate of victimisation amongst women within our sample, themajority of these cases are characteristic of domestic homicide based onsexual intimacy; such homicides are largely committed by men (Brookman2005). Domestic homicides based on family relationships (Brookman2005) were also evident within our sample – seven of the perpetrators wereparents who had killed their children. Confrontational homicides featur-ing acquaintance relationships were characterised by their maleness, as theliterature suggested (Brookman 2003; D’Cruze, Walklate and Pegg 2006;Polk 1994; Rock 1998); such cases included male perpetrators and victims,mostly in their teenage years. What is somewhat unusual about our samplein light of the literature is that those involved in confrontational homicideswere not all economically marginalised (Polk 1999). For example, in theappeal hearing relating to the killing of Sofyen Belamouadden, LordJustice Leveson said of one of the defendants: ‘Omeregie had a supportivefamily and nine GCSE passes all at grades A and B: he was studying for Alevels’ (R v. Odegbune and others ((2013) EWCA 711 (Crim))). In addition,Cody Turner, who was stabbed by Cameron Schofield following a hostileexchange on Facebook, ‘left Sharples School with top GCSE grades’(Manchester Evening News 2010). One further difference was the relativelyhigh proportion of homicide-suicides – nine cases, comprising 18.7% ofour sample. Analysis of homicide statistics in England and Wales foundthat 3% of homicide suspects had committed suicide (Office for NationalStatistics 2014b) and US data suggest that homicide-suicides represent 4%of all homicides in the USA (Liem et al. 2011), significantly lower than thatseen in our sample.

In answer to our question ‘Are homicides involving SNSs unique?’ wewould say ‘no’, the sample of cases we examined were not particularlyunique or unusual, indeed they were largely representative of the catego-ries of homicide identified by Brookman (2005). It would, however,appear that there are four key ways in which our sample differs fromgeneral homicide trends and characteristics – the age profile of victims andperpetrators was relatively low, women were over-represented as victims,there was a relatively high proportion of homicide-suicides, and thoseinvolved in confrontational homicide could not all be described as mar-ginalised. We would highlight the embedded nature of SNSs in the lives ofyounger people (Chambers 2013) and the widespread use of Facebookacross the socio-demographic groups in helping explain the younger ageprofile of victims and perpetrators and the economic diversity of thoseinvolved in confrontational homicide. The over-representation of womenas victims and cases of homicide-suicide are interesting findings and high-light the need for further research to explore the role of SNSs in thesecircumstances – however, in addressing the second aim of the article, weshed some light on the cases in our sample. In response to our question ‘Arehomicides involving SNSs worthy of a category of their own?’ we would argue ‘no,



they are not’. Using terms such as ‘Facebook Murder’ will simply serve toobscure the complex and varied nature of the criminological and socio-demographic characteristics of homicide, reinforce the technologicaldeterminism in reporting such cases and, in turn, imply a lack of agencyon the part of the perpetrator.

How did Perpetrators Use SNSs in the Homicides they Committed?Domestic homicides based on sexual intimacy in our sample were charac-terised by the perpetrator’s angry reaction at content posted by theirintimate partner on Facebook; this included jealousy-evoking information(Muise, Christofides and Desmarais 2009) such as news of a new relation-ship or an intention to leave. In newer intimate partner relationships, wefound perpetrators using Facebook to support a fantasy that was unrep-resentative of reality. Tony Bushby created fictitious friends on Facebook togive his new partner, Catherine Wynter, the impression that he waspopular. Perpetrators also used Facebook to perform exaggerated rela-tionships, announcing ownership of, and control over, a victim, forexample Stephen Streener, who overstated the seriousness of his relation-ship with Jacqueline Grant, claiming that they were going to get married.

Perpetrators in cases of domestic homicide based on family relation-ships – notably parent/child – used Facebook to announce their intentionto kill their child, announce that they had carried out the homicide, or todo both, and homicide-suicides were disproportionately represented.LaShanda Armstrong is an example, posting: ‘I’m sorry everyone forgiveme please for what I’m gonna do . . . This is it!!!’, on her Facebook pagehaving argued with her partner before driving into the Hudson River,killing herself and three of her children (Bates and Duell 2011). Given thatSNS audiences will include family and friends, this type of usage might beinterpreted as a cry for help by a parent in crisis. However, Facebook is atypically asynchronous communication medium and help would be muchmore easily summoned via telephone or text – media likely to feature inclose relationships (Baym 2010).

Perpetrators in cases of confrontational homicide in our sample hadengaged in hostile Facebook exchanges prior to the killing – most often astabbing in a public place. In common with the literature claiming thatmore distant relationships are likely to use a narrower range of commu-nication media (Baym 2010), Facebook was often the main forum in whichacquaintances were interacting, therefore these exchanges not only lackedsocial cues but there was less likelihood of contact through anothermedium to clarify meaning, which may have diffused a situation. In addi-tion, SNS exchanges are likely to conform to the prosocial or antisocialnorms of the audience (boyd 2011; Donath 2007; Lim et al. 2013), which,in turn, influences the likelihood of escalation to face-to-face violence.Groups in which violence goes hand-in-hand with masculinity (Patton,Eschmann and Butler 2013) may be particularly prone to overlap betweenonline and offline hostility. In addition, whereas online there is no physicalpower differential, this is not the case when hostilities transfer to face-to-face situations, therefore perpetrators may seek to gain an advantage by



arming themselves with a weapon. An example is the case of 16-year-oldDaniel Ekemba, who stabbed 15-year-old Hassan Mahmood to death in aBirmingham park. The victim’s uncle, Sajid Ramzan, stated in an inter-view with a local newspaper:

Hassan was a mixed martial arts fighter and, although he was two years youngerthan the other boy, his killer knew he would lose. So, in a cowardly act, he took abutcher’s knife along with him and stabbed Hassan in the back. It was the act of atrue coward who didn’t want to lose respect in front of his Facebook friends. (Lloyd2014)

Previous research into SNSs had drawn on the work of Mead (1934/1962)and Goffman (1959) in emphasising their importance in performing theself to a generalised other (Baym 2010; Chambers 2013; Holdsworth andMorgan 2007; Robinson 2007). These are important factors in under-standing the use of SNSs in the homicides discussed above. In all of thesecases, it could be argued that the perpetrators used Facebook as a way ofasserting, defending and performing the self to their SNS audiences –people with whom they had an existing social relationship and sharednorms and values, be they prosocial or antisocial. Facebook sometimesserved as a tool through which to maintain a degree of control throughmonitoring a victim. The affordance of data permanence on the sitecreated opportunities to visit and revisit information and exchanges withothers, engaging in ‘hostile rumination’ of the meaning (Runions 2013,p.759). This is relevant in the intimate partner domestic homicide case ofTy Medland, who regularly monitored his estranged wife’s profile andcame to the conclusion that she had begun a relationship with someoneelse before stabbing her to death in a Brighton street in 2013. In othercases, Facebook was a platform from which to announce power and controlover victims by expressing an intention to kill or informing the audiencethat a homicide had taken place. Such performances of self included casesof family-based and intimate partner domestic homicides, where the per-petrator’s identity was inextricably linked to their position in the familyunit. It could be argued that the announcement of the homicide in thismanner was a response to a perceived threat to that family and a reasser-tion of ownership over the family (Yardley, Wilson and Lynes 2013).Performance of self to a generalised other is also important in understand-ing the confrontational homicides amongst young men, who sought topublicly defend the self in the face of challenges from the victim onFacebook, a forum in which they were developing and displaying theirfledgling masculinities.

Whilst the cases in our sample were largely characterised by a pre-existing offline social relationship between victim and perpetrator, therewere some instances where this did not apply, including five in which theperpetrator had generated a false profile to befriend the victim with theintention of meeting them offline. The small number of these predatorperpetrators is not surprising given the lack of traditional anonymity inSNSs and the difficulties in maintaining a wholly fictitious profile (Baym2010; Walther 2011). However, this should not detract from their serious-



ness and as such, it is important to attempt to understand them. Perpe-trators had identified vulnerabilities of victims through their Facebookprofiles and used the SNS as a way of establishing a relationship with them.This draws attention to the privacy paradox whereby people are notalways aware of the public nature of what they post online (Barnes 2006;Baym 2010) and the extent to which a particular degree of disclosure isnormal within a networked public. Given the conformity tendency (boyd2011; Donath 2007; Lim et al. 2013), over-disclosure of personal informa-tion is more likely when friends are disclosing to a similar degree. Addi-tionally, given that young people sometimes use SNSs to seek socialapproval where it is lacking locally (Chambers 2013), those with lowerself-esteem and a greater need for acceptance may be particularly vulner-able to homicidal predators on SNSs. An example case here is that of17-year-old Ashleigh Hall, whom Peter Chapman lured by posing as ateenage boy. Reporting upon comments by the prosecutor in the case, theGuardian newspaper stated:

The prosecutor said the teenager suffered from low-esteem and boys were unin-terested in her. ‘According to her friend, Ashleigh was interested in boys but they,generally, were not interested in her,’ he said, adding that her friends thought that,if a male did show her attention, ‘she would likely be flattered by it’. (Carter 2010)

A Suggested Typology of SNS Usage by Homicide Perpetrators

We outlined above that perpetrators use SNSs in different ways in differenttypes of homicide. In order to better conceptualise our findings andsituate them within the existing evidence base, we propose six types of SNSusage by homicide perpetrators and identify the categories of homicideoutlined by Brookman (2005) in which they feature. These six types arereactor, informer, antagonist, fantasist, predator and imposter. The sampleof 48 cases described above has been examined and each case assigned aprimary type (see Table 15). We present the categories in the order ofprominence in which they appeared in our sample. This typology isintended as a basic framework, which will be further developed throughfuture research exploring individual cases of homicide with a view todeveloping applied tools for law enforcement in the prevention and detec-tion of homicide.

Conclusion

We conclude that ‘Facebook Murder’ is not a useful or conceptuallyvalid term for criminologists examining the role of SNSs in contem-porary homicide. The cases we identified were not collectively unique orunusual when compared with general trends and characteristics – cer-tainly not to a degree that would necessitate the introduction of a newcategory of homicide or justify a broad label like ‘Facebook Murder’.Whilst there are some differences in terms of a younger age profile,



TA

BL

E15

Typo

logy

ofSN

SU

sage

byPe

rpet

rato

rsof

Hom

icid

e

Type

Hom

icid

eca

tego

ry(B

rook

man

2005

)C

hara

cter

istic

sE

xam

ple

case

n%

Rea

ctor

Con

fron

tatio

nal;

Dom

estic

(Fam

ilyIn

timac

y);

Dom

estic

(Sex

ualI

ntim

acy)

;Je

alou

sy/R

even

ge.

Rea

cts

toco

nten

tpo

sted

onSN

Sby

atta

ckin

gth

evi

ctim

offli

ne.T

his

may

beim

med

iate

lyaf

ter

view

ing

the

cont

ent

that

mak

esth

eman

gry

orth

ere

may

bea

time

dela

yin

whi

chth

eyre

visi

tth

eco

nten

tan

dru

min

ate

over

itsm

eani

ng.

2008

Lon

don,

UK

:W

ayne

Forr

este

r(3

4)ki

lled

his

wife

Em

ma

(34)

afte

rre

adin

ghe

rpo

sts

clai

min

gth

atth

eyha

dse

para

ted

and

she

wan

ted

tom

eet

othe

rm

en.

1327

.1

Info

rmer

Con

fron

tatio

nal;

Dom

estic

(Fam

ilyIn

timac

y);

Dom

estic

(Sex

ualI

ntim

acy)

;Je

alou

sy/R

even

ge.

Use

sSN

Sto

info

rmth

eir

netw

orke

dpu

blic

abou

tho

mic

idal

inte

ntio

ns,a

hom

icid

eco

mm

itted

,or

both

.Inf

orm

ers

use

SNS

asa

way

ofpe

rfor

min

gse

lfw

hen

pow

eror

cont

rolo

ver

thei

rvi

ctim

isce

ntra

lto

thei

rid

entit

y.

2013

Col

orad

o,U

SA:

Mer

rick

McK

oy(2

2)sn

atch

edhi

sda

ught

erM

ia(2

)fr

omhi

sex

-par

tner

.Aft

erpo

stin

gph

otog

raph

sof

him

self

and

Mia

onFa

cebo

okal

ong

with

sini

ster

mes

sage

s,he

shot

her

befo

retu

rnin

gth

egu

non

him

self.

One

post

read

:‘I

told

uI

can’

tliv

ew

ithou

tu

lolu

thou

ght

Iw

asjo

king

now

me

nM

iaou

tth

isb*

***.

’

1122

.9

Ant

agon

ist

Con

fron

tatio

nal;

Jeal

ousy

/Rev

enge

(Unr

elat

edIn

divi

dual

s).

Eng

ages

inon

line

host

ileex

chan

ges

that

esca

late

into

offli

nevi

olen

ce.T

hela

ckof

soci

alcu

esan

dab

senc

eof

alte

rnat

ive

com

mun

icat

ion

med

iafu

els

the

host

ilitie

s.T

hean

tago

nist

may

seek

toin

trod

uce

aph

ysic

alad

vant

age

whe

nth

eco

nflic

tgo

esof

fline

thro

ugh

arm

ing

them

selv

es.

2009

Lon

don,

UK

:A

nun

nam

edpe

rpet

rato

r(1

5)st

abbe

dSa

lum

Kom

bo(1

8)to

deat

hin

the

stre

etaf

ter

the

two

had

trad

edin

sults

onFa

cebo

ok.

816

.7

Fant

asis

tD

omes

tic(F

amily

Intim

acy)

;D

omes

tic(S

exua

lInt

imac

y);

Hom

icid

ein

the

Cou

rse

ofO

ther

Cri

me

(Sex

Att

ack)

;O

ther

Uns

peci

fied

Cir

cum

stan

ces.

Use

sSN

Sto

perf

orm

orin

dulg

ein

afa

ntas

y.Fo

rfa

ntas

ists

,the

line

betw

een

fant

asy

and

real

ityha

sbe

com

ein

crea

sing

lybl

urre

dan

dth

eho

mic

ide

may

bea

way

ofm

aint

aini

ngth

efa

ntas

yor

prev

entin

got

hers

from

disc

over

ing

the

dece

ptio

n.

2008

Edm

onto

n,C

anad

a:M

ark

Twitc

hell

(31)

kille

dJo

hnny

Alti

nger

(38)

ina

rent

edga

rage

set

upas

a‘k

illro

om’,

insp

ired

byth

efic

tiona

lTV

seri

alki

ller,

Dex

ter.

Twitc

hell

crea

ted

aFa

cebo

okac

coun

tpr

eten

ding

tobe

Dex

ter,

whi

chde

taile

dhi

spr

epar

atio

nsfo

ra

killi

ngsp

ree.

612

.5

Pred

ator

Hom

icid

ein

the

Cou

rse

ofO

ther

Cri

me

(Sex

Att

ack)

;Je

alou

sy/R

even

ge(U

nrel

ated

Indi

vidu

als)

.

Cre

ates

and

mai

ntai

nsa

fake

profi

leto

lure

avi

ctim

and

mee

tth

emof

fline

.May

draw

upon

the

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

eon

the

vict

im’s

profi

leto

iden

tify

and

expl

oit

vuln

erab

ilitie

sto

esta

blis

hgr

ound

upon

whi

chto

deve

lop

are

latio

nshi

p.

2010

Sydn

ey,A

ustr

alia

:C

hris

toph

erD

anne

vig

(21)

kille

dN

ona

Bel

omes

off

(18)

afte

rbe

frie

ndin

ghe

rth

roug

ha

fake

profi

le.

He

glea

ned

info

rmat

ion

abou

the

rin

tere

stin

anim

als

from

her

profi

lebe

fore

luri

nghe

rto

Smith

Cre

ekR

eser

ve,c

laim

ing

tobe

arra

ngin

ga

trai

ning

cam

pfo

ra

wild

life

resc

uegr

oup.

612

.5

Impo

ster

Dom

estic

(Sex

ualI

ntim

acy)

.Po

sts

inth

ena

me

ofso

meo

neel

seon

SNS.

Thi

sco

uld

beth

evi

ctim

inor

der

tocr

eate

the

illus

ion

that

they

are

still

aliv

e,or

anot

her

pers

on,t

oga

inac

cess

toan

dm

onito

rth

evi

ctim

’sSN

Spr

ofile

.

2010

Hol

mfir

th,U

K:

And

rew

Lin

do(2

9)ki

lled

his

part

ner

Mar

ieSt

ewar

t(3

0)an

dpo

sted

upda

tes

tohe

rFa

cebo

okpa

gecl

aim

ing

that

she

had

left

him

and

gone

abro

adto

the

Can

ary

Isla

nds.

48.

3



economic diversity amongst those involved in confrontational homicideand over-representation of homicide-suicides and female victims, we canbegin to make sense of these findings by exploring the existing literaturearound SNS usage and emphasising the need for further research intoSNSs in cases of homicide. The latter will require qualitative in-depth casestudies to begin exploring the meaning and significance of SNSs for theindividuals involved, which could further build on the types we identifiedfrom our sample. Our research has focused upon Facebook, therefore itwill be important to broaden criminological knowledge of SNSs in thecontext of homicide by studying other SNSs – bearing in mind differentaffordances and usage patterns. Furthermore, it is clear that SNSs repre-sent just one form of contemporary communication (Madianou and Miller2013) – to fully understand their significance for homicide, it will benecessary to explore how individuals blend them with other forms ofcommunication, such as smartphone and email.

The presentation of self through SNSs has been the subject of study byacademics from a wide range of disciplines; however, criminologists study-ing homicide were notably quiet about this digital medium of communi-cation – much as they are about other more-established communicationtechnologies. Our findings have begun to address this dearth and cautionagainst the use of deterministic media constructs like ‘Facebook Murder’ –Baym’s (2010) comments provide an appropriate summary in this regard:

. . . digital media aren’t saving us or ruining us. They aren’t reinventing us. Butthey are changing the way we relate to others and ourselves in countless, pervasiveways . . . It is not a question of either/or, one versus the other. It’s a question ofwho’s communicating, for what purpose, in what context, and what their expecta-tions are . . . (p.153)

References

Baker, S.A. (2011) ‘The mediated crowd: new social media and new forms of rioting’,Sociological Research Online, 16, 21.

Barnes, S.B. (2006) ‘A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States’, FirstMonday, 11(9).

Bates, D. and Duell, M. (2011) ‘“Please forgive me for what I’m gonna do”: mother’sFacebook message before drowning three of her four children by driving them intothe Hudson’, MailOnline, 15 April.

Baym, N.K. (2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age, Cambridge: Polity.Boyd, D. (2007) ‘Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in

teenage social life’, in: D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity and Digital Media, Cam-bridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Boyd, D. (2011) ‘Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics andimplications’, in: Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Cultureon Social Network Sites, New York: Routledge.

Boyd, D. and Ellison, N.B. (2008) ‘Social network sites: definition, history and scholar-ship’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13, 210–30.

Briggs, D. (Ed). (2012) The English Riots of 2011: A Summer of Discontent, Hook: WatersidePress.



Brookman, F. (2003) ‘Confrontational and grudge revenge homicides in England andWales’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36, 34–59.

Brookman, F. (2005) Understanding Homicide, London: Sage.Brookman, F. and Maguire, M. (2003) Reducing Homicide: A Review of the Possibilities,

London: Home Office.Carpenter, C.J. (2012) ‘Narcissism on Facebook: self-promotional and anti-social behav-

iour’, Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 482–6.Carter, H. (2010) ‘Facebook killer sentenced to life for teenager’s murder’, Guardian

Unlimited, 8 March.Chambers, D. (2013) Personal Relationships and Social Media, Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.D’Cruze, S., Walklate, S. and Pegg, S. (2006) Murder, London: Routledge.Donath, J. (2007) ‘Signals in social supernets’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communica-

tion, 13, 231–51.Duthiers, V. (2012) ‘Facebook “stalkers” face trial for model’s murder’, CNN Newswire, 25

October.Dyer, R., Green, R., Pitts, M. and Millward, G. (1995) ‘What’s the flaming problem? Or

computer mediated communication–deindividuating or disinhibiting?’, in: M.A.R.Kirby, A.J. Dix and J.E. Finlay (Eds.), People and Computers X, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gershon, I. (2010) The Breakup 2.0: Disconnecting Over New Media, Ithaca, NY.: CornellUniversity Press.

Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Anchor Books.Holdsworth, C. and Morgan, D. (2007) ‘Revisiting the generalised other: an explora-

tion’, Sociology, 41, 401–17.Jewkes, Y. (2004) Media and Crime, London: Sage.Joinson, A.N. (2007) ‘Disinhibition and the Internet’, in: J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology

and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Transpersonal Implications, San Diego,CA.: Elsevier Academic Press.

Kalpidou, M., Costin, D. and Morris, J. (2011) ‘The relationship between Facebook andthe wellbeing of undergraduate college students’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and SocialNetworking, 14, 183–9.

Kirkpatrick, D. (2011) The Facebook Effect, New York: Simon and Schuster.Lapidot-Lefler, N. and Barak, A. (2012) ‘Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack

of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition’, Computers in Human Behavior, 28,434–43.

Law, D.M., Shapka, J.D., Domene, J.F. and Gagne, M.H. (2012) ‘Are cyberbullies reallybullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression’, Computers inHuman Behaviour, 28, 664–72.

Liem M., Barber C., Markwalder N., Killias, M. and Nieuwbeerta, P. (2011) ‘Homicide–suicide and other violent deaths: an international comparison’, Forensic Science Inter-national, 207, 70–6.

Lim, S.S., Chan, Y.H., Vadrevu, S. and Basnyat, I. (2013) ‘Managing peer relationshipsonline: investigating the use of Facebook by juvenile delinquents and youths-at-risk’,Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 8–15.

Lloyd, M. (2014) ‘Hassan Mahmood killer named for first time after Birmingham Mailoverturns court ban’, Birmingham Mail, 14 April.

Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J. and Cratty, A.D. (2011) ‘College students’ Facebookstalking of ex-partners’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14, 711–6.

Madianou, M. and Miller, D. (2013) ‘Polymedia: towards a new theory of digitalmedia in interpersonal communication’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16,169–87.



Maguire, M.R. (2012) Technology, Crime and Justice: The Question Concerning Technomia,Abingdon: Routledge.

Manchester Evening News (2010) ‘Teen killer’s sick jibe over Facebook row knife horror’,Manchester Evening News, 9 December, 12.

Marwick, A.E. (2008) ‘To catch a predator? The MySpace moral panic’, First Monday, 13,2.

Mead, G.H. (1934/1962) Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist,Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.

Muise, A., Christofides, E. and Desmarais, S. (2009) ‘More information than you everwanted: does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?’, Cyberpsychol-ogy and Behavior, 12, 441–4.

Office for National Statistics (2014a) Crime in England and Wales Year Ending September2013, London: Office for National Statistics.

Office for National Statistics (2014b) Crime Statistics, Focus on Violent Crime and SexualOffences, 2012/13, London: Office for National Statistics.

Papacharissi, Z. (2009) ‘The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparativeanalysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld’, New Media & Society, 11,199–220.

Patton, D., Eschmann, R. and Butler, D. (2013) ‘Internet banging: new trends in socialmedia, gang violence, masculinity and hip-hop’, Computers in Human Behavior, 29,54–9.

Polk, K. (1994) When Men Kill: Scenarios of Masculine Violence, New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Polk, K. (1999) ‘Males and honour contest violence’, Homicide Studies, 3, 6–29.Robinson, L. (2007) ‘The Cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction

in the digital age’, New Media & Society, 9, 93–110.Rock, P. (1998) After Homicide, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Runions, K.C. (2013) ‘Toward a conceptual model of motive and self-control in cyber-

aggression: rage, revenge, reward, and recreation’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence,42, 751–71.

Sheridan, L. and Grant, T. (2007) ‘Is cyberstalking different?’, Psychology, Crime and Law,13, 627–40.

Sloane, A. (2013) ‘Facebook killing: calculated murder or battered husband fightingback?’, CNN Newswire, 16 October.

Smith, E.L. and Cooper, E. (2013) Homicide in the US Known to Law Enforcement 2011,Washington: US Department of Justice.

Spitzberg, B. and Hoobler, G. (2002) ‘Cyberstalking and the technologies of interper-sonal terrorism’, New Media & Society, 4, 71–92.

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B. and Lampe, C.A.C. (2008) ‘Social capital, self-esteem and useof online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis’, Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 29, 434–45.

Suler, J. (2004) ‘The online disinhibition effect’, Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 7, 321–6.Toch, H. (1969) Violent Men: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Violence, Chicago, IL.: Aldine.Tufecki, Z. (2008) ‘Grooming, gossip, Facebook and MySpace’, Information Communication

and Society, 11, 544–64.Walther, J.B. (2011) ‘Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal

relations’, in: M.L. Knapp and J.A. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of InterpersonalCommunication, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Wiederhold, B.K. (2013) ‘Are “Facebook Murders” a growing trend?’, Cyberpsychology,Behavior and Social Networking, 16, 1–2.

Wilson, R.E., Gosling, S.D. and Graham, L.T. (2012) ‘A review of Facebook research inthe social sciences’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 203–20.



Wykes, M. (2010) ‘Harm, suicide and homicide in cyberspace: assessing causality andcontrol’, in: Y. Jewkes and M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook of Internet Crime, Cullompton:Willan.

Yardley, E., Wilson, D. and Lynes, A. (2013) ‘A taxonomy of male British family anni-hilators 1980–2012’, Howard Journal, 53, 117–40.

Date submitted: August 2014Date accepted: September 2014

