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 Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
3© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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).
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
4© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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,
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
5© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
6© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
7© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
8© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
9© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
10© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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).)
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
11© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
12© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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.)
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
13© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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.)
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
14© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
15© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
16© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
17© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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,
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
18© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
19© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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-
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
20© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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,
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
21© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
22© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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.
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
23© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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.
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
24© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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.
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
25© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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
The Howard Journal Vol •• No ••. •• 2014ISSN 0265-5527, pp. ••–••
26© 2014 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd