A Criminological And Psychological Autopsy Of A Sadistic Killer: The Case Of Joanna Dennehy

✚Topics✚

Introduction

In the annals of British criminal history, few figures present as stark a paradox or as chilling a profile as Joanna Dennehy. Her case is not merely a chronicle of murder but a profound study in the confluence of severe personality disorders, sadistic violence, and the rare phenomenon of a female serial killer who employed methods of overt, intimate brutality typically associated with male offenders. In March 2013, over a harrowing 10-day period, Dennehy embarked on a killing spree that left three men dead in the ditches around Peterborough and two others grievously wounded in the streets of Hereford.

This report seeks to provide a comprehensive criminological and psychological analysis of her case, moving beyond the sensational headlines to dissect the antecedents of her violence, the methodical nature of her crimes, the manipulation of her accomplices, and her continued manifestation of psychopathic traits within the prison system. As one of only a handful of women in the United Kingdom to be serving a whole life order, and the first to be given one directly by a judge, Joanna Dennehy’s case stands as a critical and disturbing study in psychopathy, control, and the subversion of gendered patterns of criminal violence.

The Psychopathology of a Killer: Antecedents and Diagnosis

Joanna Dennehy’s violent eruption in 2013 was not a sudden fracture from a stable personality but rather the violent culmination of long-developing and deeply entrenched psychopathological traits. An examination of her background and the psychiatric evaluations conducted both before and after her crimes reveals a complex interplay of personality disorders and paraphilia that synergistically created a uniquely dangerous individual.

The Contradiction of Upbringing

A central enigma in the Dennehy case is the stark dissonance between her origins and her eventual actions. Born in August 1982 in St Albans, she grew up in the nearby, respectable town of Harpenden. The sentencing judge, Mr. Justice Spencer, explicitly noted that she had a “perfectly decent and proper upbringing and the advantage of a good home”. Her family was stable; her father worked in security and her mother was a shop manager. She was academically bright, played for school sports teams, and her parents held aspirations for her to attend university and pursue a career in law.

This seemingly ordinary middle-class background makes her later claims of childhood abuse, which she used to manipulate her landlord and lover Kevin Lee, highly suspect. She fabricated a fantastical history of being abused by her father, even claiming to have murdered him and served a prison sentence for it—a complete falsehood. There is no corroborating evidence for these abuse claims; indeed, her family and friends have insisted she was treated well.

This pattern of inventing a victim narrative is a well-documented manipulative tactic among individuals with psychopathic traits, used to elicit sympathy, excuse aberrant behavior, and exert control over others. From the outset, this establishes Dennehy as an unreliable narrator of her own history, whose personal accounts were tools for deception rather than reflections of reality.

A Constellation of Disorders

Dennehy’s behavior was formally assessed by medical professionals on multiple occasions. A year before the murders, she was diagnosed with a psychopathic antisocial personality disorder, which manifested in anger, aggression, impulsivity, and a profound lack of concern for the safety of others. After her arrest, assessing psychiatrists confirmed these findings, diagnosing her with psychopathic, antisocial, and borderline personality disorders.

This combination of disorders created a “perfect storm” for extreme violence. Her psychopathy endowed her with a chilling lack of empathy, a capacity for skilled deception, and an inability to feel remorse. Her antisocial traits fueled the aggression and impulsivity required to act on violent urges. The borderline traits may have contributed to emotional instability and the intense, chaotic relationships she formed. That she was known to authorities is also clear.

The year before the killing spree, she had been treated on a psychiatric ward at Peterborough Hospital. Furthermore, at the time of the murders, she was under the supervision of the Probation Service for prior convictions of assault and owning a dangerous dog, though it was later concluded that the staff managing her case were inexperienced. This history of contact with both the medical and criminal justice systems suggests that the severity of her combined pathologies may not have been fully appreciated, representing potential missed opportunities for more robust intervention and management.

The Sadistic Sexual Component

The motivational core of Dennehy’s violence appears to be rooted in a profound and disturbing paraphilia. While incarcerated at HMP Bronzefield, she was diagnosed by a consultant forensic psychiatrist with paraphilia sadomasochism, a condition in which sexual excitement is derived from acts involving the infliction of pain, humiliation, or bondage. This diagnosis provides the crucial link between her internal psychological state and her external acts of murder.

The violence was not merely a means to an end; for Dennehy, it was the end itself. Mr. Justice Spencer concluded she was driven by a “sadistic lust for blood”. Dennehy herself articulated this to a psychiatrist, stating she killed “to see if I was as cold as I thought I was. Then it got moreish and I got a taste for it”. This desire for “fun” was the explicit motivation for her later attacks in Hereford.

Her paraphilia manifested in overt ways long before the murders. She was a consumer of violent pornography, was known to self-harm (sometimes during intercourse), and often wore a pair of handcuffs attached to her trousers as an accessory, a blatant signal of her proclivities. This sadistic sexual component was the engine of her killing spree, providing the profound gratification that made murder “moreish.”

The Peterborough Killing Spree (March 2013)

The series of murders committed by Joanna Dennehy in Peterborough over a 10-day period in March 2013 represents the first phase of her violent spree. These initial killings were not random acts but targeted attacks on men within her immediate social circle, over whom she could exert a degree of psychological or emotional control. The murders can therefore be interpreted as the ultimate, fatal expression of her pre-existing desire for dominance.

Table 1: Summary of Offences by Joanna Dennehy (March-April 2013)

Victim Name	Age	Relationship to Dennehy	Date of Attack	Location	Outcome
Lukasz Slaboszewski	31	Acquaintance	Approx. March 19, 2013	Peterborough	Murdered
John Chapman	56	Housemate	March 29, 2013	Peterborough	Murdered
Kevin Lee	48	Landlord/Lover	March 29, 2013	Peterborough	Murdered
Robin Bereza	–	Stranger	April 2, 2013	Hereford	Attempted Murder – Survived
John Rogers	–	Stranger	April 2, 2013	Hereford	Attempted Murder – Survived

Victim 1: Lukasz Slaboszewski – The Lure and the First Kill

Lukasz Slaboszewski, a 31-year-old Polish national, was Dennehy’s first victim. He had met her through a shared interest in drugs and alcohol. Demonstrating her manipulative capabilities, Dennehy lured him into a false sense of security, leading him to believe they were embarking on a romantic relationship. He was so convinced that he texted a friend, “life was beautiful now that he had you as his girlfriend”. On or around March 19, 2013, she invited him via text message to a property at 11 Rolleston Garth in Peterborough. There, she stabbed him once, directly through the heart, with a pocket knife.

Her reaction to her first murder was not one of panic or remorse, but of chilling detachment. She stored Slaboszewski’s body in a wheelie bin and, in a grotesque display of her lack of empathy, casually showed the corpse to a teenage girl. This first kill provided the “taste” for murder she would later describe as “moreish”.

Victim 2: John Chapman – The Housemate

Approximately ten days later, in the early hours of Good Friday, March 29, Dennehy murdered her 56-year-old housemate, John Chapman. Chapman, a Royal Navy veteran who had fallen on hard times due to alcoholism, was living in a bedsit at 38 Bifield, where Dennehy had also moved. He was vulnerable and, according to prosecutors, “at the mercy” of Dennehy. She stabbed him to death in his own room. The attack was savage: he suffered one stab wound to the neck, severing the carotid artery, and five to the chest, two of which penetrated his heart with enough force to pass through the breastbone. There were no defensive wounds, suggesting he was attacked while intoxicated or asleep.

Immediately after the murder, Dennehy’s cavalier attitude was on full display. She began using the dead man’s mobile phone and contacted her accomplice, Gary Stretch, reportedly telling him, “Oops, I’ve done it again”. This flippant remark underscores her complete emotional detachment and the emergence of a spree mentality.

Victim 3: Kevin Lee – The Landlord and Lover

The murder of Kevin Lee, a 48-year-old property developer and father, was the most psychologically complex of the three, representing a culmination of manipulation, sadistic control, and ultimate humiliation. For months, Dennehy had cultivated a controlling relationship with Lee, who was both her landlord and lover. She had “brainwashed” him with her fabricated stories of a traumatic past, to the point where he felt able to confide in her after she had already committed her first murder.

On the same day she killed Chapman, March 29, she lured Lee to the property at 11 Rolleston Garth, the site of the first murder. She did so with the explicit promise of a sadomasochistic sexual encounter, telling him she was going to “dress me up and rape me”. Upon his arrival, she stabbed him to death. The final act of degradation was post-mortem. When Lee’s body was discovered in a ditch near Newborough the next day, it had been dressed in a black sequined dress, an act of humiliation that physically manifested her psychological dominance and sadistic desires.

The Willing Accomplices

Dennehy did not act entirely alone. She relied on the logistical support of at least two men: Gary “Stretch” Richards, 47, and Leslie Layton, 36. Stretch, a man of imposing height at 7 feet 3 inches, actively assisted in dumping the bodies of all three victims, using his local knowledge to find remote ditches. Layton, Dennehy’s housemate, assisted in the disposal of the bodies of Chapman and Lee.

They were instrumental in the clean-up operations and the destruction of evidence, such as the torching of Kevin Lee’s car. Their involvement was crucial to Dennehy’s ability to conceal her crimes, and the question of whether they acted as willing participants or under duress would become a central issue at their subsequent trial.

The Hunt for “Fun”: Escalation in Hereford and Final Capture

The journey from Peterborough to Hereford marks a critical psychological transition for Joanna Dennehy. Her flight was not a desperate attempt to evade capture but a celebratory tour that saw her pathology metastasize from targeted killings for control to random, expressive violence enacted for pure hedonistic pleasure. The restraints of targeting known individuals dissolved entirely, leaving only the uninhibited pursuit of sadistic gratification.

The “Bonnie and Clyde” Fantasy

After the discovery of Kevin Lee’s body, Dennehy and Gary Stretch fled Peterborough. Their behavior on the run demonstrated a complete lack of fear or remorse. Instead, they embraced their notoriety. When Dennehy saw a police television appeal for information about them, she was described as “jumping around” with excitement and joy. She reveled in her new identity as one of Britain’s most wanted, comparing herself and Stretch to the infamous American outlaws Bonnie and Clyde. This fantasy was an expression of her narcissistic and sensation-seeking traits; she was not just a killer, but the star of her own violent tragedy.

“I Want My Fun”: The Shift to Random Violence

The motive for the next stage of her spree was articulated with chilling clarity. While travelling with Stretch and another man, Mark Lloyd, Dennehy announced, “I’ve killed three people; Gary’s helped me dispose of them and I want to do some more. I want my fun”. As she and Stretch scoured the streets of Hereford on April 2, 2013, she repeated this desire, telling him, “I want my fun. I need you to get my fun”.

This was the unadorned, psychopathic core of her motivation: killing for entertainment. She specifically sought male victims, telling Lloyd she did not wish to kill a woman, especially one with children. By this point, the “cooling-off” period often seen in serial offenders had collapsed; the urge to kill had become immediate and insatiable.

The Hereford Attacks: A Study in Callous Brutality

The attacks in Hereford were the direct fulfillment of this desire. The victims were chosen at random, their only qualification being that they were men in her path. Her first target was Robin Bereza, a retired firefighter walking his dog. Dennehy got out of the car driven by Stretch, approached Bereza from behind, and stabbed him twice before he realized what was happening. As he turned, she stared through him and said, “I’m hurting you. I’m going to fucking kill you”. Bereza kicked her, but it had “no impact on her”. The attack only ceased when a passerby intervened.

Just nine minutes later, she attacked her final victim, John Rogers, who was also walking his dog. He felt what he thought was a punch in the back, but when he turned, he saw Dennehy stabbing him in the chest. When he asked her what was happening, she noted that he was bleeding and calmly stated, “I better do some more”. Rogers described her as showing no emotion, simply “going about business”. Both Bereza and Rogers suffered horrific, near-fatal injuries but miraculously survived after being airlifted to hospital. By this time, the blade of Dennehy’s knife was reportedly black with dried blood, and an accomplice said she “stank” of it.

The Investigation and Capture

The police investigation began on March 30, 2013, with the discovery of Kevin Lee’s body, which had been staged in a humiliating manner. This triggered a major murder investigation led by the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Hertfordshire Major Crime Collaboration Unit. The full scale of the killing spree only became apparent on April 3, when the bodies of Lukasz Slaboszewski and John Chapman were discovered in a ditch near Thorney.

By then, Dennehy was already in Hereford. Her capture was a direct result of the rapid police response to the random stabbings and the crucial testimony of her surviving victims. Robin Bereza was able to describe his attacker as a woman with a distinctive star tattoo on her face, which allowed police to quickly identify Dennehy as the prime suspect. Later that day, April 2, an area search resulted in her and Stretch’s arrest. Upon her capture, arresting officers recovered a wealth of damning evidence: the blood-stained knife, clothing, John Rogers’ stolen dog, and a camera containing bizarre self-portraits of Dennehy posing provocatively with her jagged-edged knife just before the attacks.

The Manipulation of Justice: Court Proceedings and Sentencing

The judicial process that followed Joanna Dennehy’s capture became another arena for her to enact her core psychopathic traits. Even within the highly structured and controlled environment of the British legal system, she continued to seek dominance and display a profound contempt for the proceedings, demonstrating that her need for control was an immutable aspect of her personality.

The Surprise Guilty Plea

In a dramatic turn of events at the Old Bailey in November 2013, Joanna Dennehy pleaded guilty to all charges: three counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, and three counts of preventing the lawful burial of a body. The plea stunned the court and her own legal team. This act should not be interpreted as one of remorse, but as a calculated move to seize control of the narrative.

By admitting her guilt, she preempted a lengthy trial, denying the prosecution its methodical presentation of evidence and robbing the victims’ families of a full public hearing. Her sister, Maria, aptly observed, “I think she did that to control the situation. She likes people to know she’s the boss”. Dennehy’s own words in court reinforced this interpretation of her plea as an assertion of power: “I’ve pleaded guilty, and that’s that”.

The Trial of the Accomplices: The Duress Defense

With Dennehy’s guilt established, the focus shifted to the trial of her accomplices, Gary Stretch and Leslie Layton, at Cambridge Crown Court. The central pillar of their defense was the claim that they had acted under duress. Their barristers portrayed them as weak men who were “bent to her will” by a fearsome and manipulative woman, likened to a Shakespearean villain.

The prosecution countered this narrative forcefully, arguing that they were not terrified subordinates but “willing accomplices” who “revelled in bringing suffering and misery upon their victims”. Evidence was presented to rebut the duress claim, most notably the fact that Leslie Layton had taken a photograph of John Chapman’s body on his mobile phone—an act the prosecution argued was a testament to the “warped nature of these crimes”. The jury ultimately rejected the duress defense, finding Stretch guilty of attempted murder and three counts of preventing a lawful burial, and Layton guilty of perverting the course of justice and two counts of preventing a lawful burial.

Sentencing: The Judge’s Verdict on a “Manipulative Serial Killer”

The sentencing hearing on February 28, 2014, provided the definitive judicial assessment of Joanna Dennehy’s character and crimes. Throughout the hearing, Dennehy remained defiant, laughing, smirking, and chatting with her co-accused in the dock in a final, performative display of her psychopathic detachment from the gravity of her actions.

Mr. Justice Spencer delivered a powerful summary, labeling her a “cruel, calculating, selfish and manipulative serial killer”. He noted that she had shown “no remorse” and was driven by a “sadistic lust for blood”. He confirmed that her crimes involved “sexual and sadistic conduct” and that each murder was premeditated. His remarks codified the psychological and criminological assessments of her character into a formal legal judgment.

The Whole Life Order: A Legal Landmark

In recognition of the exceptional severity of her crimes, Mr. Justice Spencer sentenced Joanna Dennehy to life imprisonment with a whole life order, meaning she will never be eligible for parole. This sentence was a legal landmark. While Myra Hindley and Rosemary West were also serving whole life tariffs, their sentences had been determined by a Home Secretary under a previous system. Dennehy became the first woman in UK history to be given a whole life order by a judge at the point of sentencing. This decision underscored the judiciary’s view that her dangerousness and culpability were so extreme as to be irredeemable.

Sentences for Accomplices

Her accomplices received sentences reflecting their varying levels of involvement. Gary Stretch was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum term of 19 years for his role in the attempted murders and body disposals. Leslie Layton received a total sentence of 14 years for preventing lawful burials and perverting the course of justice. A third man, Robert Moore, 55, who had admitted to the lesser charge of assisting an offender, was sentenced to three years in prison.

A Life Without End: Incarceration, Control, and Continued Infamy

Incarceration did not neutralize Joanna Dennehy’s psychopathic traits; it merely transferred them to a new, more constrained environment. Her life behind bars has been characterized by the same core drivers—a need for control, a capacity for manipulation, and the planning of extreme violence—that defined her actions in the outside world. She has remained an active agent of chaos and control, continuing to challenge authority and form destructive relationships.

The Escape Plot: A Blueprint for Mayhem

While on remand at the Category A facility HMP Bronzefield, Dennehy’s violent and calculating mindset remained fully intact. Prison staff discovered a “credible” and detailed escape plot in her diary. The plan was not a fantasy but a chillingly practical blueprint for mayhem. It involved her and two other prisoners killing a female guard to obtain her keys and, in a particularly gruesome detail, amputating one of the officer’s fingers to use her fingerprint to deceive the prison’s biometric security systems.

The authorities took the threat with utmost seriousness, describing Dennehy as “arguably the most dangerous female prisoner in custody”. In contrast, Dennehy dismissed the elaborate plan as nothing more than a “doodle”. The plot directly paralleled the cold-blooded premeditation of her murders and led to her being placed on the escape list and held in segregation.

Legal Challenges from Behind Bars

The discovery of the escape plot resulted in Dennehy being placed in segregation from September 2013 to September 2015. In a characteristic act of defiance, she used the legal system to challenge her treatment, launching a High Court claim for damages and alleging that her segregation violated her human rights. She claimed the isolation left her “tearful and upset” and had led to a resumption of self-harming.

In May 2016, the High Court rejected her claim. While the court acknowledged a procedural flaw—that the initial period of segregation had not been properly authorized by the Secretary of State as required by Prison Rules at the time—it ultimately ruled that her placement in segregation was necessary, lawful, and proportionate given the extreme risk she posed. This episode demonstrated her capacity to use the very system designed to contain her as a tool for manipulation and disruption.

Relationships and Manipulation in Prison

Dennehy’s ability to form intense, controlling, and destructive bonds has continued within the prison system. After her trial, she was returned to HMP Bronzefield, where she formed a relationship with a fellow inmate, Hayley Palmer. In 2018, she requested permission to marry Palmer, a move that alarmed Palmer’s family, who feared for her safety. Later that year, the relationship reportedly culminated in a suicide pact between the two women. By June 2020, Dennehy was reported to be in a new relationship with another prisoner, Emma Aitken, who was serving a sentence for her part in a murder. These incidents mirror the manipulative and controlling dynamics she established with her male accomplices on the outside.

Prison Transfers and Notoriety

In 2019, Dennehy was transferred to the high-security HMP Low Newton in County Durham. Her infamous status within the prison hierarchy was highlighted by reports that upon her arrival, she allegedly threatened fellow serial killer Rosemary West, prompting West to be moved to another prison for her own safety, a claim the government denied. HMP Low Newton is where she remains, now housed in the same facility as Lucy Letby, another of Britain’s most notorious female murderers.

Conclusion: Situating Dennehy in the Criminological Landscape

The case of Joanna Dennehy provides a chilling and invaluable study for criminology and forensic psychology. She represents a rare and important archetype: the female sadistic psychopath who kills with the overt aggression, instrumentality, and hedonism typically associated with male offenders. Her actions violently subverted not only the law but also deep-seated societal expectations of female criminality, securing her place as one of the most disturbing figures in modern British crime.

A Rare Archetype: The Female “Hands-On” Serial Killer

Female serial killers are a statistical rarity, accounting for a small percentage of the total. Criminological profiles often categorize them as “quiet” killers who may use poison or manipulation, or as secondary partners to a dominant male perpetrator. Dennehy shatters these typologies. She was the sole instigator and dominant force in her crimes, using a knife to inflict brutal, intimate, and physically demanding injuries. Her violence was not covert; it was expressive, bloody, and confrontational. She did not kill for financial gain or out of a distorted sense of mercy; she killed for the explicit purpose of sadistic and sexual gratification.

Comparative Analysis: Dennehy, West, and Letby

A comparison with the other women in the UK serving whole life orders illuminates Dennehy’s unique profile.

Rosemary West was convicted for her role in 10 murders committed with her husband, Fred, over a period of many years. Their crimes involved the prolonged abduction, torture, and sexual abuse of young women. While undeniably sadistic, West’s agency is inextricably linked with that of her dominant husband, fitting a more recognized, albeit horrific, pattern of a murderous couple.
Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, represents the “quiet” killer archetype. She abused her position of ultimate trust to covertly murder seven infants and attempt to murder six others in a clinical setting. Her violence was hidden, insidious, and directed at the most defenseless victims imaginable.
Joanna Dennehy stands in stark contrast to both. She acted as the lone architect of her killing spree, with her male accomplices serving as logistical subordinates. Her victims were adult men, and her method was overt, physical violence. Her motivation was not concealed but openly declared as a hunt for “fun” and the satisfaction of a “moreish” taste for killing.

Final Assessment: A Legacy of Manipulative Sadism

Joanna Dennehy is, as one expert described her, a “classic psychopath”. Her case demonstrates the catastrophic potential of an individual possessing a rare combination of manipulative intelligence, a profound lack of empathy, and a sexually charged lust for violence. The public and academic fascination with her case stems from the brutal manner in which she transgressed legal, moral, and gendered boundaries.

She did not simply take life; she reveled in the act of killing and the power it afforded her. Her legacy is one of manipulative sadism, a chilling reminder that the capacity for such calculated and cruel violence is not confined by gender, leaving behind a wake of not just death, but of profound psychological and social disruption that continues to demand study and understanding.