Psychopaths and crime

Nobody here should be surprised at the frequency with which the psychopathic personality crops up as the perpetrator of crime in real life: fraud, theft, robbery, burglary, rape, and murder. This is not to say that all criminals are psychopaths–far from it–but many of the worst offenders are.

In crime fiction too, Agatha Christie, though she never used the term, was well aware of the type, including their well known “superficial charm.” Not that her killers were necessarily psychopaths, or her psychopaths necessarily killers, for she almost never wrote the same plot twice; but sometimes they were.

Nor are psychopaths in real life necessarily all the same. While they are generally reputed to be avid pursuers of sex, I can think right away of one infamous serial killer who showed little interest in sex. He had been married; he was a cultured man who could charm women as well as men; and he had a girlfriend half his age whom he never mistreated, He just didn’t pursue women for sex. Naturally it is tempting to conclude he might have been homosexual, except that there is no evidence at all for this. Some people just have a low sex drive, or other inhibitions. This man’s lust was not for sex, but for money, and he killed ruthlessly for money, all of his victims being his friends. The first person to suspect him was a perceptive 37-year-old woman police sergeant, whose experience and instinct told her he was a “wrong ‘un”–a little too smooth, a little too “keen to help” with an investigation, which goes to show there is much to be said for intuition.

Among many accounts of crime in real life, I came across an intriguing one recently that at first glance seemed to present a “whodunit” worthy of Agatha Christie. It occurred in 1938 in the village of Risby in the county of Suffolk, England.

William Murfitt was a prosperous 56-year-old farmer who lived in a farmhouse with his wife Gertrude. They had a cook, a maid, and a farm secretary named Molly, while the thousand-acre farm–not the only one he worked–had 80 employees.

On May 17, 1938, Murfitt rose at 5:30 as usual and did some work around the farm before entering the dining room for breakfast at 8:00. Before breakfast he and his wife were in the habit of taking some mineral crystals named “Fynnon Salts” in water for their health. His wife opened up the can of salts, normally white, and remarked on their brownish appearance. Saying they must be damp, She scraped the brown ones off the top and put the can in the oven to dry. She didn’t take any herself, saying she didn’t fancy them, but gave a glass to her husband. He drank some, complaining that it tasted bad. Soon afterwards he collapsed on the floor. They sent immediately for the doctor, while Gertrude told the maid to tidy the dining room in preparation for the doctor’s visit. By the time the doctor arrived, William Murfitt was dead. And the doctor found that the Fynnon salts in the can gave forth an aroma of bitter almonds: the smell of potassium cyanide.

So whodunit, and why? The death was investigated by two Scotland Yard detectives well known in their day, Leonard Burt and Reginald Spooner. The possibility that William Murfitt had committed suicide by such a means was simply absurd. His life was going well, he had been his normal self recently, and had no obvious reason to do so. Even if he did, why not just take cyanide? Why put the cyanide in the Fynnon salts–unless he wished to take his wife with him, or to leave suspicion cast on her, or on someone else, which was too convoluted a motive to consider from this straightforward man. No, this had to be murder.

One of the Murfitts’ two sons was on a ship in the Mediterranean at the time, while the other lived in London, so they were not considered as suspects. One or two local people might have had grudges against Murfitt–a gamekeeper he disputed with, a shepherd he had dismissed–but whoever poisoned him had to have access to the farmhouse as well as intimate knowledge of the Murfitts’ habit of taking Fynnon salts. This looked very much like an “inside job.” And did the perpetrator intend to kill only William, or Gertrude as well? She said it was only the unusual color of the Fynnon salts that deterred her from taking them that morning.

Naturally this helped to make Gertrude herself the obvious suspect. What could her motive be? William was a hardworking man who had apparently treated her well, except for one major fault. William was a philanderer who had had several affairs with local women, including a gamekeeper’s daughter and his own niece. Over the past two years he had had an affair with Elaine Browne, the wife of a neighboring farmer, Rippon Browne. Gertrude had found out about the affair and called it to a halt. Surprisingly, the two families still seemed to be friends.

In spite of this, Gertrude seemed to be a tolerant wife, devoted to her husband and forgiving of his dalliances. There were other reasons too for doubting her guilt. What of the others associated with the household? The cook, maid, and farm secretary had been with the Murfitts for six, seven, and nine years respectively and appeared to have no motive to murder them.

The Brownes were close friends and frequent visitors who were aware of the Murfitts’ habits. Could there be a motive there? Elaine Browne might well have resented the ending of her affair with William, and Gertrude’s interference. However, she did not seem willing to give up her own marriage for William. Her husband Rippon might have a stronger motive against a man who had seduced his wife. But Rippon Browne claimed to have had no knowledge of his wife’s affair, despite rumors in the village which he said he discounted, until his wife was obliged to confess it to him following the murder.

Moreover, the idea of anyone outside the Murfitt household being responsible presented difficulties. Cyanide had not been added to the Fynnon salts immediately before breakfast, since the eminent Home Office analyst, Dr. Roche Lynch, determined that it took anywhere up to twelve hours for the crystals to turn that shade of brown when cyanide was added. But could anybody have gained access to the locked farmhouse during that period of time, with no sign of forced entry? It seemed unlikely, and risky besides. There was however the matter of a missing key.

Despite these difficulties, the police were able to focus on a definite suspect, who investigations revealed to have quite a history of crime. This included persistent thieving, fraud, cheating, lying and deception, the dangerous sabotage of a car done out of spite, arson, and possibly a previous murder or participation in it. The motive for Murfitt’s murder was not a trivial one, but neither was it the kind of thing that would prompt most people to kill anyone. Psychopaths however are different, as we know. The killer showed remarkable effrontery on many occasions and also displayed great daring. But the thrill of risk taking is meat and drink to a psychopath.

I regret to say that this killer, while identified to a moral certainty, was never brought to justice for the murder due to lack of evidence that would convince a jury. If anyone is interested in the rest of this story, there is an hourlong presentation by Mark John Maguire on his YouTube channel “They Got Away with Murder. Maguire is an excellent narrator as well as a talented artist who illustrates his presentations with sketches of his own. Here’s the link:

A Surfeit of Cyanide: the murder of William Murfitt, 1938