Stalkers and harassers of British Royalty: an exploration of proxy behaviours for violence

Abstract

Study of risk factors for violence to prominent people is difficult because of low base rates. This study of harassers of the royal family examined factors suggested in the literature as proxies for violence--breaching security barriers, achieving proximity, approach with a weapon, and approach with homicidal ideation. A stratified sample of different types of approach behaviour was randomly extracted from 2,332 Royalty Protection Police files, which had been divided into behavioural types. The final sample size was 275. Significant differences in illness symptomatology and motivation were found for each proxy group. Querulants were significantly over-represented in three of the four groups. There was generally little overlap between the proxy groups. There is no evidence of the proxy items examined being part of a "pathway to violence". Different motivations may be associated with different patterns of risk. Risk assessment must incorporate knowledge of the interactions between motivation, mental state, and behaviour.

Experiences of Stalking in Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Contexts

“…This evidence is a clear indication that if sample sizes allow, severe violence should be examined separately in studies that focus on sex differences in stalking. Contrary to Thompson et al's (2012) results, severe violence has been shown to have its own correlates in the stalker violence prediction literature and would appear to be more frequently perpetrated by males (e.g., James & Farnham, 2003;Rosenfeld & Lewis, 2005).…”

The Role of Warning Behaviors in Threat Assessment: An Exploration and Suggested Typology

“…As the nascent discipline of threat assessment matures, it is pertinent to revisit and refine terminology to standardize both practice and further research. One such concept is that of “warning behaviors” (James et al, ), variously termed by others as “signaling the attack” (Vossekuil, Reddy, Fein, Borum, & Modzeleski ), “tell‐tale behaviors” or “high risk indicators” (Calhoun & Weston, ), “stalking‐type behavior” (Mullen et al, ) and “pre‐attack signals” (Dietz & Martell, ). These concepts in turn are also closely linked to those of “leakage” (Meloy & O'Toole, 2011; O'Toole, ) and behaviors on a “pathway to violence” (Calhoun & Weston, 2003; Fein et al, ).…”

Space between concern and crime

“…There is a growing consensus that PMCOs frequently engage in behaviors that, if noticed and reported, can serve as warnings and aid in the identification of those on a trajectory toward attack. The existence of such “warning behaviors” was proposed by the Fixated Research Group in a series of studies primarily regarding approaches and communications to the British Royal Family (James et al., , , ; Meloy, Hoffmann, Guldimann, & James, ; Mullen et al., ). Relying on slightly different conceptualizations, these patterns of behavior indicating an increasing threat have also been described as “signaling the attack” (Vossekuil et al., ), “high‐risk indicators” (Calhoun & Weston, ), and “red flag indicators” (White, Meloy, Mohandie, & Kienlen, ).…”