HOMICIDE BETWEEN INTIMATES IN
FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1990 THROUGH 1994

Marilyn Mitchell

Only a few studies have looked at homicide rates by relationship type or gender, with little investigation of homicide trends in marital and other intimate relationships. This study documented patterns in homicide between intimates in Fresno County, California, from 1990 to 1994, based on data from coroner case investigation files. The study identified specific factors associated with intimate homicide in Fresno County and revealed that prior "cries for help" by victims of intimate violence, examined by cross-referencing coroner information with records of local law enforcement and protective agencies, did not serve as reliable indicators of future intimate homicides. In this analysis, persons who are at most risk of intimate homicide and high-risk relationship factors are discussed and implications for intervention strategies are explored.

Intimate violence is a serious and prevalent social problem that occurs among persons within the family or other intimate relationships and includes child abuse, elder abuse, and partner violence. Historically, women and children have occupied low status and commanded little respect in the social hierarchy. Such low standing made them natural victims of a variety of impositions, including violence, and it is not surprising it was hidden, disguised, ignored, and accepted as "culturally consistent behavior" (Pirsig, 1991, p. 114).

Homicide is the most severe consequence of intimate violence. Women in the United States are more at-risk to be killed by a male partner than from all other categories outside the partnership combined (Browne & Williams, 1993).

National data show that in 1993, an estimated 4 million women were physically assaulted by male partners or cohabitants (Policy Council on Violence Prevention, 1993), and 6 out of every 10 women murdered in the United States were killed by someone they knew. Data on prior police contact suggest that intimate assaults occur in a context of repeated violence, thus, intimate homicides are not at all unpredictable (Browne, 1987; Saltzmann, Mercy, Rosenberg, Elsea, Napper, Sikes, & Waxweiler, 1990; Straus, 1986). The most severe consequence of intimate violence frequently happens after escalating incidents of repeat violence (Frieze & Browne, 1989), however, privacy beliefs associated with the family is a factor that greatly inhibits the reporting of intimate violence (Jecker, 1993). Buzawa and Buzawa (1990) found that in the majority of homicide cases between intimates, there were many "cries for help" prior to the lethal incident. Holmes and Holmes (1994) reported that in 80% to 95% of intimate homicides, law enforcement had been called to the home at least once during the 2 years preceding the incident.

National statistics indicate that murder rates for both male and female intimates have decreased, however, the rate of homicide in Fresno County, California, increased 143% during the past 5 years (Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian, 1995).

Variables associated with the risk of intimate homicide include age, race, gender, marital status, and socioeconomic level (Block, 1993). Relationship factors include sexual jealousy (Dobash & Dobash, 1995; Dutton & Browning, 1988; Mason & Blankenship, 1987; Wilson, Daly, & Antonietta, 1995), estrangement or leaving the relationship (Johnson, 1995), and alcohol/drug use (Miller, Downs, & Gondoli, 1989) Identification of premorbid demographic and sociocultural variables associated with victims of intimate homicide in Fresno County, California, is useful in planning targeted prevention and intervention programs. While several studies have addressed intimate violence (Block & Christakos, 1995; Browne & Williams, 1993; Centerwall, 1995; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992) only a few studies have focused on the relationship between the continuing or escalating intimate violence and the ability of law enforcement to effectively intervene prior to the final intimate assault, that of murder (Frieze & Browne, 1989; Paquin, 1994).

Previous research indicates a positive relationship between demographic and sociocultural factors shared by victims and their offenders, and the likelihood of intimate violence. However, few studies have examined intimate homicide in a rural setting. Although many studies address factors associated with intimate violence and intimate homicide, few address the relationship between previous "cries for help" and the subsequent homicide.

Fresno County, California, has a population of approximately 750,000 persons, however, the land area of this county consists of 5,000 sparsely populated square miles, with more than one-half of the population residing outside one major city within the county. Therefore, Fresno County was considered to be rural rather than urban for the purposes of this study.

Fresno County's population consists of 49% male and 51% female, with approximately 65% White; 5% Black; 20% Hispanic; 8% Asian/Pacific Islander; 1% American Indian; and 3% are listed in the ethnic category as other. Seventy-eight percent of the population over age 18 years in Fresno County, California, have a high school diploma or Associate of Arts or Science degree (California Department of Justice, 1993). Approximately 11% of all homicides each year in Fresno County, California are committed by intimate partners. Of the 551 homicide victims in that time period, the final sample, N=60, consisted of 27 males and 33

females, mean age, M=28, who died at the hands of their intimate partner.

The present study involved secondary analysis of data collected by the Fresno County Coroner's Office on homicides occurring in Fresno County, California, from 1990 through 1994, to identify intimate homicides. Calls for help, prior to the homicide, for incidents of intimate violence involving victims of the homicides, were linked with records from the Fresno Police Department, Clovis Police Department, Fresno Sheriff's Department, and Child Protective Services, to identify the number of times the victim(s) had sought intervention. Fresno County, California, was selected as the location of the study as no previous studies of this type had been done in a rural geographical area.

For the purposes of this study, intimate violence and homicide had to meet the following criteria: (a) case reports must have classified the incident as a homicide; (b) the incident must have occurred in Fresno County, California; c) the victim's residence at the time of the homicide must have been within Fresno County, California; and (d) the victim and offender must have been emotionally intimate either before, or at the time of, the incident.

Sociocultural And Demographic Variables
Age

Intimate relationships are unique in that they are made up of different ages and sexes, thus, there is an ever-present potential for conflicts between generations and between sexes. The youth of a couple is one factor that may increase the probability of physical abuse in an intimate relationship. The younger the couple are when they are married or begin living together, the greater the likelihood of abuse, and the shorter the courtship, the less likely the relationship will be nonviolent (Wilson, Daly, & Wright, 1993). Women age 20 to 35 have the highest rates of intimate violence of any age group (16 per 1,000) (BJS, 1994), and as females age, their risk of victimization decreases (Fergusson, Horwood, Kershaw, & Shannon, 1986; Gaquin, 1977-78; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). The ages of the victims and offenders in intimate homicide tend to be older than in other types of homicide.

In the current study, it was determined that 3 (5%) of the subjects were under the age of 1; 9 (15%) were between 1 and 14 years of age; 2 (3%) were 15 to 19 years old; 10 (17%) ranged from 20 years old to 24 years; and 8 (13%) were between 25 and 29 years of age. Ten subjects (17%) were 30 to 34 years old; 5 (8%) from 35 to 39 years of age; 4 (7%) between ages 40 to 44; and 9 (15%) were over age 45. Results show 34% of the homicide victims included in this study ranged in age between 20 and 34 years of age, with a mean age of 28 years, and is consistent with previous data.

Race/Gender

In reference to race and gender, the results of this study are not consistent with previous research. Studies repeatedly find that nationally, the risk of becoming a victim of intimate homicide is particularly high for Black females (Dobash et al., 1992; Kellermann & Mercy, 1992; Wilson & Daly, 1992). Block and Christakos (1995) found the risk of being killed by an intimate partner in the early 1990s to be much higher for Blacks than for Whites or Hispanics, and every study of female homicide offenders has reported a preponderance of Black female offenders (Biggers, 1979; Goetting, 1987; Weisheit, 1984; Wolfgang, 1975). This finding holds true in Johann and Osanka's (1989) study of battered women who kill in which 84.1% of the intimate homicide offenders were Black, 9% White, and the remaining 6.9% were Hispanic.

Most studies show White and Black women to have the same rates of victimization, however, in Fresno County, California , the risk of being a victim of intimate violence is slightly higher for White females (26%) as compared to Black females (21%). Victimization in this study, as in others, appears to be intra-racial as all but 8 of the victims were the same race as their murderers (Dobash et al., 1992; Kellermann & Mercy, 1992; Wilson & Daly, 1992).

The lack of consistency of these findings with previous research may be related to small sample size or perhaps that intimate homicide patterns might not be applied to all geographic areas. The annual risk of being killed by an intimate partner in Fresno County, California, from 1990 through 1994 indicates more women N=34 (57%) were victims than males N=26 (43%). Although these findings may be the result of the small number of intimate homicide cases during the study period, however, they may be significant factors in examining intimate homicide in a rural setting; therefore, should not be overlooked.

In the cases of children who suffered fatal abuse at the hands of their parents or boyfriends/girlfriends of their parent, the data is consistent with previous research (Gelles, 1989; Margolin, 1991). Infants in this study were killed by their mothers rather than their fathers and, as the children aged, the perpetrator was more likely the father or the adult male in the household which is also consistent with previous research (Gelles, 1989; Margolin, 1991).

Marital Status

Mann (1988) found in a study of 296 subjects that the most frequent affiliation between the intimate homicide offender and his/her victim was common-law marriage (31.9%), followed closely by a relationship as lovers (29.1%), and by legally married status (25.0%). In most cases of these cases, despite the lack of legal marital status, the victim and offender shared, or once shared, an intimate sexual and personal relationship.

The results of this study were consistent with previous data on trends in lethal victimization by intimate partners which reveal quite different patterns from married and unmarried couples. Previous studies show the rates of intimate homicide were substantially higher for unmarried couples, particularly among the poor and the young. The current study revealed that 35% of the adult victims had never been married as opposed to 25% who were married at the time of their deaths. When the divorced category is included with the unmarried category, the number increases to 31, which is 64% of the victims not married.

Part of this difference in rates of victimization between married and unmarried individuals could be due to changing relationships in society. Previous data suggest a clear shift in patterns of intimate relationships, and as men and women increasingly delay entry into marriage or remarriage and live together as unmarried couples, increased rates of intimate homicide may occur as a result of societal influences.

Socioeconomic Status

Gelles (1993) found that wife abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, and other forms of family violence tend to occur in all social and economic groups. However, the risk of child abuse, wife abuse, and elder abuse is greater among those who are poor and/or unemployed, and among those who hold low prestige jobs (Gelles & Straus, 1988; Pelton, 1978; Straus et al., 1980; Wolfner & Gelles, 1993). Studies have attempted to examine education and employment as crude measures of victim and/or offender socioeconomic status (Wilson & Daly, 1993). As in Johann and Osanka's (1989) study, information on education has been minimal, however, they did find a tentative mean of 10.9 years of education (range of 7 to 16 years) for women who killed in intimate encounters.

According to Wilson and Daly (1993), employment offers a more reliable index of possible socioeconomic status, and available sources indicate that female homicide offenders are either receiving government assistance, working in menial employment, engaged in prostitution (Weisheit, 1984), or are unemployed (Goetting, 1987; McClain, 1982; Weisheit, 1984). Employment, educational levels, and participation in government assistance/welfare programs were used as measurement tools to determine socioeconomic level of the intimate homicide victim.

The findings of the current study were not consistent with previous research which have shown victims to possess an average of 10.9 years of education and be employed in semi-skilled or unskilled jobs (Johann & Osanka, 1989). Results indicated that 48% of the victims had a high school diploma, 10% had some college, and 21% had a college degree or higher. Out of the 48 adult victims, 21 (61%) were employed in skilled or semi-skilled placements. An interesting note, however, is that although these findings are not consistent with prior research in the area of socioeconomic determinants of education and employment status, 58% of the victims in this study were on public assistance/welfare. Previous research refers to poverty levels rather than welfare status and has not focused on this area

specifically.

Relationship Factors
Motives for Homicide

A fundamental motive for intimate homicide may be sexual jealousy, the male's assertion of power over the female (Dobash & Dobash, 1995; Dutton & Browning, 1988; Mason & Blankenship, 1987; Wilson et al., 1995). The threat of homicide is an effective control mechanism, and actual homicide may be a consequence of its use (Wilson et al., 1995).

The most common type of intimate homicide, which represents one-half to three-fourths of all murders in the United States, usually involves amorous jealousy, also known as "psychotic" or "morbid" jealousy (Allen, 1983; Berman, 1979; Currens, Fritsch, & Jones, 1991; Shepherd, 1961). The characteristics of this type of intimate homicide are a male between the age of 18 and 60 years who develops suspicions or knowledge of his girlfriend's or wife's infidelity, becomes enraged, and both murders his wife or lover and then commits suicide, usually using firearms (Currens et al., 1991). The infidelity may be real, imagined, or delusional, and thus ranges from ruminative to obsessional to psychotic. The latter case constitutes the "Othello Syndrome," in which delusions of infidelity are accompanied by irritability, despondency, and aggression (Enoch, 1979).

The current research findings are consistent with previous research that states sexual jealousy is the fundamental motive for intimate violence and homicide and therefore, can be included as a predictor for intimate homicide. Assertion by the male to have power and control over the female uses threat of homicide or actual homicide as a means of control (Wilson et al., 1995). In the current study, sexual jealousy was the motive in more than 45% of the 60 cases, and of those cases, 3 resulted in murder-suicide. These cases of murder-suicide exclusively involved the male killing the female, then turning the weapon on himself (Barnard, Vera, Vera, & Newman, 1982).

Generally, in intimate homicides involving a female killing a male, usually her husband, the motive was self-defense rather than sexual jealousy, anger, or the result of an argument (Currens et al., 1991, Dorpat, 1966). One interesting finding of the current study was the fact that, in the majority of the adult intimate homicides, N=48, the male perpetrator waited for the victim(s) to come home. He often broke into the victim's residence and waited for hours for the victim to return. If the victim was accompanied by another individual, the perpetrator tried to kill that person as well.

Alcohol and Drug Use

Previous research shows drug and alcohol use to be an important factor in intimate violence and homicide for male batterers and female victims (Miller et al., 1989). Over one-half of the defendants accused of intimate homicide had been drinking alcohol at the time of the event. Also, almost half of the victims of intimate homicide had been drinking alcohol at the time of the offense, which is similar to the nonfamily murder victims (BJS, 1994). Drug or alcohol use is correlated with residential homicides for male batterers (Kellermann et al., 1993) and for female victims (Miller et al., 1989).

It is speculated that some alcohol-involved situations in which a woman killed her male partner were those in which she was protecting herself and her children from violent attacks by a drunk partner. Although there is substantial support for the notion that alcohol and drugs are related to violence in general, and to intimate violence in particular, research shows an association, not a causal relationship. The findings of the current study are consistent with previous research. Evidence of alcohol and/or drugs was detected in 21 (44%) of the subjects, N=48, which is similar to other studies.

The racial breakdown in the current study of those victims with evidence of alcohol is not consistent with previous data which show that the rate of alcohol use is significantly higher in Hispanic victims of intimate homicide. While, in this study, White victims who used alcohol outnumbered Hispanic victims who had evidence of alcohol use, the overall evidence of alcohol and drug use in this study is similar to data from previous studies. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1994) found that one-half of intimate homicide victims had been drinking at the time of the event and this study reveals that 44% of the victims fit the profile; therefore, alcohol and drug use is a factor and may be used as a predictor of intimate homicide.

The secondary objective of this study was to determine the specific number of prior "cries for help" by victims of intimate violence, which might be used as a predictor of future intimate homicides. The results of this study are inconsistent with previous research that shows that in 60% to 85% of all cases of intimate homicides, police intervened at least once in the preceding 2 years, and in 50% of the cases, police intervened five or more times (Holmes & Holmes, 1994). Conversely, Buzawa and Buzawa (1990) found that women who were victims of intimate violence called law enforcement less than 10% of the time which is more consistent with results of the current study.

During 1993 in Fresno County, the number of intimate violence-related calls reported reached 5,141 (BJS, 1994). According to BJS, if incidents of intimate violence are underreported on average by 50%, more than 10,000 individuals in Fresno County, California, suffered from violence by an intimate partner or family member which went unreported.

In the current study, only 16 (27%) of the study victims had reported any type of intimate violence incidents to law enforcement and/or protective agencies prior to the intimate homicide. The majority (73%) of the victims had no contact with law enforcement and/or protective agencies prior to the intimate homicide. This finding appears to be consistent with some research that shows a high proportion of nonreporting in cases of intimate violence and is not related to geographic or sociocultural factors (Zawitz, 1994).

Although intimate violence cuts across all demographic boundaries, previous research shows that law enforcement are most often involved in intimate violence-related disturbances among the poor and uneducated. Law enforcement and protective agencies are more likely to come into contact with couples of relatively low socioeconomic status and low quality marital relationships who are involved in severe violence (Zawitz, 1994). Prior research also shows that non-White, lower-income women are more than twice likely to report an incident to police than are White, higher-income females (Frieze & Browne, 1989).

In the current study, it was more likely the victim had come into prior contact with law enforcement as a perpetrator than as a victim of intimate violence. Only 38% of the female victims, N=34, had any prior "cries for help" as a victim, however, more than 46% of the male victims, N=26, had been involved with law enforcement as perpetrators of intimate violence prior to their homicide. It would appear that if male perpetrators of intimate violence have a high number of contacts, they are more likely to become a victim.

The majority of victims in this study made no calls to law enforcement or protective agencies prior to the intimate homicide; therefore, no specific number of prior contacts was identified that would serve as a predictor of future intimate homicides. This does not imply there is no such number which may serve as a tool in predicting intimate violence that escalates to homicide, only that such was not identified in this study and the results are inconclusive.

Findings in the area of prior "cries for help" may be a result of temporal variations. Prior to the recent enactment of strict arrest legislation in intimate violence disputes, individual law enforcement officers, or those in particular areas of Fresno County, may have exercised less tenacity in reporting. Individual sentiment may have contributed to a discrepancy in reporting practices between agencies and methodologies for collect and recording of data and might account for some inconsistencies with previous research.

Nonreporting of intimate violence is high. It has been suggested elsewhere that a person who finally calls law enforcement to intimate violence incidents has, on average, been beaten or abused on several previous occasions (Zawitz, 1994). Nonreporting may be related to belief in privacy, that what happens in the home "stays" in the home. According to Centerwall (1995), there may be another issue that is referred to as the "white collar victim." Individuals of means may be even more reluctant to report incidents of intimate violence for fear of social and community repercussions.

One of the difficulties in estimating the extent of intimate violence in any jurisdiction is that of accurate reporting, and it is often difficult to distinguish between intimate and nonintimate violence disputes, which may vary significantly in seriousness. There may be considerable differences in counts of incidents due to small changes in, and understanding of, definitions, which may vary in great degree from city to city and state to state.

Prior to the implementation of further study in the area of intimate homicide, a general homicide study should be undertaken in Fresno County, California, to identify salient sociocultural and demographic variables associated with the phenomenon. Future research in the area of intimate homicide in a rural community should narrowly define the intimates to be studied rather than attempt to address intimate homicide in general. Parameters with a limited scope would enable the researcher to gain a clearer understanding of factors associated with victims of intimate homicide in Fresno County, California.

Future research in the area of intimate homicide in a rural area, such as Fresno County, should encompass a larger sample of victims. Another suggestions is that research include information regarding the perpetrator, such as that collected on the victim, to determine salient factors associated with victim/offender relationships.

Allen, N.H. (1983). Homicide followed by suicide: Los Angeles, 1970 - 1979. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 13, 155-165.

Barnard, G., Vera, H., Vera, M., & Newman, G. (1982). Till death do us part: A study of spouse murder. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 10, 271-280.

Berman, A.L. (1979). Dyadic death: Murder-suicide. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 9, 15-23.

Biggers, T.A. (1979). Death by murder: A study of women murderers. Death Education, 3, 1-9.

Block, C.R. (1993). Lethal violence in the Chicago Latino community. In A.V. Wilson (Ed.), Homicide: The victim/offender connection (pp, 267-343). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Block, C.R., & Christakos, A. (1995). Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over 29 years. Crime and Delinquency, 41(4), 496-526.

Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York: Free Press.

Browne, A., & Williams, K. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence: Trends from 1976 through 1987. Gender and Society, 7(1), 78-98.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (1994). Criminal victimization in the United States, 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Buzawa, E.S., & Buzawa, C.G. (1990). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

California Department of Justice (1993). California criminal justice profile 1990: Census of population and housing in Fresno County. State of California, State Census Bureau, Division of Law Enforcement, Bureau of Criminal Statistics.

Centerwall, B.S. (1995). Race, socioeconomic status and domestic homicide. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 273(2), 1755-1759.

Currens, S., Fritsch, T., & Jones, D. (1991). Homicide followed by suicide: Kentucky 1985-1990. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (MMWR), 40, 652-653, 659.

Dobash, R.E., & Dobash, R.P. (1995). Evaluating criminal justice sanctions for domestic violence. In C.R. BlocK & R. Block (Eds.), Trends, risks, and interventions in lethal violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Dobash, R.P., Dobash, R.E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.

Dorpat, T.L. (1966). Suicide in murderers. Psychiatry Digest, 51-55.

Dutton, D.G., & Browning, J.J. (1988). Concern for power, fear of intimacy and aversive stimuli for wife abuse. In G.T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick, & M.A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions for research (163-175). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Enoch, T. (1979). The Othello syndrome. Uncommon psychiatric syndromes. Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc.

Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., Kershaw, K.L., & Shannon, F.T. (1986). Factors associated with reports of wife assault in New Zealand. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 407-412.

Fresno County Coroner-Public Administrator/Public Guardian, personal communication, August 7, 1995.

Frieze, I., & Browne, A. (1989). Violence in marriage. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry (Eds.), Family violence (pp. 163-218). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gaquin, D.A. (1977-78). Spouse abuse: Data from the national crime survey. Victimology, 2, 632-643.

Gelles, R.J. (1989). Methodological issues in the study of domestic violence. In G.R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggression in family interaction (pp. 49-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gelles, R. J. (1993). Constraints against family violence: How well do they work? American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 575-586.

Gelles, R.J., & Straus, M.A. (1988). Intimate violence: The causes and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: Simon & Schuster, Touchstone.

Goetting, A. (1987). Homicidal wives: A profile. Journal of Family Issues, 8, 332-341.

Holmes, R.M., & Holmes, S.T. (1994). Murder in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jecker, N.S. (1993). Privacy beliefs and the violent family: Extending the ethical argument for physician intervention. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 269(6), 776-780.

Johann, S.L., and Osanka, F. (1989). Representing women who kill. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Kellermann, A.L., & Mercy, J. (1992). Men, women, and murder: Gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. The Journal of Trauma, 33, 595-599.

Mann, C.R. (1988). Getting even? Women who kill in domestic encounters. Justice Quarterly, 5, 37.

Margolin, L. (1991). Abuse and neglect in nonparental child care: A risk assessment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 694-704.

Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliate motivation, stress, and abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 203-210.

McClain, P. (1982). Black females and lethal violence: Has time changed the circumstances under which they kill? Omega, 13(1), 3-25.

Miller, B., Downs, W., & Gondoli, D. (1989). Spousal violence among alcoholic women as compared to a random household sample of women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 533-540.

Paquin, G.W. (1994). A statewide survey of reactions to neighbors' domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9(4), 493-502.

Pelton, L. (1978). Child abuse and neglect: The myth of classlessness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 608-617.

Pirsig, R. (1991). LILA: An inquiry into morals. New York: Bantam.

Policy Council on Violence Prevention (1993). First comprehensive national health survey of American women. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.

Saltzmann, L., Mercy, J., Rosenberg, M., Elsea, W., Napper, G., Sikes, R., Waxweiler, R., & The Collaborative Working Group for the Study of Family and Intimate Assaults in Atlanta. (1990). Magnitude and patterns of family and intimate assault in Atlanta, Georgia, 1984. Violence and Victims, 5, 3-17.

Shepherd, M. (1961). Morbid jealousy: Some clinical and social aspects of a psychiatric symptom. Journal of Mental Science, 107, 687-753.

Straus, M.A. (1986). Domestic homicide and homicide antecedents. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 62, 446-465.

Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New York: Doubleday.

Weisheit, R. (1984). Female homicide offenders: Trends over time in an institutionalized population. Justice Quarterly, 1(4), 471-489.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 301-327.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8, 1031-1052.

Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Antonietta, D. (1995). Familicide: The killing of spouse and children. Aggressive Behavior, 21(4), 275-292.

Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Wright, C. (1993). Uxoricide in Canada: Demographic risk patterns. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 7, 263-291.

Wolfgang, M.E. (1975). Patterns in criminal homicide. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

Wolfner, G., & Gelles, R. (1993). A profile of violence toward children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 197-212.

Zawitz, M. (1994). Violence between intimates. Bureau of Justice Selected Findings, NCJ 149259. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.