This is just one case of children who kill with 81 children being convicted of murder between 2008 – 2011 in England and Wales. In America, statistics indicate a child kills a parent at a rate of five times per week which accounts for around 1% of homicides in the US. Furthermore, figures from the US suggest juveniles make up just 16% of the rates of ‘matricide’, biological children killing their mothers, compared the 84% that are due to adults over 18 years of age.
The Case of Daniel Bartlam
On that fateful evening, Daniel Bartlam fled the burning house with his younger brother and his dog and waited for the emergency services. When questioned, he told police there had been an intruder who had set the house alight and he thought had hurt his mother.
After this initial statement, Daniel Bartlam then told police that he had killed his mother after an argument. During a search of the house, police found the hammer used in the attack in Daniel’s bedroom. They also found a document on his computer where he had written a story featuring a character bearing his own name who murdered his mother.
Daniel Bartlam’s behaviour before the attack and his addiction to violent video games and movies have motivated some to believe this was a key factor in the attack on his mother. Simon Matters, the former partner of victim Jacqueline Bartlam, has spoken of Daniel’s behaviour before the incident in a documentary for a British TV channel.
He said Daniel had started to collect items of his mother’s underwear, hiding them in bags in his bedroom. He was writing his own horror stories which were particularly gruesome, involving fighting and murder. Mr Matters also tells of increasingly concerning behaviour by Daniel in the months before the events of that evening.
“He’d have plastic boxes full of figures (Star Wars and Dr Who characters) but he’d just urinate in the boxes. He also defecated all over the bedroom and in the boxes and hid towels and stuff that he’d wiped himself with.” – Simon Matters
Daniel Bartlam had been raised by his mother in a stable home and was by all accounts a normal young boy. The family had moved to a different area of Nottingham in 2009 and Daniel had changed schools. In the year or so before the incident he had become more reclusive, spending most of his time alone in his bedroom, playing video games and watching his collection of horror films.
A popular soap-opera, Coronation Street, had recently shown a storyline where one of the male characters (John Stape) killed a woman with a hammer. TV clips of these scenes along with other violent scenes from popular films were found on Daniel’s computer after the attack.
This aspect has been heavily focused on by the media. In trying to find explanation for such a brutal attack carried out by a 14-year-old boy, the scenes of violence on television and in film have been cited as an influence on Daniel, leading him to carry out a ‘copy’ of the crime.
Due to the media portrayal of Daniel Bartlam and the attention given to the murder plot featured in Coronation Street, he has been labelled the ‘Coronation Street Killer‘ within some articles and this label will undoubtedly stay with him.
In many cases of children who kill their parents, there has been a history of abuse and neglect within the home and the killing can be the breaking point for the child, but not all. Certainly the case of Daniel Bartlam is one where the motive is unclear; there is no evidence of abuse within the family home at any time.
Related: Child Criminals and The Juvenile Justice System: The James Bulger Case
Studying Children and Teens Who Kill
Dr Kathleen Heide is professor of criminology at the University of South Florida, Tampa and has studied children who kill their parents extensively. In comparing cases, she has found there are factors which may increase the risk of child showing such violence against a parent, such as a dysfunctional family, ongoing family violence in the home, a deterioration of conditions within the home and a heightened vulnerability to stresses in the home for the child.
Dr Heide has defined three categories for children who kill their parents from her research:
The severely abused child where they kill to end abuse, often that has been going on for years, where violence has escalated and they see no other way out.
Dangerously antisocial children kill to get what they want, they see the parent standing in the way and it may be to inherit money or to have more freedom.
These are children who regularly do not respect authority of adults, do not accept responsibility for their actions and may well have a conduct disorder. They can be more dangerous to society in terms of reoffending and hurting others in the future.
The severely mentally ill child kills due to this mental illness, normally with a long-standing history of mental illness, it could be delusions or hallucinations that have pushed them to kill the parent.
Furthermore, multiple stab wounds or blows can indicate a rage that once they have started they cannot stop until that rage has subsided. Some in this situation find it difficult to believe what they have done afterwards. In the case of Daniel Bartlam he tried to conceal his crime by setting fire to the house, he did no harm to his younger brother or the family dog and he calmly lied to police. This raises doubt that his attack was due to some form of uncontrollable rage.
Daniel’s behaviour in the months leading up to the murder do suggest he may have been struggling internally. He was spending a lot of time alone in his room and exhibited some unusual behaviour as highlighted by his stepfather. It came to light during the trial, that Daniel Bartlam had been seeing a counsellor in the months before the incident.
He had discussed hearing voices telling him to hurt people and visions he was having of killing people with that counsellor. The aspect of the Coronation Street storyline is interesting as it may have sparked something within Daniel Bartlam which he connected with. His increased interactions with media involving violence and his own written stories suggest he was potentially engaging in a fantasy world where violence and aggression featured highly.
Certainly many who are aware of this case presume Daniel Bartlam must be suffering from a mental illness of some kind to have carried out such a horrific attack on his own mother. However, Daniel was not found to be mentally ill by the experts who examined him. Moreover, research tells us that mental illness is more likely to be the cause of an adult killing one or both parents than a child.
“But it seems that Daniel watched so many violent films and video games that he simply lost track of what was real. I’m sure his obsession with these fantasy worlds like films and soaps caused what he did.” – Simon Matters
When the case came to court in early 2012, Daniel Bartlam pleaded not guilty to murder. He claimed he had been provoked during the argument with his mother earlier in the evening and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The jury however, unanimously convicted him of murder on the 9th February 2012 with the Judge in the case lifting the media ban on naming him. In April 2012, Daniel was sentenced to a minimum of 16 years in prison.
The decision was made in this case to lift the anonymity on Daniel’s identity and release his name and details of his crime to the public despite his young age. The media coverage after the trial was immense due to Daniel’s age and the particularly brutal nature of the crime.
As always within the media a number of terms were used to describe and label Daniel Bartlam including “Devil Child” (The Mirror), and “Savage” (The Daily Mail). This has served to fuel the debate on children who commit murder and how they are portrayed in the media.
Daniel Bartlam’s young age, however, has provoked some level of sympathy comparatively to if this crime had been committed by an adult, with an emphasis on getting him the right help. When looking at the categories defined by Dr Kathleen Heide and the case of Daniel Bartlam, with no history of abuse and no diagnosed mental illness the issue of anti-social behaviour is highlighted which comes along with a higher risk of reoffending in the future.
The rehabilitation of a child and whether the young age of an offender and their levels of maturation and ongoing development is an area still debated as to whether this should be taken into account regarding their future. Furthermore, there is a question over whether juveniles can or should be held fully responsible for their actions in the same way as an adult.
In Daniel’s case he was sentenced to a minimum of 16 years. This means if attempts at rehabilitation are seen as successful during this period, he could be released when he is 26 years old. This is still a relatively young age, however with his identity known to the public, the kind of life he will be able to lead and re-build for himself is in question.
Daniel Bartlam is currently serving his sentence and it is assumed undergoing rehabilitation treatment of some kind. To public knowledge he has never offered any explanations of his actions that evening other than to state provocation from an argument. However his level of planning, clear attempts to cover up the attack and the brutality of the crime itself makes this one of the most shocking juvenile crimes in UK history.
What a frightening story. Imagine being killed by your own child and in such a horrible way. He was so young too. I wonder how he feels about it now, if he was 14 in 2011, he'd be 18 years old now. I hope he has had the support and help he needs to deal with his issues and deal with what he has done. Such a tragic case.
One of the most frightening aspects of this case for me was the media attack on a young boy. Of course he had committed a horrific and very serious crime but labelling a child a 'devil' and 'evil' is really of no benefit. I have been reading more recently about children who kill their parents while researching familicide and I have been surprised on the volume of cases and how many have been under the age of 18 years old. There is also the issue of parent abuse, slightly off topic here as no evidence of that in this case to my knowledge, but children and teens verbally and physically abusing their parents is a big issue and one which seems to operate very much under the radar.
I hope that monster burns in hell. It’s clear he doesn’t regret what he did at all. He’s just pure, unadulterated evil.
It was a shocking crime for an adult to commit never mind a 14 year old child. His behaviour afterwards, his lies to police in particular, didn’t indicate a sense of remourse or responsibility for what he had done. I do wonder whether now years later his attitude has changed and the big question is whether there is a road to rehabilitation for someone of such a young age when such a serious and brutal crime has been committed?
Antisocial disorder is a genetic brain disorder. Lack of conscious and no empathy. It’s a dangerous disorder. Many people are afflicted and spend their lives destroying other people’s lives. It is a Cluster B disorder and in most cases comorbids with narcissists personality disorder. This is a sociopath. Or psychopath. Very dangerous people and there is no cure. They are born with this predisposition and then circumstance becomes what unleashes a malignant behavior such as murder. The book The Sociopath Next Door is a good read. These mentally ill people often can regain under the radar and undetectable. could be a neighbor. Your spouse. Even your parent or child. They are not easy to detect but if you are very conscious and aware you can detect a cluster b. When you do, trust your instincts and get away. Often you may sense a creepy energy. Something in their eyes such as empty. Odd stare. They are grandiose and of course very narcissistic.
It says no mental illness but he was clearly not well. Is doing the toilet in your bedroom floor healthy. It’s look like another too late case and this was the outcome. Unless he is a psychopath or true evil then I think he must be very unwell to have did this.
What I find hard to understand is the apparent absence of any kind of effort on the part of Daniel’s mother or her partner to flag Daniel’s behaviour as disturbing for a boy his age and the apparent lack of any effort to help him or get help for him. It seemed as long as he was in his room and out of their hair, they didn’t have to interrupt their own lives. That he was allowed to be exposed to so much violence with no responsible adult stepping in is shocking. It wasn’t his mother or her partner who requested help for the boy, it was the school. When the fellow started a relationship with a married mother of young children, did he not expect to provide any kind of caring for those children, especially when it was he and their mother who were uprooting their lives? The boyfriend says the mother just wanted an easy life, so she abdicated her parental responsibility to her son. That kid needed somebody to step up for him. That boyfriend should feel his own remorse but he hasn’t accepted any responsibility either. No idea where the father was either. Tragic.
With the behavior exhibited prior to this murder and these “experts” villifying this adolescent, it seems to me, no matter what happened this kid was going to explode in one way or another. It’s blatantly obvious to even the casual observer that something was seriously wrong. Yet I see where the media parade the mother as “Great”. No “great” mother ignores the major indicators such as urinating and deficating all around his room, as normal acting out. Running away from home isn’t usually considered a form of MANIPULATION by one so young either. Simple compassion tells us that running away to a place that represtened better times indicates, at the very least, pain. Whether Daniel Barthlam is a psychopath remains to be seen. He had no background of cruelty. This CHILD was emotionally neglected, perieod. It doesn’t take a professional to figure that out.