Casefile True Crime - Case 144: The Muswell Hill Murderer (Part 3)

Episode Date: May 23, 2020

[Part 3 of 3] As Dennis Nilsen prepares to face trial and the true extent of his murder spree begins to emerge, so many questions remain unanswered. What drove him to kill? Who were his victims? And how did he manage to get away with his crimes for so long? --- Episode narrated by the Anonymous Host Episode researched by Holly Boyd Episode written by Elsha McGill  Creative Director: Milly Raso For all credits and sources please visit casefilepodcast.com/case-144-the-muswell-hill-murderer-part-3

Our episodes deal with serious and often distressing incidents. If you feel at any time you need support, please contact your local crisis centre. For suggested phone numbers for confidential support, please see the show notes for this episode on your app or on our website. With the Dennis Nielsen committed to stand trial for the murders of six men and the attempted murder of two others, the public and press questioned how he could have gotten away with the crimes for so long. The reality was that most of Nielsen's victims were social outcasts without solid family structures or fixed addresses. Many associated with drug users

and sex workers who were unlikely to approach the police, making it easy for their disappearances to go unnoticed. In fact, of the 15 men Nielsen claimed to have murdered, only three, Billy Sutherland, Kenneth Ockenden and Stephen Holmes, were ever confirmed to have been reported missing. The Guardian newspaper reported that Nielsen insulated himself from detection by choosing victims who were, quote, young, homeless, down and out homosexuals, and surmised. The reason why nobody knew that Nielsen was killing was that nobody except Nielsen knew that any killings were going on. The article also highlighted how the banality of Nielsen's public persona cloaked his true character, quote. Nobody knew or even suspected

because Nielsen not only possessed all the trappings of a thoroughly normal suburban life, he was positively dreary, the least eye-catching man in the crowd. It was not only his neighbors that saw him without noticing him, most of those who worked with him or drank with him were bored by him. As for the attempted murders, the survivors were likely hesitant to follow through with police reports due to fear they wouldn't be taken seriously on account of being gay. The attacks were also so bizarre and inexplicable that the survivors themselves could barely comprehend what had happened. The Guardian reported that Nielsen himself expressed disbelief

at how long his crimes went undetected, stating, I was in a quasi-godlike role, I thought I could do anything I wanted. While this was going on, there were people upstairs and people next door, and nobody knew. As Nielsen's trial date approached, the prosecution continued investigating and were able to identify several more victims. When examining the skull of one unidentified victim, forensic investigators discovered there was a metal plate in the jaw. Using dental records, they determined that the skull belonged to 27-year old Graham Allen, the Scottish heroin addict who Nielsen had met in September 1982, after Graham had an argument with his girlfriend, Leslie. Nielsen had taken Graham to his Muswell Hill flat,

cooked him an omelet, and then strangled him to death when he passed out midway through eating the meal. Nielsen had previously told police about this murder, but couldn't recall the victim's name, referring to the incident simply as, the omelet death. By the time Graham was identified, it was too late to add a seventh murder charge to Nielsen's indictment, but the prosecution intended to use the details of Graham's murder as evidence at trial. Japanese chef Toshimitsu Ozawa, who escaped Nielsen's attempt to strangle him at the Muswell Hill flat on New Year's Eve in 1982, was identified when police found the initial report he'd made against Nielsen following the attack. Toshimitsu hadn't followed through with a formal complaint as he

felt it was too much work. When the police read the statement to Nielsen, he responded, I find that frightening. No charges were laid against him for this crime, but the statement would be used as evidence against him during trial. When Nielsen was first arrested, he described an attack he'd committed against a young man he had met at the Black Cap pub in Camden in May 1982. He couldn't remember the man's name, but recalled that he had been in the process of escaping an abusive relationship, and Nielsen had lent him a friendly ear before inviting him to stay at his Muswell Hill flat. After the young man had gone to bed, Nielsen began strangling him in his sleep,

then blamed the injuries on a broken sleeping bag zipper. The man eventually lost consciousness, at which point Nielsen attempted to drown him in his bathtub before deciding to let him live. Police used this statement to track the survivor down, identifying him as Carl Stodder, who had been 21 at the time of the attack. Carl shared his recollection of the events with police, which matched Nielsen's statement and confirmed Nielsen was telling the truth. It was too late to add another attempted murder charge to Nielsen's indictment, but the prosecution decided to call Carl as a witness at trial to establish evidence regarding Nielsen's modus operandi. On Monday, October 24, 1983, Dennis Nielsen's trial commenced in the

Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, with Justice David Kroom Johnson presiding. Nielsen, heeding the advice of his solicitor, claimed diminished responsibility by reason of mental disorder in the hope of reducing his charges to manslaughter. For the murders of Stephen Sinclair, John Howlett, Billy Sutherland, Martin Duffy, Kenneth Ockenden, and Malcolm Barlow, as well as the attempted murders of Paul Nobbs and Douglas Stewart, Nielsen entered the same play. Not guilty. Under Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, a person suffering from diminished responsibility was protected from being convicted of murder, if they were found to be suffering from an abnormality

of the mind that substantially impaired their mental responsibility during the act of killing. Therefore, the jury of eight men and four women were asked not to determine whether Nielsen was a killer, as this was undeniable, but whether he was of sound mind when he committed his crimes. To complicate matters, the defense of diminished responsibility didn't apply to attempted murder. Nielsen's defense counsel, Ivan Lawrence, who was working alongside solicitor Ralph Hyane, requested that the two charges of attempted murder be dropped so as to not confuse the jury, but his request was denied and the charges remained. Although several of Nielsen's victims were gay, many weren't, and the prosecution had conceded

not to position any of the murders as, quote, homosexual in nature or motivation. Prosecutor Alan Green opened the case against Nielsen by reassuring the jury they wouldn't be exposed to any photographs of the human remains found in the defendant's home. He then took the court through the sequence of events that led to Nielsen's arrest, starting with the blocked drains at 23 Cranley Gardens, before summarizing each of the 15 murders Nielsen confessed to during police questioning. Green highlighted that during their confessions, Nielsen described murdering one of his victims as, quote, as easy as taking candy from a baby, and that he had strangled so many victims that he had used

all of his 15 neckties. The prosecution agreed that Dennis Nielsen was certainly abnormal, but argued he had deliberately killed with full awareness and was therefore guilty of murder. Three of the men who Nielsen had attacked were called to testify. The first was Douglas Stewart, the Scotsman who had met Nielsen at the Golden Lion Pub on November 10, 1980, and reluctantly agreed to join him for a drink at his Melrose Avenue flat to avoid being rude. Douglas recounted that he drank two pints of beer and then declined Nielsen's offer of a vodka. After falling asleep in an armchair, he awoke to Nielsen attempting to strangle him with a neck tie and managed to fight him off, scratching him under the eye in the process. During the struggle,

Nielsen had loudly yelled, take my money, take my money, which the prosecution submitted was an attempt to make himself appear the victim in case one of his neighbors heard the attack. Green argued that such awareness and foresight indicated Nielsen's calm state of mind at the time. Once the fight concluded, Douglas tried to placate Nielsen by staying for another drink before eventually fleeing to inform the police. When police officers arrived at the flat, Nielsen claimed that he and Douglas were in a relationship and that they had simply had an argument. The police ultimately dismissed Douglas's complaint as they hadn't noticed the scratch under Nielsen's eye. Prior to the trial, Nielsen said he didn't recall this attack, but as Douglas testified,

Nielsen hastily passed notes to his defense team to highlight inconsistencies in the story, including that he only kept rum in his house and would never have offered Douglas a vodka. Nielsen also refuted Douglas's testimony that he had introduced himself as Dennis, claiming that he only ever went by the name Dez. During cross-examination by the defense, Lawrence asked why Douglas hadn't told police to look for the scratch under Nielsen's eye. Douglas replied that he hadn't thought to mention it because he wasn't used to people trying to kill him. When asked why he stayed for another drink instead of running for his life, Douglas didn't have an answer.

Douglas had previously sold his story to tabloid newspaper The Sunday Mirror, and Lawrence suggested that he had fabricated certain details to appease the newspaper's request for detail. Others in the courthouse perceived Douglas as being cocky and self-possessed, and seemed to agree that his testimony might not be 100% reliable. The next witness to take the stand was Paul Nobs, the university student who Nielsen tried to strangle in his sleep on November 23, 1981, marking the first of his attacks in the Muswell Hill Flat. On the stand, Paul was visibly nervous and so softly spoken that both the prosecution and the judge had to ask him to speak up as he detailed the assault that had left him with

a visible mark across his neck for three months. Under cross-examination, the defence didn't challenge any of Paul's statements, but instead asked a series of questions designed to show the jury that there was no obvious motive for Nielsen's attack, which could indicate he was mentally unstable. Lawrence put forward that when the two men met at the Golden Lion pub, Nielsen offered Paul a genuine friendship and agreed to accompany him to buy some books. Nielsen then cooked Paul dinner and offered him a place to stay for the night. In the morning, when Paul was clearly injured and unwell, Nielsen gave no indication that he was

responsible, instead showing genuine concern and suggesting that Paul see a doctor. Paul confirmed all of these points to be true, and also agreed that Nielsen hadn't tried to coerce him into sex or any acts of sadism or violence. In an attempt to disprove the prosecution's position that Nielsen purposefully targeted vagrants and drifters who wouldn't be reported as missing, the defence pointed to the fact that Nielsen had allowed Paul to phone his mother on the evening in question. The next eye witness to take the stand was survivor Carl Stodder, who was visibly apprehensive as he relayed his terrifying ordeal at Nielsen's Muswell Hill flat.

Author Brian Masters later wrote, If Paul Knobbs was nervous, Carl Stodder was positively terrified. Carl testified that when he first met Nielsen at the Black Cap pub in Camden, Nielsen had asked whether Carl had any family. Later, at his flat, Nielsen warned Carl that the sleeping bag he was using had a loose zipper. The prosecution put forward that both of these factors indicated that the attempted murder was premeditated. They argued that Nielsen wanted to check whether his victim would be missed by anyone who might attempt to find him, while the mention of the broken zipper implied Nielsen was planning to strangle Carl and gave

this warning in case the attack was botched. Nielsen claimed not to recall this attack, which the defence used to infer that he must have had a complete mental block or been dissociating at the time. Nielsen had escorted Carl to the nearest tube station the day after the assault, which the defence stated further proved his mental instability. Carl also described Nielsen as completely calm before and after the incident, as though he was unaware that he had caused any harm. Detective Chief Inspector Peter Jay was also called to testify. As well as recounting the events that led to Nielsen's arrest, he read aloud from a number of statements Nielsen had written while in custody, including one from February 15, 1983, that Nielsen had titled

Unscrambling Behavior. In the statement, Nielsen attempted to explain why he killed, surmising that he was a creative psychopath who had the power to temporarily lapse into a destructive psychopath when drinking alcohol rapidly. Nielsen explained that at his core, he felt completely socially isolated and was desperately searching for his sexual identity. He also admitted that after murdering his first victim, he had been incapable of having sexual intercourse with a partner for some time. Nielsen speculated as to the motivation behind his crimes, saying he wished he could blame his actions on jealousy, hate, revenge, sex or robbery, but that there was no clinical reason why he attacked. He wrote,

God only knows what thoughts go through my mind when it's captive within a destructive binge. It may be the perverted overkill of my need to help people, victims who I decide to release quickly from the slings and arrows of their outrageous fortune, pain and suffering. There is no disputing the fact that I am a violent killer under certain circumstances. The victim is the dirty platter after the feast and the washing up is a clinically ordinary task. Nielsen also questioned whether his desire to kill was a subconscious primitive instinct or whether he simply enjoyed the thrill of getting away with murder. He wrote, It amazes me I have no tears for the victims, I have no tears for myself or for those bereaved

by my actions. Am I a wicked person constantly under pressure who just cannot cope with it, who escapes to reap revenge against society through the haze of a bottle of spirits? Maybe it's because I was just born an evil man. Living with so much violence and death, I've not been haunted by the souls and ghosts of the dead, leading me to believe that no such fictional phenomena has, does, or ever will exist. DCIJ confirmed that Nielsen was unusually cooperative with the police investigation, as well as eerily calm and unfazed when describing the horrific acts he had committed. Detective Chief Superintendent Jeffrey Chambers also testified, reading the long transcripts

of Nielsen's police interviews verbatim, which took four hours to do. DCS Chambers said that Nielsen showed no remorse, nor any indication of distress or disgust when describing how he dissected rotting bodies or boiled human heads and flesh. The large cooking pot Nielsen had used to boil his victims, as well as the cutting board he had used for one of the dismemberments, were produced as evidence, much to the horror of the jury, who appeared nervous and physically ill upon hearing the accounts. Author Brian Masters, who was present at the trial, recalled, at the point when Nielsen had described unpacking bundles of human remains, the stench, and the colonies of maggots, even the judge looked repelled by what he heard. For the first time in

the trial, there was much nervous coughing in court. There could hardly have been a more eloquent demonstration of the gulf which divided ordinary men and women from the impassive prisoner in the dock. At this point, it was difficult to believe he was human at all. Nielsen's defense team called upon two psychiatrists to support their contention that Nielsen was suffering from abnormality of the mind at the times of his crimes. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. James McKeith testified that Nielsen was paranoid, unsure of his own identity, experienced feelings of grandiosity, and was desperate for the attention of others. Citing Nielsen's bizarre sexual development and extreme fantasies, Dr. McKeith believed he

had an obsession with nudity and unconsciousness, which was spurred by his drinking binges and repressed sexuality. He was also hindered by depersonalization, a state in which an individual experiences a feeling of observing themselves from outside their body or senses that their surroundings aren't real. According to Dr. McKeith, this was evident in Nielsen's ability to appear normal and calm at work shortly after having murdered and dismembered victims at home. As Nielsen had shown a complete lack of remorse, yet considered himself sane, Dr. McKeith diagnosed him as having a severe personality disorder, which incorporated paranoid, schizoid, hysterical, and sociopathic tendencies.

Under cross-examination, the prosecution argued that Nielsen wasn't mentally ill, but intelligent, cunning, quick-witted, and resourceful. They pointed out that his occasional changes of heart when attacking certain victims indicated he was in control and capable of making conscious choices. When the prosecution asked Dr. McKeith whether he believed that Nielsen was of diminished responsibility, he responded, I cannot answer that as an expert witness. He explained that it was up to the court to assess the psychiatric evidence against the legal meaning of diminished responsibility and determine Nielsen's abnormality of mind.

The second forensic psychiatrist to give evidence for the defense was Dr. Patrick Gaway, who concluded that Nielsen suffered from arrested personality development, which substantially impaired his responsibility for his actions. He described Nielsen's condition as false self-syndrome, which was characterized by the combination of paranoid and schizoid elements he exhibited, while maintaining a seemingly normal personality. Dr. Gaway believed that Nielsen masked his true personality, causing periodic breakdowns whenever the schizoid feature was prominent, which led to his imagination taking over. By projecting his destruction onto victims that

he viewed as objects instead of directing it inwards, Nielsen was able to prevent his mind from entering psychosis. During cross-examination, the prosecution put it to Dr. Gaway that Nielsen knew intellectually exactly what he was doing when he committed his crimes. Dr. Gaway agreed, but clarified that a person could not know what he was doing, unless he also had emotional awareness of it. He reasoned, quote, I cannot see how Nielsen can be guilty of malice aforethought, if he is entirely without feeling, since feeling is an integral part of a person's intent and motivation. Dr. Gaway concluded that without the emotional factor, Nielsen would have behaved like a machine,

understanding the nature of his actions, but not the meaning of them. The prosecution called their own expert witness to the stand, Dr. Paul Bowden, a Brixton prison psychiatrist who had interviewed Nielsen on 16 separate occasions over the past eight months. Dr. Bowden rejected the defense psychiatrist's diagnoses, declaring that he found no evidence to suggest Nielsen had a severe personality disorder, dissociated from his crimes, or suffered from arrested development of the mind, either intellectually or emotionally. He deduced that there was no inherent cause for Nielsen's behavior, and that he simply enjoyed the feeling of having power over his victims. Dr. Bowden also suggested that Nielsen killed to

transfer the feelings of criminality he had towards being gay to being a murderer instead. Dr. Bowden rejected the suggestion that Nielsen was remorseless and unemotional, recounting that during one of their sessions together, Nielsen had broken down when pressed about the details of John Howlett's murder. Dr. Bowden recalled, quote, tears filled his eyes, and he was about to start crying, and he spoke about never being able to show his feelings. Then he got up and walked out. The trial lasted for nine days, with the legal teams delivering their closing remarks on Wednesday, November 2, 1983. Prosecutor Green concluded,

Dennis Nielsen was free to choose, and he did choose, who to leave alone, and who to kill, and who to reprieve, and to greater power hath no man than this. He had been cunning in disposing of the possessions of his victims, and resourceful in dealing with the police who were called by a victim who escaped. He is a plausible fellow, a person who is able to bluff his way out of many a situation. The mind of a man who can kill 15 people and try to kill six or seven others, that mind in doing those things must be abnormal, but that did not mean that he was suffering from a diagnosable medical disorder. He had killed for pleasure. Defense counsel Ivan Lawrence urged the jury to use their common sense to determine that

anyone capable of committing such brutal and inhumane crimes had to be out of their mind. After cataloging Nielsen's crimes, Mr Lawrence concluded, is there nothing substantially wrong with the mind of a man like that? Justice Kroom Johnson reminded the jury that for Nielsen to satisfy the legal definition of abnormality of the mind, quote, there must be no excuses for Nielsen if he has moral defects. A nasty nature is not the same as an arrested development of the mind. On Tuesday, November 3, the jury retired to deliberate, but were unable to reach a unanimous decision. This continued the following day, so Justice Kroom Johnson decided he would accept

the majority decision. On the afternoon of November 4, the jury returned their verdicts. For the murders of Kenneth Ockenden, Martin Duffy, Billy Sutherland, Malcolm Barlow, John Howlett, and Stephen Sinclair, and for the two attempted murders of Douglas Stewart and Paul Nobbs, they found Nielsen guilty on all counts. Justice Kroom Johnson handed down his sentence immediately, stating, quote, Dennis Andrew Nielsen. On the verdicts of the jury on the murder counts, there is only one sentence which it is possible for me to pass. He sentenced Nielsen to life in prison, with a minimum of 25 years, clarifying that he would have passed the same sentence even if Nielsen had

been found guilty of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility, as his sentence was not the least responsible, as his condition did not appear to be treatable, and he therefore was unlikely to benefit from time in a psychiatric facility. Nielsen was escorted out of the dock by four prison guards and into the cells below the courthouse. He commenced his life sentence at the Wormwood Scrubs Prison, located in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, where he was assigned to his own six-by-eight-foot cell containing a desk, an iron-framed bed, a sink, and a bucket toilet. Nielsen kept a scrapbook of newspaper articles featuring his story and noted down any inaccuracies

he came across. He complained about the ongoing media attention and their portrayal of him, but those who spent time with Nielsen believed he would have struggled without the infamy. Nielsen mostly kept to himself, which earned him a reputation amongst the other inmates as pretentious. This, combined with the fact that they viewed his crimes as sexually motivated, meant that Nielsen's fellow prisoners gave him a difficult time. On December 20, 1983, Nielsen was in the exercise yard when someone whispered, you'd better watch your back mate. The following day in the yard, Nielsen suddenly felt a blow to his cheek and heard a metal object clatter to the ground.

Upon looking down and seeing blood dripping onto his shirt, he realized his face had been slashed with a razor. The injury required 89 stitches and resulted in a deep scar that ran across the left-hand side of his face from his mouth to his ear. The prisoner responsible for the attack was small-time gangster Albert Moffat, who was charged for the assault and faced trial on June 18, 1984. Moffat openly admitted to the crime, claiming he had acted in response to Nielsen making a sexual advance on him. The jury decided that there was not enough evidence for a conviction and the charge was dropped. Later that year, Nielsen was transferred to Wakefield Prison, a facility roughly 295 kilometers northwest of London that specialized in housing sex offenders.

He soon struck up a romantic relationship with a fellow win-mate, 28-year-old Jimmy Butler, who was serving nine years for an armed robbery. Jimmy bore a resemblance to the Rolling Stones co-founder and guitarist Keith Richards, and Nielsen was attracted to his left-wing politics and energy. Jimmy encouraged Nielsen to re-engage his chef skills, and the two set up a small curry business during recreation time in the prison's common room kitchen. Nielsen spent the majority of his meager prison earnings on cannabis, which angered Jimmy, as did the fact that Nielsen constantly questioned Jimmy about his unhappy childhood. The two started fighting, with one argument turning physically violent, and Jimmy was eventually transferred to another prison.

In 1985, Nielsen wrote a letter to his mother Betty, saying he wanted to permanently cease all contact with her. It is not known whether he had any contact with any other family members thereafter. That same year, author Brian Masters released his book about Nielsen, titled Killing for Company, which featured excerpts from his correspondence with the murderer, and first-hand descriptions of the crimes. The content raised concerns with politicians from the Conservative Party, who attempted to have Masters and the book's publisher, Random House, prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act. The Attorney General denied the request, and Killing for Company went on to win awards for non-fiction crime writing.

The book was praised by one of Britain's preeminent psychological fiction writers, Dame Beryl Bainbridge, who said, Killing for Company must stand as one of the most remarkable and accurate accounts ever written of the singular relationship between a mass murderer and a society. Brian Masters, in the writing, has achieved the impossible. Though dealing with sensational and terrific matters, he has managed, God knows how, to treat his material with such objectivity and restraint that what we have is not a penny dreadful from the Hammer House of Horror, but a bloody masterpiece.

On February 4, 1986, survivor Carl Stoddart wrote to Nielsen in prison, asking why he had chosen to spare his life. They exchanged a number of letters over the following months, with Carl later telling journalist Russ Coffey that the closest to an explanation Nielsen offered was that a thin strand of humanity passed between them on the night of the attack. However, Carl believes the real reason his life was spared was that Nielsen simply didn't have room in his flat for another dead body. During the mid-1980s, the AIDS epidemic was a public focus in Britain, and Nielsen wanted the campaign for gay rights. He wrote to the prison authorities requesting that inmates be permitted to buy condoms, but they rejected his request on the

basis that gay acts were considered contrary to good order and discipline. Nielsen reported this to LGBTQ Magazine Gay Times, which published the story as its editors felt that the issue of AIDS in prison deserved attention, even if the information was coming from a serial killer. Nielsen also started receiving letters from members of the gay community who were struck by the idea that his murders may have resulted from the psychological impact of his sexual isolation. In 1990, Nielsen was transferred to full Sutton prison in Yorkshire, much to the anger of many of its inmates. One night, two hooded men burst into Nielsen's cell carrying a bowl of boiling water filled with sugar, which increases the temperature of boiling water.

To defend himself, Nielsen threw a battery at the men, causing them to drop the bowl before they could use its contents to launch an assault. Nielsen was subsequently transferred to the segregation unit for his own protection, where he remained for several months before being moved to the vulnerable prisoner unit, a ward that mainly housed sex offenders. The following year, in 1991, Nielsen was transferred to Albany prison on the Isle of Wight, a facility on the south coast of England specialising almost exclusively in vulnerable prisoners. He was allocated to work hard labour in the prison's mill, and started receiving visits from Lord Longford, a devout Roman Catholic and labour party politician,

famed for championing social outcasts and forming friendships with unpopular prisoners. He had famously visited Moors murderer Myra Hindley, whose crimes were covered in episode 49 of Casefile. In the early 1960s, Hindley and her partner Ian Brady murdered five children and was sentenced to life in prison. Lord Longford had campaigned for Hindley's parole on the grounds that she had found religious faith. He visited Nielsen several times before Nielsen determined that their beliefs were incompatible and amicably requested a stop to the visits. At the beginning of 1993, Nielsen was transferred yet again, this time to the brand new Whitemore prison near Peterborough, 150 kilometres north of London, where he was housed in the special

secure unit. On January 26, a video interview that he had participated in during his time in Albany prison was aired on national television as part of a program titled Murder in Mind. The one hour show was the result of a two year investigation into serial killings in the United Kingdom and United States, and described how psychologists and computerised data banks could help police trap killers. The British Home Office had appealed to the High Court to have the broadcast banned on the grounds that the interview would cause pain to Nielsen's victims and to their families. The High Court rejected the request, declaring that the program was in the public interest and that the relatives of the victims could find comfort in knowing the loss

of their loved ones was being used to prevent such tragedy happening to others. The interview with Nielsen that was broadcast had been condensed into a six minute segment, during which Nielsen said that he had to get blind drunk in order to dissect his victims' bodies. As well as detailing the manner in which he dismembered his victims, Nielsen discussed his fantasies in which he watched himself pretending to be dead in the mirror, explaining that he applied makeup in an attempt to convince himself he was someone else. He also stated that his victims looked better once they were dead and that after they were washed and dressed in clean underwear, he viewed their bodies as himself in his mirror fantasies. Nielsen explained that carrying the

dead body was an expression of his power and that the more lifeless and passive the victim was, the more powerful he felt. He concluded by saying that although the bodies of his victims were gone, he still felt a, quote, spiritual communion with these people. After the Murder in Mind program aired, Nielsen stated that he thought the interview, quote, stinks because it showed him in an unfavorable light and that its producers had missed a unique opportunity. Later in 1993, Nielsen was required to take part in the UK's new sex offender treatment program, one of the first of its kind in the world. Nielsen claimed that he learned nothing new from the program that he didn't already know himself.

Since Nielsen's conviction, the British government had introduced a new policy in response to public fears about increased crime rates, in which home secretaries could use their discretion to impose whole life tariffs on prisoners who satisfied the criteria for the worst type of murders. In 1994, the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, announced that a whole life tariff would be applied to Nielsen, meaning he would never become eligible for parole. By the mid 1990s, Nielsen completed the first draft of his autobiography, which he titled History of a Drowning Boy. Hoping to eventually have it published, he sent it offsite to his solicitors for safekeeping. Later, he wrote to author and gay literary icon Peter Paul Hartnett,

better known as PP, asking for his help to edit the manuscript. PP had first contacted Nielsen in 1993, asking for his insights into the subject of isolation in gay urban culture, and the two had corresponded ever since. However, prison authorities banned Nielsen and PP from collaborating on the manuscript and wouldn't permit the manuscript to be returned to the prison. Prison guards increased their scrutiny of Nielsen and searched his cell, finding a copy of a gay pornography magazine and a provocative art book by French artists Pierre and Gilles. The two publications were confiscated. Nielsen was infuriated and determined to fight for his rights to view pornography under the Human Rights Act. He attempted to lodge the

complaint in court, but the judge refused to allow his case to be heard. Although Nielsen was banned from accessing his manuscript, PP Hartnett, being outside the prison system's control, was still free to edit it and arrange to have it published. However, Nielsen was unhappy with the draft in its current form and eventually lost confidence in PP's ability to complete the project. Instead, Nielsen took the risk of asking his lawyer Nick Wells to send him the manuscript. On March 7, 2001, Wells obliged, describing the document as legally privileged. The governor at Whitemore Prison determined the manuscript did not fit this criteria and returned it to Wells, explaining it would need to be examined by

prison authorities to ensure it complied with their rules. On November 27, 2001, Nielsen was transferred back to full Sutton prison, where the dispute about his manuscript continued. Prison officials read it and determined it was not to be passed back to Nielsen on the grounds that it was intended for publication and described Nielsen's criminal offences without forming serious comments about the crimes, the processes of justice, or the penal system. In a letter dated October 23, 2002, the governor of the prison detailed his reasons for the decision, stating that the manuscript, quote, is a platform for Mr. Nielsen to seek to justify his conduct and denigrate people he dislikes. The manuscript contains several lurid and pornographic passages.

It contains highly personal details of a number of Mr. Nielsen's offences. It seeks to portray Mr. Nielsen as a morally and intellectually superior being, who justifiably holds others in contempt. Its publication would be likely to cause great distress to Mr. Nielsen's surviving victims and to the families of all his victims, and would be likely to cause a justifiable sense of outrage among the general public. Nielsen mounted a legal challenge against the decision, but the High Court ruled that the determination of the prison service be upheld. Not content with this outcome, Nielsen filed an appeal in 2004 to the Supreme Court, but the judges ruled that his case be dismissed.

He then submitted a request to appeal to the House of Lords. This too was denied, so he took his case to the European Court of Human Rights. The court eventually ruled in favor of the prison service, effectively ending Nielsen's avenue of appeal, and ensuring he would never get his manuscript back. When news of Nielsen's writings first began leaking in the press, one of his surviving victims, Carl Stodder, filed a petition against its publication. He later told journalist Russ Coffey, quote, This book is just about his desire for attention and publicity. That's all it is. Nielsen wants to cater for his monster, ego, image. He's just a monster, and we shouldn't

pay attention to him. We should be thinking about the victims and the ripple effect on other victims. In 2006, a team of police were reviewing the disappearance of 14-year-old Stephen Dean Holmes, who had gone missing after walking home from a pop concert on December 30, 1978. They showed Nielsen a photo of Stephen, who identified the teenager as his first victim. The two had met at the Cricklewood Arms Hotel, where Stephen was refused service on account of his age, prompting Nielsen to invite him back to his Melrose Avenue flat for a drink. Once there, they drank heavily, and after Stephen fell asleep, Nielsen strangled him using a necktie, then hid his body underneath the floorboards. Nielsen had told police about this murder upon

his arrest in 1983, but didn't know the name of his victim, and was therefore never charged for the crime. The police contacted Stephen's sister to inform her that her brother had now been identified as one of Nielsen's victims. Sadly, their mother had passed away just four years earlier in 2002, and had campaigned for information about her son's whereabouts until the very end. The Holmes family found it too painful to talk about Stephen's murder publicly, but issued a statement that read, We are thankful to the police and glad it is all over now. We hope that people will respect our privacy at this sad time. It was thought that Nielsen may face a fresh trial for Stephen's murder,

but this never eventuated. Also in 2006, Nielsen's whole life tariff was reviewed after home secretaries were stripped of their right to impose such sentences. Instead, it was determined that the decision must be made by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. A trial judge reviewed Nielsen's case and affirmed the existing whole life tariff, concluding that he would never be eligible for parole. Nielsen stated that he wouldn't appeal for release, as he owed it to his victims to serve the allocated time. In October 2013, some text was posted to an online blog which was set to be an excerpt from Nielsen's history of a drowning boy manuscript. Although the author of the blog

is unknown, experts have confirmed the excerpt appears to have been written by Nielsen. In response to the leak, Seaton Sutherland, whose brother Billy Sutherland was one of Nielsen's confirmed victims, told the Daily Mail newspaper. This man is a monster and he should not be allowed a voice. This is attempting to glorify what he did and it was the right decision to stop his autobiography ever being published. Take the blog down for the sake of the families who were still having to deal with what he did. It wasn't just our loved ones he killed. Something died inside my parents and my brothers and sisters. He ruined our family. We've never had anywhere to go to grieve for Billy

because of what Nielsen did to him and the horror of how he died and what happened to him afterwards never leaves us. Shane Levine, whose father was Nielsen's 14th victim, Graham Allen, had a different view and was passionately in favor of the manuscript's publication. On his own blog, Shane explained that he would like to read Nielsen's uncensored and honest words rather than the inaccurate words and beliefs that were splashed around in the media. Shane wrote, There's a whole lot of hypocrisy and nonsense logic around this question. It's like the powers that B don't want to know his real feelings.

They want to take away all the words which they don't want to hear and leave only those which give the impression that the criminal justice system and rehabilitation works. Shouldn't the public, psychiatrists, forensic psychologists and criminal profilers be grateful for such a firsthand account and unashamed glorifying of such a crime? To me, such a book would be extremely useful. I think the book has every right to be published and I think it's in the public interest to do so. In full Sutton prison, Nielsen continued writing autobiographical reflections, eventually amassing more than 4,500 pages. In 2013, portions of History of a Drowning Boy were

published in a book written by journalist Russ Coffey titled Dennis Nielsen, Conversations with Britain's Most Evil Serial Killer. Coffey had first contacted Nielsen in prison in 1998 and the two corresponded regularly throughout the 2000s, with Nielsen providing copious assays, letters and additional chapters for his manuscript draft that existed outside the prison. Coffey is reported to be one of only four people who have read History of a Drowning Boy. In a 2018 article he wrote for The Daily Mail, Coffey said, Nielsen told me it was the first serious attempt to explore his psychological condition. In truth, it was a work of abject self-pity.

Both Russ Coffey and Brian Masters have warned readers of their books that Nielsen's own accounts are not necessarily trustworthy. This has been echoed by others, including a man who served alongside Nielsen in the army during the early 1970s, who told Coffey. Having been stationed with the bloke and having seen documentaries, I have often been struck by how much journalists assume what he says is actually true. I would advise anyone writing about him to take his autobiographical claims with a large pinch of salt. In early 2012, a new bill was tabled in British parliament that addressed the subject of whole life prison tariffs. It was proposed that certain prisoners with life sentences should

be put before the parole board after serving 30 years in order to ascertain whether it was still necessary to keep them incarcerated for the protection of the public. If the bill passed, Nielsen would be eligible for a parole board review in 2013. On February 9, 2012, the bill was debated in parliament by the House of Lords, and Nielsen was put forward as an example. Upon his return to full Sutton prison in late 2001, one of the facility's education officers noticed that Nielsen displayed certain characteristics and skills that could be harnessed to the public good. He was taught to write in Braille and went on to transcribe more than 87 published books, in addition to figuring

out how to describe graphs in Braille so that he could translate science textbooks for blind children. In parliament, this was provided as an example of how someone who had been rejected by society was still able to make a positive contribution to the community. Lord Tom McNally debated that the seriousness of a particularly heinous crime does not diminish over time and that the whole life tariff reflects such seriousness. With regard to Nielsen's work for the blind, Lord McNally stated, Such activity is to be commended for the good that it does to others, and it shows that an offender can engage in purposeful activity, even where there may be no prospect of release.

There is no doubt that an offender can do good while in prison, but that does not necessarily mean that his risk is diminished. The bill was ultimately rejected by parliament, ensuring Dennis Nielsen would spend the rest of his natural life in prison. In the early morning hours of Thursday, May 10, 2018, Nielsen complained to prison wardens that he was experiencing abdominal pain. A few hours later, he was taken to the nurses clinic, which was out of character as he typically refused all offers of health care. Although all of his vital signs were normal, the nurses took his complaint seriously, given his usual reluctance to engage with medical intervention. He was seen by a doctor who suspected Nielsen was suffering

from a urine infection or kidney stones, and he was given paracetamol and sent back to his cell. At 2.15 that afternoon, prison wardens found Nielsen naked and asleep on the toilet in his cell. Barely responsive and in a disorientated state. Health care assistance was called, but due to miscommunications and assumptions, those responding did not appreciate the seriousness of his condition, and it was nearly three hours until a doctor attended to Nielsen. Over the course of the day, Nielsen's condition significantly worsened, and at 6pm, paramedics arrived to transfer him via ambulance to York District Hospital, where he was diagnosed as having a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Nielsen had been offered a screening test for this condition 18 months earlier in December of 2016, as was standard procedure for men over the age of 65, but had declined due to his disinterest in engaging with healthcare. Had he been screened, there was a high likelihood the condition would have been detected in its early stages and treated accordingly. Instead, Nielsen underwent emergency surgery and was then placed in the intensive care unit. The following day, he was operated on a second time, but the internal bleeding caused by the rupture couldn't be stopped. At 9.20 the next morning, Saturday, May 12th, 2018, Dennis Nielsen died at the age of 72. Two days later, journalist Russ Coffey wrote an article for The Daily Mail, which read,

I feel a sense of relief at his passing. Dennis Nielsen liked to portray himself as a serial killer worthy of Hollywood, a sick genius like Hannibal Lecter, with the emotional complexity of Norman Bates in Psycho. In his own distorted mind, he was a crusader, a poet, a composer and a wit, the Oscar Wilde of mass murderers. But in truth, this deluded, manipulative murderer was essentially just a grubby sex offender who was lucky to have got away with his inadequate and disgusting crimes for as long as he did. Nielsen wanted to believe he was a unique case. In fact, he was the opposite. Prisons are full of people like him. It's just that Nielsen was good at spinning his own mythology, and too many people wanted to believe it. He wanted to

be a monster, and the world indulged him. Dennis Nielsen was not, as he wanted us to believe, an exceptional person destroyed by a murderous flaw. He was just a vile sex criminal whose brain lacked a crucial component. On June 7, 2018, 26 days after Nielsen's death, his body was cremated in secret, and his ashes were given to an unidentified friend. The secrecy surrounding his funeral arrangements resulted from the 2017 controversy regarding the disposal of the remains of Moors murderer, Ian Brady. Prior to his death, Brady had requested that his ashes be scattered in his home city of Glasgow, Scotland. The Glasgow City authorities refused permission, and his ashes were instead placed in a cardboard container and dumped at sea.

The current whereabouts of Nielsen's ashes has not been made public. He was never charged for the murders of Stephen Holmes, Graham Allen, or for the attempted murders of Carl Stodder, Toshimitsu Ozawa, Andrew Ho, or Trevor Simpson. The seven other victims he claimed to have murdered and burned at his Melrose Avenue flat have never been identified. In terms of the sheer number of victims, Dennis Nielsen is considered one of the most prolific serial killers in British history, second only to Dr Harold Shipman, a general practitioner suspected of killing as many as 215 of his patients during the 1990s. The fundamental question as to why Nielsen killed remains up for debate.

In the BBC documentary, Killing for Company, Brian Masters claims that after Nielsen was convicted, he commented, I have to come clean with you Brian, I should have told you before, but I did it because I enjoyed it. Expanding on this, Nielsen wrote a letter to Masters that read, I had always wished to kill, but the opportunity never really presented itself in safe conditions. The kill was only part of the whole. The whole experience which thrilled me intensely was the drink, the chase, the social seduction, the getting the friend back, the decision to kill, the body, and its disposal. The pressure needed release.

He denied feeling hatred towards his victims and claimed that sex or murder was never his intention when inviting the men back to his home, insisting he only ever sought a warm relationship and someone to talk to. Masters believes that Nielsen's habit of carefully washing the bodies of his victims and placing them on a chair in front of the television indicates, quote, the stark unpalatable fact that Nielsen killed for company to have someone to talk to, someone to care for. Shane Levine, son of victim Graham Allen, disagrees with Masters' theory, as he sees it as a sympathetic and comforting notion. Shane believes that while Nielsen's loneliness and need for

company played a role in the killings, sex was the biggest motivator. A post on Shane's blog reads, I think Nielsen got a bigger sexual kick from the murders than he has ever admitted. Sexual impulse is one of the few psychological states that really take us out of ourselves and make the perverse and grotesque, exciting and realizable. And as with many sexual fetishes, after they have been fulfilled, one feels disgusted, horrified and saddened by them. Others believe that Nielsen killed because he enjoyed the feeling of having power over his victims. Journalist Russ Coffey comments in his book that the statements Nielsen gave imply that he killed whenever he was feeling low, in order to satisfy his sex ritual, to temporarily relieve him of

his feelings of inadequacy. Reflecting on the case years later, DCIJ told television show Britain's Most Evil Killers, quote, Nielsen was so ordinary. You begin to think to yourself, how many more of them are around? How many more Nielsen's are around? I've never met anybody like him before in my life. You deal with people as police officers and you stick them in the evil box or cry for help box. There's always a box. But Nielsen, I never got to the bottom of. I couldn't understand at all. The ground floor flat at Melrose Avenue in Cricklewood, where Nielsen killed 12 of his victims, was purchased by a young couple in April 2016. It sold for 493,000 pounds or just under one

million Australian dollars, which was considered a good deal for its size and location. The couple completely renovated the flat, installing new pipes, floorboards and a new garden. They told the Sun newspaper, we know a lot of people would not live here, but from the moment people see what the place looks like, it puts that to rest. Of course you feel for the victims, but I'm sure in a street like this, there have been a lot of deaths. As for the flat at Cranley Gardens in Muswell Hill, the entire kitchen was relocated to London's Crime Museum at the Metropolitan Police Headquarters after Nielsen's trial. Better known as the Black Museum, the private facility displays

items of criminal significance from the past 145 years and is used to educate new police recruits. Nielsen's kitchen display includes the cooking pot he used to boil the heads of his victims, as well as a sample of the boiled flesh he flushed down the toilet. The flat itself was put up for sale shortly after Nielsen's conviction, attracting morbidly curious visitors who rummaged through his remaining possessions. It has changed ownership several times over the years, and in 2013 it was sold to a developer and extensively refurbished. In 2016, the flat sold for £250,000, the equivalent of $450,000 Australian dollars at the time, which was approximately £100,000 less than other identical flats in the street.

In late November 2019, it was announced that British Free to Air TV channel, ITV, will be producing a three-part scripted series titled Des, covering Nielsen's crimes from the perspectives of Nielsen, Brian Masters and DCIJ. Dr Hoos, former leading actor David Tennant, has been cast in the role of Nielsen, with the show intended for release in mid-to-late 2020. The show's executive producer, Kim Varvel, said, Dennis Nielsen's crimes shocked the nation in the early 1980s. Our program focuses on the emotional impact of those terrible crimes, both on those who came into contact with Nielsen himself, and also on the victims' families. However, some relatives of the victims have slammed

the show as a cash-grabbing drama that will force them to relive the horrific incidents on national television. A friend of Billy Sutherland's family told The Sun, it hurt the whole family. Nielsen is dead, but the victims' families aren't. The Sutherland family have previously spoken out against the way Billy's murder was covered by the press, as he was reported as being gay and a sex worker, both of which were incorrect. In a 2013 interview with The Daily Mail, Billy's younger brother Seaton Sutherland stated, Billy was the biggest womanizer going. Knowing Billy, he probably thought Nielsen was being friendly towards him because they were both Scots. I hate the fact that every time I search on the

internet for Billy Sutherland, which is also the name of my son, that a picture of my brother comes up with the words male prostitute next to a photograph of Nielsen. I'm angry, that's how my brother's remembered. Seaton said that after Billy was identified as one of Nielsen's victims, his marine engineer father couldn't bear to return to work, and his mother developed depression. She had hoped to see Nielsen die in prison, but both of his parents passed away before Nielsen's demise. Shane Levine writes on his blog about the profound effect his father Graham Allen's death had on his mother Leslie, who spiralled into alcoholism after Nielsen's trial and attempted suicide numerous times. As Shane was only nine years old when Graham was killed and not close

with his father, he considers himself to be a secondary victim, explaining that although the murder didn't take a direct emotional toll on his life, his mother's reaction and behavior had a significant impact. Shane writes of his childhood, quote, It was horrendous and vulgar and perverted, but gave me unique eyes and a unique insight into suffering and despair, a master's degree in the filth of life. Shane himself struggled with drug addiction, but holds no ill feelings towards Nielsen, expressing that he doesn't want to waste time pondering the butterfly effect of someone else's choices, quote. After everything, we still determine our own actions. We must live and

die by our swords. We cannot blame our enemy for us taking up arms. That is a bitter and all consuming road to take.