True Crime All The Time - Dennis Nilsen Part 2

Episode Date: August 14, 2023

Dennis Nilsen was a Scottish serial killer known by the nicknames “The Muswell Hill Murderer” and “The Kindly Killer.” He murdered 15 or 16 victims from 1978 to 1983 and committed acts of necrophilia and dismemberment. He primarily targeted young men he met at bars in London. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss the infamous serial killer Dennis Nilsen. In Part 2 of the Dennis Nilsen episodes, we will discuss his move to a different part of North London, the final victims, how Dennis was caught, his conviction, and the years that followed. You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 345 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson and with me as always is my partner in True Crime. Mike Gibson, give me, how are you? Hey man, I'm doing really well. How about you? I'm doing fairly well.

Yeah. You know, this week is rough for my wife and I because we're less than a week away from taking our youngest to college. Yeah. And, you know, it's really starting to hit us. Could be empty nesters around here. Yeah. That it's coming very quickly. Yeah.

Hey, let's go ahead and give our Patreon shoutouts. We had Lawson and T. What's going on, Lawson? MR-13. Hey, Mr. 13. Anise de Villiers. De Villiers. And I've probably messed up the whole thing.

But she just went with Anise. I got to take a stand. I'm not even sure if that's correct. Andrew Wilder. What's going on, Andrew? Melissa Rogers jumped out at our highest level. Thank you, Melissa. We had Cass.

What's up, Cass? Jennifer Wolfe. There is. Jennifer. Angie Pennington jumped out of her highest level. Oh, that's awesome. Thanks, Angie. Allison Barone.

Hey, Allison. And Alisa Johns jumped out of the highest level. Look at you, Johns. And last but not least, Ryan Smith. Thank you, Ryan. Yeah. Thanks for all that new Patreon support. And then if we go back into the vault, this week, we selected Renee Kale.

Hey, Renee. So appreciate the new support, the continued support. We also had a couple of great PayPal donations from Sarah Bostwick. Hey, appreciate that, Sarah. And Daniel what? That's awesome, Daniel. Yeah, thanks to everyone. So Gibbs, let's talk about what's out right now on true crime all the time unsolved.

We have an episode on the Pimlico poisoning. So we're headed across the pond. And this is a case that takes place in the late 1800s, but it still has all the same facets. It does. of a very interesting, you know, unsolved case. And it also has what many of ours have had lately, which is most people believe they know who is responsible. Who done it?

Who done it. Yeah. But, you know, we've got a love triangle. We've got obviously a poisoning because it's in the title of the... It is in the name. Of the episode. But if you haven't checked it out, make sure you do that. All right, buddy, are you ready to get into this episode of true crime all of the

I am. We are on to part two and the final part on Dennis Nilsson. And, you know, we did our weekly Patreon video and audio. And I was kind of talking about, I caught myself a couple times during the week after we did the episode thinking about some of the things that Dennis Nilsson did. Oh, yeah. And just kind of sitting there bewildered that. really somebody could do that stuff in real life. It's shocking.

I mean, that would be a very shocking scene or set of scenes in a movie. Well, for sure. But to think about, you know, someone actually doing it, he was something else. So,

you know, just a recap, right? Dennis Nilsson was a Scottish serial killer. And he had a couple of nicknames. The Muswell Hill murderer and the kindly killer. He murdered 15 or 16 victims. at least, and we're going to talk about that, from 1978 to 1983.

And in part one, we talked about, right, how he committed acts of necrophilia and dismemberment and how he also primarily targeted young men. He met at bars in London. Now, in part two, we'll discuss his move to a different part of North London, the final victims, how Dennis was caught, his conviction. and then the years that followed after that. So we pick up this episode in 1982. And that year, in an attempt to stop killing young men,

Dennis moved into a top floor apartment at 23D Cranley Gardens in Muswell Hill, North London. Dennis lived in an attic unit in a house that was divided into six apartments. At Cranley Gardens, he had no access to a garden. and he didn't have floorboards that could be easily removed. So it'd be more challenging for him in this new place if he wanted to hide victims. Well, yeah, I mean, to me, that must have been his thinking. You know, I'm going to find a place where I don't have quite the access or the ability to do what I've been doing.

Now, if you believe him, right? Because who else could this come from? But Dennis Nelson. Right. But there are killers who do that. You know, we often talk about killers can't stop themselves. And by and large, I believe that's true. But it doesn't mean that a lot of them don't try for some periods of time to stop.

I get it. I mean, it's kind of like me wanting to lose weight. Right. Or somebody who smokes. Yeah. You know, they've, quit a bunch of times, but come back to it. Now, these aren't great analogies to killing people, but you know what I mean. Right. I guess the point is, you know, you have good intentions,

but can you pull it off? Well, you're going to have these urges. So can you control the urges or not? And for Dennis, he couldn't do it. He could not control his violent urges. He killed three more men from the time he moved in to February 1983. In March 1982, Dennis murdered 23-year-old John Howlett, whom he called John the Guardsman. They had met once before in a pub, and they had a long conversation. One day, Dennis was drinking alone when John came in and saw him. They talked and decided to go to Dennis's apartment. After having some drinks, John got into bed.

Dennis tried to get him to leave, but John refused to do so. So Dennis strangled him with an upholstery strap from an armchair. And like we talked about in episode one, you know, you try to strangle someone who's conscious. It is going to be a fight. Yeah, it doesn't happen instantaneously like it looks like in the movies. Well, and this guy was awake. He's going to fight back. And John did.

but eventually he lost consciousness after hitting his head. Dennis continued strangling him until he thought he was dead. He strangled John for two to three more minutes, but felt that John's heart was still beating. So Dennis drowned him in the bathroom. And I think that goes back to a conversation we had in part one. And what you just alluded to, strangling someone. That physical act is not quite the same.

as they make it out in movies and on television. You know, we've heard it from the mouths of killers that it takes longer than they thought. It's harder than they thought it would be. And it seems to me as though Dennis had a hard time completing the act of strangulation to the point where his victims were dead because, you know, he ended up drowning a number of them. He did, yeah, to finish the process.

Yeah. So after that, he put John's body in the closet and he thought about how to get rid of it. He cut the body into small pieces and tried to flush the remains down the toilet. It's a challenging process. Well, yeah, you know, when you talk about dismemberment, you think, okay, and I know this is gruesome, but you think head, arms, legs, maybe part of the. torso. Yeah.

None of that is going to fit down a toilet. No. To get an entire full grown body into pieces that would actually be flushable. Could it take a lot of work. That is, that is a job. It's also extremely disgusting. Right. To think about what that would be like.

Well, and to complicate things even more, Dennis had a friend coming over later that day. It was taking a lot longer than he thought it would to flush the remains. So he boiled some of the body in the kitchen. He put the bones in the trash and threw some of the larger bones into a waste area over the fence outside. He put other remains into a bag and put the bag inside a chest in his apartment. So, you know, we go from Dennis, you know, kind of renting this place or whatever because it won't allow him to to kill and you know put people under the floorboard and and all of these things well now he's killed so living in that apartment didn't stop him no it definitely didn't stop him from killing i think what it did was it made it much tougher for him to get rid of

the body but i want to go back so number one you know he's he's trying to flush remains which you know as you said would be just such an arduous process. And then he realizes that's not going to work. So he goes back to something he had done before, which was boil body parts. But then, you know, you think about throwing bones in the regular trash that somebody's going to pick up.

Now, could you get away with it? Yeah, sure. If nobody looks in there or whatever. But are you also taking? taking a huge chance. Sure. And I would say, yeah, the answer is yes. But then you're talking about throwing larger bones over the fence. Okay. You don't think somebody's going to stumble upon whatever it is. A human rib cage, a femur. Um, you know, think about some of the, the longer bones, larger bones, a pelvis and say, oh, this isn't good.

Right. Exactly. We've got to call the police here. I mean, that just didn't make any sense to me whatsoever. But obviously, it didn't happen that way. It's not like the police showed up and arrested him right away. No. I think he did this too because he was just in such a hurry.

Well, yeah. Yeah. I mean, you don't want somebody to show up at your place and you've got a body laid out in your kitchen. partially dismembered. That to be a really good friend at that point. Yeah, I don't know how many people have friends like that. In May 1982, Dennis attempted to murder 21-year-old Carl Stodder.

He brought Carl to his apartment for some drinks and attempted to strangle him while he slept. But Carl woke up during the attack. It felt as though he couldn't breathe. He actually thought Dennis was trying to help him until Dennis submerged him in the bathtub, several times until Carl begged him to stop. So no doubt, Dennis Nelson was really big on strangulation. But like I just said, it doesn't seem as though he was able to finish what he started

as far as murdering his victims via that method. Eventually, you know, he got Carl back under the water and Carl stopped struggling. Dennis thought he was dead. And so he put him on the couch. but he realized he was still a lot when his dog licked Carl's face. Dennis took Carl back to bed and held him until he woke up. And when I first read that, I thought, okay, held him like so that he couldn't move. But I don't think that's what it meant.

No, I think it was more like a cuddle. Yeah. I think he was holding him in an intimate way. So, you know, eventually Carl woke up. and Dennis told him that his throat got caught in the zipper of the sleeping bag that was covering him. Carl thought he had a nightmare, even when he went to the doctor and learned that his condition was consistent with strangulation. Carl got lucky.

Well, yeah, I think he got extremely lucky. But I'm also wondering why Dennis let him go. Because, I mean, obviously the story he told him was kind of far fast. Sure. right you you you were strangled pretty viciously but we're told that your throw got caught in the zipper of the sleeping bag and this whole thing was so horrific he thought he had a nightmare i just wonder what went through dennis's head that he chose not to continue to pursue what he was doing instead pulled back and was just more nurturing at that moment yeah yeah it does seem strange and i don't know that he

ever gave clarification around it. And then, you know, I think even stranger is that Carl agreed to meet with Dennis again. So it's almost as if Carl really was able to convince him that this was an accident. He wasn't trying to kill him. Nothing like that. But Carl never showed up to this meeting. Now, he also never made a police report about the incident either. But we talked in episode one. about why some of these individuals, you know, might not have wanted to make that type of police report. Sure. In late 1982, Dennis murdered 27-year-old Archibald Graham out.

Dennis made Archibald an alma at the apartment. According to Catherine Ramsland's research, Dennis recalled, I noticed he was sitting there. And suddenly he appeared to be asleep or unconscious with a large, piece of omelette hanging out of his mouth. Dennis thought he strangled Archibald, but he claimed he didn't exactly remember. He also thought that the man could have choked on the omelette, but he did have red marks on his neck. So we've heard this before, right? What do you call it? Trans, murder trance, or I forget he had a name for it. It's almost as if he's saying he woke up or snapped out of it. And this man,

was dead with an omelet hanging out of his mouth. And he had no idea what happened. You didn't know he did it. But he thought he must have because there was nobody else there. Now he also said that, well, he could have choked. But you know, to me, it's like how much do you really believe of that? Here's a man who's already murdered multiple men. And even if you did, let's say, snap out of it. Right. Wouldn't your first thought be that? that, well, I am a murderer. I must have killed him. I would think so.

Not he choked on his omelet. Yeah. I'm not saying you couldn't choke on an omelet. I don't think it's the most common eggs thing in the world to choke on. I think the odds are more that he would be strangled in his presence. By Dennis Nilsson. Yeah, I agree with you. Dennis put Archibald's body into the bathtub and left him there for three days.

He then dismissed. membered the body. That's a long time in the bathtub. Well, it is. First of all, that means you're going three days without shower. And then, you know, kind of what we talked about last episode, the smell. But he didn't seem to have a problem with dealing with the smell. No, I don't think the smell ever really bugged him.

Because three days is pretty short, really compared to some of the victims that we talked about in, in the last episode. I mean, if I didn't shower, bathe for three days and came in here, you would know. Yeah. Yeah. I thought that myself today when you got here. On January 26, 1983, Dennis murdered 20-year-old Stephen Sinclair. Stephen Sinclair was homeless and struggled with heroin addiction.

He was raised by foster parents, Neil and Elizabeth Sinclair, but he lost contact with when he moved to London as a teenager, Dennis met Stephen on Oxford Street and bought him a burger. He took Stephen to his apartment where Dennis listened to music and Stephen used drugs before he fell asleep. So here again, you know, he is targeting an individual who I think in his mind, he's thinking, okay, here's a person who may not have a lot of family, may not be in contact with their family, they're not going to be missed easily. And I think that was a big part of his victim selection selection process. Dennis strangled Stephen with a string attached to a tie. He first put the ligature on Stephen's body and made a drink. Dennis decided that he would end the pain in Stephen's life

and strangled him while he slept. So again, a lot of this coming from Dennis. Now he's trying to make him self out to be what like an angel of mercy type killer i'm doing this guy a favor i'm going to take his pain away which obviously there have been a lot of quote unquote angel of mercy killers over the years and they've said that same thing but you know it's it always comes back to well does this person really want you to do that and i think for the most part the answer is no yeah according to the press and journal, Dennis wrote about the murder. My heart is pounding. I kneel down in front of him. I touch his leg and say, are you awake? There's no response. Oh, Stephen, I think. Here I go again. Dennis washed Stephen's body and spent the night sleeping next to it. He would write, the image of the

sleeping Stephen is and will be with me for all of my life. So this guy, you know, he was a serial killer. There's no doubt about that. What I think is very strange about Dennis Nilsson is that, you know, if you believe some of his writing and things that he said, he did in some strange way seem to care about these people. Yeah, he was a. If that makes sense. Attached to him in a sense. Yeah. He would get attached to them.

He would have these feelings for them. But then he would also kill them. but continue to have the feelings even after they were dead. The kindly killer. And in some instances, the reason he killed was because he was attached to them and he didn't want them to leave. Dennis kept Stephen's body in a cupboard in his home for eight days before he dismembered it. So the moving to the new place really did nothing other than take away the floorboard, which is where, you know, he had previously hid or kept.

most of his victims. Now he's just using different places, the bathtub, a cupboard. Yeah, it's made it a little bit more difficult for him, but not much. Not much. More of an inconvenience, I would call it. Dennis spoiled Stephen's body, put some remains in trash bags, hid remains around his apartment, and flushed others. In early February, 1983, Dennis and the other tenants complained to their landlord that the drains were blocked and had an unpleasant smell. On February 8th, Dennis wrote a letter to the landlord about the issue. Eventually, if he keeps stuffing human remains down the drain, something bad's going to happen.

Well, and imagine once a blockage happens, well, then you just have things sitting there. Yeah. And you know that smell is coming back up. It's a little rough to think about. That rotting decay smell. But, you know, to me, the takeaway here is that Dennis is one of the main people to complain. You know, he even writes a letter about the issue.

Now, why would he do that? Well, I think he did it because he wants them get the pipes clean moving again. I'm thinking he thought it was going to be something simple. Or is it that if something is discovered somewhere along the route and he doesn't complain, suspicion might fall on him. Oh, that's a good point. I thought about that, but now that you said what you said, I think you're probably right.

A plumber was called in that day to investigate the blockage. Plumber Michael Kotron found what looked like 30 to 40 pieces of human flesh in the sewer when he entered a manhole outside the house. The flesh came from a pipe leading from the house. However, it was too dark to identify it properly. Now, we said this is a house. There's not that many tenants there, but he's not there by himself. And it was said that Dennis and the other tenants were present during the discovery. This guy called his supervisor and mentioned that they might have to call the police, but the company decided they would wait until the next day to do another inspection.

So this guy ended up taking Dennis and one of the other tenants to the sewer. they speculated that they had found human remains. Dennis replied per the Herald Scotland, it looks to me like someone has been flushing down their Kentucky fried chicken. Kind of divert the attention from like human flesh to chicken. I think you've got to do something. Devert, as you would say. That night, Dennis tried to remove the remains from the sewer.

He thought about buying chicken to replace. to replace it, and he also considered ending his life. I think it's going to be tricky to remove the human flesh from the sewer without being seen. On February 9th, 1983, so the next day, the plumber and his supervisor returned to the house to further inspect the manhole. Dennis had already left for work that day. But what he didn't know was that another tenant had noticed his activity during the night and told the plumbers about their success.

So, you know, this goes back to something I talked about in episode one, right? Remember, he was taking body parts out in suitcases and burning them. Yeah. And apparently nobody saw a thing. Now he's out at night, but one of the other tenants was watching him. Seeing what he was up to. Yeah. I don't think that's all that uncommon. I think there are a lot of people who, you know, look out their window, maybe not. thinking anything in particular is going on, this person probably did think, okay, I'm going to keep an eye on the sewer, see if anybody comes back, tries to mess with it. The plumber and his supervisor

found the drain clear. But four fingers and some human flesh were found in the drain outside Dennis's home. The police came to the building and a pathologist confirmed that the remains were human. So it does sound as though he tried,

but he either didn't get it. everything or there were remains in other parts of the drain that, you know, he, he couldn't see. It is at nighttime too. So. Yeah. I'm sure it would have been difficult. On the morning of February 9th, Dennis reportedly told a work colleague, if I'm not in town

tomorrow, I'll either be ill, dead, or in jail. Orshadowing. Well, I think you could make that statement, uh, pretty much about anybody. Yeah. Hey, if I'm not at work tomorrow, I mean, they're sick, dead or in jail. What other kind of things are there? When Dennis came home from work, three officers were waiting for him. Detective Chief Inspector Peter Jay told Dennis they came to speak with him about his drains because they were blocked by human remains. When the detective

entered his apartment, he smelled a foul odor. He asked Dennis what was causing the smell, and Dennis confessed that he had human remains stored in his apartment. Okay, gave that up pretty easily. Really quickly. And maybe it was, you know, just he thought he was caught. There was no way he was getting out of it. But this guy, Inspector Jay confronted Dennis and said, don't mess me about. Where's the rest of the body?

And Dennis told him, you know, more remains could be found in two plastic bags in a wardrobe. He agreed to go with the police. So again, gave up very easily, didn't put him. put up a fight, didn't even try to kind of worm his way out of it. Like I think a lot of killers do. Yeah. We've talked about that on a lot of episodes. I think they're so smart that if they just craft the right narrative, the police will

buy some of their BS and they'll think, oh, okay, this isn't what we really think it is. And they're all the hook. Yeah. I think this guy, this detective knew, right? The stench of death, something's going on. they already found some human remains. On the way to the police station,

Dennis was asked if the human remains in the drain belonged to one or two people. He stared out the window and answered 15 or 16. Oh my gosh, yeah. Since 1978, according to the Harold Scott. So, you know, not only is he confessing to what he's done recently,

he's throwing out there, you know, all of his murders, going back, you know, a number of, of years. He's not shy about giving that count. Well, you know, one thought I have is once a serial killer is caught and they know they're caught, do some of them have this thought of, well, I'm already caught. I'll be honest. I think some of me even have the thought of I'm going to, I'm going to inflate the number because if I'm going down, I'm going down being, you know,

as infamous as I can be. Notorious? Notorious. Yeah. The police searched Dennis's home and found it full of dismembered human remains. One bag contained two dissected torsos. A smaller shopping bag contained internal organs. Another bag held a human skull, a severed head, and a torso with the arms attached,

but the hands missing. Okay. What a strange find. Oh. Come across. I mean, you know, whoever is opening these bags, I can only imagine what they're going through. But then I think about the flip side of it. And it's this guy, Dennis Nilsson, living with all of this stuff, all of the time.

It's normal for him, though. He's got body parts just kind of laying around. And you're right. It is normal to him. And that's so strange to say. Sure. Formal questioning began on February 11th. And it was said that Dennis talked for 30 hours over the week.

He described how he disposed of the victim's remains and even helped identify body parts. Dennis seemed very eager to confess. But he also showed absolutely no remorse for his crimes. He said in an interview that there were more remains in a tea chest in his living room and in a bathroom drawer. In total, the dismembered remains belong to three victims. And does it shock you that this man had no remorse for his crimes? Because it doesn't shock me at all. Yeah, I'm not surprised he has no remorse.

I think in some cases he thought he was doing them a favor. Yeah, he said as much. Yeah. The authorities managed to find most of Stephen Sinclair's body, which allowed them to charge Dennis with murder on February 12th and hold him for further investigation. So really, if you think about it, this all happened very quickly.

You know, he writes the letter and they start complaining on the eighth. And by the 12th, they've not only found the remains, he's confessed and he's been charged with murder. Dennis also went with the police to his old apartment and showed them where he buried the victims and burned their bodies. The burned bones of at least,

eight individuals were found at Dennis's old address. Wow. Still there. Yeah. And, you know, that this is the part that actually does shock me when we talked about, you know, him throwing bones over the fence or, you know, him burning bodies at, you know, his old apartment. How did nobody ever find that stuff? I get it. It would have been little, you know, they would have been smaller pieces after burned. But it would have been. It would have have been a lot of bones. And the police just show up and they're like, oh, here's all these pieces of bone. It makes you wonder.

Dennis claimed that he had killed 15 men and admitted to seven attempted murders, but he could only remember four names. On May 12, 1983, Dennis was charged with four more murders. Kenneth Ackenden, Barton Duffy, William Sutherland, and Malcolm Barlow. He was also charged with the attempted murders of. of Douglas Stewart and Paul Knott. While he was in prison awaiting trial, Dennis wrote over 50 notebooks to assist the prosecutors with their case against him.

So not only does this guy confess gladly, happily show no remorse, he's assisting the prosecution with the case against him. It was said that he drew sad sketches that detailed how he treated some of the victim. So I think you really have to take a step back and question, why is he doing this? what's in it for him? He essentially led them to more bodies. Now, they may have found them on their own, probably would have. Right. But would they have been able to charge him with it? That is a little less clear. But he's confessing, you know, to a lot of things. So why? Is it because he wanted to get caught. He wanted to stop, but couldn't stop on his own. And then is he reveling

in the kind of reliving or the retelling of what happened? I don't know for sure. I'm just throwing out, you know, options, possibilities. I always find it strange when they do that, when they want to help. I don't always believe killers when they say, well, I wanted to get caught. I wanted to stop. But I know there are some sure who in some former fashion are glad that it's open they don't want to keep doing it but they can't help themselves and when they're caught it's almost a relief maybe i mean according to him he wanted to stop yes he just couldn't yeah if you believe that then he probably was happy that he was eventually found out because he knew that what he was doing would stop dennis also fired his lawyer, rehired him, and then fired him again shortly before trial. Dennis went to trial on October 24th,

1983. Again, pretty quickly. Didn't take a long time. He was facing six counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder. He pleaded not guilty to those charges and pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, according to the guardian. So he's got to plead guilty to something because he's confessed all this stuff. Well, like he said, he had to plead guilty to something. So he's going after this manslaughter. I mean, basically he's saying, I didn't know what I was doing. I don't know the difference between right and wrong here when it came to these murders.

On the first day of trial, prosecutor Alan Green told the jury that Dennis admitted to the murders of 15 or 16 people, but at least eight victims were unidentified at that time. Green discussed a large amount of human remains found in both of Dennis's apartments and described how Dennis targeted young men in pubs or vulnerable homeless men. Survivor Douglas Stewart testified on October 24th about the attempted murder. He had been invited back to Dennis's flat and fell asleep. He woke up and Dennis was leaning over him with his knee on his chest. He had a tie wrapped around his neck. As we talked about in part one,

Douglas escaped and called the police. Two officers took him back to the flat, and that was the one where they said that they were having a quote unquote lover's quarrel. Yeah. And basically they didn't want to get involved because it was two men. So Dennis got lucky there.

Douglas testified that the police did not contact him. The next day, as they had arranged, the prosecution read Dennis's letters in court on October 25th. Dennis wrote that he was unsure of his motive. As quoted by the guardian, he wrote, 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.

I would be better if my reason for killing could be clearly defined, i.e. robbery, jealousy, hate, revenge, sex, blood loss, or sadism. But it is none of these. So I think we have to break this down. Number one, he's not sure what's causing him to kill, right? He doesn't know what his motive is. But this writing, the victim is the dirty platter after the feast. Well, what does that mean? The dirty platter is something you have to deal with. Sure. After you've eaten the meal. Yeah, you've enjoyed it.

You've had your fun. And now you've got to clean up. Yeah. And then he goes on to say the washing up is a clinically ordinary task. So, you know, I'm taking that to mean for us, that would be like washing a dish. Yeah. You know, after you've used it. And that's all he felt about it.

Just something he added. do to clean things up. Detective Chief Inspector Peter Jay read a series of notes and letters written by Nilsson in jail. The first letter was dated February 15th. Dennis wrote, I guess that I may be a creature, a psychopath who when in a loss of rationality, situation lapses into temporarily a destructive psychopath, a condition induced by rapid and heavy ingestion of alcohol. Okay. Not all of that made sense to me. The psychopath part does. Yeah. But it seems at the end there as though he's trying to blame it on alcohol. Dennis also wrote about how he thought he was helping his victims. He said,

God only knows what thoughts go through my mind when it is 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. It amazes me that I have no tears for these victims. I have no tears for myself or those bereaved by my action. So I think some of that was Shakespeare. I think so, sounds like.

But for me, the takeaway, there's two things from this part. Victims who I decide. You know, I'm really carving that out. Sure. You know, he's making the decision. They're not saying, I need help here. I need help. I want you to end my life.

He's deciding that on his own that they would be better off. If they were dead. If they were dead. And he's willing to help that. And then he has no tears, either for the victims himself or all the people who are hurt, family members, friends, you know, All of those types of individuals. Because he did what he had to do in his mind. Yeah.

Carl Stodder and Paul Mops testified that same day. The Guardian reported on their testimony. Carl Stodder told the court, I remember vaguely hearing running water. And then I felt very cold. And I knew I was in the water and he was trying to drown me. He kept pushing me into the water. And on the third time, I came out and said, no more. Please, no more.

But he pushed me under again. I just thought I was dying. I thought you are drowning. Dennis told Carl that he had a nightmare and that he splashed him with water to get him out of shock. Paul Nobs testified he met Dennis at a pub. In November of 1981, he left the pub with Dennis because he liked him and wanted to avoid another man who was bothering him. They kissed and fondled each other and fell asleep. Paul testified, I woke up between two and three o'clock in the morning, feeling very ill. I had a headache, and I went to get a glass of water and sat down in the living room. He woke up again a few hours later.

Paul said, I went to splash some water on my face. And in the mirror over the sink, I saw my face. It was very red, and there were no whites in my eyes. They were all bloodshot. I had a sore throat, and I felt very sick. He said, Dennis told him it was because. of the alcohol that he drank, Paul explained why he didn't go to the police. He said, I didn't want anything to be said about it. I don't know why, but I presumed I had been

mugged. It seemed pointless. The fact that I'm a homosexual would probably have brought some doubts into the minds of the police. And we touched on this a number of times. In the first episode, it is very sad. It is. To think of that. you know, these individuals, because they were homosexual, felt as though they couldn't go to the police. Yeah, they were fearful of doing so. No, I think they had a right to be. It's just sad that that's the way that it was. But I think we have some powerful things here, right? Number one, you've got his confessions. You've got all these notebooks and drawings and stuff like that. But then the second thing is, you have actual survivors testifying about what he attempted to do to them.

I think that's what's interesting about this case is that you actually have survivors, right? Most of the cases that we do, we don't have survivors. And the impact of what they say on the jury takes it to another level. Yeah, I think it does. The defense tried to undermine the survivor's testimony. Dennis pointed out that Stewart stayed for another dream. after the attack. The defense also got him to admit

he sold his story to the media with some embellishments. Nob said that he had a sexual encounter with Dennis and that Dennis appeared friendly. Stoddor testified that Dennis was friendly, but his account of the attempted drowning hurt the defense. So, you know, a few things here, right?

The defense has to try to break down this powerful testimony. but you know could Dennis Nilsen have been friendly and also killed people of course yeah I mean he was the kindly killer absolutely I mean what better way to lure people back to your apartment you can't be an a whole right you can't be mean to people and and expect them to want to come back to your apartment for a drink or you know anything like that the prosecution also presented photo evidence, the chopping board used to dismember victims, and the pot used to boil the remains. Two psychologists testified for the defense, Dr. James McKeith and Dr. Patrick Galway.

McKeith testified about Dennis's personality disorder. He testified about how Dennis had trouble expressing his feelings and how he associated bodies with arousal. He described Dennis as narcissistic and grandiose and said he experienced blackouts from excessive drinking. Dennis could depersonalize other people so that he didn't have strong feelings about what he did to his victims. His ability to separate his mental and behavioral functions implied diminished responsibility. Well, I think he was really good at depersonalizing. And most serial killers are. Yeah. You know, I do think it's very hard to look someone in the face and kill them if you see them as a person.

So I don't think a lot of serial killers do. They see them as what? Objects. Targets. Whatever you want to call it. But they don't see them in that personal way. No, because if they did, it would make it tougher to do what they do. However, under cross-examination.

McCeeth retracted his judgment about Dennis's diminished responsibility. The Guardian reported that Dennis told McKeith he was stripped naked by a 16-year-old boy and once by a taxi driver whom he killed later. Mick Key said that whether these were fantasies or not, they were still important events. Dr. Galway diagnosed Dennis with false self-syndra. This was characterized by outbreak. of schizoid disturbances that made Dennis incapable of premeditation. This is according to biography.com. Galway testified that Dennis's personality started to crumble. When he cut off contact with his family, he needed a relationship.

When Dennis's roommate moved out, it made things worse. And Dennis turned towards his world of imagination. Now, this last part, I truly believe. right he cuts off all contact with his family he has a relationship of some sort with this roommate but then the roommate leaves and so you know he turns to this the fantasies the world of imagination i think that part is probably all true well i believe that i think the way it's described world of imagination it makes it sound like it's Disney Disney or something you know yeah like a new attraction at Disney.

But it's far from that. Dr. Galway testified that sometimes Dennis's personality broke down completely. And during these breakdowns, he probably dismembered and disposed of the victim. So, you know, you kind of look at these two individuals. McKeith at one point actually said that what he was going through implied diminished responsibility. he later retracted it. The other doctor, you know, he did talk about outbreaks of schizoid disturbances,

whatever those exactly are. But I didn't hear a lot in there that really kind of made me think he was saying, well, he didn't know what he was doing exactly. The prosecutors called Dr. Paul Bowden as their rebuttal witness on October 31st. Dr. Bowden spent time with Dennis and found no evidence to support. much of the defense psychiatrist's testimony. He described Dennis as a manipulative person. Although he did have signs of mental abnormality, he was still aware of and responsible for his actions. And I've said it before, I'll say it again, this is one of the most fascinating

aspects to one of these types of trials for me. You know, when someone is is claiming diminished responsibility. They've entered an insanity to plea. The names have changed throughout the years. But it's always kind of come down to the same thing. Did this person know right from wrong? Did they know what they were doing? And no surprise that you've got some defense psychiatrists that are saying,

no, he didn't know. And you have a psychiatrist for the person. prosecution who said he was aware of and was responsible for his action. It's where that they ever going to be on the same page together. So I think, you know, as a jury member, what do you make of all that? Because it is one side saying one thing and the other side saying, you know, the opposite. Do they cancel each other out? How do you view it is, does one of the mental health experts seem more believable?

Redible? more credible. We don't know because we didn't see him on the stand. Right. And that could be it, right? One could really have a connection with the jury. Well, I think the first guy for the defense probably really hurt himself when he retracted,

part of his testimony. Yeah, I think that does some damage for sure. Dr. Bowden said that Dennis enjoyed the feeling of power over his victims. He testified that Dennis felt like a criminal because he was gay. And killing allowed him to transfer the feeling of criminality to the fact that he was a killer, not because he was gay. So pretty interesting.

The first part, I think we hear a lot, right? Some of these killers, it really enjoy the power or the feeling of power that they have over their victim. The rest of this, I'm a little less sure about. I'm not even sure I understand it completely. I just always wonder how they come up with this part stuff. Yeah. They're professionals. I don't know.

They do what they do. The jury retired on November 3rd, 1983, but they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. On November 4th, the judge agreed to accept a majority verdict. So again, right? The system works a little differently maybe over there. know that that option would exist here. Dennis Nilsson was convicted of the murders of Stephen Sinclair, Kenneth Ackenden, Martin Duffy, Billy Sutherland, Malcolm Barlow and John Hallett. On November 4th, 1983, Dennis Nilsson was sentenced to eight life sentences with a

recommended 25-year minimum. Now, what I couldn't figure out was, is that a 25-year minimum for all eight, each eight, or just one 25 year minimum. In that, he could get out in 25 years. And I'm thinking that's probably what it was. It's kind of scary if you think it was. It is. Think it with that way. Now, what are the chances that someone's going to let him out in 25 years?

I don't know that they're that great. But yeah, I think it's scary. And maybe a little sad if you're the family of the victims. Eight life sentences is great. We're never going to have to worry about. this guy again. But the 25 year minimum means, hey, we're going to have to show up somewhere in 25 years and relive this and tell some parole board or whatever, why you shouldn't be out. This guy, yeah, shouldn't be let out and what he's done to us. In 1985, Dennis assisted author

Brian Masters with the biography, Killing for Company, the case of Dennis Nilsson. In 1993, Dennis did a four-hour interview with journalist Mike Morley from prison. He was allowed to do the interview on the condition that a psychologist would ask the questions. Only four minutes were broadcast because of government intervention. Dennis admitted in this interview that some of the victims were made up. So that's, you know, that's pretty fascinating because it goes back to the theory that that I had that I think some serial killers really like to pad their numbers. Yeah, I think some of them want the fame or the infamy.

Yeah, the infamy. Yeah. I think some of them actually probably did have more. And some may have thought they had more, but can't remember, you know, I think it's, it's all over the map. In December 1994, a court imposed a whole life sentence against Dennis and other inmates. And we've actually heard of that happening in England before in other episodes. And I think for me in the case of Dennis Nelson, it makes a lot of sense. You know, we kind of talked about 25 years, the possibility that he could even get out, I thought was strange. So the whole life sentence kind of takes that out of the picture and means that, you know, he's going to die in prison. I think there is a caveat.

where someone could be let out for certain conditions, like if they're about to die, they're really old. I don't know what they are, but more than likely, it just means you're never getting out. I think it's the equivalent here to life with no parole. Dennis spent years writing thousands of pages for a memoir titled Dennis Nilsson, history of a drowning man. In 1996, his solicitor took it out of the prison.

Prison authority said the memoir was taken without their knowledge and authority. In March 2001, it was sent to the prison in a sealed package, but the authorities refused to give it to Dennis unless they could read it to make sure it did not violate prison rules. It was returned to his solicitors pending a legal challenge. In 2001, Dennis won a high court ruling that allowed him to seek a judicial review to challenge a decision not to return the manuscript of his autobiography so he could edit it. Dennis argued that all proceeds would go to charity and he would not profit from the release. In March 2002, the High Court ruled that the prison service had the right to read and possibly

censored Dennis's manuscript before his solicitors could give it back to him. His lawyer argued that this was a breach of Dennis's right to freedom of expression. So we get a real battle here, not over his conviction, whether he should ever be let out. It's about a book that he's written or is in the process of writing. In May 2002, a court decided that the prison service should be allowed to read the manuscript. In October 2003, Dennis attempted to recover his confiscated manuscript by claiming his right to right to free expression was being denied, a court heard that up to five copies of the manuscript were in circulation outside prison, and one was allegedly held by a newspaper. On December 19, 2003,

Dennis lost the fight to force prison authorities to return his manuscript. The judge rejected the claim that his right to freedom of expression was breached and stated that prison authorities were allowed to take the feelings of the victim's family. into account when preventing a prisoner from publishing a book. And to me, that that makes a lot of sense. Same here. Good for the judge. And when I was kind of going over it in my head, I thought, to me, it really didn't

matter if he was giving the mighty charity or whatever, just the fact that he was allowed to publish a book, to me seems wrong. In January 2006, the first victim, Stephen Dean Holmes, was formally identified by, Dennis Nilsson. The police showed Dennis a blurry picture of Stephen in 1990, but he couldn't say for sure if he was the first victim. In January of 2006, Stevens family provided the better picture, and Dennis was able to make the identification. On November 4th of that year, Dennis sent a letter to the editor of the evening standard newspaper where he wrote about the murder of Stephen Holmes, but he declined to give graphic details out of consideration for the victim's family.

So on the one hand, it almost makes it seem like he's being a nice guy. But on the other, I was thinking, why does he need to write about the murder at all? That's a good point. Is it to satisfy some need inside him? Oh, I'm sure it is because to me, most of these types of individuals, that's the only reason why they do anything, right, is to satisfy some need within this. him is it because, okay, nobody's talking about him as much anymore. He's trying to get in the limelight a little bit. Who knows? It could be a lot of different things with people like Dennis. Dennis gave the

paper Stephen's name and age. She said he didn't know who Stephen was at that time of the murder because he was binge drinking and couldn't find identification papers on him. Dennis wrote, I wanted him to stay with me over the new year, whether he wanted to or not. I reached out and got the necktie. I raised myself and slipped it under his neck. I quickly straddled him and pulled tight for all it was worth. On December 6, 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that Dennis would not be prosecuted for the murder of Stephen Holmes.

Later that month, on December 21st, 35 prisoners, including Dennis, were in four. that they would never be released from their life sentences. So again, I think that goes back to the whole life sentence thing. In November 2013, excerpts from Dennis's autobiography were published online, despite the ban by the European Court of Human Rights and the Home Secretary. The chapters published included details about Dennis's childhood and his grandfather's death. In November 2016, Cheryl Livingstone from the press and journal wrote articles about her exchanges with Dennis Nilsson. She wrote to him because she wanted to know why he killed his victims.

Dennis, by this point, was 70 years old. He wrote, I have never challenged through court appeals, my conviction or life sentence imposed by the court in 1983. After all, I did provide the evidence. against myself by full and immediate confession to the police. That he did do. Yeah, that he did do. But how many killers have we talked about who have given detailed full confessions and then later pleaded not guilty and fought the whole thing, tooth and nail?

It happens all the time. He explained why he chose not to appeal, saying, I will not lodge any appeal for release from prison as I owe it to my victims and to justice. and to justice to serve out whatever time has been allocated to me, I have never even thought about lodging an appeal against conviction or sentence. And I have always felt this way since day one. And nothing has changed. So, you know, with these types of statements, I think you have to weigh real BS, somewhere in between, I don't know. Yeah, I'm kind of leaning somewhere between

because we know he's somehow he's sort of sympathetic. Maybe. Maybe. But he also knows that he's never getting out. And that any appeal that he would lodge is most likely going to not work. So is he just trying to make himself look good by saying this? That's one of the questions I always ask. Well, he could be.

He could be. He certainly has and has plenty of time to think on what to say. Sure. Dennis also wrote that he didn't hide behind excuses or his destructive past, saying, The damage I have done to victims and relatives is so great that extinguishing and damaging so many lives peaks beyond any kind of redemption or forgiveness. These facts are hard, but harder for relatives who remain. So, I mean, he really is saying some things that make a lot of sense. Now, whether he believes them fully or not, that's the real question.

Yeah, I mean, knowing that at this point, he's never getting out, maybe he is being truthful. You could be, you know? Yeah, absolutely could be. If he had the possibility of getting out, I think you have to lean the other way. Like, he's just dressing it up really nice. So when parole comes around, he has a better chance of getting out. Dennis told Livingstone that he had written 8,000 pages about his. life story, which was held in storage outside prison, he claimed that he wrote for stimulation and

introspection. But Dennis would not live to see his memoir published. Nilsen died in prison on May 12, 2018. An inquest heard that Dennis died from complications after a stomach surgery. He was taken to a hospital on May 10th. For abdominal pains, he had an operation but then later suffered a blood clot. Dennis's condition deteriorated on May 12, and he died. A post-mortem exam showed that the immediate cause of death was pulmonary embolism and hemorrhage. The underlying causes of death were deep vein thrombosis and an abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture repair. So some of those words are very tough to say for me. But it's a real thing, man, that DVT through your abdomen area?

Yeah, absolutely. In October 2019, an English. Quest heard that Dennis spent his final hours in what was described as excruciating pain, according to the BBC. Is that justice? Well, I think it depends on what your stance is and maybe who you are. If you're a family of a victim, maybe you do see it that way. Yeah.

You know, this is a man who took your loved one's life away. are you crying in your weedies that he died probably not no is there at least some small part of you who is glad that he faced excruciating pain at the end probably so yeah i don't know if that's right or wrong i'm just saying there are probably some of the the victims family members who thought yeah i'm okay with that yeah i don't feel bad about it no the coroner declared that dennis died of causes. In January 2021, Dennis's memoir, history of a drowning

boy, Dennis Nilsson, the autobiography was published by Red Door Press. The book is based on his notes from prison. In these notes, Dennis claimed he strangled at least two unknown male victims and sexually assaulted a drunk soldier

before he committed the first murder. The murder is committed by Dennis are still some of the most shocking and disturbing cases. in the UK. Dennis targeted young gay men, some of them teenagers or homeless men who needed food or a place to sleep for the night. He picked victims from a vulnerable class of people. And some of the survivors were too scared to come forward. Those who did felt as though they were dismissed by the police. Dennis admitted to killing 15 or 16 young men. He was convicted of six murders.

But as we always talk about, right? It's suspected that he killed more. It's possible that we may never know the true number of his victim. Yeah, you wonder if things would have been different, if the police acted differently back then. And if some of the laws were different. Yeah. You know, let's not forget, as we discussed in episode one,

some of these men who were under the age of 21 faced actual jail time for having a homosexual encounter. Yeah. And so were they likely to come forward? And the answer is no. But if they could have, maybe. It changed it. It could have changed things.

Or, you know, if the police back then didn't have the attitude that they did, where they didn't want to get involved in what they felt was a homosexual lover's quarrel. That's what they said, right? Yeah. They essentially dismissed the claims of the few people that actually did come forward. Right. Which, you know, as we've talked about with other types of crimes, once that starts to happen and people know it, well, then subsequent victims are far less likely to come forward.

Because they're going to be dismissed. They're just going to be laughed at or whatever it is. But I think, you know, as we wrap this one up, Dennis Nilsson. When you look at everything that he did, you know, from the murders, but really probably more so the dismemberment, the keeping of the bodies. You know, treating these dead bodies as though they were people with whom he was in a relationship with, sitting on the couch, watching TV together, talking to them. you know it's pretty easy to see along with what may be a pretty high victim count why he is so infamous as a as a serial care sure you know we brought up domer quite a bit because there are you know a number of parallels obviously domer is much more well known here in the united

states but some similarities well yeah actually quite a few similarities and and this guy was uh about as bad as they come. But that's it for our episodes on Dennis Nilsson. We got some voicemails gives you. Want to check those out? Let's hear them. Hi, Mike and Gibby. This is Kimberly Tufts from Las Vegas. I just want to say you guys are amazing. You make my day. I'm a taxi driver. So I'm in the car at least 12 hours a day. Thank you so much. And I just watched the Richard Chase, the vampire. And when you said, he would try to unlock or open the doors and only go on the ones that were unlocked. Well, it was kind of interesting because vampires are not allowed in your home unless they are invited in.

So maybe he truly thought he was. Anyways, I love you guys. I'm team T cat. Take care and keep your own time ticking. All right. I did not know that about vampires, did you? I did not. So we learned something.

today. Did she say she's in Las Vegas? Yeah. Taxi cab? Taxi cab confession. Remember that show? I do remember that show. I'm not sure why you're linking her with taxi cab.

Remember that show? That was a wild show. It was wild for sure. Hi, Mike and Gibby. This is Farmer Susan. I listen to you why I do chores on my goat farm here in mid-Missouri. And I just finished the Richard Ramirez episode. And this is the first time that I actually stopped.

and Googled to see an image of what one of the criminals that you discuss looks like. And I just called to say, ew, there is a photo out there that compares side-by-side, Richard Ramirez, with Benjamin Bratt, and you have ruined Benjamin Bratt for me. But I still love you. So keep your own time ticking. Bye. So a couple of interesting things there. Number one, both those voicemails were people listening pretty far back.

Yeah. Because both those cases were pretty old. You know, Richard Ramirez was a mystery to me. I thought he was about one of the ugliest SOBs I'd ever seen. But there were a lot of women who thought he was good looking. They had a little vibe for him. Yeah. Yeah.

I just thought he was repulsive. Maybe it's just a bad boy vibe or something. Maybe. Now, I do see the Benjamin Brat thing. Yeah. He could play Richard Ramirez if he, like, somehow got sunken in cheeks and let his hair, you know, grow out and stuff like that. But, you know, Benjamin Bratt's a good looking dude. But he, in no way looks like Richard Ramirez, but you can see how he could be made to look like, if that makes sense.

And he's not a bad boy. Yeah, I don't know. You know who bad boy is? Who? Rex West. Well, Rex West is bad. Yeah, he's a bad boy. But we appreciate the voicemails very much.

So we had one thing in the mailbag. Yeah. Jody Hodgkis sent us this amazing box from Australia. It's called a down under. Good day? Box. Good day box? No, it's called a down under box.

And it's just got all kinds of goodies in there. Really? Yeah, Tim Tams, all these things that come from Australia. It's good stuff. come from Australia? Uh-huh. All these things? No.

No. They actually come from Ireland. I was just wondering. She had them shipped Australia and put in a down under. All these things that came from Australia. And down under box. Oh, that's where they came from. Ah.

All right. Smartest. All right. All right, buddy. That's it for another episode of true crime all the time. So for Mike. And Gibby. Stay safe and keep your own time ticking.