CW: Contains mentions of sexual assault/abuse (no description). 

Summary of the forensic report on Henry Dixon, by Professor Solomon Benvinisti, member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Association of Criminal Profilers

Dated 9th August 2023

Henry Alexander Dixon was born on 18th September 1978 to an upper class family. He enjoyed a political career in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and was influential in many of the Conservative Party's decisions. However, all this is overshadowed by the fact that he killed 22 people and has claimed his place as one of the most prolific serial killers of the 21st Century.

The case has shocked the nation and made international headlines, especially in countries where his murders were carried out. Many people will see a poetic justice in the spectacular manner of his demise, while others will be disappointed that he was not found guilty by a court of law, and some families will never have answers as to why he committed his crimes. With this report, I hope to provide some insight into his likely motivations, and help to prevent such cases in the future.

The first part of the report will be dedicated towards categorising Dixon's murders within the FBI's typology of serial killers. Then, it will go on to discuss Dixon's early life and upbringing, the genesis of his offending behaviour and opportunities that were missed. It will then go on to discuss his modus operandi and notable features of his crimes before giving recommendations for the future.

What follows is a summary of the report's findings. The full report is 100 pages long and it will be available to the police and prison services, and a copy will be available to download from the Association of Criminal Profilers' website.

Categorisation

Defining a serial killer is controversial, but in conventional usage, a serial killer is generally defined as an offender who murders three or more people in a period of over a month.

The FBI divide serial killers into two main categories, organised and disorganised.

The organised serial killer plans murders thoroughly, and takes care to remove forensic evidence from the scene. The most likely demographic group is generally regarded as that of a white male in his 40s with an IQ over 100, but recent research has demonstrated that such offenders falling into other demographic groups are more common than often thought. Typically, this type of offender holds down a successful job and is often regarded as a pillar of the community. Henry Dixon is widely regarded as such a killer, as for most of his career, he was meticulous at cleaning up crime scenes, had the help of numerous associates and avoided detection for 25 years.

The disorganised killer does not take care to remove evidence from the scene. The crime scenes are likely to be messy and chaotic, and time between murders is typically very short. This type of offender is more likely to report delusions or voices telling them to kill. While there are no indications he heard voices, during the final stages of his campaign Henry Dixon fell into the category of a disorganised killer who made minimal attempts to obscure his crimes, and could only do so due to money. The final murder he committed, that of a flight attendant on board his private jet, was an example of this.

This is not an exact categorisation. As in the case of Henry Dixon, organised killers often become disorganised if their stress levels rise, for example if they are aware they are close to being caught. The time between murders will decrease, and they will take less care with the scene. Conversely, disorganised killers can take on more elements of organisation with confidence and experience. With certain categories of victims, even disorganised killers can avoid detection for years.

A third category has been identified, the 'mixed' category, which contains both elements of organised and disorganised murderers, and it is my opinion that Henry Dixon fell into this category.

Serial killers are also subdivided into several categories depending on their motives. The FBI have identified four main categories, which are:

Visionary: Believes that a person or entity is commanding him to kill. Most likely suffering from psychosis.

Mission-oriented: Kills in order to "rid" society of a certain group.

Hedonistic: Commits his acts for his own personal pleasure. For example, rape, torture or money.

Power/control: Fantasizes about having power and seeks to dominate and control his victims.

Henry Dixon's crimes contained elements of mission-orientated, hedonistic and power-control motives.

Mission orientated:

Dixon had a deep-seated hatred and obsession with animal-rights activists, and the majority of his victims were animal-rights activists, or critical of right wing policies by the government and party to which he belonged, in whose ideology all signs are he believed. He also found a deep enjoyment in cruelty to animals, which fuelled his hatred of and paranoia about animal-rights activists.

He idealised Margaret Thatcher and right wing thinkers such as Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Some witnesses have testified to his pseudo religious motivations, such as believing that God gave humans power over animals and therefore veganism was sinful and ungodly, thus justifying his actions.

Hedonistic:

Dixon clearly enjoyed violence, and several witnesses have testified his fascination with cruel activities. Ex partners have testified to his sadistic tendencies in their relationships. Dixon took great pleasure in kidnapping victims and enacting his fantasies in a place where he felt relaxed enough to do so. In many of his murders, he replicated sports such as bullfighting and staged the murder to resemble such scenes. He also took trophies and installed cameras to watch his victims' escape attempts, and taunted police and family members by impersonating victims or sending violent images.

Power/control:

Dixon's obsession with control, possessiveness and paranoia about criticism is now infamous. His attraction to activities regarded as cruel can be another expression of his need for power and domination, in this case over the animal. Other victims were targeted because of their criticism of Dixon, demonstrating his pathological need to control their actions, as well as what he heard about himself and stifle negative remarks.

His increased erratic behaviour following the escape of 'Pepelito', the Spanish bull he abducted who ultimately killed him, demonstrates the rage he felt when anything happened to disrupt what he took to be the natural order of his world. Witnesses and associates have testified to his extreme aversion to criticism and need to eliminate it.

Origins of offending behaviour

Researchers have identified several risk factors for serial homicide. Those who have suffered head injuries in childhood are thought to be at extra risk, as are those who suffered traumatic events in childhood such as a serious illness, bereavement or child abuse. Non-consistent or overly strict parenting has also been identified as a factor, as is disruption to home life.

While no head injuries have thus far been identified and he did not suffer a serious illness or a major trauma such as bereavement, Dixon was sent to boarding school aged 5, which is known to be a disruptive event for child development. It may have led to difficulties in forming stable attachments, as for much of his early life Dixon experienced a lack of family role models and an unstable living environment. While it is unclear if Dixon himself was abused at school, all three of the schools he attended have been beset by abuse scandals from the 2000s onwards.

The classic warning signs for a serial killer were long thought to be bedwetting, fire setting and cruelty to animals. While the 'Macdonald Triad' has become controversial and does not always reliably predict serial homicide, it is undoubtedly the case that any child displaying all three behaviours as markedly as Henry Dixon did, needs extensive support, intervention from authorities and an appropriate care plan. Unfortunately, this did not happen in his case, a fact the author of the report finds deeply disturbing.

While disruptive events such as childhood trauma and head injury are undoubtedly risk factors in the development of criminal tendencies, an understudied risk factor is the intense privilege that offenders such as Henry Dixon grew up with, which may have encouraged a lack of empathy towards others. Recent studies have demonstrated that large amounts of wealth, as Dixon grew up with, may reduce empathy towards those who have less money.

Reports state that as a child, Dixon witnessed his father, mother and other relatives mistreating employees and domestic staff, and speaking about them in a derogatory fashion, a situation that continued throughout his teenage years and indeed, his career. Eyewitness accounts by former domestic staff describe how family members mistreated animals in front of children, and took Dixon and his siblings to hunting events at an early age, where they participated in 'blooding', a fox hunting ritual among the English aristocracy, where the blood of the dead fox is smeared on the face of a child attending their first hunt. When he was 9, his uncle took him to his first bullfight.

His disturbed behaviour, some of which would have carried a significant custodial sentence had it been by an adult offender, had already been raised as a serious issue of concern. A few months previously, Dixon had been suspended from his preparatory school for a violent attack on another pupil in which he gouged his eye out with a pencil, and another incident where he was prevented from cutting off a cat's tail with a pair of scissors. Following these events, his violent behaviour towards domestic staff at his family's properties grew more extreme. It was at this time that three cats in the French town Henry's relatives inhabited went missing.

It is the author's opinion that the validation given to Henry's behaviour and interests led to an escalation in his violence. Many of Dixon's caregivers and relatives were under the impression that cruel behaviour against animals could be a harmless 'outlet' for general violent tendencies, directing his aggression against a low impact target. The atmosphere in which he was raised had a constant background of violence against animals and the belief that wealth and social standing was a mark of superiority. Dixon was seldom, if ever, exposed to any contrary views, and was never disciplined for violent and sadistic behaviour.

Missed opportunities

During his adolescent years, the danger posed by Dixon's behaviour only intensified, with little or nothing done to mitigate this, despite the significant financial resources of those in his life. Notably, there was an incident at a school rugby match at Eton where the Eton team were playing boys from a local comprehensive school. Dixon permanently disabled the comprehensive team's star player, who had won the game for the state school, by violently beating him so that he was in a coma for several weeks. He was heard to remark that the boy was a 'chav' and a 'pleb' following the event.

As an underage suspect, Dixon could not be named, and charges were soon dropped. The recent corruption trial of Arthur McCauley, who was a friend of the family and headmaster at the time, heard evidence that Eton, under his authority, paid the parents of the unnamed boy an undisclosed sum in order for them to drop the charges.

During this time, Dixon spent a few months in a pupil referral unit, which was to be the one and only time in which psychiatric attention was attempted in earnest. The late Dr Martin Obeng stated in a report on the 15 year old Dixon, 'This is the most disturbed adolescent I have come across in 30 years of providing psychiatric evaluation and assistance to young offenders. I do not have any doubt that he will go on to kill should immediate action not be taken to address his behaviour, and if his educational and family environment persists in normalising his actions and feeding his sense of entitlement.'

Unknown to him, this had already happened; the first murder linked to Dixon took place three days before the report was completed. The following years saw further missed opportunities to either stop him or attempt a change in his behaviour. In particular, during his time at Oxford University, there were reports of sexual assault by Dixon, sometimes in conjunction with others. Most were ignored, as in the case of Tegan Ferry, who chose to break her anonymity, and in some cases not recorded by police at all. This is a matter of deepest regret considering the suffering inflicted on victims and their families.

Modus Operandi

Most of Henry Dixon's 22 murders were carried out through stabbing the victims multiple times, although in one case the victim was shot and in the final murder the victim was stabbed once and left at the scene. For most murders, he was assisted by accomplices in removing forensic evidence from the scene. In some murders, Dixon attempted to replicate a bullfight during the killing, and in at least two cases he assembled a handful of accomplices to watch this.

Victims were usually drugged, abducted, and taken to remote locations or locations exclusively frequented by the killer. This usually occurred with the help of one or more accomplices, many of whom were provided with financial benefit, or whom Dixon had compromising material on. After the murder, the victims were usually dressed in different clothes and brought back to, or near, the vicinity of the kidnapping, although some were buried or disposed of at the scene.

Dixon created a bullring in his cellar in which to torture his victims (which was also used by him and his associates for criminal purposes such as illegal bullfighting, and taking trophies of endangered wildlife). Many properties were used by Dixon for the purposes of murdering his victims.

Recommendations

1. The most striking feature of Henry Dixon's crimes was the large number of people in high society who colluded with them. This has rightly provoked outrage among the public and led them to question how many more potential accomplices are to be found among political circles. In order to restore public trust in the justice system it is necessary that those linked with Dixon should both resign and where appropriate face an investigation and criminal proceedings. In particular, those responsible for ensuring that charges for him were dropped or not pressed should face a full investigation and criminal proceedings where appropriate.

2. Dixon's last kidnapping was successful due to the NDAs in which workers on his private jet were pressured to sign by himself and his associates. It is reported that he forced his other staff to sign such documents as well, even when criminal behaviour was not witnessed. It is important that witnesses or potential witnesses to a crime during the course of the working day are fully protected by the law, and the use of NDAs should be strictly limited.

3. A lack of respect for animals both within his home and school environment, and in society, helped to enable Dixon's behaviour. As the UN has repeatedly recommended to the governments of Spain and France, children and teenagers should not witness cruelty to animals or be taken to events where animals are harmed for entertainment purposes. If a child is seen to be harming an animal, then action needs to be taken by caregivers and educators in teaching the child what appropriate behaviour towards animals is, and their behaviour should not be brushed off or normalised.

4. Dixon was also able to get away with his crimes due to disbelieving complainants, and because of the type of victim he targeted. Some of his victims fell into the category of the 'wrong kind of victim', for example sex workers, meaning that the case was not investigated properly and not all avenues were explored. While progress has been made regarding the attitude of the police towards sexual assault victims, for instance, this should be maintained, and it should be recognised that there is much more to be done.

It should be the priority of the police to investigate all reports in a timely and sensitive manner, and not write off a victim's testimony due to the background of the alleged perpetrator.

Conclusion

The case of Henry Dixon will have repercussions for decades to come. Nonetheless, if lessons are not taken from his crimes, there will be future killers of this nature. Wealth, shocking failings in the justice system, and corruption in public life, led to Dixon being unapprehended for a quarter of a century. While Dixon is an extreme example, the environment he grew up in helped to normalise his behaviour, especially when he was encouraged to view others disdainfully based on their class and level of income, and thus their lives were seen not to matter. Animals were on the lowest rung of Dixon's hierarchy.

While this cannot excuse Dixon's crimes, addressing these societal ills could prevent a similar series of homicides in the future, or at least assist in the apprehension of a suspect.

Professor Solomon Benvinisti

09/08/2023