1237213

review-article2024
TVAXXX10.1177/15248380241237213TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSERumpf et al.

Review Manuscript

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE

Leaking in Intimate Partner Homicide:

1­–15
© The Author(s) 2024

A Systematic Review Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/15248380241237213
https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241237213
journals.sagepub.com/home/tva

Tanita Rumpf1 , Stefanie Horn2, Catharina Vogt2 , Kristin

Göbel1, Thomas Görgen2, Kim Marie Zibulski3 , Vanessa
Uttenweiler3, and Rebecca Bondü1

Abstract
Intimate partner homicides (IPH) are serious offenses by a heterogeneous group of offenders with diverse risk factors
that are too unspecific for the successful prediction of an offense. Recent research suggested several warning signs that
may precede IPH and enhance its prevention, but little is still known about “leaking.” Leaking comprises all offense-related
statements, behaviors, or actions that express the perpetrator’s thoughts, fantasies, ideas, interests, feelings, intentions,
plans, or positive evaluations of an own violent act or previous similar offenses prior to the own attack. This review aims to
identify the forms, recipients, and media of leaking as well as potential subgroup differences in cases of IPH. We identified
47 relevant publications via a systematic search of eight databases and additional methods. We included publications that did
not explicitly use the term, but described behaviors that could be interpreted as leaking. Up to now, leaking has not been
systematically researched in cases of IPH. Nevertheless, publications described several behaviors that are in line with our
definition of leaking and were categorized into five broader categories: (a) homicide announcements, (b) previous severe
acts of violence, (c) suicidal behavior, (d) planning activities, and (e) interest in similar offenses/offenders. Information on
recipients and media as well as subgroup differences was sparse. Leaking is relevant in IPH, but more systematic research is
needed to understand its potential role in future risk analyses procedures and prevention of IPH.

Keywords
domestic violence, predicting domestic violence, homicide, leaking

Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a significant public health phenomenon may, therefore, also be helpful to prevent IPH.
issue not limited by nationality, social class, or religion (Garcia- Thus, the present review aims to give an overview of the current
Vergara et al., 2022; Graham et al., 2021; Messing et al., 2021; state of research on instances of leaking preceding IPH.
Monckton Smith, 2020): One in seven homicides worldwide is
committed by a current or former intimate partner (Stöckl et al.,
Intimate Partner Homicide
2013, for a review). Although the majority of all homicide vic-
tims are men, according to the Global Study of Homicide, Contrary to the widespread conception of a crime of passion,
women are the victims of IPH in 82% of the cases (United IPH mostly does not happen spontaneously, but marks the fatal
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNDOC], 2019). escalation of a long-term conflict (Dobash et al., 2009; Greuel,
Nonetheless, with about 25%, the proportion of female offend- 2009; Monckton Smith, 2020). Thus, there may be opportuni-
ers in IPH is exceptionally high as compared to other homicidal ties for prevention and intervention. Consequently, research has
offenses (Choromański, 2020, for a case report; UNODC, aimed to identify risk factors of IPH: Community and societal
2019). Furthermore, there are additional victims, such as family risk factors, such as local density of domestic violence, local
members or new intimate partners, in up to 37% of IPHs income rank, or firearm restrictions, have been associated with
(Dobash & Dobash, 2012; Kafka et al., 2021; Smith et al., IPH (Chopra et al., 2022; Zeoli et al., 2018) but do not
2014). Because IPH has stable prevalence rates and an immense
impact on bereaved relatives, more research on its prevention is 1
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Germany
needed (Kapardis et al., 2017; UNODC, 2019). Recent research 2
Deutsche Hochschule der Polizei, Germany
has suggested that considering leaking, a specific warning sign 3
Polizeipräsidium Ravensburg, Germany
that points to the preoccupation with or planning of an offense
Corresponding Author:
prior to its execution, can be helpful in preventing homicidal Rebecca Bondü, Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Am Köllnischen Park
offenses in public spaces (Bondü, 2012; Dudenhoefer et al., 2, Berlin 10179, Germany.
2021; Meloy & O’Toole, 2011; Tampe & Bondü, in press). The Email: [email protected]
2 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 00(0)

sufficiently explain which individuals commit IPH. Therefore, a positive evaluation or even the preparation of an offense,
it is important to consider individual and partnership-related risk similar offenses, or related topics (Bondü, 2012). According
factors or behaviors, such as gun ownership, the presence of to this definition, leaking is the overarching term that includes
children from previous relationships, separation, strangulation, threats, an interest in prior offenses, preparations of an
and threats with weapons (Graham et al., 2022; Matias et al., offense, and other offense-related behaviors. To be consid-
2020; Smith et al., 2024; Spencer & Stith, 2018 for overviews). ered leaking, the behavior must be potentially observable by
Most prominently, a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) third parties who might disapprove of an offense and dis-
preceded 67% to 75% of the IPH cases regardless of the offend- played within a time frame prior to the attack that would still
ers’ sex (Campbell et al., 2007). Nonetheless, these risk factors allow for an intervention (Bondü, 2012; Dudenhoefer et al.,
often lack predictive validity: For example, a history of IPV was 2021; Tampe & Bondü, in press).
not present in all IPH cases and far less than 1% of all IPV cases Leaking is considered a valuable warning sign for severe
ended lethally (Boxall et al., 2022; Rye & Angel, 2019). This violence in rare offenses without homogenous offender pro-
may explain why even risk assessment tools that were specifi- files (Bondü, 2012; Dudenhoefer et al., 2021; Meloy &
cally designed to predict IPH (e.g., Danger Assessment by O’Toole, 2011; Tampe & Bondü, in press): Although leaking
Campbell et al., 2009; Severe Intimate Partner Risk Prediction is considered to be rare in the general population, it was
by Echeburúa et al., 2019; H-Scale by López-Ossorio et al., observed prior to almost all cases of school shootings and
2021) fail to accurately predict IPH, especially within proposed terrorist attacks and, therefore, represents a more specific
categories of extreme danger (i.e., high cutoff scores; Garcia- risk indicator than other alleged risk factors (Bondü &
Vergara et al., 2022; Graham et al., 2021; Thornton, 2017). In Scheithauer, 2014; Tampe & Bondü, in press). It often
addition, these tools are rarely validated and mostly with sam- occurred repeatedly and over long periods of time, that is,
ples consisting only of male offenders in the U.S. and are, there- already in early stages in the development toward an offense
fore, not transferable to the relatively high proportion of female (Bondü, 2012; Niesse et al., 2021; Tampe & Bondü, in press;
offenders, from other countries or other atypical offender and Verlinden et al., 2000). Additionally, leaking was often com-
victim groups (Graham et al., 2021; UNODC, 2019). This municated to members of the later perpetrators’ family,
resulted in high false-negative rates (i.e., incorrectly labeling friends, or colleagues, but also to health care professionals or
persons as not being at risk of IPH) and low sensitivity of these internet users, thereby creating diverse opportunities to
risk assessment tools. However, most current risk assessment inform law enforcement authorities (Lankford et al., 2019).
tools were not designed to predict IPH in particular, but IPV Because in most cases leaking is not time-sensitive, it leaves
reoffending in general (Graham et al., 2021) and, therefore, use room to intervene. Importantly, both direct communications
common risk factors for IPV. When applied to IPH, this results of potential intentions to commit an offense as well as behav-
in high false-positive rates (i.e., incorrectly labeling persons as iors that reflect an interest in previous offenses, a positive
at risk of IPH) and low specificity of these tools. Thus, to enable evaluation or justification of such offenses, or a general
effective prevention, new approaches to assess the risk of IPH interest in related topics and weapons, are relevant signals
are required. More specifically, risk markers that are present for an impending offense (Tampe & Bondü, in press), par-
prior to almost every IPH (high sensitivity) but are otherwise ticularly if they occur in combination (Bondü, 2012).
rare (high specificity) would be helpful. One promising risk Because leaking is more frequent than fatal attacks, assess-
marker with these characteristics is leaking, the importance of ing the risk of an offense should consider its frequency, spe-
which has been highlighted by research on rare mass-casualty cific contents, and other criteria. These criteria need to
offenses in public spaces. distinguish between individuals who have acted on their
leakings (i.e., subsequently committed an offense) and who
have not (Bondü, 2012). Two recent risk assessment tools for
Leaking
terrorist attacks based on leaking contents and characteristics
The concept of leakage was introduced in the context of were indeed able to discriminate between these two groups,
school shootings as a direct or indirect announcement of an while showing both satisfactory specificity and sensitivity
impending violent act (O’Toole, 1999). Research on school (Niesse et al., 2021; Tampe & Bondü, in press).
shootings or mass murders distinguishes leakage and leaking Because leaking is an important starting point for the pre-
(Dudenhoefer et al., 2021). Leakage comprises any commu- vention of homicidal offenses in public spaces, it may also be
nication about an intended or planned offense to a third party relevant for similar offenses occurring within close relation-
(Meloy & O’Toole, 2011) and is one out of eight potential ships, such as IPH. Two studies reported leakage prior to
warnings signs that also include direct threats toward the vic- 37% of homicides in close relationships (Greuel, 2009;
tim or the identification with previous offenders (Meloy et al., Meloy et al., 2014). These studies, however, did not include
2012). Leaking includes all topic-specific statements, behav- other behaviors that would additionally correspond to the
iors, or actions by which potential perpetrators reveal their present definition of leaking and suggest a systematic analy-
fantasies, thoughts, ideas, intentions, or plans of committing sis of the available literature. For example, studies mentioned
an offense and signal an interest in, a preoccupation with, and a preoccupation with an offense, planning behaviors, threats,
Rumpf et al. 3

suicidal behavior, verbalized homicidal fantasies, or expres- encounters (e.g., one-night stands). We excluded studies that
sions of sympathy for IPH perpetrators (Boxall et al., 2022; did not provide information specific to IPH (i.e., samples
Chopra et al., 2022; Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz, included cases of IPH and homicide of persons other than the
2012; Monckton Smith, 2020). partner), that used samples of offenders that were found not
Existing risk assessment tools already take some of these guilty by reason of insanity, and that addressed so-called
behaviors into consideration when aiming to predict the risk mercy killings.
for future IPH/IPV, such as death threats, strangulation, or
threats with weapons (Campbell et al., 2009; Echeburúa
Search Strategy
et al., 2009; Garcia-Vergara et al., 2022). As in cases of
school shootings and terrorism, however, there may be fur- First, we conducted a systematic search on PsycInfo,
ther forms as well as specific characteristics and contents of PsycArticles, Web of Science, PubMed, PubPsych, KrimDok
leaking that may signal a risk of an impending act and, there- (a German criminological database), and Google Scholar. The
fore, could increase the sensitivity and specificity of risk search string contained the following keywords combined
assessment tools. Considering the different aspects of leak- with Boolean operators “AND” and “OR”: “intimate partner
ing, therefore, is an innovative approach that may help to homicide*,” “domestic homicide*,” “spousal homicide*,”
improve risk assessment and management in relation to IPH. uxoricide*, femicide*, androcide*, familicide*, “family
Furthermore, potential victims, their children and loved annihi*,” leak*, “warning behavi*,” “warning sign*,” threat*,
ones, as well as professionals in touch with them, can be “risk factor*”, plan*, pathway*, “temporal sequencing*,” pro-
warned by the perception of leaking, life-saving measures gression*, stage*, chronolog*, and process*. We searched
can be initiated, and interventions targeting potential perpe- KrimLit, a second German criminological database, with an
trators can take place well in advance. adapted search string. Because Google Scholar limits the
number of characters per search, we used two separate search
strings containing the abovementioned keywords. Due to a
The Present Study multitude of results by Google Scholar, most of which were
This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the irrelevant for the present research question, we only included
current state of research on leaking prior to IPH, regardless studies that were relevant until we came across 100 subse-
of whether the behavior in question was labeled as leaking or quent irrelevant publications. Second, we identified articles
otherwise. Specifically, this research investigates the fre- through hand search and by screening references of relevant
quency of leaking prior to IPH, its forms, the media used for publications, particularly meta-analyses and literature reviews.
its communication, its recipients and witnesses, potential
subgroup differences (e.g., female vs. male perpetrators), as Identification
well as changes over time. The findings will be discussed
with regards to existing risk assessment tools, recommenda- After adjusting for duplicates (k = 387), the search strategy
tions for future action, and prevention efforts as well as resulted in a total number of 2,043 publications (Figure 1).
strengths, limitations, and gaps in the existing research. Two authors independently screened all titles and abstracts
with regard to the eligibility criteria by using an online tool
(Rathbone et al., 2015). Conflicts in ratings were resolved
Method through discussions between the authors. This resulted in a
total number of 126 publications for full-text screening. At
Inclusion Criteria least one of the authors screened all of these full-texts. We
This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for excluded 79 publications that did not provide empirical data
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (Page (k = 16), specific information on IPH (k = 38), or information
et al., 2021). To identify potentially relevant publications, we on leaking (k = 16), or used the same dataset as an already
used a procedure involving multiple stages: We considered included publication without reporting additional informa-
descriptive and analytic studies, (multiple) case-studies, and tion (k = 9). This search strategy led to 47 articles for further
project reports on perpetrators who had deliberately killed or analysis (marked with * in the reference list).
attempted to kill their current or former intimate partners
(and additional victims). We only considered studies and
Data Extraction
reports that contained descriptions of behaviors that were in
line with the above presented definition of leaking and were For each publication, we identified the publication charac-
published in German or English between 1999 and 2022. teristics (authors, year of publication, publication form [e.g.,
This corresponds to the time period since the introduction of research report, peer-reviewed article]), the data collection
the concept of leaking (O’Toole, 1999). We included inti- procedure (i.e., descriptive or comparative, interviews, retro-
mate relationships between the victim and the perpetrator spective case analysis, analysis of media reports, country,
except for those imagined by the perpetrator and one-time and time span of data collection), the sample characteristics
4 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 00(0)

Figure 1. Summary of the identification and inclusion of relevant publications, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedure, Page et al. (2021).

(i.e., sample size, percentage of male offenders, offenders’ Results

mean age, and IPH subgroups [male vs. female offenders,
familicide, IPH-suicide]), and the information about None of the 47 publications used the term “leaking,” but
leaking. some used related terms, such as “warning signs,” “red
Rumpf et al. 5

flags,” or “alarm bells” (mostly in the abstract or discus- Forms of Leaking

sion section; Boxall et al., 2022; Kapardis et al., 2017;
Musielak et al., 2019; Sharp-Jeffs & Kelly, 2016; Vatnar We identified several behaviors described in the literature as
et al., 2017, 2019). However, most publications did not leaking and grouped them into five categories. In the follow-
include a definition of these terms. Hence, our results are ing, we will define each category, name the relevant behav-
based on behavioral examples, designated pathway iors, and give further information on frequencies, temporal
behaviors, or risk factors that are in line with our defini- distance from the impeding attack, as well as further impor-
tion of leaking (Boxall et al., 2022; Kapardis et al., 2017; tant aspects. Table 1 provides a detailed description.
Monckton Smith, 2020). Thus, none of the included
studies systematically examined leaking in context of 1. Homicide Announcements. Thirty-nine publications
IPH. reported that in between 16% and 97% of cases, per-
petrators expressed their homicidal intentions prior to
the offense by verbal statements or threats with weap-
Publication Characteristics ons. Perpetrators expressed their intentions to kill the
Supplementary Material A provides an overview of the 47 victim between 1 day (Boxall et al., 2022) and up to
included publications. They comprised 40 publications in 2 years (Monckton Smith, 2016) prior to the offense.
peer-reviewed journals (85%), three project reports (Boxall Verbal expressions or threats to kill the victim com-
et al., 2022; Regan et al., 2007; Sharp-Jeffs & Kelly, 2016), prise all statements by which the perpetrators explic-
two dissertations (Taylor, 2009; Wiltsey, 2008), one techni- itly or implicitly revealed an intent to kill the victim.
cal report (Monckton Smith, 2016), and one conference They were reported in 20% to 74% of the cases by 33
paper (Steck, 2005). Of these, 51% (k = 24) mainly described publications. In some publications, “threats to kill the
risk factors or precursors of IPH, including three single-case victim” were defined as homicide announcements
(i.e., Anderson et al., 2011; Monckton Smith, 2016; Rabe & that were communicated directly toward the victim
Heubrock, 2013) and three multiple-case studies (i.e., and third parties (Boxall et al., 2022, or studies using
Adinkrah, 2000; Glass et al., 2004; Hesselink & Dastile, risk factors described by the Domestic Violence Death
2015). Furthermore, 49% of the publications (k = 23) com- Review Committee, e.g., Cheng & Jaffe, 2021; David
pared risk factors of IPH to control groups (e.g., IPV perpe- & Jaffe, 2021; Jaffe et al., 2014) . Threats with weap-
trators; Campbell et al., 2003) or between IPH subgroups ons include verbal death threats in which using a
(e.g., IPH-suicide; Koziol-McLain et al., 2006). The publica- weapon to kill the partner is described as well as
tions reported results of 51 studies, out of which 48 were threatening a person with a weapon (e.g., aiming a
included into this review, because the other three did not gun at the victim’s head; frightening the victim with
meet our inclusion criteria (i.e., applied a different definition screwdrivers, scissors, or shovels; Cunha &
of IPH or did not report information on perpetrator Gonçalves, 2016; Farr, 2002; Glass et al., 2004).
behavior). Threats with weapons were found in 16% to 67% of
Publications included data that have been collected the cases and reported in 22 publications.
between 1984 and 2020. Nearly half were conducted in 2. Previous Potentially Lethal Acts of Violence (i.e.,
Europe (49%, k = 23), 40% in North America (k = 19), 6% attempted homicide) and nonfatal, nonsexual stran-
(k = 3) in Oceania, and 2% in Asia (k = 1) and Africa (k = 1), gulation may be considered leaking because they can
respectively. Most studies obtained their data through ret- signal the preparation for or the willingness to engage
rospective case-analysis, such as analyzing legal case files in fatal violence regarding the specific partner (chok-
or domestic homicide reviews (87%; k = 41), and/or inter- ing) or intimate partners in general (previous similar
views (53%; k = 25) (of which 72% [k = 18] were conducted acts; Enander et al., 2021; Leygraf, 2015). Whereas
with bereaved, 28% [k = 7] with victims of attempted the relevance of acts of violence in previous relation-
homicides, 24% [k = 6] with perpetrators, and 25% [k = 4] ships may be subject to debate, their inclusion pro-
with involved professionals). Another 17% relied on news vides a more comprehensive picture of the potential
or media reports (k = 8). Almost half of the publications precursors of IPH. Together, they were reported in
used more than one data source (47%, k = 22). Fifty-seven 11% to 56% of the IPH cases by 21 publications.
percent considered only male perpetrators (k = 27), 9% Previous attempts to kill an intimate partner were
only female perpetrators (k = 4), and 28% both (k = 13) (6% found in 11% to 25% of the cases by 6 publications.
reported no information on perpetrator sex [k = 3]). Five Previous strangulation or choking was reported for
publications reported results for familicides and six for 11% to 56% of the cases by 18 publications.
IPH-suicide perpetrators. The individual publications 3. Suicidal Behavior. Disclosures of suicidal intent,
included 1 offender to 437 offenders with mean ages rang- preparations for suicide, or suicide attempts that are
ing from 34 to 46 years. related to the relationship with the victim were shown
6 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 00(0)

Table 1. Forms of Leaking.

Included Forms Corresponding Terms/Behaviors Example k %

1. Homicide announcements 39 16–97
 Statements expressing Prior threats to kill the victim, threatening “If you ever try to leave me like that 33 20–74
the intention to kill the the victim’s life, credible threats of again, I’ll fucking kill you” (Eriksson
victim death, disclosure of plans or intentions et al., 2022, p. 6)
to seriously harm or kill the victim, “She said, the best thing would be if
expression of ideas or thoughts on her husband died, making her his
homicide or serious harm heir” (Enander et al., 2021, p. 7)
Threats with weapons Use or threat of use of weapons, prior “She threatened the victim with a knife 22 16–67
threats with (lethal) weapons, frightening and screwdriver in the year prior to
the victim with a weapon the murder” (Glass et al., 2004,
p. 612)
2. Previous severe acts of violence 21 11–56
Attempted homicides Previous attempts to kill the victim or “She shot her in an incident 5 years 6 11–25
(attempted) IPH in previous relationships previously” (Glass et al., 2004,
p. 614)
Strangulation Nonfatal strangulation, choking (outside the “He put her hands around her 18 11–56
sexual context) throat and strangled her to
unconsciousness” (Monckton Smith,
2016, p. 25)
3. Suicidal behavior 29 4–71
 Disclosure of suicidal Disclosure, demonstration, or expression of “He sent her several text messages 26 12–63
intention suicide thoughts, ideas, plans, or intentions; saying that he could not live without
suicide threats her” (Todd et al., 2020, p. 8)
Suicide attempts Prior suicide attempts “[. . .] he attempted suicide by cutting 16 4–25
both his arm lengthwise[. . .]”
(Anderson et al., 2011, pp. 158)
Suicide preparations Suicide notes, suicide preparation “Had left a suicide note behind” 6 30–39
(Pottinger et al., 2019, p. 4)
4. Planning activities 17 9–75
 Development of Plotting, (pre-)planning, or preparing the “ [. . .] one female perpetrator 10 8–54
homicide plans homicide; premediated homicide; research prepared the poisoning of her
on murder methods; planning the disposal partner [. . .]” (Enander et al., 2021,
of the victim’s body, an alibi, or how to p. 72)
escape the country
 Obtaining homicide Purchasing, sourcing, or obtaining weapons, “She bought the gun seven days prior 6 30
equipment accoutrement, or equipment to the murder.” (Glass et al., 2004,
p. 611)
Arming oneself with Putting a weapon in position; taking a “He is an ex-cop that walks around 9 42
weapons weapon to the crime scene, arming oneself with a pistol in his briefcase”
with weapons, frequently carrying or (Sheehan et al., 2014, p. 9)
walking around with a weapon
Asking for assistance Plotting the homicide together with a third “He even offered his brother money 7 15–75
person; offering another person money to ‘bash’ the victim” (Boxall et al.,
to seriously hurt the victim; asking for 2022, p. 38)
assistance; instruction or engagement of
a third person, a contract killer, or an
acquaintance to kill the victim; having an
accomplice
5. Interest in similar Talking about “wife killings” “He had had discussed ‘wife murder’ 1
offenses/offenders with friends on two occasion”
(Regan et al., 2007, p. 24)

Notes. Summary of identified forms of leaking including terms found in the literature, descriptive examples, and number of reporting publications (k).
Percent ranges are based upon publications that reported frequencies of offenders who displayed the corresponding form of leaking. Single percentages
indicate that either only one publication reported frequencies or that at least two publications reported similar frequencies. More detailed information
can be found in the Supplemental Material A. IPH = Intimate partner homicides.
Rumpf et al. 7

10 days up to 3 years prior to the attack (Anderson Eriksson et al., 2022; Farr, 2002; Goussinsky & Yassour-
et al., 2011; Enander et al., 2021) and reported in 4% Borochowitz, 2012; Monckton Smith, 2016, 2020; Taylor,
to 71% of the cases by 29 publications. Disclosures of 2009; Todd et al., 2020). The perpetrators’ family, children,
suicidal intent (i.e., by suicide thoughts, plans, threats) friends, acquaintances, and work colleagues were reported
were reported in 12% to 63% of the cases by 26 pub- to have noticed their intents to kill the victim, suicidality, or
lications. Preparations for suicide, such as obtaining search for a contract killer (Anderson et al., 2011; Boxall
or preparing weapons to do so or writing suicide notes et al., 2022; Hesselink & Dastile, 2015; Regan et al., 2007;
were reported in 30% to 39% of the cases by six pub- Sheehan et al., 2014). In some cases, general practitioners,
lications (Boxall et al., 2022; Enander et al., 2021; psychiatrists, or police officers also knew about the perpe-
Logan et al., 2013; Pottinger et al., 2019; Regan et al., trators’ homicide announcements or suicidality (Monckton
2007; Weeke & Oberwittler, 2017). Attempted suicide Smith, 2020; Regan et al., 2007; Sharp-Jeffs & Kelly, 2016).
was reported in 4% up to 25% of the cases by 16 pub-
lications (Cheng & Jaffe, 2021; Hamilton et al., 2013;
Pontedeira et al., 2020). Suicidality in context of the
Media of Leaking
intimate relationship can be considered leaking, No publication systematically analyzed the media through
because it is deeply intertwined with IPH: it functions which leaking was communicated. Case examples indi-
as a preparation, legitimization or motivation for IPH cated private conversations, telephone, text messages, kill-
and 14% to 56% of the perpetrators also killed them- ing gestures, written notes, and written plans for the later
selves or had planned to do so (Enander et al., 2021; homicide (Boxall et al., 2022; Farr, 2002; Logan et al.,
Glass et al., 2004; Goussinsky & Yassour- 2013; Monckton Smith, 2020; Sharp-Jeffs & Kelly, 2016;
Borochowitz, 2012; Sharp-Jeffs & Kelly, 2016; Sheehan et al., 2014; Todd et al., 2020; Weeke &
Sheehan et al., 2014). Oberwittler, 2017).
4. Planning Activities. Behaviors that were related to
planning, executing, or facilitating an offense were
reported in 9% to 75% of the cases by 17 publications
Subgroup Differences
and were evident a few hours up to 1 year prior to the Publications comparing male and female perpetrators report
impending act (Monckton Smith, 2020). More pre- mixed findings on gender differences in homicide announce-
cisely, drafting homicide plans (e.g., planning to dis- ments, suicidal behavior, and planning activities, with some
pose of the victim’s body, an alibi, or to leave the suggesting strong overlaps and some suggesting differences
country; stalking or attempting to isolate the victim; between men and women (Bridger et al., 2017; Enander
researching murder methods; Boxall et al., 2022; et al., 2021; Leygraf, 2015; Steck, 2005; Weeke &
Bridger et al., 2017; Monckton Smith, 2020) was Oberwittler, 2017). Requests for assistance in the offenses
reported in 8% to 54% of the cases by 10 publica- were more frequently reported for female (Adinkrah, 2000;
tions. Acquiring equipment for the offense was Hesselink & Dastile, 2015; Leygraf, 2015; Moen et al., 2016;
reported in 30% of the cases by six publications. Steck; 2005) than for male perpetrators. Severe violence—
Arming oneself, positioning a weapon at the intended especially nonfatal strangulation—was mostly reported for
crime scene, or carrying weapons were present in male perpetrators (Campbell et al., 2003; Jaffe et al., 2014)
42% of the cases (Pontedeira et al., 2020) and men- except for one publication that focused on female perpetra-
tioned by nine publications. Finally, searching for a tors in homosexual relationships (Glass et al., 2004). Three
person to assist the offense was observed in 15% to publications compared IPHs and familicides. Homicide
75% of the cases by seven publications. announcements and suicidal behavior did not significantly
5. Interest in Similar Offenses/Offenders. Only one differ between groups (Jaffe et al., 2014; Hamilton et al.,
study reported interest in similar offenses within one 2013; Weeke & Oberwittler, 2017). Two publications com-
of the included IPH cases (talking with friends about pared cases of IPH with and without the perpetrators’ subse-
“wife-killings” on at least two occasions) (Regan quent suicides. One study reported more frequent pre-offense
et al., 2007). suicidal behavior and no differences in death threats in IPH-
suicide perpetrators as compared to perpetrators without sui-
cide (Koziol-McLain et al., 2006). The other study reported
Recipients of Leaking the opposite pattern (Vatnar et al., 2019).
Studies often did not specify the recipients of leaking
(Bridger et al., 2017; Monckton Smith, 2020; Rye & Angel,
Discussion
2019; Toprak & Ersoy, 2017). Thus, they mostly had to be
inferred. The victim was explicitly mentioned as a witness This review highlights the present knowledge about leaking
of the perpetrators’ suicidal behavior or death threats by as a specific and valuable warning sign for IPH. Our findings
nine publications (Boxall et al., 2022; Enander et al., 2021; demonstrate a lack of systematic research on the concept in
8 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 00(0)

this field. However, frequent reports of behavior that can be a previous interest in weapons less relevant in cases of IPH as
considered as leaking, such as expressions of the intent to kill compared to other offenses.
the victim or threats with weapons, as well as a large number
of recipients of leaking show that leaking is also relevant in
IPH and may aid its prevention (see Table 3 for a summary of Media and Recipients
key findings). Although the media used for leaking are important, because
they may inform practitioners about where to best search for
Forms of Leaking in Cases of IPH and how to best ask for leaking and because written leaking
may provide valuable legal proof for a long term ideation for
The five forms of leaking were similar to those in homicidal an offense, only little information about them could be
offenses in public spaces (Bondü, 2012; Dudenhoefer et al., identified.
2021; Fein & Vossekuil, 1998; Tampe & Bondü, in press) Supporting previous research (Bondü, 2012;
and other close relationships (e.g., children as homicide vic- Dudenhoefer et al., 2021), the perpetrators’ family, friends,
tims; Greuel, 2009); particularly concerning announce- and work colleagues, as well as police officers and health-
ments, planning activities, suicidal ideation, and the interest care professionals were described as recipients of leaking.
in previous offenses/offenders. However, compared to Compared to terrorist attacks or school shootings, in which
research on school shootings and terrorist attacks (Bondü, the victims are often unknown to the offenders (Bondü,
2012; Meloy & O’Toole, 2011), the included studies did not 2012; Dudenhoefer et al., 2021), leaking in IPH can be
differentiate between recipients of homicide announcements expected to be more often directed toward the later victim
(e.g., Boxall et al., 2022; David & Jaffe, 2021). Thus, this itself (Greuel, 2009; Meloy, 2001). In these cases, leaking
form does not capture the difference between direct threats may be used to intimidate and control the later victim. This
(toward the later victim) and leakage (announcements com- enables victims to seek help early on (Campbell et al.,
municated toward a third party). Additionally, potentially 2003; Saxton et al., 2022) to try to prevent an offense. In
lethal acts in previous intimate relationships, however, have addition, there may be victim behavior that points to an
hardly been relevant in school shooting and terrorist attacks impeding offense to third parties, such as hiding weapons,
(although some terrorists have attempted or committed sev- arming oneself, or taking other precautions (Horn et al., in
eral attacks; Tampe & Bondü, in press) and deserve closer press; Karlsson et al., 2021; Messing et al., 2015; Sheehan
research attention. They may indicate a perpetrator’s gen- et al., 2014). Thus, future research on leaking in IPH should
eral willingness to commit IPH corresponding to the present pay more attention to victim behavior as well.
definition of leaking. It may be argued, however, that behav-
ior needs to point to specific offenses and victims to be con-
sidered leaking. Thus, it remains to be debated whether Subgroup Differences
potentially lethal acts in previous partner relationships This review highlights that leaking is relevant in several IPH
should be considered as leaking or a general risk factor in subgroups, such as IPH-suicides and familicides as well as
terms of a stable disposition toward violent behavior. male and female offenders (e.g., up to 75% of the female IPH
The different forms of leaking that were described by pre- offenders also showed leaking; Adinkrah, 2000). Results,
vious research on IPH may not cover the full spectrum of rel- however, were sparse and findings inconsistent, indicating
evant behaviors. For example, the creation of violent media the need for further systematic research. Potential differ-
(e.g., videos, audio files), essays, paintings, and victim lists, ences in leaking should also be examined between offenses
an evident interest in weapons, or the identification with pre- in current and former relationships, because they may have
vious attackers as described by research on other homicidal different implications for risk assessment in these cases
offenses (Bondü, 2012; Greuel, 2009; O’Toole, 1999; Tampe (Greuel, 2009).
& Bondü, in press) were not found. Particularly, an interest in
previous offenses and offenders that was important in terrorist
Criteria to Assess the Seriousness of Leaking
attacks (Tampe & Bondü, in press) was only sparsely men-
tioned in the literature on IPH. This may signal differences in Homicide announcements were found among up to 97% of
motives: Terrorist attacks often include the orientation toward the IPH perpetrators (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2019) and, thus,
an existing belief system that allows for the identification the most frequent form of leaking. However, such announce-
with previous offenders as warriors for the true cause; IPH is ments are by far more common than IPH (Cunha &
driven by personal motives related to specific victims Gonçalves, 2019; Meloy, 2001; Warren et al., 2008), high-
(Kivisto, 2015; Meloy, 2001). However, an interest in and lighting the need for further criteria that allow for a reliable
compassion for previous offenders (Greuel, 2009; Karlsson assessment of their seriousness. This requires research that
et al., 2021) may also have been merely overlooked by most compares the frequency, forms, contents, media, recipients,
research. Similarly, IPH is often committed with blunt force and other characteristics of leaking by later offenders and
or weapons at hand (e.g., knives; Matias et al., 2020), making persons who showed leaking, but did not put it into action
Rumpf et al. 9

Table 2. Items Measuring Leaking in Intimae Partner Homicide (IPH) or Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Risk Assessment Tools.

Risk Assessment Tools 1. Homicide Announcements 2. Past Severe Violence 3. Suicidal Behavior
IPV
ODARA Threats to kill
DVRAG Threats to harm or kill
DVSI-R Use of weapons
DASH Threats to kill Attempts to strangle/ Threatened or attempted
Use of weapons choke/drown suicide
SARA Past use of weapons and/or Severe and or sexual Suicidal or homicidal ideation/
credible threats of death assault intent
IPH
DA Threats to kill Choking attempt Threatened or attempted
Use or threat of use of weapons suicide
H-Scale Suicide threats, ideas and
attempts
IPV and IPH
IRAD Specific threats to kill Strangulation Suspect suicidal
Use or threat of use of weapons
SIVIPAS Threats with weapons

Notes. Items of IPV/IPH risk assessment tools capturing leaking. Items have been assigned to categories of leaking as portrayed in Table 1. No indications
for planning activities or interests in similar offenses/offenders have been found in risk assessment tools. Past physical violence has not been included,
whenever its intensity was not further specified. DA: Danger Assessment (Campbell et al., 2009); DASH: Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and
honor based violence (Richards, 2009); DVRAG: Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (Hilton et al., 2008); DVSI-R: Domestic Violence Screening
Instrument Revised (Williams & Grant, 2006); H-Scale (López-Ossorio et al., 2021); IRAD: Idaho Risk Assessment of Dangerousness (Growette Bostaph
et al., 2017); ODARA: Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (Hilton et al., 2010); SARA: Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (Kropp & Hart, 2000);
SIVIPAS: Severe Intimate Violence Partner Risk Prediction Scale (Echeburúa et al., 2009).

(Bondü, 2012). Research on IPH has not addressed this issue reported. When informing the public about leaking, however,
so far, but previous research on school shootings and terrorist it should be emphasized that it is not always linked to future
attacks identified several criteria—different forms of leaking homicide and that an additional assessment of its seriousness
or specific leaking contents (Bondü, 2012; Niesse et al., is indispensable. This will guard against false reports, feel-
2021; Tampe & Bondü, in press)—that allowed for the reli- ings of insecurity, as well as stereotyping and discrimination
able distinction between these two groups. For this purpose, (Dudenhoefer et al., 2021).
future research should compare leaking in IPH cases with Although many cases of IPH involved prior police con-
nonfatal cases in which leaking was present. Legal case files tacts, structured risk assessment was rarely conducted
provide information from different sources, over long peri- (Hamilton et al., 2013; Koppa & Messing, 2021; Saxton
ods of time, as well as with regard to many different aspects et al., 2022). This highlights the need for mandatory risk
and could, therefore, be used as a data source. Considering assessment with efficient tools that allow one to success-
that later victims may frequently have been recipients of fully identify high-risk perpetrators, including women that
leaking, interviews with survivors of attempted IPH might currently often go unrecognized (mostly due to a strong
also provide valuable information. reliance on previous violence; Graham et al., 2021). The
integration of leaking into such tools may enhance their
predictive validity and allow for deriving tailored inter-
Practical Implications ventions, such as communicating the risk toward the vic-
Although leaking is a substantial warning sign that allows for tim or implementing safety plans or firearm restrictions, in
timely interventions, and although the perpetrators’ social cooperation with social services (Horn et al., in press;
network and the later victims often noticed leaking behavior, Messing et al., 2015; Zeoli et al., 2018). Up to now, only
they did not recognize its seriousness and/or forwarded their some aspects of leaking have been included into risk
concerns (Monckton Smith, 2020; Saxton et al., 2022; Vatnar assessment tools for IPV and/or IPH (Table 2). This
et al., 2017). This underscores the need to encourage the includes previous (attempts of) lethal violence and nonfa-
reporting of leaking for example to law enforcement authori- tal strangulation as indicators of a potential for severe vio-
ties. Tangible information about leaking may heighten the lence (see above), death threats, the use of weapons, and
chances of its identification, widen the range of individuals suicidal behavior for example in the Danger Assessment
that can respond to it, and increase the probability of it being (Campbell et al., 2009) or the Ontario Domestic Assault
10 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 00(0)

Table 3. Summary of Critical Findings.

Critical Findings
• Leaking has not been systematically researched in IPH. However, publications described several behaviors by which perpetrators
expressed their thoughts, feelings, fantasies, plans, or intentions to commit IPH. These behaviors demonstrate the applicability of the
leaking concept to the context of IPH and were summarized into five groups, including: homicide announcements, previous severe
acts of violence, suicidal behavior, planning activities, and interest in similar offenses.
• Homicide announcements, including verbal expressions of homicidal intentions and threats with weapons, were the most frequently
reported form of leaking and found in up to 97% of IPH cases.
• Research on IPH does not capture the differentiation between threats and leakage, which is crucial for threat assessment.
• The review identified that next to the later victims, the perpetrators’ or victims’ family, children, friends, as well as professionals in
contact became recipients of leaking.
• Research on IPH did not pay attention to the media by which IPH perpetrators communicate their homicidal intentions.
• Subgroup differences in the perpetrators’ leaking were sparse. However, female perpetrators may more often ask for assistance in
carrying out the offense than men, whereas male perpetrators may more often express their willingness to kill the victim by previous
potentially lethal violence (e.g., nonfatal-strangulation) than women.

Note. IPH = Intimate partner homicides.

Table 4. Implications for Practice, Policy and Research.

Practice & Policy

• The identified forms of leaking offer an overview over potential high-risk indicators for future IPH and should be included into
risk assessment tools for police officers and other frontline professionals. The usage of these tools should be mandatory. They
can give guidance on when to notify law enforcement agencies, to induce further investigations, or to implement safety plans.
• Police officers and other frontline professionals should be advised to share their information on leaking with each other to
enable comprehensive risk assessments.
• The general public should be made aware of leaking and its forms to encourage reporting of leaking to law enforcement
agencies.

Research
• Future research is needed to assess leaking and its feasibility for the prevention of IPH. Other characteristics of leaking (e.g.,
forms or contents) should be considered to assess the seriousness of leaking, that is, the likelihood of the announcements to
be put into action.
• Further research is needed to examine potential differences in leaking among IPH subgroups, particularly among male and
female offenders.
• This review highlights the need to develop a uniform definition of leaking to ensure comparability of findings.
• There is a need to examine factors and conditions under which leaking will be reported to law-enforcement agencies and to
implement factors that increase reporting into primary prevention programs.

Note. IPH = Intimate partner homicides.

Risk Assessment (Hilton et al., 2010). The Spousal Assault as leaking by this review were not labeled as such in the pri-
Risk Assessment (SARA, Kropp & Hart, 2000) also con- mary studies. The potential observability of the relevant
siders homicidal ideation. However, these tools merely behavior by (disapproving) third parties was rarely reported,
note the presence or absence of these forms of leaking and calling into question whether it indeed corresponds to the
do not take into account their frequency, specific contents, definition of leaking (e.g., when conducting internet searches
media and development. Further potentially important for murder methods; Monckton Smith, 2020). Because the
forms—specifically planning activities and interests in studies included into this review often did not provide clear
similar offenses—have not yet been considered. Table 4 definitions of their behavioral categories and used different
highlights implications for practice, policy and research. data sources, it is uncertain whether their findings are compa-
rable. In addition, many publications relied on small, primar-
ily Western, male, heterosexual, partly overlapping samples
Limitations and Outlook (e.g., 8 publications referred to the 11-city case-control study
When interpreting the present findings, it should be kept in alone; e.g., Campbell et al., 2003; Farr, 2002; Glass et al., 2004,
mind that there has been no systematic research on leaking in 2008; Koziol-McLain et al., 2006; McFarlane et al., 1999;
cases of IPH to date, and that the relevant behaviors identified 2002; Nicolaidis et al., 2003), calling the generalizability of
Rumpf et al. 11

their findings to other samples (e.g., female perpetrators) into and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung),
question. Because the term leaking was not used in publica- Grant Nos. 13N16283, 13N16284, and 13N16285.
tions or abstracts, despite thorough screening, further relevant
publications may have been missed. In addition, the specificity ORCID iDs
of leaking for IPH is unknown, although meta-analyses found Tanita Rumpf https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4839-5529
that death threats, threats with weapons, suicidal intent, and Catharina Vogt https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9147-9210
nonfatal strangulation significantly heightened the risk for Kim Marie Zibulski https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0381-128X
IPH but not for nonlethal-IPV (Matias et al., 2020; Spencer &
Stith, 2018). Thus, future research should systematically Supplemental Material
examine leaking, its forms, contents, and other characteristics,
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
highlight frequent recipients, and explore changes in leaking
over time. Furthermore, future studies should consider addi-
References
tional IPH subgroups that may display leaking differently,
such as offenses with victims from former and present rela- *Adinkrah, M. (2000). Female-perpetrated spousal homicides:
The case of Fiji. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(2), 151–161.
tionships, male and female offenders, or offenses with addi-
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(99)00035-5
tional victims. Because IPH has multiple causes, research
*Anderson, A., Sisask, M., & Värnik, A. (2011). Familicide and
and prevention efforts should not only consider leaking, but suicide in a case of gambling dependence. Journal of Forensic
also address community and societal factors, such as the Psychiatry and Psychology, 22(1), 156–168. https://doi.org/10
availability of housing services or firearm restrictions .1080/14789949.2010.518244
(Chopra et al., 2022; Graham et al., 2022; Zeoli et al., 2018). Bondü, R. (2012). School Shootings in Deutschland: Internationaler
These factors might also influence the occurrence or observ- Vergleich, Warnsignale, Risikofaktoren, Entwicklungsverläufe
ability of leaking. Due to the limited number of IPH studies [School shootings in Germany: International compari-
on the time frame of the COVID-19 pandemic, we could not son, warning signs, risk factors, developmental path-
infer whether pandemic-related societal changes (e.g., cur- ways] [Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin]. http://dx.doi.
few, lockdowns, and social distancing) may have influenced org/10.17169/refubium-8631
Bondü, R., & Scheithauer, H. (2014). Leaking and death-
the occurrence, number of recipients, or observability of
threats by students. A study in German schools. School
leaking.
Psychology International, 35(6), 592–608. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0143034314552346
Conclusion *Boxall, H., Doherty, L., Lawler, S., Franks, C., & Bricknell, S.
(2022). The “pathways to intimate partner homicide” project:
The current review demonstrates a lack of systematic Key stages and events in male-perpetrated intimate partner
research on leaking among IPH perpetrators. Nevertheless, homicide in Australia (Research Report Nr. 4). Australia’s
numerous studies described different forms of leaking, point- National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. https://
ing to its relevance also in this context. Further systematic designoutcrime.org/images/pdf-resources/dv/Boxall-et-al_
research should, therefore, identify the frequency, most rele- Pathways-to-intimate-partner-homicide1.pdf
vant forms, and development of leaking among IPH perpe- *Bridger, E., Strang, H., Parkinson, J., & Sherman, L. W. (2017).
Intimate partner homicide in England and Wales 2011–
trators. Most importantly, criteria for its likelihood of being
2013: Pathways to prediction from multi-agency domestic
put into action should be identified and provided to law
homicide reviews. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based
enforcement agencies and other frontline responders to help Policing, 1, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-017-
prevent IPH. 0013-z
Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom,
Acknowledgments T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications
None. of research and policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246–
269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838007303505
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009). The danger
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this 24(4), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508317180
article. *Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C. R.,
Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane,
Funding J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S. A., Manganello,
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V., & Laughon, K. (2003).
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results
research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education from a multisite case control study. American Journal of
12 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 00(0)

Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.2105/ partner femicide: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology,
ajph.93.7.1089 13, 896901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896901
*Cheng, P., & Jaffe, P. G. (2021). Examining depression among *Glass, N., Koziol-McLain, J., Campbell, J. C., & Block, C. R.
perpetrators of intimate partner homicide. Journal of (2004). Female-perpetrated femicide and attempted femi-
Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), 9277–9298. https://doi. cide: A case study. Violence Against Women, 10(6), 606–625.
org/10.1177/0886260519867151 https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204265016
Choromański, K. (2020). Homicide Scenario. In: K., Choromański, *Glass, N., Laughon, K., Rutto, C., Bevacqua, J., & Campbell, J.
Bloodstain Pattern Analysis in Crime Scenarios (ed.), C. (2008). Young adult intimate partner femicide: An explor-
(pp. 17-39). Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33- atory study. Homicide Studies, 12(2), 177–187. https://doi.
4428-0_5. org/10.1177/1088767907313303
*Chopra, J., Sambrook, L., McLoughlin, S., Randles, R., Palace, M., & *Goussinsky, R., & Yassour-Borochowitz, D. (2012). “I killed her,
Blinkhorn, V. (2022). Risk factors for intimate partner homicide but I never laid a finger on her”—A phenomenological differ-
in England and Wales. Health & Social Care in the Community, ence between wife-killing and wife-battering. Aggression and
30(5), e3086–e3095. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13753 Violent Behavior, 17(6), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
*Cunha, O. S., & Gonçalves, R. A. (2016). Severe and less severe avb.2012.07.009
intimate partner violence: From characterization to predic- Graham, L. M., Macy, R. J., Rizo, C. F., & Martin, S. L. (2022).
tion. Violence and Victims, 31(2), 235–250. https://doi. Explanatory theories of intimate partner homicide perpetration:
org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00033 A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(2), 408-
*Cunha, O. S., & Gonçalves, R. A. (2019). Predictors of intimate 427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020953800
partner homicide in a sample of Portuguese male domestic Graham, L. M., Sahay, K. M., Rizo, C. F., Messing, J. T., & Macy,
offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(12), 2573– R. J. (2021). The validity and reliability of available intimate
2598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516662304 partner homicide and reassault risk assessment tools: A sys-
*David, R., & Jaffe, P. G. (2021). Pre-migration trauma and post- tematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1), 18–40.
migration stress associated with immigrant perpetrators of https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018821952
domestic homicide. Journal of Family Violence, 36(5), 551– Greuel, L. (2009). Forschungsprojekt “Gewalteskalation in
561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00259-4 Paarbeziehungen”. Abschlussbericht [Research project
Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2012). Who died? The mur- “Escalation of violence in intimate partner relationships”. Final
der of collaterals related to intimate partner conflict. report]. Institut für Polizei und Sicherheitsforschung.
Violence Against Women, 18(6), 662–671. https://doi. Growette Bostaph, L., Fontaine, E., & Schubin, M. E. (2017). The
org/10.1177/1077801212453984 distribution of risk in intimate partner violence cases: The
Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Cavanagh, K. (2009). “Out of the blue”: Idaho risk assessment of dangerousness 2017. Boise State
Men who murder an intimate partner. Feminist Criminology, University. http://works.bepress.com/lisa_bostaph/18/
4(3), 194–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085109332668 *Hamilton, L. H. A., Jaffe, P. G., & Campbell, M. (2013). Assessing
Dudenhoefer, A.-L., Niesse, C., Görgen, T., Tampe, L., Megler, M., children’s risk for homicide in the context of domestic vio-
Gröpler, C., & Bondü, R. (2021). Leaking in terrorist attacks: A lence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), 179–189. https://doi.
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58, 101582. https:// org/10.1007/s10896-012-9473-x
doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101582 *Hesselink, A., & Dastile, P. (2015). A criminological assessment
Echeburúa, E., Fernández-Montalvo, J., de Corral, P., & López- on South African women who murdered their intimate male
Goñi, J. J. (2009). Assessing risk markers in intimate partner partners. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 25(4), 335–344.
femicide and severe violence: A new assessment instrument. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2015.1078091
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(6), 925–939. https://doi. Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Houghton, R. E., & Eke,
org/10.1177/0886260508319370 A. W. (2008). An indepth actuarial assessment for wife assault
*Enander, V., Krantz, G., Lysell, H., & Örmon, K. (2021). Before recidivism: The domestic violence risk appraisal guide. Law
the killing: Intimate partner homicides in a process perspective, and Human Behavior, 32(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Part I. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 5(1), 59–74. https:// s10979-007-9088-6
doi.org/10.1332/239868020X15922355479497 Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2010). Risk assess-
*Eriksson, L., Mazerolle, P., & McPhedran, S. (2022). Giving voice ment for domestically violent men: Tools for criminal jus-
to the silenced victims: A qualitative study of intimate partner tice, offender intervention, and victim services. American
femicide. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Psychological Association. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv-
645, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti78498 1chrztr
*Farr, K. A. (2002). Battered women who were “being killed and Horn, S., Vogt, C., Wüller, C. & Görgen, T. (in press). Intimate
survived it”: Straight talk from survivors. Violence and Victims, partner homicide: Risk constellations in separation conflicts
17(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.17.3.267.33660 and points of intervention for the police. Policing: A Journal
Fein, R. A., & Vossekuil, B. (1998). Protective intelligence and of Policy and Practice. [manuscript accepted for publication]
threat assessment investigations: A guide for state and local *Jaffe, P. G., Campbell, M., Olszowy, L., & Hamilton, L. H. A.
law enforcement officials. US Department of Justice, Office of (2014). Paternal filicide in the context of domestic violence:
Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Challenges in risk assessment and risk management for com-
Garcia-Vergara, E., Almeda, N., Fernández-Navarro, F., & Becerra- munity and justice professionals. Child Abuse Review, 23(2),
Alonso, D. (2022). Risk assessment instruments for intimate 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2315
Rumpf et al. 13

Kafka, J. M., Moracco, K. E., Young, B. R., Taheri, C., Graham, *McFarlane, J. M., Campbell, J. C., Wilt, S., Sachs, C. J.,
L. M., Macy, R. J., & Proescholdbell, S. K. (2021). Fatalities Ulrich, Y., & Xu, X. (1999). Stalking and intimate part-
related to intimate partner violence: Towards a comprehensive ner femicide. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 300–316. https://doi.
perspective. Injury Prevention: Journal of the International org/10.1177/1088767999003004003
Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 27(2), Meloy, R. J. (2001). Communicated threats and violence toward
137–144. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043704 public and private targets: Discerning differences among those
*Kapardis, A., Baldry, A. C., & Konstantinou, M. (2017). A who stalk and attack. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(5),
qualitative study of intimate partner femicide and orphans in 1211–1213. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15122J
Cyprus. Qualitative Sociology Review, 13(3), 80–100. https:// Meloy, R. J., Hoffmann, J., Guldimann, A., & James, D. (2012).
doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.13.3.06 The role of warning behaviors in threat assessment: An explo-
Karlsson, L. C., Antfolk, J., Putkonen, H., Amon, S., da Silva ration and suggested typology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
Guerreiro, J., de Vogel, V., Flynn, S., & Weizmann- 30(3), 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.999
Henelius, G. (2021). Familicide: A systematic literature Meloy, J. R., Hoffmann, J., Roshdi, K., Glaz-Ocik, J., & Guldimann,
review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1), 83–98. https://doi. A. (2014). Warning behaviors and their configurations across
org/10.1177/1524838018821955 various domains of targeted violence. In J. R. Meloy & J.
Kivisto, A. J. (2015). Male perpetrators of intimate partner homi- Hoffmann (Eds.), International handbook of threat assessment
cide: A review and proposed typology. Journal of the American (pp. 39–53). Oxford University Press.
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 43(3), 300–312. Meloy, J. R., & O’Toole, M. E. (2011). The concept of leakage
Koppa, V., & Messing, J. T. (2021). Can justice system inter- in threat assessment. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(4),
ventions prevent intimate partner homicide? An analy- 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.986
sis of rates of help seeking prior to fatality. Journal of Messing, J., AbiNader, M., Pizarro, J., Campbell, J., Brown, M., &
Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), 8792–8816. https://doi. Pelletier, K. (2021). The Arizona Intimate Partner Homicide
org/10.1177/0886260519851179 (AzIPH) Study: A step toward updating and expanding risk fac-
*Koziol-McLain, J., Webster, D. W., McFarlane, J., Block, C. R., tors for intimate partner homicide. Journal of Family Violence,
Ulrich, Y., Glass, N., & Campbell, J. C. (2006). Risk factors 36(5), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00254-9
for femicide-suicide in abusive relationships: Results from a Messing, J. T., Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., Brown, S., Patchell,
multisite case control study. Violence and Victims, 21(1), 3–21. B., & Wilson, J. S. (2015). The Oklahoma lethality assessment
https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.21.1.3 study: A quasi-experimental evaluation of the lethality assess-
Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2000). The spousal assault risk assess- ment program. Social Service Review, 89(3), 499–530. https://
ment (SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male doi.org/10.1086/683194
offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 101–118. https:// *Moen, E., Nygren, L., & Edin, K. (2016). Volatile and vio-
doi.org/10.1023/A:1005430904495 lent relationships among women sentenced for homicide
Lankford, A., Adkins, K. G., & Madfis, E. (2019). Are the deadliest mass in Sweden between 1986 and 2005. Victims & Offenders,
shootings preventable? An assessment of leakage, information 11(3), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.10
reported to law enforcement, and firearms acquisition prior to attacks 10696
in the United States. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, *Monckton Smith, J. (2016). Domestic homicide review of “Susan”
35(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219840231 [Technical Report]. Cheltenham Strategic Leadership Group.
*Leygraf, N. (2015). Tötungsdelikte in und nach intimen https://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/downloads/file/5429/susan_dhr_
Beziehungen [Homicides in current and former intimate report
relationships]. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, *Monckton Smith, J. (2020). Intimate partner femicide: Using
Kriminologie, 9(4), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757- Foucauldian analysis to track an eight stage progression to
015-0342-3 homicide. Violence Against Women, 26(11), 1267–1285.
*Logan, J. E., Walsh, S., Patel, N., & Hall, J. E. (2013). Homicide- https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219863876
followed-by-suicide incidents involving child victims. *Musielak, N., Jaffe, P. G., & Lapshina, N. (2019). Barriers to
American Journal of Health Behavior, 37(4), 531–542. https:// safety for victims of domestic homicide. Psychology, Crime
doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.37.4.11 & Law, 26(5), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683
*López-Ossorio, J. J., González-Álvarez, J. L., Loinaz, I., Martínez- 16X.2019.1670178
Martínez, A., & Pineda, D. (2021). Intimate partner homicide *Nicolaidis, C., Curry, M. A., Ulrich, Y., Sharps, P., McFarlane, J.,
risk assessment by police in Spain: The dual protocol VPR5. Campbell, D., Gary, F., Laughon, K., Glass, N., & Campbell,
0-H. Psychosocial intervention, 30(1), 47–55. https://doi. J. C. (2003). Could we have known? A qualitative analysis of
org/10.5093/pi2020a16 data from women who survived an attempted homicide by an
Matias, A., Gonçalves, M., Soeiro, C., & Matos, M. (2020). Intimate intimate partner. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(10),
partner homicide: A meta-analysis of risk factors. Aggression 788–794. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21202.x
and Violent Behavior, 50, 101358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Niesse, C., Bondü, R., Tampe, L., & Görgen, T. (2021). Instrument
avb.2019.101358 zur Bewertung von Leaking bei Personen mit rechtsextremist-
*McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., & Watson, K. (2002). Intimate ischer Ideologie [Instrument to assess leaking of persons with
partner stalking and femicide: Urgent implications for wom- right-wing extremist ideology]. German Police University.
en’s safety. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20(1–2), 51–68. O’Toole, M. E. (1999). The school shooter: A threat assessment
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.477 perspective. Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.
14 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 00(0)

gov/file-repository/stats-services-publications-school-shooter- Smith, S. G., Fowler, K. A., & Niolon, P. H. (2014). Intimate partner
school-shooter homicide and corollary victims in 16 states: National violent death
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, reporting system, 2003–2009. American Journal of Public Health,
T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. 104(3), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301582
A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2018). Risk factors for male perpe-
Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo- tration and female victimization of intimate partner homicide:
Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . .Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(3), 527–540.
2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781101
reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. https:// *Steck, P. (2005). Tödlich endende Partnerschaftskonflikte
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 [Deadly ending conflicts in intimate relationships]. In Kerner,
*Pontedeira, C., Quintas, J., & Walklate, S. (2020). Intimate partner H.-J., & Marks, E. (Eds.), Internetdokumentation Deutscher
homicides: “Passionate crime” arguments in the Portuguese Präventionstag [Internet documentation of the German
supreme court of justice. International Annals of Criminology, Prevention Day]. Deutscher Präventionstag. https://www.prae-
58(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/cri.2020.24 ventionstag.de/html/GetDokumentation.cms?XID=126
*Pottinger, A. M., Bailey, A., & Passard, N. (2019). Archival Stöckl, H., Devries, K., Rotstein, A., Abrahams, N., Campbell,
data review of intimate partner homicide-suicide in Jamaica, J. C., Watts, C., & Moreno, C. G. (2013). The global preva-
2007–2017: Focus on mental health and community response. lence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. The
Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica, 43, e99. https://doi. Lancet, 382(9895), 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
org/10.26633/RPSP.2019.99 6736(13)61030-2
*Rabe, S. C., & Heubrock, D. (2013). Die Liebe und ihr Henker: Tampe, L., & Bondü, R. (in press). “Killing all infidels”: Leaking
Eine kriminalpsychologische Einzelfallanalyse über Stalking prior to Islamist terrorist attacks in Germany. Terrorism and
und Intimizid [Love and its Executioner: A forensic psycho- Political Violence. [manuscript accepted for publication].
logical case study on stalking and intimate partner homicide]. *Taylor, S. R. (2009). Pregnancy-associated intimate partner
Kriminalistik, 67(1), 44–53. violence: An examination of multiple dimensions of intimate
Rathbone, J., Hoffmann, T., & Glasziou, P. (2015). Faster title and partner abuse victimization using three unique data sources.
abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated [Dissertation]. University of Central Florida. https://stars.
online screening program for systematic reviewers. Systematic library.ucf.edu/etd/3964/
Reviews, 4, 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0067-6 Thornton, S. (2017). Police attempts to predict domestic murder
*Regan, L., Kelly, L., Morris, A., & Dibb, R. (2007). If only we’d and serious assaults: Is early warning possible yet? Cambridge
known’: An exploratory study of seven intimate partner homi- Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1(2–3), 64–80. https://
cides in Engleshire. Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit. doi.org/10.1007/s41887-017-0011-1
http://cwasu.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/if.pdf *Todd, C., Bryce, J., & Franqueira, V. N. L. J. (2020). Technology,
Richards, L. (2009). Domestic abuse, stalking and harassment and cyberstalking and domestic homicide: Informing prevention
honour based violence (DASH, 2009) risk identification and and response strategies. Policing and Society, 31(1), 82–99.
assessment and management model. Association of Police https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1758698
Officers (ACPO). https://reducingtherisk.org.uk/wp-content/ *Toprak, S., & Ersoy, G. (2017). Femicide in Turkey between 2000
uploads/2022/08/DASH-2009.pdf and 2010. PLoS One, 12(8), e0182409. https://doi.org/10.1371/
*Rye, S., & Angel, C. (2019). Intimate partner homicide in Denmark journal.pone.0182409
2007–2017: Tracking potential predictors of fatal violence. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2019).
Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 3(1), 37–53. Global study on homicide. Executive Summary. https://www.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-019-00032-0 unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet1.pdf
*Saxton, M. D., Jaffe, P. G., & Olszowy, L. (2022). The police *Vatnar, S. K. B., Friestad, C., & Bjørkly, S. (2017). Intimate part-
role in domestic homicide prevention: Lessons from a ner homicide in Norway 1990–2012: Identifying risk factors
domestic violence death review committee. Journal of through structured risk assessment, court documents, and inter-
Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), NP1886–NP1907. https://doi. views with bereaved. Psychology of Violence, 7(3), 395–405.
org/10.1177/0886260520933030 https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000100
*Sharp-Jeffs, N., & Kelly, L. (2016). Domestic Homicide Review *Vatnar, S. K. B., Friestad, C., & Bjorkly, S. (2019). A comparison
(DHR): Case analysis (Standing together against domestic of intimate partner homicide with intimate partner homicide-
violence) [Project Report]. London Metropolitan University. suicide: Evidence from a Norwegian national 22-year cohort.
https://www.standingtogether.org.uk/blog-3/domestic-homi- Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), 8231–8256.
cide-review-dhr-case-analysis https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519849656
*Sheehan, B. E., Murphy, S. B., Moynihan, M. M., Dudley- Verlinden, S., Hersen, M., & Thomas, J. (2000). Risk factors in
Fennessey, E., & Stapleton, J. G. (2014). Intimate part- school shootings. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(1), 3–56.
ner homicide: New insights for understanding lethality and https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00055-0
risks. Violence Against Women, 21(2), 269–288. https://doi. Warren, L. J., Mullen, P. E., Thomas, S. D. M., Ogloff, J. R.
org/10.1177/1077801214564687 P., & Burgess, P. M. (2008). Threats to kill: A follow-up
Smith, E. J., Bailey, B. A., & Cascio, A. (2024). Sexual coercion, study. Psychological Medicine, 38(4), 599–605. https://doi.
intimate partner violence, and homicide: A scoping literature org/10.1017/S003329170700181X
review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 341–353. https:// *Weeke, A., & Oberwittler, D. (2017). A comparison of note writ-
doi.org/10.1177/15248380221150474 ers and no note writers in homicide-suicide cases in Germany.
Rumpf et al. 15

Archives of Suicide Research, 22(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10. Kristin Göbel, PhD, is a psychologist and currently a research assis-
1080/13811118.2017.1304307 tant at the Psychologische Hochschule Berlin. Her main research
Williams, K. R., & Grant, S. R. (2006). Empirically examining the interests are risk and protective factors for targeted violence and men-
risk of intimate partner violence: the revised domestic violence tal health in childhood and adolescence using person-centered
screening instrument (DVSI-R). Public Health Reports, 121(4), analyses.
400–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100408
Thomas Görgen, PhD, is a Full professor at German Police
*Wiltsey, M. T. (2008). Risk factors for intimate partner homicide
[Dissertation, Drexel University]. University and holds the chair of Criminology and Interdisciplinary
Zeoli, A. M., McCourt, A. D., Buggs, S., Frattaroli, S., Lilley, D., Crime Prevention. His research topics include victim vulnerability,
& Webster, D. W. (2018). Analysis of the strength of legal abuse and neglect in later life, violent offenses, management of
firearms restrictions for perpetrators of domestic violence and mass casualty incidents, criminalization in extended family struc-
their associations with intimate partner homicide. American tures, extremism and radicalization, and across topics questions of
Journal of Epidemiology, 187(11), 2365–2371. https://doi. prevention and early detection of crime.
org/10.1093/aje/kwy174
Kim Marie Zibulski, MSc, is a forensic and legal psychologist,
working research assistant at the police headquarters Ravensburg.
Author Biographies She is interested in the intersection of psychology, crime and police
Tanita Rumpf, MSc, is a psychologist and research assistant at the work, enhancing their collaboration through incorporating research
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin. Her research interests concern findings and scientific knowledge.
forensic psychology, particularly the prevention of intimate partner
homicides. Vanessa Uttenweiler, MA, is a criminologist and sociologist and
currently working as a research assistant at the police headquarters
Stefanie Horn, MSc, is a legal psychologist and research assistant Ravensburg. Her research interests include all forms of deviant
in the Department of Criminology and Interdisciplinary Crime behavior, forensic psychiatry, associated stigmata, and gender
Prevention at German Police University. Her research interests are differences.
in the field of child protection and the prevention of violence in
domestic settings. Rebecca Bondü, PhD, is a Full Professor at the Psychologische
Catharina Vogt, PhD, is a psychologist and research assistant in Hochschule Berlin, Germany. Her research interests include leak-
the Department of Criminology and Interdisciplinary Crime ing and other warning signs for homicide in the public sphere and in
Prevention at German Police University. Her general research focus partner relationships. She emphasizes the specific value of these
is on cooperation and conflict in different settings like leadership, warning signs for the prevention of such offenses and aims to trans-
policing, and client interactions. late the accordant research findings into practice.