The Black Widow

TRIGGER WARNING: the following research article contains graphic details and sensitive topics which some readers may find distressing.

On 7 August 2012, Brandon Duran was murdered and his body was sawed into twenty-five pieces (Porterfield, 2017a). Duran’s body parts were then placed in concrete-filled buckets and discarded in a pond. One of the two convicted killers was Amber Andrews, Duran’s ex-wife, and the mother of his 3-year-old son. She allegedly conspired with her lover, Justin Hammer, to lure Duran to Elmore, under the ruse of reconciling. A jury rejected Andrews’ assertion that the proposed reconciliation was genuine, along with her pleas of innocence. Andrews and Hammer were both convicted of murder in the first degree (Dillon, 2014); however, this paper will mainly focus on Andrews, who was additionally charged with desecration of a corpse and conspiring to commit murder. She is currently serving a life sentence for the murder, and a further 17 years, for the associated charges. 

This paper commences with background on Andrews and Duran’s relationship. Situational Theory (ST) is then relied upon, to explain motivations behind Andrews’ offending. Descriptions of Rational Choice Theory (RCT) and Situational Action Theory (SAT) are provided, and precipitators such as, environmental, and social stimuli are discussed to link these sub-theories back to the broader ST perspective. These include Domestic Violence (DV) and ‘Battered Woman Syndrome’ (BWS), both of which are situational factors. Three typologies of offending are touched upon. Additionally, shortcomings in applying ST to Andrews’s case are supplied. Finally, links are made between the dysfunctional history of the offender and her victim, and the hypotheses nestled within ST. It is argued that it was likely the loss of Andrews’ son, coupled with Hammer’s potentially psychopathic influence, that were pivotal catalysts in the making of this convicted murderess.

The Andrews and Duran families tell disparate views of the pair’s history. Duran’s family portray Andrews as mentally unstable and a neglectful mother; Andrews’ family say Duran was violent, gang affiliated, and intimidated Andrews and her loved ones regularly (Porterfield, 2017b). When the couple divorced, a bitter custody battle ensued. Shared custody was initially implemented but ultimately, Duran was awarded sole custody. Losing a child is arguably one of the worst things that could happen to a mother. This negative environmental stimulus is likely to have sent Andrews into despair.

RCT addresses how incentivisation and negative repercussions influence behaviours. It focuses on situational factors and links these to out-of-character actions and changes to the persona and psyche (Gül, 2009). Negative situational factors are abundant in Andrews’ and Duran’s history. RCT further holds that costs and benefits are contrasted to determine if the benefits of the potential positive outcome outweigh the risks (Gül, 2009).  Andrews lost her son and, in a mind which was likely distorted by grief, the risk of being imprisoned may have seemed worthwhile, for a chance to regain custody.

While this is not logical to a reasonable mind, Faigman’s (1986) description of BWS offers an explanation. Faigman argues battered women often kill their abuser at a time when there is no immediate threat. BWS can thus be surmised as a situationally-rooted byproduct of prolonged exposure to DV. No immediate or imminent threat to Andrews’ or her son’s safety is noted in the Duran murder case, which supports the relevance of this theory, to this case. It is further supported by Andrews’ father’s testimony that Duran was volatile, had threatened him personally, and that he had witnessed Duran intimidating and threatening Andrews’ new boyfriends and family members, post-divorce (Porterfield, 2017b). Mr Andrews’ testimony further alleged Duran was physically abusive towards women, including Andrews, and was a ‘patched’ member of the Bandidos motorcycle gang. Duran made his affiliation with One Percenters known when intimidating people. One Percenters are outlaw motorcycle gangs who reject the values of the American Motorcycle Association (AMA). It is a mockery of the AMA’s claim that 99% of motorcycle clubs are law abiding (Shields, 2012). Mr Andrews’ allegations are highly indicative of Andrews potentially being afflicted by BWS as a result of emotional, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and coercive control. Andrews’ psyche is clinically likely to have been damaged by years of alleged torment, argued to have incentivised murder, in accordance with RCT, to end the alleged DV cycle permanently and regain custody of her son.

SAT is another sub-branch of ST that is useful in attempting to explain Andrews’ offending under the ST framework. SAT is mechanistic and dynamic, with five main principles (University of Cambridge, 2022). Two of these most applicable to this case are that actions depend on circumstances and crimes can be interpreted as moral under certain conditions. While it is acknowledged all crimes violate the law, SAT holds that crime is dependent upon many factors, including psychosocial interactions and socioecological processes (University of Cambridge, 2022). This is evident in the Duran murder case because it is unlikely Andrews could or would have slayed Duran alone. A toxic combination of situational factors are noted in the case including, alleged DV; potential BWS; divorce; a custody battle in the Family Court; Duran being awarded sole custody; and finally, Andrews meeting Hammer.

Whether Andrews would have orchestrated or even participated in killing Duran, had she not met Hammer, is debatable. Chopin and Beauregard (2021) conducted a study on whether dismemberment could be a rational means of concealing homicide, or if pleasure is the main factor. Their findings indicated that dismemberment most frequently occurs as a counterpart to sexual deviance. Additionally, it is associated with the intent to kill and structured planning, rather than acting on impulse. Both these factors are demonstrated in the meticulous way in which Duran’s murder was executed. This included Andrews luring him to Hammer’s house with the reconciliation ruse, and a handwritten shopping list for body dismemberment and disposal supplies. Hammer was captured on CCTV purchasing these items the day before the murder, evidencing premeditation. Andrews’ involvement was revealed when  experts identified the handwriting on the list, as hers. This was out-of-character behaviour for Andrews according to her family and, therefore, potentially points to sociopathy. If correct, this would have left Andrews particularly vulnerable to Hammer’s influence.

Cornish and Clarke (2003) argue there are three types of offenders—anti-social predators, opportunistic offenders, and provoked offenders. These typologies describe how people and situations interact to form outcomes. Under this model, anti-social offending is applicable to Hammer but there are more complexities at play in Andrews’ motives. Her offending may be more accurately described as a combination of provocation and opportunistic. Hammer’s classified anti-social offending is evidenced in his purporting to have shot Duran twice with a shotgun in self-defence, after Duran forced entry into his home and threatened him; however, the autopsy revealed additional pistol bullets which could not be accounted for had things played out as Hammer claimed they did. That is, the autopsy results were inconsistent with Hammer’s testimony that he acted alone. Further, no signs of forced entry were evident at Hammer’s residence. Additionally, the seized CCTV footage indicated premeditation. Andrews’ opportunism is noted in Duran's acceptance of her offer to reconcile. If Andrews was the abusive, unfaithful wife, and the neglectful mother Duran’s family claimed she was, it must be questioned why Duran would have even entertained the prospect of reconciling with her. Importantly, Duran's family do not dispute that his desire to accept Andrews' reconciliation offer was genuine. This is another potential indicator of BWS being at play which can be placed into the category of provocation.

One thing that cannot be explained by ST is Andrews’ demeanour throughout her arrest and sentencing. This included, smiling in mugshots and a casual stream of conversation in the court, even asking staff how their weekend was prior to her sentencing (Porterfield, 2017a). Andrews showed no emotion or remorse. Additionally, she did not rely on BWS as a defence, instead pleading ‘not guilty’ to all counts. This in itself, is indicative of the state of her psyche even after her offending. This is noteworthy because RCT relies on deterrence through fear of punishment and careful consideration of whether the chance of reward, outweighs associated risks (Akers, 2011). While Andrews may have rationalised regaining custody as mitigating the risk of being imprisoned, her apprehension by police placed her further from her son. Andrews’ behaviour post-arrest, throughout her trial, and after her conviction is not consistent with a grieving mother, though it could be explained by sociopathy and the long-term well-documented impacts of trauma and domestic abuse on the brain.

Andrews is not a blameless victim—the planning and grisly nature of her crime, alongside denial of guilt and absent remorse indicate significant risks and deficits in Andrews’ functioning. She is, however, a victim of her circumstances. Andrews is alleged to have conceived with an abusive man and the child was then allegedly taken from her, by her abuser. Duran is alleged to have continued to exercise control over Andrews by threatening and intimidating her new partners. That was until Andrews commenced a relationship with Hammer, whose role in the murder was likely pleasure-based and potentially attributable to genetic or acquired psychopathy. Andrews may be more accurately described as a sociopath suffering from BWS. In defining the differences, Mallett (2015) notes sociopaths are often impulsive because their sociopathy is usually created through abusive or neglectful environmental factors. Because of this trauma, sociopaths are susceptible to impulsively deviating from set plans. This could explain the pistol bullets located during Duran’s autopsy, indicating Andrews may not have been able to resist participating. But her alleged participation ultimately contradicted Hammer’s self-defence testimony, along with his assertion he acted alone.

Andrews was likely as much a victim of Hammer’s influence, as she was a victim of Duran’s alleged abuse. This is supported by Wikström and Treiber’s (2015) theory that a certain person, in a certain environment, produces present and future maladaptive behaviours. They argue ST plays a fundamental role in criminology because many crimes simply would not occur if situations were different or had occurred differently. While Andrews may have already carried the propensity for sociopathy as a result of earlier circumstances or experiences, it may never have activated to such an extreme extent, were it not for losing her son, and, subsequently, meeting Hammer.

In conclusion, consideration was given to RCT and SAT to determine how ST explains Andrews’ offending. It does not explain Andrews’ unperturbed behaviour throughout her arrest, trial, and sentencing, though this might best be attributed to sociopathy. DV and the role of BWS were discussed and their links to RCT and SAT, examined. The typologies were visited and used to evidence the potential emotional impacts of losing custody of a child, coupled with potential BWS, had on Andrews. It is possible that in her likely grief-stricken mind, she saw meeting Hammer as an opportunity to get her son back. One must question why Hammer was willing to risk so much for Andrews. In doing so, love becomes less likely than killing and dismembering for pleasure. Hammer likely used Andrews to source a potential victim and potentially enact his alleged deviant fantasies. What Hammer likely did not account for was how personal the crime may have been for Andrews. This potentially resulted in her alleged impulsive deviation from the plan which, consequently, thwarted their cover story. Activated sociopathy could account for Andrews’ strange courtroom etiquette, where ST cannot. In accordance with ST, it is unlikely Duran would have been murdered, had he not gained sole custody. Further, it is debatable whether Andrews’ potential sociopathy would have been activated, were it not for the influence of Hammer. While many psychopaths are born psychopathic, sociopaths are often moulded through trauma and, in Andrews’ vulnerability, Hammer likely saw a perfect opportunity to bring his alleged darkest desires to fruition.

       

 

 

References

 

Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning theory in criminology: The path not taken. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, pp. 653–676.

 

Chopin, J., & Beauregard, E. (2021). Body dismemberment in sexual homicide cases: Lust          murder or rational decision?. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(9), 869–889.

 

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley's critique of situational crime prevention. Crime prevention studies, 16, 41-96.

 

Dillon, J. (2014, July 11). Jury: Justin Hammer guilty of 2012 murder, dismemberment. Fox 25.             https://okcfox.com/archive/jury-justin-hammer-guilty-of-2012-murder-dismemberment

 

Faigman, D. L. (1986). The battered woman syndrome and self-defense: A legal and empirical     dissent. Virginia Law Review, 73(3), 619–647.

 

Gül, S. K. (2009). An evaluation of the rational choice theory in criminology. Girne American     University Journal of Sociology and Applied Science, 4(8), 36–44.  

 

Mallett, X. (2015, July 28). Psychopaths versus sociopaths: What is the difference?. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/psychopaths-versus-sociopaths-what-is-the- difference-45047

 

Porterfield, B. (2017a, June 13). Max sentence given in murder case: victim's mother calls           defendant 'truly evil'. Pauls Valley Democrat.            https://www.paulsvalleydailydemocrat.com/news/local_news/max-sentence-given-in-murder-case-victims-mother-calls-defendant-truly-evil/article_2cb48e25-eb13-5ac8- a27d-ac6318174a19.html

 

Porterfield, B. (2017b, June 17). Murder case has other side. Pauls Valley Democrat.             https://www.paulsvalleydailydemocrat.com/news/local_news/murder-case-has-other-side/article_592595c4-b6c2-51ea-8530-a74fc813ec19.html  

 

Shields, D. (2012). The infamous ‘One Percenters’: A review of the criminality, subculture, and   structure of modern biker gangs. Justice Policy Journal, 9(1), 1–33.

 

Wikström, P. O. H., & Treiber, K. (2015). Situational theory: The importance of interactions and action mechanisms in the explanation of crime. In A. R. Piquero (Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 415–444). John Wiley & Sons.

 

University of Cambridge. (2022). Situational Action Theory (SAT). Centre for Analytic Criminology. https://www.cac.crim.cam.ac.uk/resou/sat