Pure Evil: Inside the Minds and Crimes of Britain’s Worst Criminals

by Geoffrey Wansell

A fascinating exposé of the country's most violent murderers and their horrifying crimes, based on years of original research and intimate interviews. Pure Evil takes a close look at the country's deadliest criminals, from those who horrified the nation to those less famous but equally brutal; they are all serving life sentences behind bars, but what made them do it? Delving deeper into the stories of lifers such as Jeremy Bamber, Joanna Dennehy and Ian Huntley, Pure Evil asks whether they are just that...or something more complex. In this shocking, chilling and powerful book Geoffrey Wansell exposes killers' motivations and remorse, but also seeks out an answer to the vital should life always mean life?

Genres: True Crime, Nonfiction, Biography, Crime

432 pages, Paperback

Published April 5, 2018

About the author

Geoffrey Wansell is a London based author and free-lance journalist, who now works principally for the Daily Mail.

He’s published twelve books, including biographies of the movie star Cary Grant, the business tycoon Sir James Goldsmith, and the playwright Sir Terence Rattigan, a book which was short-listed for the Whitbread Prize as book of the year.

Geoffrey Wansell is an experienced true crime author whose past books include The Bus Stop Killer, about the shocking murder of Milly Dowler, and An Evil Love, telling the story of Frederick West through exclusive access to tape recordings.

A member for more than 25 years, he is also the official historian of the Garrick Club in London, one of only four appointed during the Club’s 185 years of existence.

Reviews

[Jess · Rating 1 out of 5]

Abysmal. Less a view "inside the minds and crimes of Britain's worst criminals", as the cover might lead you to believe, and more a poorly- written 400-page essay on the author's views on whole life terms. Full of typographical errors, poor grammar, and incomplete sentences. I also found it riddled with homophobia and misogyny. Truly a zero star read and I'm glad to see the back of it.

[Debbie Cleaveley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pure boring! Offers no fresh insights into the crimes or minds of those who committed them. Instead is a tedious debate and account of whole life sentences and whether these breach the human rights act. Dull and one to avoid.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a read highly recommended 👏

[Mickey · Rating 3 out of 5]

The main theme of this book is "Should life always mean life"? I was expecting some examples of truly remorseful people who were serving whole life sentences. Those that may have killed in a uncharacteristic fit of rage and that this book was going to be able to provide an alternative to 'whole life orders' citing them as being a prolonged death sentence with no hope of rehabilitation. We didn't get that in this book. In fact, the question of 'should life always mean life' was being brought up in chapters and discussions about Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting, and other depraved sadistic psychopathic types and others that the majority of the public would gladly see hanging brought back for, but depsite Geoffry Wansell's best efforts to appear impartial, it's clear he is not in favour of whole life order's being imposed at all. In fact he congratulates Scotland being in life with the rest of the EU in regards to setting a 'minimum' tariff, so as to offer some "glimmer of hope" and light at the end of the tunnel for criminals, regardless of the severity of the crime. As I said, he claims to sympathise with families of murdered loved ones agreeing with their thoughts of justified revenge, but sways off to show his stance when there's comments like "Anders Breivik (the Norway mass shooter) was given a minimum tariff, so why can't we (England) provide a minimum tariff, instead of whole life orders"

I must say, I don't agree. The bulk of the whole life orders in England (there are only 75 in England today) are imposed upon people that are pure evil! Many experts claim psychopathy cannot be cured or rehabilitated, and I would much rather place faith in that, than some horribly evil criminal that's murdered children to be given some 'hope' for the future. I believe there are exceptions to the rule to impose a whole life tariff, and it is has long been argued that consequently, adult psychopaths in prison are much harder to reform or rehabilitate than other criminals with milder or no antisocial personality disorders. Belief of having people being able to be reformed after a set period of time is what allows serial killers like Arthur Shawcross and Ed Kemper to slip through, go out and continue to do it again and again.

In spite of this awkward bias presented in the book, it did provide a good overview of different UK criminals and their crimes. It contains the prominent ones like Jeremy Bamber from the 80's and Joanna Dennehy, who is serving a whole life sentence for murdering three men before randomly selecting and attempting to kill two others as an example. It also mentions a lot that I have never even heard about, so it was certainly interesting from that point of view, but the support of scrapping whole life orders did not resonate with me, as it wouldn't for many others in the UK

[Phil Stokoe · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading some reviews of this book I wasn’t entirely sure what exactly to expect if it. What I discovered was a sometimes fascinating insight into some of the most heinous crimes in recent U.K. history. There was a decent mix of high profile cases that I was aware of, alongside a number that I wasn’t. Some of which were recalled in detail, and weren’t necessarily always comfortable to read. The book was written well enough, although I personally could have done without the overuse of the word ‘whatever’ (55 times for anyone interested), or the phrase ‘no fewer than’, but they’re minor niggles. I guess you could say he used ‘whatever’ ‘no fewer than’ 55 times.

I’ve always been a staunch believer that if you take someone else’s life, then yours is forfeit. Why should you, as the perpetrator of a horrendous crime that not only robs someone of the rest of their life, but also condemns the rest of their family to a life without their loved one, get to serve maybe 15 years and then be let out? Where is the justice in that? The victim doesn’t get to come back after 15 years. Their family don’t stop feeling the loss after 15 years. So why should the criminal get any leniency?

The book did throw up some massive disparities between sentencing of similar cases and offenders, and it did raise a lot of thought provoking questions. I have seen some reviews being critical of how in depth the book went detailing what the judges and appeal courts had to say on cases etc., but I found that to be quite interesting.

The author did state that he is opposed to the death penalty as the prospect of an innocent person being put to death is abhorrent to him, but also says the following about ‘whole life terms’ of imprisonment...

“Rehabilitation may be ‘a waste of time’, but redemption is not, and it is the compelling reason why the concept of an endless whole life sentence disturbs me, and should, I believe, disturb British society. It is a ‘delayed death penalty’ and seems to me to have no place in a civilised society.”

...which does then beg the question of what exactly should be done with these criminals? The author does offer up suggestions, but I personally don’t necessarily agree with them. The difference of opinion though is one of the things that make this, to me at least, a thought provoking book.

[James Tidd · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book needs a title that books in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had. It should be 'Pure Evil' or 'A debate on the pluses and minuses on a whole life term of imprisonment.'

That is basically what the book is about. Its core subject is about whether the sentence of a whole life term is considered humane or not. Whilst some receive the whole term, such as one of Lee Rigby's killers, yet another equally depraved criminal, Roy Whiting, the murderer of Sarah Payne, who was initially sentenced to a whole life term, yet had his sentence overturned to one of a minimum term of 40 years. So what's the difference between the two? Well both were equally barbaric. The murder of Lee Rigby was nothing more, in my opinion, than a terrorist attack. The murder of Sarah Payne was committed on a child of 8, yet one of Rigby's killers is doing a whole life term yet the other one isn't, and will only be released on compassionate grounds, such as being terminally ill. The other, Whiting was serving a whole life term, but has since had it overturned, meaning if he shows considerable progress in rehabilitation he will unbelievably be allowed out into society, but that doesn't mean for one minute that Whiting will be released, yet even he could be released on compassionate grounds.

The book concentrates on Britain's worst murderers, rapists and paedophiles, each one serving either a life term or with a term that is so long that it might as well be a whole life term. Geoffrey Wansell, who throughout argues that a whole life term isn't viable and is inhumane, yet he is against the death penalty too. Wansell describes the whole life term as a 'delayed death penalty,' and with an ever ageing prison population, Wansell states that prisons like Wakefield will not be able to cope with this in the future. Wansell calls for a 'supermax' prison, which would house a large proportion of these most vicious offenders and be staffed and financed to provide the maximum security while offering its inmates the latest therapeutic psychological help. It should be run by prison officers who have been specially trained to deal with offenders serving extended sentences and who may well suffer the signs of ageing as a result of their long period of incarceration.

Wansell later uses the sitcom Porridge as an illustration, fictional yes. In Porridge there are hardly any prisoners over the age of fifty, one of the exceptions being Old Man Blanco played by David Jason. It paints an entirely different picture of the modern day prison. Today's prisons are like holiday camps, with their cells having the latest technology, unlike in the days of Porridge where you were kept in a cell with nothing more than a bed, a cupboard and a table. The TV was in the association area and was on at a set time. Phones were on a wall and you were lucky to get one call a week.

Wansell uses nineteen chapters to illustrate the argument, including the second chapter on Should life mean life. Using some high profile and less known prisoners. The high profile ones include Lee Rigby's murderers; Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, Jeremy Bamber the White House Farm murderer, Charles Bronson (who incidentally has never been sentenced to a whole life term, but is deemed unsuitable for release), serial killer; Rosemary West, Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting, Levi Bellfield, Mark Bridger and Steve Wright. All of whose notoriety with the British public, practically ensures that those mentioned will never be released, indeed Rosemary West, Mark Bridger and the lesser known Victor Miller are included in a chapter called 'Not seeking release,' where in Miller's case, he asked for the most severe sentence to be handed out and requested that no parole boards include him, even though his sentence will eventually come up for review every five years. Wansell doesn't include Peter Sutcliffe nor Ian Brady as these are covered excellently in many books. Lesser known ones include Jamie Reynolds, Joanna Dennehy (who incidentally is the only other female whole lifer) and Dale Cregan, known as the one eyed gangster.

In the end argument, should life mean life? I tend to agree with Wansell in that it gives no hope for the prisoner and therefore is against their human rights. But at the same time I don't agree with him, that a prisoner should not have hope of release, even on compassionate grounds, as was the case with the Lockerbie bomber, and it is definitely against the human rights of the victim and their families when people like Bellfield and Whiting are around. Could a whole life term be done away with and a fifty year minimum term be put in makes another argument. England and Wales have the most severe sentence in Europe, indeed in Norway where Anders Brevik is serving just twenty one years for killing no fewer than 70 people at a summer camp which consists of preventive detention that does require a minimum of ten years incarceration and an extension of the sentence until he is deemed no longer a danger, and this is the same with Portugal and Spain, in that they don't have a life sentence in their penal systems. Indeed the court at The Hague allows reviews after twenty five years for genocide cases, though that doesn't necessarily that the criminal will be released if he/she is unrepentant and shows no sign of remorse. Every other country in Europe has fixed terms of life imprisonment except Holland. Some countries use fixed maximum terms of imprisonment, such as El Salvador with seventy five years, sixty in Colombia. Should Britain follow this up in law? This question will continue for years to come.

[catherine rennie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disappointing reading

I thought I was going to read a true crime book but actually the book read like a thinly veiled rant by the author about his views on whole life sentences. Lots of references to 'rehabilitation and redemption' and the inhumanity of whole life sentences. In light of the case studies contained in the book and the horrendous, evil things these individuals had done, the views expressed were difficult to comprehend. Not a convincing read at all, scrolled the final 20% as it was becoming repetitive and boring.

[Demi · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found the descriptions of the crimes interesting but the lengthy discussions about the sentences and the exact script of what the judges said was a bit to much.

[Nick Davies · Rating 3 out of 5]

A mixture. On the one hand, the central theme of the book was an interesting one, posing questions about the application, purpose and effectiveness of whole life prison sentences (versus long fixed-term tariffs or capital punishment), and there are some interesting discussions on recidivism and acceptance of guilt, and the nature of crimes which should prompt the most severe of sentences.

However, much of the book felt more like gaudy gory grim true crime entertainment. Perhaps it was something about the author's style where floral turns of phrase were occasionally included, perhaps it was the sense that this was an opinion piece as opposed to a factual examination of the cases, I just found it a little off-putting in a way that a drier and less emotive treatment would not have given. This is certainly not the criminal psychology book that the title might suggest.

In the end, I didn't find that Wansell's arguments about the inhumanity of whole life sentences worked well. His reasons (and associated arguments from the legal bodies) regarding the problem of a lack of hope in the mind of a murderer who knows they will spend the rest of their days in prison didn't convince me - and were also weakened by discussions of the (significant but real) minority of violent criminals who reoffend after release. Personally I believe that the most serious criminals forego their human rights and any argument that 'laws keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life should have no place in a civilised society' are more than trumped by the fact these criminals should have no place in civilised society themselves.

[Carly Kennedy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting bringing to light the inconsistency in sentencing but also the problems with whole life sentences.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a compelling and thought-provoking book.
Geoffrey Wansell asks the questions: Does life mean life? and Should life mean life?
As I read through this book, some of the cases were familiar to me, others not so well known outside of those they directly affected. The offenders were from different age groups and backgrounds, their crimes all particularly heinous. Some were women, but most were men. The main thing connecting these 'people' was the fact that they had deprived others of life and were sentenced to a term in jail for the crime/s.
There were times when I was reading of some of the murders that I felt it was the right thing to do to sentence the perpetrator to a whole life order, In other cases, a life sentence with a minimum tariff seemed either too lenient or almost right.
As I understood it, the author was saying that a life sentence should usually specify the minimum time the offender must stay behind bars, whereas a whole life order means that the prisoner only leaves jail when they have drawn their last breath.
I'm not an advocate for reinstating the death penalty. Once the offender has actually been put to death, there's no hope for them to become rehabilitated and to learn (hopefully) from the experience. Also, if that person should be proven innocent, a posthumous pardon seems meaningless.
If an offender is sent to prison, I believe they should be given a minimum tariff to serve before they are CONSIDERED for parole. That's not to say that parole will be automatically granted, just a possibility. It gives an offender to reconsider their position and in some cases be released on license to see if they can live in the real world. A whole life order, to my mind, doesn't give the offender the option of the possibility of parole, so why should they bother to show remorse? Why try and get rehabilitated? There's no way they'll be released, so why not carry on as before?
I realise that I've never been directly affected by such heinous crimes as described in this book. If I had been, I may well feel differently. However, at least the judiciary could try and let the offenders being sentenced think they have some hope of an eventual release, even if it never materialises for them.
I realise that I've never been direct

[A W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lock them up and throw away the key, that, in a tabloid nutshell, is the attitude towards murderers held by the British justice system. Life always means life, a trade-off for abolishing the death penalty in the sixties; except it doesn't in many cases. Sentencing policy is a muddle that makes the Gordian knot look simple in comparison.

Geoffrey Wansell brings a forensic intellect and years of experience gained from interviewing the UK's most notorious killers to bear on this topic. He examines a wide range of cases from the last half century to point out the flaws in the current system and question the thinking behind it.

Life may mean life for some murderers, if the judge imposes a whole life tariff, meaning there is no realistic chance of parole. There are currently fifty prisoners in UK jails under this sentence; some of whom are kept in conditions of isolation that border on the barbaric.

For most murderers life means twenty-five years or less, fair enough, there are degrees even in savagery. Except the whole life tariff isn't always applied to the worst killers and two people convicted with equal culpability for the same crime might not get the same sentence. Political considerations, public attitudes to a specific crime and fudging on the part of the judiciary all play a part in the resulting mess.

Wansell makes a convincing case that sending someone to prison without even the possibility of release is in opposition to the values of a modern society. In some cases, it can even encourage inmates to commit further crimes because they literally have nothing to lose.

Providing an answer to what is a hugely emotive question from the safety of an ivory tower is something that Wansell, rightly, avoids doing. Instead he invites us as a society to consider the troubling question of whether we are confusing wanting to see justice done with a primitive desire for revenge.

[Lucii Dixon · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars.

This book was incredibly informative, with many difference cases and examples, quotes and reliable sources that clearly outlines issues revolving around whole life tariffs. I couldn't give a full 5 stars due to how repetitive this books was, I found the author's own opinion a little too pushy and came across like he may slightly be trying to manipulate his audience into converting to his views. Personally, I believe in whole life tariffs... and the last chapter, the one where the author outlines individuals who received life sentences but got released and then killed again, some of which in heinous situations. This chapter confirmed MY opinion... life should mean life.

Although I was aware of the majority of these cases, I didn't know a lot from their trials, like what the judges says etc etc so it was interesting to get that intake on each case. I feel that the European Convention of Human Rights forget about the rights of the victims that were murdered dramatically and with intent and instead only focus on the rights of the perpetrator and I don't believe in that. If you want to commit a heinous crime, you should expect to pay the harshest punishment available. Yes, a whole life tariff, as mentioned in this book, is a 'delayed death penalty' but it is keeping society and children safe. I think the author seems to neglect these thoughts, either that or he only has a one tracked mind.

This was a great books to read though, very well written and informative indeed. The editing needs work but its otherwise a fabulous book that I've recommended to my fellow criminology student buddies.

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book about people who have committed the very worst of crimes, all the offenders in this book carry a "whole life tariff".

While there's a few of the really well known cases which were national news for months there's also a lot of cases I had never come across before.

There's a lot of narrative in this book that seems to come across as a bit "snowflakey" for me, in that it seems to argue against whole life tariffs, as though they're a bad thing.

These are criminals who have raped and murdered, people so dangerous they should never be allowed out of prison, they are incapable of being rehabilitated and pose a constant threat to the general public.

The "Well, they have human rights" stance posed by the author seems disingenuous and is probably there to provoke rather than virtue signal, although it doesn't make it any less annoying.

Overall a decent read if you like your true crime, just fight through the bullshit and stick to the cases.

[Studvet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite fascinating and illuminates what a shoddy, squalid crime murder is and that notorious murderers are not some sort of bizarre "romantic" figures but people who are nasty, damaged and often the worst of humanity. The point taken off is because the author is repetitive about whether these murderers should have "hope" or, in many of these cases, locked up permanently knowing the life is life and with no chance of release. Talking about the morality of it in regards to many of these people is redundant as many are psychopathic with abnormal or lack of moral codes and it is breath and mental time wasted. They are on a different level to the rest of humanity who may be rehabilitated. The author restates his case over and over and once is enough. It tends to get in the way of an otherwise interesting, illuminating study.

[Cait Herdman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I consume a lot of true crime content and I find a significant amount of books that focus on criminality often reiterate sordid stories and offer very little to the conversation surrounding the systems responsible for finding, sentencing, holding, and reforming offenders.

This is not the case for Pure Evil.

Wansell delivers harrowing stories of Britain's worst criminals to support a bigger conversation - namely, what is meant by a "life sentence" and what are the implications of these sentences for the offender, victims, and judicial/incarceration system truly are. He delivers valuable insight based on outcomes seen in Britain's recent history and provides a framework for considering these sentences moving forward.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book was recommended to me by a colleague as an interesting look into the criminal justice system. I found the book quite thought provoking, personally making me question a few things - why there’s so much variation in sentencing for similar crimes, whether the death penalty is really the best option, whether life sentences are humane/worth it...

I liked the fact that there were some cases that I hadn’t heard before or knew that much about - so gave me new information and new cases to consider.

I’d recommend this book to someone interested in criminal aspects...

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Absolute abysmal read. This book is boring and poorly written. It offers no new insights to any of Britain’s worst criminals, in fact it offers very little insight into them at all.
It is like a bottom grade students essay in the study of Britain’s justice system around whole of life sentences.
Each chapter is set out the the same, a tiny bit on the criminal and the victim, a bit on the trial then the author’s assessment of whether the whole of life tariff was needed or if overturned when there it was right to be.
Save your time, don’t read this book.

[Nikki · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellently written. Following the crimes of numerous murderers/rapists with Life Tariffs. Also has comments from the victim’s families on what they feel about their life tariff as well as thoughts around capital punishment. I work with lifers and I usually find these types of books tedious, however, this was a fascinating and refreshing change that does open up further debate. I recommend this book to avid crime readers

[Olivia kirby · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is interesting purely from a true crime perspective for me. I know the author’s opinion on whole life sentences right from the start so it does get a little repetitive. Also, as others have mentioned, there seems to be a lot of typos which is off putting. I don’t think I’d recommend it.

[Walid Almoselhy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not an easy book to read. Learning about the cruel details of the worst of crimes and their conscienceless murderers is a heavy task. The fact that the book argues against capital punishment is conflicting to the clear, and sad, truth that some humans should never be allowed to live among the population and their mere existence is a threat to our civilized world.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

A grim litany of murder and other serious crimes in the UK and the people who get whole life tariffs for them, the interesting point in this book is the authors philosophical questioning of 'life meaning life.' And the further questions it throws up.

[Tina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read on whole life terms of some of the worst murderers and rapists in england and Wales. Debate on whether life should mean life without a maximum term being set for the possibility of release.

[Jorezza Antonio · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a good book if you wanted to learn about Britain's criminial punishment (life order) but if you really wanted to read true crime books then I dont think this book is what you're looking for since it focuses more on the sentences the criminals received.

[Rhona Bradley · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very boring book and extremely repetitive regarding the law and with the human rights. I thought it would be more about the killers and crimes but it was mostly about the whole life sentence not getting inside the minds of the criminals

[Shamim Ullah · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting and readable book. My only gripe is that it was advertised as a piece of work looking into the minds of why some people do terrible deeds. Instead, it is about the argument of 'whole life sentences' and the confusion/misuse around it.

[Abeer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my second true crime book given to on my birthday which I have enjoyed reading and getting in to the minds of the worst killers in Brittany! However, it hasn't change my view about reinstating the death penalty! It should always be 'A eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth' in my mind!

[Elliott · Rating 3 out of 5]

geoffrey: but this nonce only killed one child 🥺 should he deserve a life sentence?? 🥺 should we not be kind to child murderers?? 🥺
me holding a large knife: i think they should be ripped apart by wild dogs my dude

[Ami · Rating 3 out of 5]

A really interesting argument for abolishing whole life sentences for prisoners in England and Wales, complete with case studies.

The book is let down somewhat by the numerous grammar, punctuation, and writing errors not caught during the editing process.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book but the writing contained a lot of repetitive sentences.... I would love a quid for every time the phrase 'no fewer than' was used!