CLOSE
Original image

A Bump in the Night: When Sleepwalkers Turn Violent

Original image

In May 1987, Ken Parks was watching Saturday Night Live with trouble on his mind. In the morning, he and his wife would go to his in-laws' house to confess that he had a gambling problem. That he had raided the family savings to cover his debts. That he had embezzled from the electronics company he worked for when he needed even more money. That he had been fired and charged with theft. That he and his wife had to sell the house.


He fell asleep on the couch around 1:30 a.m. and the next thing he claimed to be able to remember was looking down at his mother-in-law’s face, her eyes and mouth frozen wide open. He remembered going downstairs, starting his car and realizing that he had a knife in his hands. He remembered throwing the knife onto the floor, going to the police station for help and, upon questioning, saying, “I think I have killed some people . . . my hands,” only then feeling the pain of several severed ?exor tendons.

What Ken Parks said he did not remember was getting off the couch and getting dressed. He did not remember driving to his in-laws’ house and strangling his father-in-law when he got there. He did not remember going upstairs, stabbing his mother-in-law five times in the chest and beating her and fracturing her skull.

He did not remember killing her.

* * *
The police took Parks to the Sunnybrook Medical Centre for treatment of his hands. To determine Parks’ ability to give consent for surgery, a psychiatric assessment was conducted and the examining psychiatric resident tentatively diagnosed Parks psychogenic amnesia and depression without psychotic features. After surgery, Parks was interviewed by police and charged with ?rst-degree murder.

He was later taken to Toronto East Detention Centre, where he underwent medical and psychiatric assessments at the request of his lawyer. The doctors considered acute psychotic episode under extreme stress, aggression during an amnesic drug-related state, volitional (deliberate) homicide with stress-induced amnesia and complex partial epileptic seizures with automatic behavior as possible diagnoses. All the doctors who examined Parks found evidence of depression and anxiety, but none said he showed signs of any delusions, hallucinations, paranoia or other evidence of psychosis. He had no history of psychosis or amnesic episodes, but was an occasional sleepwalker. During seven different interviews with various doctors, lawyers and the police, Parks’ explanation of what he did and did not remember that night remained consistent, down to specific details.

With no evidence of mental illness, the police thought Parks a likely culprit, especially given his recent history. At the age of 23, he had a wife, a 5-month-old daughter, a gambling problem and an always-increasing amount of debt. Hiding his problems and his actions from his wife and his co-workers caused him severe stress until March 1987, when the embezzlement was discovered and he was ?red and charged with theft.

Running out of options and with his secret now out at home, Parks and his wife put their house up for sale to cover at least some of the remaining debt. On May 20, Parks went to his ?rst Gamblers Anonymous meeting, where he was encouraged to discuss his problems with both his family and his in-laws. He made plans visit his grandmother the following Saturday (May 23) and his in-laws on Sunday (May 24) to come clean. Police figured that Parks might have changed his mind that weekend, or set the whole thing up as a cover, and tried to murder his in-laws either to get to their money or prevent them from finding out about his problems.

There were several strikes against this hypothesis, though. For one, Parks was particularly close with his wife’s parents and they seemed an unlikely choice of victim. Additionally, in almost every conversation he had with police, prison and medical personnel – beginning when he showed up in a confused state at the police station – Parks both denied any intent to kill his in-laws and expressed horror, remorse and great confusion about what had happened at their house.

Parks wasn’t crazy, and he didn’t seem to be a cold-blooded killer. The doctors working with him began to wonder if, given the timing and nature of the weekend’s events and his history of sleepwalking, some sort of sleep disorder might have caused Parks’ behavior.
* * *
Aggression, assault, and murder have been linked with sleepwalking, sleep disorders, and even abrupt awakenings for centuries. Some ancient tribes believed that sleepers should not be awakened abruptly because their soul wouldn't have time to return to the body, causing the person to turn violent.


One of the first documented cases of sleep-related violence, or “nocturnal aggression,” is that of Bernard Schedmaizig, a woodcutter living in medieval Silesia (a historical region of Central Europe located mostly in Poland). One night, after Schedmaizig had been asleep for only a few hours, he woke up abruptly. He thought he saw an intruder at the foot of his bed, so he grabbed his ax and started swinging, killing his wife who slept beside him.

Other cases of homicidal somnambulism (homicidal violence associated with sleepwalking) through the years include the military officer who shot another solider and his own horse, the servant who stabbed her master’s child, the housewife who threw her infant out a window, and the ?reman who woke up to find he had beaten his wife to death with a shovel.

To this day, sleepwalking isn’t completely understood. Medical studies have suggested various causes, such as delays in the maturation of the central nervous system or physiological triggers that cause the brain to exit slow wave sleep straight to wakefulness (instead transitioning from REM or NREM). Since sleepwalking is clustered in families and a child’s likelihood of sleepwalking increases if one or both parents are sleepwalkers, some heritable factor might predispose someone to the behavior. Factors such as sleep deprivation, excessive tiredness and use of alcohol, antipsychotics and hypnotics all appear to influence the occurrence of sleepwalking in those predisposed to it.
* * *
Sleepwalking is generally accepted in the medical community as a state of automatism, or automatic behavior, where a person has neither awareness nor control of their behavior. Legally speaking, murder requires intent, so the issues of awareness and control were of great interest to Parks’ defense counsel. A sleep disorder specialist was brought in to see if somnambulism or another sleep disorder played any role in Parks’ crimes.

The specialist’s investigation revealed that Parks had been a severe bedwetter for a number of years, a chronic sleep talker, an occasional sleepwalker and a deep sleeper who was very hard to awaken. During two overnight sleep studies, Parks had frequent shifts to lighter sleep or wakefulness. Sleepwalking, sleep talking, bedwetting, deep sleeping and night terrors were also found to be fairly common among members of Parks’ family.

Parks had the predisposing factors (strong family and personal history of sleepwalking) that would normally lead to a diagnosis of somnambulism, and the coupling of tiredness and need for deep sleep with the stress of his plans for the weekend were considered possible triggering factors for an episode of sleepwalking. Parks’ attorney decided to argue his legal defense as “homicide during noninsane automatism as part of a presumed episode of somnambulism.” They argued that Parks did not have any preexisting “disease of the mind,” there was no evidence for psychosis or other mental illness and that the clustering of factors that triggered the assault and murder was rare, so the recurrence of violent sleepwalking with aggression was unlikely. Parks should be acquitted, his attorney argued, and not be subject to mandatory hospitalization in a psychiatric institution (as he would were his behavior the result of an insane automatism or if he posed a continuing danger to others).
* * *
"Sleepwalking defenses” have had a mixed track record in the courts of various countries. There was a man in Wales who dreamed intruders had broken into his camper one night while he and his wife were on vacation and woke up the next morning to find he had strangled his wife to death. He had suffered from sleep disorders for 50 years, but had gone off his medication so it wouldn’t interfere with the intimate 40th wedding anniversary he and his wife had planned. The man was acquitted, with the judge telling him, “You are a decent man and a devoted husband. In the eyes of the law, you bear no responsibility.” In 2003, an Englishman who beat his father to death claimed that he had been sleeping at the time and was committed to a mental institution. In 1981 a man in Arizona stabbed his wife 26 times while sleepwalking and was found temporarily insane by a jury, who acquitted him. In 1997, another Arizona resident stabbed his wife 44 times and drowned her in their pool. He claimed to remember nothing about the incident and that he was asleep at the time. At trial, a prosecution expert testified that the man’ actions after the murder – changing his clothes and placing his bloody clothing and the murder weapon in a garbage bag in the spare tire well in the trunk of his car – were too complex to have been carried out during sleepwalking. The man was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole.
* * *
On May 25, 1988, the jury in Ken Parks’ murder trial rendered a verdict of not guilty. Parks was also acquitted of the attempted murder of his father-in-law shortly after. After his release from custody, Parks began receiving psychotherapy taking anti-anxiety meds before bed. After the acquittal, the trial judge’s determination that somnambulism was a form of noninsane automatism was appealed to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court of Canada. Both appellate courts upheld the original decision. Ken Parks has not reported any further episodes of sleepwalking or nighttime violence—only a few instances of sitting up in his sleep.

[Image credits: Toronto Star, iStockPhoto]

Original image
iStock
arrow
Health
Growing Up With Headphones May Not Damage Kids’ Hearing
Original image
iStock

A study published in the American Medical Association's JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery finds no increase in child and adolescent hearing loss despite a rise in headphone and earbud use.

"Hearing impairment in children is a major public health burden given its impact on early speech and language development, and subsequently on academic and workforce performance later in life," the authors write. "Even mild levels of hearing loss have been found to negatively affect educational outcomes and social functioning."

As portable music players continue to grow in popularity, parents, doctors, and researchers have begun to worry that all the music pouring directly into kids' ears could be damaging their health. It seems a reasonable enough concern, and some studies on American kids' hearing have identified more hearing loss.

To take a closer look, researchers at the University of California-San Francisco analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), collected from 1988 to 2010. They reviewed records from 7036 kids and teens between the ages of 12 and 19, checking each participant's hearing tests against their exposure to noise.

As expected, the authors write, they did find a gradual increase in headphone use and other "recreational noise exposure." And they did see an uptick in hearing loss from 1988 to 2008 from 17 percent to 22.5 percent. But after that, the trend seemed to reverse, sinking all the way down to 15.2 percent—lower than 1988 levels. They also found no significant relationship between noise exposure and hearing loss.

The results were not uniform; some groups of kids were worse off than others. Participants who identified as nonwhite, and those of lower socioeconomic status, were more likely to have hearing problems, but the researchers can't say for sure why that is. "Ongoing monitoring of hearing loss in this population is necessary," they write, "to elucidate long-term trends and identify targets for intervention."

Before you go wild blasting music, we should mention that this study has some major limitations. Hearing loss and other data points were not measured the same way through the entire data collection period. Participants had to self-report things like hearing loss and health care use—elements that are routinely under-reported in surveys. As with just about any health research, more studies are still needed to confirm these findings.

Original image
iStock
arrow
Weather Watch
NASA Figures Out Why When It Rains, It (Sometimes) Drizzles
Original image
iStock

What’s the difference between drizzle and rain? It has to do with updrafts, according to new research by NASA scientists into the previously unexplained phenomenon of why drizzle occurs where it does.

The answer, published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, could help improve how weather and climate models treat rainfall, making predictions more accurate.

Previously, climate researchers thought that drizzle could be explained by the presence of aerosols in the atmosphere. The microscopic particles are present in greater quantities over land than over the ocean, and by that logic, there should be more drizzle over land than over the ocean. But that's not the case, as Hanii Takahashi and her colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory found. Instead, whether or not rain becomes full droplets or stays as a fine drizzle depends on updrafts—a warm current of air that rises from the ground.

Stronger updrafts keep drizzle droplets (which are four times smaller than a raindrop) floating inside a cloud longer, allowing them to grow into full-sized rain drops that fall to the ground in the splatters we all know and love. In weaker updrafts, though, the precipitation falls before the drops form, as that light drizzle. That explains why it drizzles more over the ocean than over land—because updrafts are weaker over the ocean. A low-lying cloud over the ocean is more likely to produce drizzle than a low-lying cloud over land, which will probably produce rain.

This could have an impact on climate modeling as well as short-term weather forecasts. Current models make it difficult to model future surface temperatures of the Earth while still maintaining accurate projections about the amount of precipitation. Right now, most models that project realistic surface temperatures predict an unrealistic amount of drizzle in the future, according to a NASA statement. This finding could bring those predictions back down to a more realistic level.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios