Grandiose Narcissism and the Narcissistic Alliance: When Two Pathological Personalities Collaborate

A Psychological Analysis of Alliance Formation, Dynamics, and Disintegration

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Article Context

This article is the fourth instalment in a series examining severe forms of child maltreatment and the psychological mechanisms associated with them. The first article addressed the phenomenon of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (FDIA) in Finland and the structural challenges of identifying it. The second article analysed the DARVO technique (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) and narcissistic collapse through a concrete threatening letter. The third article examined the psychology of covert narcissism and the mechanisms that allow a person to simultaneously maintain a serious criminal pattern and a normal public life.

This fourth article extends the analysis toward grandiose narcissism and examines a specific phenomenon: the temporary alliance formed by two pathological personalities. The article explores how such alliances form, how they function internally, and why they inevitably disintegrate as pressure mounts.

1.2 Research Questions

This article seeks to answer the following questions: How does grandiose narcissism differ from covert narcissism as a psychological phenomenon? By what mechanisms can two pathological personalities form a functional collaborative relationship? What holds such an alliance together and what causes its disintegration? How does the disintegration of an alliance typically manifest, and how can professionals leverage this dynamic to uncover the truth?

1.3 Methodological Notes

The article draws on international research literature on personality disorders, the folie à deux phenomenon, and documented court cases in which the collaboration of two perpetrators — and its breakdown — played a central role. Case examples have been selected on the basis of the quality of their documentation and judicial confirmation.

II. GRANDIOSE NARCISSISM: DEFINITION AND CORE FEATURES

2.1 Diagnostic Criteria

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined in the DSM-5 classification, characterised by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy. The diagnostic criteria require the presence of at least five of the following traits: a grandiose sense of self-importance, fantasies of unlimited success or power, a belief in one's own uniqueness, an excessive need for admiration, a sense of entitlement, exploitation of others, lack of empathy, envy or the belief that others are envious, and arrogant behaviour.

The grandiose subtype of narcissism represents the most visible form of the disorder. The grandiose narcissist openly expresses superiority, actively seeks admiration, and responds to criticism with aggression. This distinguishes them from the covert narcissist, who seeks attention through suffering and victimhood.

2.2 Entitlement and Being Above the Rules

A central feature of grandiose narcissism is the sense of entitlement — a deeply ingrained belief that the individual deserves special treatment regardless of their actual achievements or behaviour. In practice, this sense of entitlement manifests as the belief that rules apply to others but not to them, the expectation that others will accommodate their needs, rage when expectations are not met, and an inability to see their own behaviour from others' perspective.

The sense of entitlement is particularly significant in a legal context. A grandiose narcissist may genuinely believe their actions are justified in situations where an objective observer would see a clear violation of rules or laws. This is not conscious disregard but a genuine cognitive distortion.

2.3 Inability to Tolerate Criticism and Narcissistic Injury

The self-image of a grandiose narcissist is simultaneously grandiose and fragile. External confidence conceals internal instability, and criticism or failure can trigger a powerful reaction known in the literature as narcissistic injury.

Narcissistic injury occurs when a person's grandiose self-image encounters a reality that does not support it. The injury may be objectively trivial (for example, mild criticism or a lack of attention) but is subjectively experienced as an existential threat. The reaction is typically disproportionate: rage, retaliation, or an attempt to destroy the source of the injury.

2.4 Distinction from Covert Narcissism

Grandiose and covert narcissism represent different manifestations of the same disorder. Both share the need for narcissistic supply, but the means of obtaining it differ significantly.

The grandiose narcissist seeks supply through admiration, power, and the recognition of superiority. They position themselves as an active agent who controls their environment. The covert narcissist, by contrast, seeks supply through sympathy, care, and a special status as a sufferer. They position themselves as a passive victim who is being wronged.

This distinction is essential to understanding how two different narcissistic personalities can form a functional alliance: each derives a different type of narcissistic supply from the arrangement.

III. PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS IN THE CONTEXT OF GRANDIOSE NARCISSISM

3.1 Malignant Narcissism

Otto Kernberg developed the concept of malignant narcissism to describe the most severe form of narcissistic personality disorder, in which grandiosity combines with psychopathic traits. Malignant narcissism encompasses the core features of narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial behaviour, a paranoid orientation, and sadistic tendencies.

The malignant narcissist differs from the "ordinary" grandiose narcissist in both willingness and capacity to harm others. Whereas the ordinary grandiose narcissist may harm others through indifference, the malignant narcissist may do so deliberately and derive satisfaction from it.

3.2 Psychopathic Traits

Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) identifies psychopathic traits across two factors. Factor 1 comprises interpersonal and affective traits: superficial charm, grandiose self-image, pathological lying, manipulativeness, lack of empathy, shallow affect, and absence of responsibility. Factor 2 comprises lifestyle and antisocial behaviour: need for stimulation, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioural control, early behavioural problems, lack of realistic goals, and impulsivity.

When grandiosity combines with these traits, the result is a person who is both motivated (narcissistic injury demands revenge) and capable (psychopathic coldness enables execution) of serious acts.

3.3 Instrumental Aggression

The aggression of a psychopathic grandiose narcissist is typically instrumental — calculated and goal-oriented rather than impulsive. This distinguishes them from impulsive violent offenders.

Instrumental aggression manifests as careful planning, selection of means to achieve the objective, the ability to wait for the right moment, and emotional control during execution. The threatening letter analysed in the second article of this series represents a written form of instrumental aggression: a calculated attempt to intimidate and control the target.

3.4 Superficial Charm and Persuasiveness

The particular dangerousness of the psychopathic grandiose narcissist lies in their ability to appear normal or even exceptionally trustworthy. Superficial charm, social skill, and the ability to read other people make them persuasive.

This persuasiveness is especially significant in professional contexts. The individual may be a respected professional who speaks the right jargon and projects credibility. When such a person makes claims, professionals are prone to believe them — particularly when the claims concern someone who lacks comparable professional standing.

IV. THE NARCISSISTIC ALLIANCE: WHEN TWO PATHOLOGIES MEET

4.1 Conditions for Alliance Formation

An alliance between two pathological personalities does not arise by chance. The research literature identifies several factors that promote the formation of such alliances.

The first condition is a common enemy or target. An alliance typically forms when both parties direct negative feelings toward the same individual or institution. In a family law context, this may be a shared ex-spouse or their new partner.

The second condition is complementary roles. A functional alliance requires the parties to complement each other rather than compete for the same resources. A grandiose narcissist and a covert narcissist can form a functional alliance because they seek different types of narcissistic supply.

The third condition is mutual benefit. Each party must gain something from the alliance that they could not obtain alone.

4.2 What Each Party Brings to the Alliance

The grandiose narcissist typically brings resources and status, strategic thinking and planning ability, professional credibility and networks, and aggressive capacity for action. They are prepared to act directly: writing threatening letters, filing reports, initiating legal proceedings.

The covert narcissist brings victim status and the associated sympathy, emotional manipulation skills, a compelling narrative ("the child's best interest," "fear," "abuse"), and the system's sympathy. They are credible in the role of victim and know how to evoke the desire to help in professionals.

4.3 The Function of the Alliance

The function of the alliance is mutual reinforcement and the pooling of resources against a common enemy. The grandiose narcissist gains a "legitimate target" for their aggression and a partner who validates their view of the situation. The covert narcissist gains a protector who acts on their behalf and reinforcement of their own victim narrative.

In the psychiatric literature, this dynamic has been described through the concept of folie à deux, although the traditional folie à deux refers to a shared psychotic disorder. In a narcissistic alliance, what is involved is not actual psychosis but a shared distortion of reality in which both parties reinforce each other's distorted narrative.

V. INTERNAL DYNAMICS OF THE ALLIANCE

5.1 Power Relations

A narcissistic alliance is not an equal partnership. Typically, one party is more dominant, although roles can shift depending on the situation.

In an alliance between a grandiose narcissist and a covert narcissist, the power dynamic is complex. The grandiose narcissist may appear dominant because they act more visibly and actively. The covert narcissist, however, may control the alliance more passively: their victim status defines the narrative, and their needs drive the action.

Fred West described his relationship with Rosemary West in police interviews: "I trained Rose to what I wanted. That is why our marriage worked out so well… she just blended into my way of living." This description represents the grandiose narcissist's view, in which they are in total control. Subsequent evidence showed, however, that Rose was an independent actor who committed crimes even in Fred's absence.

5.2 Mutual Manipulation

Within the alliance, both parties manipulate each other, even if neither is fully aware of it. The grandiose narcissist uses the covert narcissist as a tool to achieve their objectives. The covert narcissist uses the grandiose narcissist as a protector and agent.

This mutual manipulation creates built-in instability. Neither party is genuinely loyal to the other; loyalty lasts only as long as the alliance serves their individual needs.

5.3 Shared Reality and Its Reinforcement

The central function of the alliance is the creation and maintenance of a shared reality. In this shared reality, both parties are justified in their actions, the common enemy is a real threat, their behaviour is self-defence rather than attack, and any victims are in fact perpetrators.

Psychiatrist Reginald Medlicott, in his analysis of the Parker-Hulme case, described how two narcissistic personalities can reinforce each other: "Each acted on the other as a resonator, increasing the pitch of their narcissism." This resonance metaphor aptly captures the dynamic in which each party amplifies the other's distorted perception of reality.

5.4 The Fragility of the Alliance

Despite its outward unity, the narcissistic alliance is fundamentally fragile. This fragility stems from several factors.

First, the alliance is founded on a common enemy, not genuine attachment. If the common enemy disappears or becomes irrelevant, the foundation of the alliance collapses.

Second, both parties are narcissistic, meaning each prioritises their own needs above all else. When the alliance no longer serves those needs, loyalty ends.

Third, there is no genuine empathy in the alliance. Neither party truly cares about the other; they care about what the other can offer them.

VI. THE THREATENING LETTER AS A GRANDIOSE NARCISSIST'S REACTION

6.1 Reference to Previous Analysis

The second article in this series analysed in detail a threatening letter sent under a fabricated identity after an official investigation was launched. The letter represented a classic application of the DARVO technique: denial, attack, and reversal of victim and offender roles.

In this context, it is essential to examine the threatening letter as a manifestation of grandiose narcissism and as part of the narcissistic alliance's dynamics.

6.2 Narcissistic Injury and Reaction

The launch of an official investigation represents, from the grandiose narcissist's perspective, a severe narcissistic injury. The investigation challenges their self-image as a righteous, superior person. It threatens their professional status and public image. It places them on the same level as "ordinary criminals."

The reaction to such an injury is typically disproportionate. The threatening letter represents an attempt to regain control in a situation threatening to spiral beyond their grasp. It is instrumental aggression: calculated action aimed at intimidating the opposing party into silence or passivity.

6.3 Features of the Letter as a Manifestation of Grandiose Narcissism

The threatening letter exhibits several hallmarks of grandiose narcissism. The first is legalism and claimed expertise — the use of legal language to create authority, references to statutes and case law, and the implicit message: "I know better."

The second feature is threats and displays of power: concrete threats of legal action, reputational damage, or other consequences, intended to intimidate the opposing party into submission. The third feature is moral superiority: positioning oneself as the righteous party and labelling the opponent as unethical or criminal. The fourth feature is total denial of responsibility — no admission or compromise of any kind; everything is the opposing party's fault.

6.4 The Letter as Part of the Alliance's Operations

The threatening letter is not an isolated act but part of a broader strategy. In a narcissistic alliance, the grandiose narcissist typically assumes this active role: they are the one who "defends" the alliance against external threats.

The letter serves multiple functions within the alliance. It is a signal to the ally that the situation is under control. It is an attempt to intimidate the common enemy. It is a document that reinforces the narrative ("we are the victims, they are the aggressors"). And it is evidence of one's own capacity for action and loyalty to the alliance.

VII. NARCISSISTIC COLLAPSE AND THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE ALLIANCE

7.1 Triggers of Disintegration

A narcissistic alliance typically disintegrates when external pressure grows sufficiently. The triggers include the progression and concretisation of an official investigation, the arrest or charging of one party, publicity and reputational damage, the depletion of financial or social resources, and the "betrayal" (real or imagined) of one party by the other.

The critical turning point is typically the moment when the cost of maintaining the alliance exceeds its benefits. For a narcissistic personality, self-interest is paramount, and when the alliance no longer serves that interest, loyalty ends.

7.2 The "I'm Not Going Down with You" Dynamic

The grandiose narcissist's reaction to mounting pressure is typically self-preservation. This can manifest in several ways.

The first is distancing — taking physical and emotional distance from the ally, reducing contact, and avoiding public association. The second is narrative revision, in which one's own role is recast as more passive or manipulated, the ally's initiative is emphasised, and one's own "victimhood" in relation to the ally is highlighted. The third is active blame-shifting — directly testifying against the ally, disclosing previously concealed information to authorities, and cooperating with prosecutors in the hope of a lighter sentence.

7.3 The Covert Narcissist's Reaction

The covert narcissist typically responds to the alliance's disintegration by reverting to a familiar role: the victim. The narrative shifts to "I was manipulated," "I didn't know what they were doing," "I was actually their victim."

This reaction is psychologically consistent: the covert narcissist has always sought supply through the victim role, and the disintegration of the alliance offers an opportunity for new victimhood. Now, however, the victimhood is claimed not in relation to the original common enemy but in relation to the former ally.

7.4 Mutual Blame-Shifting

The typical outcome of alliance disintegration is mutual blame-shifting, in which each party seeks to minimise their own role and maximise the other's. This produces contradictory accounts in which the same events are described in entirely different ways.

The research literature demonstrates that these contradictory accounts are not purely tactical lying but reflect a genuine psychological process. Each party has constructed a narrative in which they are justified and the other is guilty. When the alliance breaks down, these narratives no longer support each other — they turn against each other.

VIII. CASE STUDIES

8.1 Fred and Rosemary West (United Kingdom, 1967–1987)

Fred and Rosemary West constitute one of the most extensively studied examples of a criminal couple in which two pathological personalities operated in collaboration. They were convicted of or linked to at least 12 murders and numerous sexual offences in Gloucestershire between 1967 and 1987.

The alliance was formed when Fred West met 15-year-old Rosemary Letts in 1969. Fred was 27 at the time and already had a criminal record. Rosemary had grown up in a violent home and experienced sexual abuse. They married in 1972.

Fred described the relationship in police interviews in a manner that epitomises the grandiose narcissist's perception of control: "I trained Rose to what I wanted. That is why our marriage worked out so well… she just blended into my way of living." This description represents the grandiose narcissist's typical way of seeing themselves as the perfect controller.

The alliance dynamic was complex. Fred operated as the more visible party and initially took all the blame upon himself in an attempt to protect Rosemary. Evidence showed, however, that Rosemary was an independent actor: she committed crimes while Fred was in prison, and several surviving victims described her as the more aggressive of the two.

The disintegration of the alliance began when the couple was arrested in February 1994. Initially, Fred took all the blame and claimed Rosemary knew nothing. The turning point came as the trial approached, when Fred saw Rosemary in the courtroom and tried to make contact. According to eyewitness accounts, "Rose blanked him. The effect on Fred was huge."

After this rejection, Fred changed strategy. He told his "appropriate adult" (Janet Leach) that Rosemary had been an active participant and had even killed some victims independently. Fred died by suicide during his imprisonment in January 1995, before the trial.

Rosemary's strategy at trial was to blame everything on her dead husband and claim she had been a victim herself. She was nonetheless convicted of ten murders. She continues to deny her guilt.

8.2 Ian Brady and Myra Hindley (United Kingdom, 1963–1965)

Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, known as the "Moors Murderers," constitute another classic example of a narcissistic alliance and its disintegration. They murdered five children in Manchester between 1963 and 1965.

Brady was the dominant party, who introduced Hindley to sadistic material and Nazi philosophy. Hindley was initially infatuated with Brady and adopted his worldview. At the trial in 1966, they acted as a united front: both denied guilt and jointly blamed a third party, Hindley's brother-in-law David Smith, who had reported them to the police.

The disintegration of the alliance occurred gradually during the prison years. Hindley began to distance herself from Brady and constructed a narrative in which she had been "Brady's victim" and had been manipulated. She repeatedly applied for release and presented herself as repentant.

Brady responded in 1990 with a public letter in which he claimed Hindley had been an active participant and even the instigator in some of the crimes: "Aye, Myra egging me on. Now there's a thought I bet you've not had." He revealed details that Hindley had concealed.

Researchers have noted that "Both Brady and Hindley's accounts of [the murders] are starkly different and designed to minimize their own culpability while shifting blame to the other." Each constructed a narrative in which the other was the primary perpetrator and they themselves had been more passive or manipulated.

8.3 Parker-Hulme (New Zealand, 1954)

Pauline Parker (16) and Juliet Hulme (15) murdered Pauline's mother, Honorah Parker, in Christchurch in 1954. The case is significant in the development of the folie à deux concept.

The girls had formed an intense relationship that included a shared fantasy world, their own "religion," and a belief in their own exceptionalism. When their parents threatened to separate them, they decided to kill Pauline's mother, whom they saw as an obstacle.

Psychiatrist Reginald Medlicott analysed the case and described the dynamic: "Each acted on the other as a resonator, increasing the pitch of their narcissism." He diagnosed both with "paranoia of the exalted type," which included grandiosity, narcissism, and a belief in the justifiability of murder.

At trial, the defence argued for a folie à deux diagnosis, but the jury rejected the insanity plea. Both were convicted of murder and released after five years of imprisonment.

The significance of this case for the present article lies in its demonstration of how two narcissistic personalities can reinforce each other's distorted perception of reality to the point where serious crime appears justified and necessary.

8.4 Common Denominator Across the Cases

All three cases exhibit the same fundamental dynamic: two pathological personalities form an alliance that reinforces each party's distorted perception of reality, enables crimes that neither might have been capable of alone, disintegrates as pressure mounts, and produces mutual blame-shifting in which each party minimises their own role.

The cases also demonstrate that the disintegration of the alliance is predictable. It is not the exception but the rule. The question is not whether the alliance will disintegrate, but when and how.

IX. CHALLENGES IN IDENTIFICATION AND TOOLS FOR PROFESSIONALS

9.1 Identifying the Alliance

Identifying a narcissistic alliance requires attention to several indicators.

The first indicator is coordinated attacks. When two separate individuals make similar reports, accusations, or complaints about the same target simultaneously or in close succession, coordinated action may be at play. To professionals, this often appears as "corroborating evidence," but it may instead be an indication of an alliance.

The second indicator is a convergent narrative. The accounts of the alliance's parties are often strikingly uniform — even in their wording. This uniformity is not organic but constructed.

The third indicator is the division of roles. Typically, one party is more active (filing reports, writing letters, appearing publicly) and the other more passive (being the "victim" on whose behalf the other acts).

The fourth indicator is a disproportionate reaction to criticism. When the alliance's narrative is challenged, the reaction is typically forceful and coordinated.

9.2 Preparing for Alliance Disintegration

It is essential for professionals to understand that a narcissistic alliance will probably disintegrate as pressure mounts. Several steps can be taken to prepare for this.

Documentation before disintegration is critical. Both parties' statements, written materials, and behaviour should be carefully documented before the alliance breaks down and narratives begin to shift.

Separate recording of statements is important. The parties should be interviewed separately and their statements recorded in a manner that allows subsequent comparison.

Logging inconsistencies enables later analysis. Even minor inconsistencies between the parties' accounts should be recorded, as they may prove significant when the alliance fractures.

Constructing a timeline helps to map the full picture. When did the parties meet? When did joint action begin? How has it developed?

9.3 Leveraging the Disintegration

The disintegration of an alliance offers professionals an opportunity to obtain information that was previously inaccessible. When the parties begin to blame each other, they typically reveal details they had previously concealed to protect the alliance.

At this stage, it is essential to hear both parties separately and carefully document each one's new narrative, compare the new narratives with earlier statements, identify consistencies (likely true) and contradictions (requiring further investigation), and remain aware that each party is now minimising their own role.

9.4 Caveats

It is important to note that the disintegration of an alliance does not mean one party is "innocent" and the other "guilty." Typically, both have participated in the conduct, and during disintegration each attempts to shift responsibility onto the other.

The key principle for professionals is: do not accept either narrative at face value. The truth is typically found somewhere between or outside the narratives — in the objective evidence.

X. CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Summary

This article has examined the psychology of grandiose narcissism and, in particular, the dynamics of the narcissistic alliance. The key findings can be summarised as follows.

Grandiose narcissism differs from covert narcissism in the source of supply. The grandiose narcissist seeks admiration and power; the covert narcissist seeks sympathy and care. These different needs make possible an alliance in which each party derives a different type of supply.

A narcissistic alliance typically forms around a common enemy. Each party brings different resources to the alliance: the grandiose narcissist contributes capacity for action and status; the covert narcissist contributes victim status and narrative. The alliance reinforces each party's distorted perception of reality.

The alliance is fundamentally fragile because it is founded on a common enemy rather than genuine attachment or empathy. When pressure mounts, each party prioritises their own interest.

The disintegration of the alliance is predictable and follows a typical pattern: distancing, narrative revision, mutual blame-shifting. This disintegration offers professionals an opportunity to obtain information that was previously inaccessible.

10.2 Implications for Professionals

It is essential for professionals to identify a narcissistic alliance early, understand its internal dynamics and power relations, prepare for its disintegration through careful documentation, and leverage the disintegration for information-gathering while maintaining a critical stance toward each party's narrative.

It is particularly important to understand that coordinated action is not necessarily "corroborating evidence" — it may be an indication of an alliance. When two individuals present uniform accusations against the same target, professionals are justified in asking: is this organic or constructed?

10.3 The Position of the Child

In a family law context, the victim of a narcissistic alliance is often the child. When two pathological personalities collaborate against the other parent, the child becomes a pawn in an adult conflict.

The best interest of the child requires professionals to see through the dynamics of the alliance. This demands critical thinking, careful documentation, and a willingness to question narratives that appear too uniform to be genuine.

10.4 Closing Remarks

A narcissistic alliance is a phenomenon that may appear strong and unified to an outsider. In reality, it is a fragile construct founded on a common enemy and mutual exploitation. When pressure mounts, the alliance disintegrates and its parties turn against each other.

Understanding this dynamic is essential for professionals working in family law, child protection, or criminal investigation. Identifying the alliance, anticipating its disintegration, and leveraging that disintegration for information-gathering are tools that can help uncover the truth and protect children.

SOURCES

Narcissism and Personality Disorders

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
Kernberg OF. Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson; 1975.
Kernberg OF. Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1992.
Pincus AL, Lukowitsky MR. Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2010;6:421-446.
Ronningstam E. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
Cain NM, Pincus AL, Ansell EB. Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2008;28(4):638-656.

Psychopathy

Hare RD. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. New York: Guilford Press; 1993.
Hare RD. Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2003.
Kiehl KA. The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience. New York: Crown; 2014.
Porter S, Woodworth M. Psychopathy and aggression. In: Patrick CJ, ed. Handbook of Psychopathy. New York: Guilford Press; 2006:481-494.

Folie à Deux and Shared Psychosis

Lasègue C, Falret J. La folie à deux. Annales Médico-Psychologiques. 1877;18:321-355.
Gralnick A. Folie à deux: The psychosis of association. Psychiatric Quarterly. 1942;16:230-263.
Shimizu M, Kubota Y, Toichi M, Baba H. Folie à deux and shared psychotic disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports. 2007;9(3):200-205.
Arnone D, Patel A, Tan GM. The nosological significance of Folie à Deux: A review of the literature. Annals of General Psychiatry. 2006;5:11.
Holoyda B. Folie à deux and the courts. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2010;38(3):369-375.

Criminal Couples

Wilson D, Harrison S. Hunting Evil: Inside the Ipswich Serial Murders. London: Sphere; 2007.
Hickey EW. Serial Murderers and Their Victims (7th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning; 2016.
Gurian EA. Explanations of mixed-sex partnered homicide: A review of sociological and psychological theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2013;18(5):520-526.

Case Studies

Sounes H. Fred & Rose: The Full Story of Fred and Rose West and the Gloucester House of Horrors. London: Warner Books; 1995.
Burn G. Happy Like Murderers: The True Story of Fred and Rose West. London: Faber and Faber; 1998.
Staff D. The Moors Murders: The Trial of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. London: Notable British Trials Series; 1967.
Lee C. One of Your Own: The Life and Death of Myra Hindley. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing; 2010.
Medlicott RW. Paranoia of the exalted type in a setting of folie à deux: A study of two adolescent homicides. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 1955;28(4):205-223.
Glamuzina J, Laurie A. Parker & Hulme: A Lesbian View. Auckland: New Women's Press; 1991.

Manipulation and DARVO

Freyd JJ. Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory. Feminism & Psychology. 1997;7(1):22-32.
Harsey SJ, Freyd JJ. Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO): What Is the Influence on Perceived Perpetrator and Victim Credibility? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2020;29(8):897-916.

This article is intended for use by professionals, researchers, and those with a serious interest in the subject. The article is based on international research literature and documented court cases. Its purpose is to deepen understanding of the dynamics of the narcissistic alliance so that children and victims can be protected more effectively.