ShareThis Page

Prosecutors: Chicago slaying was part of sexual fantasy

| Sunday, Aug. 20, 2017, 5:45 p.m.
Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, center, speaks about the charges against Andrew Warren and Wyndham Lathem during a news conference at the Chicago Police Department headquarters on Sunday, Aug. 20, 2017. The two employees of elite universities charged in the fatal stabbing of a 26-year-old hair stylist were due in court Sunday after being returned to Chicago to face charges of first-degree murder in the brutal killing.
Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, center, speaks about the charges against Andrew Warren and Wyndham Lathem during a news conference at the Chicago Police Department headquarters on Sunday, Aug. 20, 2017. The two employees of elite universities charged in the fatal stabbing of a 26-year-old hair stylist were due in court Sunday after being returned to Chicago to face charges of first-degree murder in the brutal killing.
Detective Commander Brendan Deenihan speaks about the charges against Andrew Warren and Wyndham Lathem during a news conference at the Chicago Police Department headquarters on Sunday, Aug. 20, 2017.
Detective Commander Brendan Deenihan speaks about the charges against Andrew Warren and Wyndham Lathem during a news conference at the Chicago Police Department headquarters on Sunday, Aug. 20, 2017.

CHICAGO — The fatal stabbing of a hairstylist in Chicago was part of a sexual fantasy hatched in an online chatroom between a Northwestern University professor and an Oxford University employee, whose plan included killing someone and then themselves, prosecutors told a Cook County judge Sunday at a bond hearing for the men.

An Illinois state prosecutor shared new details about the July slaying, describing to the court how Trenton James Cornell-Duranleau, the 26-year-old boyfriend of since-fired professor Wyndham Lathem, was stabbed some 70 times and with such brutality that he was nearly decapitated. His throat was slit and his pulmonary artery torn.

“The heinous facts speak for themselves,” said Judge Adam Bourgeois, who deemed both men potentially dangerous and ordered them to remain in custody pending trial on first-degree murder charges.

Lathem and Andrew Warren, an Oxford financial official, were dressed in their own clothes Sunday inside the Chicago courtroom. They stood with their hands behind their backs as the judge spoke.

Cornell-Duranleau, a Michigan native, had been asleep in Lathem's high-rise Chicago condo when Lathem began plunging a 6-inch dry-wall saw knife into his chest and neck, prosecutor Natosha Toller said. When the victim awoke, he began screaming and fought back.

Toller said Lathem then yelled at Warren, who was standing in a nearby doorway, and asked him for help.

Warren ran over to cover the victim's mouth, then struck him in the head with a heavy lamp in an attempt to silence him, Toller said. As Lathem continued to stab his boyfriend, Warren left the room and returned with two kitchen knives, she said.

Warren bent over Cornell-Duranleau and joined Lathem in stabbing him, the prosecutor said.

She said the victim's last words were addressed to Lathem: “Wyndham, what are you doing?”

Only Warren, a British citizen, spoke briefly when the judge asked if he wanted a British diplomatic office to be contact. “No,” Warren said.

Toller said Lathem and Warren had talked in detail beforehand about how they would kill themselves. She said Lathem was supposed to stab Warren to death as Warren was fatally shooting him.

Lathem and Warren surrendered peacefully to California authorities on Aug. 4 after an eight-day manhunt.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.