Intimate Terrorists

A discussion on the talk show Outnumbered and an online article from the HuffPost reported research claiming women’s aggression is just as violent as that of men. I'm perplexed as to why we want to continue finding someone to be the villain.  Courts already struggle with calling it domestic violence because of the implications and consequences that label brings. We are at an impasse; our heels are dug in so deeply that fault has become the objective.  I once spoke on a panel where men were cheering the praises of research with findings very similar to these. One audience participant proudly announced, “It’s terrific to finally know that men are right!” I retorted, “Why do we have to be right, why can’t we just make it right?” I knocked him off the blaming bandwagon and it was hard for anyone to argue my suggestion as it made sense.

Nevertheless, it seems someone has to be wrong, which creates a lose/lose situation in which nobody can really win. Family violence is everybody’s business and responsibility to thwart...everyone deserves to feel safe regardless of gender. We would be foolish to pretend that society doesn’t endorse violence whether is patriarchal, matriarchal, racially motivated or from affluenza (a disease sparked by wealth and privilege)…we see it everyday. Perhaps the difference now is that women’s aggressive behavior is being glamorized, promoting more violence. The study also noted that women are most aggressive toward men, while men are more aggressive toward other men. So what? Violence is violence no matter how it's packaged. We have bred protective instincts out of our DNA by rationalizing that couples fight, relationships are hard or finding a damsel in distress is good for the soul. It’s not. Let’s recognize the word stress in distress and stop minimizing poor communication skills by writing them off as bad days. Behavior is progressive and gets worse over time when people aren't given boundaries and limitations. The study also focused on young people in their late teens and early 20s. This is a time when hormones are raging and the brain's frontal lobe is not fully developed. These young adults aren't always capable of recognizing consequences. They don’t have a voice yet. They haven’t fully emancipated from their parents to develop healthy coping skills. They haven’t matured or discovered who they are yet. Is it fair to research an under-developed population and treat them as representative of stereotypical behavior or to make blanket statements that one sex is more aggressive or controlling than another? What’s the point? We need solutions not more problems. The money used for this study can have been better allocated to programs that teach resiliency, protective factors or assertiveness training.

Perpetrating Parents, Part I: They’ll Make You Crazy

There comes a point when victims leave their abusers because they have finally recognized the significant and damaging impact the emotional and physical violence has had on their children. Often when victims are asked why they stay with their abusers, they say because of the kids. But when asked why they left their abusers, ironically, they admit for the same reason—because of the kids. Abusers controlled their families during the relationship but after the victims have fled with their kids, the batterers must find ways to forces the victims to return. This is when abusers exploit, recruit or threaten some type of harm toward the kids. The abusers’ escalating deviant behaviors becomes so outrageous that the average person cannot imagine the hell these victims face. Victims try to report the atrocities but they are minimized, ignored and even told they are crazy. The persistent negative reinforcement by society creates confusion for the victims and they start to believe that they are the problem.

In this series I will share stories of outrageous violent behavior in hopes that knowledge of perpetrator behavior may assist families trying to escape the madness. The first case involves an abusive mother who wanted her ex-husband to pay for “abandoning” her. She started threatening her children and telling them that their father would stop loving them like he stopped loving her. She didn’t like that her children were close to their stepmother so she inflicted high levels of guilt on them saying she carried them in her womb for 9-months, that she was their mother and that the kids owed her. She accused them of caring more about having fun than being loyal. After months and months of emotionally beating her children up, they decided it would be best to live with her so maybe she would stop being so angry and vengeful. She recruited her children to lie and make excuses for not wanting to visit their dad. She threatened to expose them for saying bad things about their stepmother stating that their father would hate them. Their fear of being completely abandoned by their dad dissuaded them from engaging with him and his new wife. The children were forced to suffer in silence.

She wanted to punish her victim financially, so she refused to let the kids see him and she was able to demonstrate to the court that she had them more overnights than he did. Not only did his lawyer (and hers) rewarded her for being a bully, but worse, they claimed that he was being irresponsible as a father and that his children needed to stand up to their mother and stop being sissies if they didn't like their situation. The system disregarded her accountability and left the victims feeling helpless and alone. The victim reported that this abuser stalked, harassed and emotionally abused those around her but they ignored his pleas.  

Jodi Arias Trial Part IV: Questions for the Expert

Continuation of Jodi Arias Trial Part III: Questions for the Expert

Jodi Arias Trial – Questions for the Expert

Isn't it true that isolation is the primary root to domestic terrorism that forces victims into murder? Victimization occurs through indoctrination, which requires isolation. In order to control a victim's mind, no other input can be available so that the perpetrators can promote their propaganda. In this case, it doesn’t appear that any lifelines had been severed. Ms Arias had complete freedom to come and go as she wished as was evident by her trips between California and Arizona. Without isolation, it is highly improbable for her to have become a victim of this type of terrorism. Nor is it possible that any gaslighting was going on here. In the final analysis, victims who murder do so because they are cornered and have no other way out.

Isn't it true that victims leave and go back to their perpetrator several times over the course of the relationship? Isn't it possible that a victim might call or go on vacation with their perpetrator during one of those times, even if the victim was fearful? Yes and yes! Victims leave an abusive relationship an average of seven times before they terminate completely. Many times victims go back because they are promised that things will change; at first perpetrators may demonstrate good behavior and infuse the rekindled relationship with positive experiences such as good sex and wonderful vacations in an effort to make the relationship better. The victims will then rationalize that this time it will be different. They think that maybe the couple just needs to get away from the stress in their lives. But the good feelings are temporary and the abuse resumes, often with a new heightened level of escalation. Sadly, during post-relationship treatment, victims often report that they cannot believe how stupid they were. As discussed earlier, victims take full responsibility for the abuse instead of blaming the perpetrators for their actions. Notably, Jodi Arias has never taken responsibility for her alleged abuse.

How would you describe expert witness bias? A therapist is never supposed to say that a client feels this way or that way. They are supposed to make assessments using verbiage such as, “The client appeared to be fearful as was evidenced by…” Nobody can determine what another person feels or thinks and a therapist is supposed to back everything up with concrete behavioral responses that might support that feeling. Because other people were not thoroughly questioned to challenge the reports of abuse, the DV expert's opinion is inappropriate. It is unethical for an expert witness who is assessing guilt or innocence to act as a defendants’ therapist. Giving books and magazines to assist accused so they can formulate a story to excuse murder is a gross miscarriage of justice. When someone fulfilling an expert witness role provides therapy to the clients it is referred to as a dual relationship and, in Colorado anyway, the expert/therapist would be grieved and sanctioned by the regulatory agency for misconduct. Giving how-to manuals to murder suspects is like giving a bomb making kit with instructions to a terrorist. Knowledge is power and in this case, textbook examples are being used to defame, discredit and dehumanize the murder victim. Finally, in my opinion, it is a moral and ethical obligation of any professional to adequately prepare for the job they are being paid to do. By not reviewing all available sources and questioning eyewitnesses to case issues, the expert appears to have turned a blind-eye toward the defendant and placed the finger of blame squarely on the murder victim.

Jodi Arias Trial Part III: Questions for the Expert

Prosecutor Juan Martinez challenged the domestic violence (DV) expert witness in the Jodi Arias trial this week and, in my opinion, was able to blow many holes into her theories. After listening to the cross examination, it seems to me there were a few more questions that could have been asked to finish off the discrediting Mr. Martinez had already started. I will address profiling components regarding some victim and perpetrator behaviors that were not mentioned in an effort to cast a reasonable doubt about who the real victim was in this case.

Can a person have a fight AND flight response during the same episode? The DV expert testified that immediately prior to the murder, Ms. Arias had a Fight or Flight response. Jodi Arias' testimony indicated that she initially ran, stopped to retrieve the gun, then shot Travis Alexander. According to her version, after the gun failed to stop Mr. Alexander, she again fled and retrieved a knife and stabbed him to death. This run, shoot, run, stab, slash sequence is impossible as determined by the fight or flight response. The Fight or Flight response occurs when a stressful event invokes fear and the reptilian brain forces us to make a split-second decision as to whether we are capable of fighting off an assailant—or we can’t. In this response, stress hormones then flood our extremities and permit us to fight to the death or run like hell. If a person’s reptilian brain determined that the best course of action were to run, then a Forrest Gump-style sprint would have ensued and the runner could have gained an amazing head start back to Yreka before the other person was able to put his britches on. However, the brain – particularly the reptilian brain – is not physically designed to tell us to run, then stop, do an about face to go back and fight. The decision is EITHER to Fight OR Flight, not to Flight AND Fight.

Are DV victims really silent about their abuse? This expert claimed at one point that victims try to change their perpetrators’ behavior. This is absolutely false. Victims are groomed from the very beginning to believe that they are the problem and the consequence for them is that are berated, put down, chastised, humiliated and beaten into submission. Victims desperately look for ways to change their own behavior because their perpetrators tell them that it’s the victims’ fault they were abused. The true dynamic is that abusers want victims to change—not the other way around. Victims only want to appease their perpetrators in order to stop the abuse. So victims often reach out for answers—to “fix” their own inadequacies and modify their behaviors so they can end the abuse. Victims are groomed to believe they caused the violence and, as a result, victims assume ownership of the abuse. Perpetrators are pessimists and their negative opinions keep their victims from placating them. The victims simply can't successfully stem the tide of abuse because the perpetrators are not looking for resolutions—they are looking for blame. No matter what victims do, perpetrators twist and distort reality, leaving victims defeated and helpless. This is commonly referred to as “Gaslighting” and it is a high-level form of manipulation because perpetrators can lie far better than their victims can tell the truth. Victims will discuss their abuse, but not by complaining about the perpetrator; rather by explaining and minimizing their partner's culpability or seeking a way fix themselves. Silence doesn't become the rule for victims until their support system starts telling them they are being mistreated and that it isn’t their fault. Victims then defend their perpetrators say things like others don’t understand what their partners have been through.

Would a victim try to protect a perpetrator's reputation, even after they commited murder? Here’s a glaring problem I see with the Jodi Arias as DV victim scenario: the murder victim’s body was seemingly posed in the shower naked with legs spread for the entire world to see. His reputation was then smeared by accusations of pedophilia and wanting his playmate to wear braids and dress up in Spiderman underwear. Every behavior – and I mean every behavior – is motivated by an intention. Real victims of domestic violence genuinely love their partners, even if the world doesn’t understand why. Before victims resort to lethality they have doubt, reservation, hesitation and remorse. Therefore, even in death, victims will protect their abusers. A real victim would have covered their perpetrator's body to protect his/her reputation. Given Travis Alexander's reputation in his community, exposing him as Ms Arias did was the ultimate humiliation...a classic treatment of a perpetrators towards their victims.

Jodi Arias Trial Part II: Victim or Abuser?

Following up Tuesday's post about Travis Alexander and some of the predictors that could have revealed impending violence, today we look at factors to be considered when determining whether Jodi Arias was a victim or an abuser.

Factor 1: Before victims come to the agonizing conclusion that murder is their only option, most will exhaust every possible means to avoid the abuse and make every effort to fix their relationships. This is supported by volumes of research data and has been confirmed by my professional experience. Sadly, victims will do just about anything to make things right with their perpetrators because they have been conditioned and groomed to take ownership of the abuse. The duration and severity of the psychological torment that accompanies domestic violence leaves most victims desperate and fearful. Victims who have been cornered and trapped psychologically truly believe there is no other way out but murder. Many of these will have suffered in silence and been severely abused for years before they reach the point of lethality. Yet, contrary to common opinion, domestic violence victims have a great deal of resiliency that they build up over time – this is how they endure abusive relationships for so long. Early in relationships, victims are able to manage the psychological and emotional abuse that prepared them for eventual physical assault by their partners. Victims overcompensate to prevent abuse, yet they can often anticipate the next psychological blow. They make every effort to thwart the attacks—always assuming they can control the violent outbursts. Unfortunately, time and lack of accountability move abusers from subtle or implied threats to physical assault. Battered women’s syndrome is a process not a single event. It's not about the electric bill or someone not taking out the trash. Victims are groomed and isolated so abusers can indoctrinate them.

Factor 2: Battered victims who resort to lethality have doubt, reservation, hesitation and remorse. Based on interviews, news clips, and testimony, the behaviors in this case do not demonstrate that any of these conflicted feelings existed. Jodi indicated in her testimony that she had lied to preserve Travis’ reputation. I believe every behavior is motivated by an intention. Jodi's stated concern for Travis' reputation appears to contradict her leaving Travis naked and exposed after his murder. In my opinion, extreme humiliation—not preservation of reputation—would be the likely result of leaving him this way. Because most victims truly love their abusers, most would have covered up the perpetrator after committing murder to protect and preserve the victim's dignity.

Factor 3: Perpetrators meticulously maneuver to strip victims of their income, friends, family and resources to distort the victims’ perceptions. Most abuse recipients are not permitted to control their own lives; this manipulation by perpetrators is rooted in their deep fear of loss and abandonment. Therefore to launch a successful assault, abusers must control the propaganda to achieve and maintain brainwashing. It doesn’t appear that Jodi experienced any captivity—she was free to come and go as she pleased. She still had external input, access to money, a safe physical distance and a support system that she could depend upon.

Factor 4: Perpetrators don’t physically abuse until they feel they have to, and only after they interpret they have lost emotional control. A repetitive cycle of tension, explosion and relief occurs. In the early stages of abuse, remorse for bad behavior often accompanies the assaults where the perpetrator begs for forgiveness. The perpetrators’ tender regrets confuse the victims because the words and the actions don’t match and victims start feeling as if they're crazy. Perpetrators can lie much better than victims can tell the truth. Eventually a psychological break occurs and the victims become convinced they are the problem. The cycle then mutates and escalates up to tension and explosion—the honeymoon is over. When pleas for apologies become insincere in the victims’ eyes and their abusers know it, that is when the abusers feel the need to strike. While the cycle is different for everyone, in cases of physically battered persons—especially those experiencing syndrome patterns of behavior—emotional assaults are rampant long before a hand is ever raised. This does not mean that if you are emotionally abused you will be physically abuse, but it does mean if you are physically abused, the psychological blows came first.

Factor 5: Comparing her physical size to his, Jodi had to have caught Travis off guard in order to overpower him. Victims who have a gun would most likely lock their fingers on the trigger and rapid fire to ensure their assailant was stopped. The distance gives them the advantage to overtake their assailants. When there’s a pointed gun and the threat, “Stop or I’ll shoot” most people would comply. However, it seems more likely that Travis was trapped in the shower fighting for his life. Multiple stab wounds to the back, head and heart indicated a close-in attack.

Factor 6: Travis cherished his position in the community and most likely would have allowed Jodi to run out of the house, had she felt threatened, to preserve his flawless reputation. Based on friends’ comments and Travis' own statements, it could be argued that his community standing was more important to him than she was. Travis' behavior strongly suggests that he welcomed Jodi's departure from his life on many occasions, yet is not indicative of an abuser. He would not have wanted to risk the embarrassment of such exposure.

Factor 7: Jodi indicated that she experienced shaking like a Chihuahua when verbally confronted by people like Travis or prosecutor Juan Martinez. This textbook depiction is how many battered women describe their nervousness during domestic violence episodes. However, when retelling their stories, victims typically reenact the violence through their body language, tone and facial expressions. Jodi's observable body language during testimony and while making statements outside of court displayed no evidence of a personal and emotional recounting of traumatic events.