To think the John Hunt family murders show how poorly coercive control is still understood?

[OrangeCrushes]

Heard a little feature on Radio 4 on the Victoria Derbyshire interview with John Hunt regarding the murder of his wife and daughters (Carol, Louise and Hannah). Louise apparently was the primary target of the attacks, which were committed by her ex partner Kyle Clifford. He also raped her.

I want to say up top that I don't in any way blame Louise's family for what happened to them and I am heartbroken that another woman (and her family) have died at the hands of an abusive man. But I am also devastated to see that even the remaining family members can't seem to understand abuse. What hope does any woman have if that's the case?

John Hunt claims that Clifford wasn't coercively controlling and seems to be offended by the suggestion. And yet, it certainly sounds like he was, as described in this Daily Fail article: "It was certain things, like Louise used to like wearing make-up but then she stopped wearing make-up - and that was down to Kyle."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13625845/amp/crossbow-killer-suspect-kyle-clifford-controlled-his-ex-girlfriend-for-six-months-by-stopping-her-from-wearing-make-up-staying-out-late-and-hanging-out-with-men-friends-reveal-before-shooting-her-dead-along-with-her-mother-and-sister.html

Some quotes below from a BBC article (with my commentary):

The signs were there, for someone who knows about abuse: "Clifford started to belittle her. When looking through the couple's text messages after Louise's death - something John says he found "very difficult to do" as the messages were personal to Louise - they noticed signs, from spring 2024, of "gentle manipulation"."

Myth that abuse always involves hitting and yelling: "Clifford never physically assaulted Louise when they were together. The family also never heard them raise their voices at each other."

It seems like the family are afraid of being blamed - but this would be an opportunity for them to raise awareness rather than deflect: "But I want to put it very bluntly now. Did we have any indication that this man was capable of stabbing my mother, of tying Louise up, of raping Louise, of shooting Louise and shooting Hannah? Absolutely not."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5wk716pzdo.amp

Poll:
YABU: coercive control is now better understood and there is hope for the future

YANBU: coercive controllers are too good at what they do and abuse myths will win out long term

I’m not comfortable ticking a poll about this family’s tragedy.

They were there, we were not. And situations can be nuanced.

the fact that their feelings and interpretation of events don’t match yours doesn’t make you right and them wrong. Their feelings are valid.

for what’s it’s worth I feel they highlted how subtle control is.

Yep, I had a similar reaction to the interview 👍

John Hunt must be living in permanent hell after his wife and two of his daughters were murdered in the most terrifying ways imaginable. Can you at least allow him to see these murders as he wants to? His thoughts and words are what he has left.

He seems a good family man who must go through he'll each day,
However he has a remaining daughter who surely needs to be aware of how subtle this type of control is for her protection.

I find it very strange when women are murdered that it’s always described in relation to the men in the story, often without naming the women.

John Hunt didn’t die, so why are they ‘the John hunt family murders’.

Surely the murders of Carol, Hannah and Louise Hunt?

Because in this situation it's because John Hunt is reasonably well known?

There's been several cases involving non famous people were it's been the murder of 'insert name'

It’s really hard though. Lots of people settle down in to stay at home relationships watching stuff when previously out late with a full face on. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s controlling. It can actually be very freeing to be with someone who likes you as you are and you don’t need to get dressed up for.

Possibly there were red flags but this was a massive leap. Abusers don’t to go in full throttle it tends to be incremental.

I've just finished reading the story. All I can say is what a POS Clifford is and he should have been dragged to court. That final act of defiance shows you the level of narcissism he holds. How dare he be allowed to escape revisiting his horrific murders, when John and Amy had the strength to sit through the trial.

Well, maybe thinking about it that way is helping the poor man and his remaining daughter with their unimaginable grief?

As a previous poster has said, they were there and we were not, so let’s not criticise them for their comments.

I specifically named the victims in my post but most people will know about the story (and ONLY know about it) because of the fact that it involves this famous man. More clicks.

There are many other articles available which describe classic controlling behaviours such as not allowing her to go out with her friends, have male friends, or wear makeup.

Edit: also, my point is that the controlling behaviours themselves are the red flag of possible future violence

Dear god leave them alone
They are talking about their huge loss and the horrific juridical processes they had to go through to see justice
I find starting a thread like this to criticise them utterly distasteful

IME abusers don't just charm their partners rhey charm their in-laws too. It's masterful manipulation. It quite often goes unnoticed or the people involved can minimise it in some way. It's not their fault, they've been conned.

The entire situation is unspeakably horrible for them and it sounds like they have unfortunately seen firsthand how much our legal system enables abusive men to continue manipulating and abusing even after committing horrific acts.

The purpose of this thread isn't to condemn the family. It's to highlight how incredibly hopeless things are for the victims of coercive control when even a murder victim's family can't wrap their minds around it.

They have been interviewed to say the truth and in that interview they said what the papers were suggesting was NOT TRUE !
Up until the separation he showed no signs of being physically abusive he only turned when she left him and it was after reading texts on Louise’s phone they saw he was manipulating her this was after she died !
Basically the papers were making crap up ! X

I thought the same after reading the BBC article this morning. In no way are my thoughts any kind of judgement on the Hunt family (and i think John Hunt was trying to say no ine should judge them because they didn't see signs of abuse). But I agree with OP's point that the signs are necessarily as obvious as people think. Not easy to spot at all, we need to really educate everyone on this topic, and not just young people.

This is my exact point. I don't think that the papers did make anything up. The papers said that Clifford was coercively controlling - and it sounds like he was.

Many people (maybe including you) don't understand the very close link between coercive control and the threat of future violence. Anyone in a coercively controlling relationship is at risk.

I'm actually a great example. My ex coercively controlled me to a horrible extent and Mumsnet actually helped me to see the light. I was utterly terrified of him but he never laid a hand on me and rarely raised his voice. I managed to leave while he was at work, because I instinctively knew that he was dangerous.

He has since assaulted our daughter, who is forced to see him and just last night was crying in fear over something relating to him.

Of course, police and social services don't understand coercive control and don't care. So I live in constant fear for my child's safety.

I agree that it's quite sad that the family don't see that he was coercively controlling her during their relationship, he obviously was but it was subtle/not obvious to anyone outside of the relationship. It really does show how many men get away with this type of abuse.

Also, for those saying to drop this topic because it is too hard for the family: They did choose to give an interview and according to reports angrily shared their side of the story - that there wasn't abuse. So apparently they want this to be a matter of public discussion.

The family are not to blame in any way for what happened and they are also victims of these unspeakable acts.

However, we as a society need to examine these types of crimes and take the lessons we can from them to protect other women and girls from violence and abuse.

Perhaps there were additional controlling behaviours but this case is so extreme it’s hard to learn from.

He was controlling/ difficult so she ended the relationship which is exactly what you are supposed to do. I’d expect possibly over the top romantic gestures in an attempt to win he’d back, promises to change, possibly a threatened suicide, maybe need to consider a non-mol.

I wouldn’t expect domeone who hadn’t shown any violence to murder/ rape.

I don’t think it’s possible for anyone, including the family, to know the exact ins and outs of the relationship and what went on. He probably also charmed the family as well, part of them coming to terms with their grief is also to unpick their own relationships and understand that they were also subject to his coercive control.

I completely agree with the first poster though, their feelings are valid and it what they’ve said and expressed in the interview doesn’t make them wrong. I don’t think it’s for us to judge

John Hunt didn’t die, so why are they ‘the John hunt family murders’

Because John Hunt is famous and his family were not. It's perfectly understandable.

Desperately searching for and assigning misogyny where there is none helps none of us.

What they're saying is that the signs weren't obvious to them. The relationship has been painted as one where the daughter was frightened of her ex and frightened to break up with him, when this simply wasn't true. The belittling texts only came to light afterwards, and can of course be seen through a different lens now. You're projecting your own experience on to people who have lost their loved ones in a very public way, and telling them what they should think and say which is crass and, frankly a bit...controlling.

Exactly. There needs to be a shift in thinking about the danger presented by coercively controlling men.

People don’t only know about this story because of him - id certainly never heard of him.

The story is very notable in itself for the murder of three women (in the same family) in one incident, with a crossbow - and the guy being on the run.