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

You're right. I'm the controlling misogynist here. No one could have known!

https://homicidetimeline.co.uk/article.php?id=10

John needs to believe that he couldn’t have seen this coming. Give him time. Maybe one day he’ll be ready to accept there were signs. Or maybe the signs weren’t actually visible outside the relationship.

Remember he has lost 4 people. At one time, he was likely fond of the man who eventually murdered his family. That can’t be easy either.

Yeah this. ^ Very insensitive @OrangeCrushes And incredibly judgy to say her dad (and remaining family/the third sister) 'should have known.' Some men are very good at concealing what they are. This Kyle bloke could have been coercive and manipulative, and no-one else realised it. OR he may have been OK, (even with his girlfriend) but snapped when she tried to dump him or something.

John said he didn't see that he was coercively controlling, because he didn't see that was coercively controlling! Is he meant to be psychic? As I said, many men hide their true selves from people.

Trying to lay the blame on the father (and remaining sister) for 'not seeing what was going on' is disgusting.

It’s very common in reporting on women in newspapers that they’re referred to in relation to their men in their lives, rather than named themselves.

John Hunt isn’t really ‘famous’, unless you’re big into horse racing.

TBH ‘the John hunt murders’ makes it sound like he’s the culprit anyway, so probably not the best name to give them.

I agree with this, people were upset when Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa were referred to as GH and Wife. I had never heard of Betsy Arakawa, but I had Gene. Even to the point just now i had to google what his wife was called. Its not sexist, its how we talk.

I didn’t tick your poll. I think SM has made an enormous difference in bringing the dynamics to light, but it is so, so difficult to understand when it’s happening in real life.

I’m so glad that you managed to get out op, and that MN helped. I’ve seen so many threads where people have been able to pick through the words, and spell it out clearly to an op who started out bewildered, and often posting about something a little off the main point. It’s such a wonderful tool fighting abuse.

The invention of the Polaroid camera helped get court action for physical abuse - because it created evidence. Now we’re so clear on physical abuse that we use it like a standard “well there was no physical abuse” etc but it wasn’t always understood as wrong.

It takes time to change how people think. We’ve done a lot to erode rape myths too, but we have to keep shining light. It’s a long battle but it’s an important one. We’re making progress even if it’s infuriatingly slow.

It sounds like this has triggered you deeply and it’s very important to look after and protect yourself. Often the psychological effects of news stories can be more difficult to process than our own lived experiences, even when they’re horrific. So please be kind to yourself as you’re sorting through your feelings.

Do you need to start another thread about what’s going on with your dd?

You were in an abusive relationship and didn't know.

How the hell do you expect this man, given all he has been through, to now know all the signs, but speak about it perfectly in public as well.

He has been through something incomprehensible to most of us, and is likely living hour to hour at the moment, he's still in denial, grieving and a multitude of other emotions and you choose to start a thread because he isn't acting as you think he should?

Honestly you should have started this thread based on your own experiences if you want to educate others rather than pick on a bereaved father and husband for not acting perfectly.

I don’t think a grieving family are in any way a good way to see how well coercive control is understood.

Absolutely nowhere did I say that they "should have known". You have not quoted me.

My point is that there seems to be little hope for victims of coercive control when families of victims and people who KNOW THE CULPRIT WENT ON TO MURDER (such as posters in this thread) suggest that there were no signs of danger.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/crossbow-killer-kyle-clifford-louise-hunt-carol-control-girlfriend/

But there were signs. Recognising that there were signs is not the same as blaming the family:

"During their six-month relationship, Clifford reportedly “controlled and ridiculed” Louise “imposing himself” on the 25-year-old’s life.

A family friend told the Daily Mail the pair had a “messy breakup.”

Another added: "Kyle was controlling and used to ridicule Louise. In public, he made himself out to be a nice guy, but in private he was anything but."

They said: "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.

"Louise had become tired of the relationship and being controlled all the time and being told what to do.""

Clifford "didn't like" Louise "staying out too late... and he really didn't like her having male friends,” another source said.

I’m pretty sure they knew what was happening they were a close knit family ! And they are setting out what is their truth and u should respect this !
yes people can be cohesive and manipulative and sometimes people are unaware but their are subtle red flags 🚩 and maybe from these they did not think he would have done anything as horrific as what he did !
Not everyone’s stories or experiences are the same .

I don't think coercive control is well recognised at the moment, but there was an interesting programme on Radio 4 quite recently that listed the signs seen and described how they escalate, so more people (potential victims and their families) can recognise them. I didnt really know much about it, but I learnt a lot from the programme and plan to discuss it with my DDs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0029395?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

The family probably did not have the tools to understand the dangers that abusive men present. It is not their fault.

However, this is why more people need to know about coercive control and dangerous, abusive men. If people know the signs, then there is a greater chance that women will receive the support they need.

The responses to this thread seem to prove that people are very resistant to the idea that there are clear patterns and signs of abuse and that education on this could be beneficial. It's mind boggling.

Thank you!!! This is great.

I used the news story this morning as an opportunity to educate my daughter about the dangers of coercive control, and how abuse doesn't just mean hitting and shouting. (She heard the report and asked me about it.)

It’s always the men who are named.
Look at Sharon Tate - whose death is always reffered to as ‘The Manson murders’ or the ‘Charles Manson murders’ - and he wasn’t even there!!
She was a film start married to Roman Polanski - yet her death is referred to by the mastermind male who ordered her ( and others) murder.

The thing is even if he had known that Clifford had a controlling side there is absolutely no way anyone could have predicted what happened, it's so so extreme.

I don’t think they’re being unreasonable in feeling how they feel. Maybe they don’t want to focus on the coercive control aspect as they feel it takes away from the horrifying, violent way their family members suffered and died. Maybe. If that’s the case, I can understand that. I’m protective over my own experience of DV and how it’s affected me my older kids. No one died but the trauma of it is very real despite moving on with our lives.

Again, I don't think the family or Louise are to blame in any way.

But it's reported that the breakup was messy, and it is known that Clifford was controlling and possessive. The family probably felt sorry for him and it sounds like they were very kind and empathetic people. They invited him into their home to collect his things, which is a kind and compassionate thing to have done.

If they had understood that coercive controllers can be very dangerous and that breakups are the time when the threat of violence is most likely, maybe they could have found an alternative way to give the stuff back, like dropping it at his home when he wasn't there. With more knowledge, they could have taken some precautions that would avoid any type of risk and prevented him from attacking them in their own home where he could do so much damage so easily.

Even though Clifford's actions were very extreme, it is very common for someone like this to trash a victim's house, behave menacingly, commit some light assault. All of these less awful things could easily have happened, but equally could be avoided by treating a coercive controller like the risk that they are.

This, 100%

it shows an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance to make this a thread about someone else.

No.

I desperately wish that there were more information available about coercive control before I got in my situation. I walked blindly into the situation.

For now, I cannot speak publicly because my ex presents a threat to me and especially to my child. However, in the future I expect that I will be involved in campaigns to ensure that as many people as possible understand the risks.

Edit: also, I have said repeatedly that I DON'T BLAME THE FAMILY

Your post previous to this literally blames the family.

No, it doesn't. The post previous to this states that it is unfortunate that the family did not have the tools and knowledge necessary to spot the risks and take mitigating actions. That is not their fault.

But we can all do better (I hope) by sharing knowledge and understanding of coercive control.

You start by saying

I don't think the family are to blame, but.....

And then list all the things you felt they did wrong.

A useful resource for women is The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker. One of the things it does is explain how to spot the warning signs very early on in a relationship, at the stage when controlling people are testing you to see if you will be a suitably compliant partner, and how to act in ways that put them off.

You are determined to misapprehend what I am saying. I won't respond to you further.

Is that because you've went back and read what you wrote and realised that you've blamed the victims?

You could just ask for that post to get deleted you know.