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

Yeah, "jealous boyfriend" is a dangerous character. This is what people don't seem to understand. Male violence and control is so normalised.

Just read back on your first sentence. Has something very minor happened in this man’s life eg his daughter hasn’t passed an exam she worked hard for?

Or something unimaginably horrific and catastrophic?

@OrangeCrushesbut what, specifically, do you think John Hunt should have known, or done, which would have helped protect his family from this? And when you answer this, can you let us know what irrefutable evidence you have to base your answer on? What do you actually know* *about what John Hunt saw/heard/ experienced before these events?

because unless you can answer that, I fail to see why you’re using another family’s experience on social media. By all means start a thread about coercive control. It can be from your own lived experience if you choose. Or without referencing a specific person. It’s just awful to hold this man up as an example of somehow not ‘knowing’ or ‘seeing’ something and therefore not being able to protect his wife and adult offspring.

I've skimmed the thread and I don’t think anyone’s mentioned what Amy, the sister said. She was clear that he was ‘just a man’, and isn’t that the point? These men look and sound like any other to most of us, even if they are monsters underneath. They don’t let their guard down to the families, they even charm them. They know what they’re doing.

And by the time anyone realises, it’s almost too late. Ok if the mum had sensed more danger, she might not have let him in. But he was a man, and she was a woman alone, he could have forced himself in. Once Clifford had decided on his plan, how could she or anyone have stopped him?

I agree, more needs to be done in educating women about the dangers of coercive control. But Louise DID realise, she dumped him, and as we all know, that’s when these men are the most dangerous. So the answer is not to get involved in the first place - but how is the possible when, as Amy said, they’re just men, and at the start of the relationship, they’re lovely and charming?

@Hotandbothered222 I actually don't think everyone does know that controlling men are at their most dangerous when a relationship ends, and that they rarely give up without a fight (and often stalking).

There are warning signs of coercive controllers early on! Once you know about love bombing, early boundary testing, it can be easier to spot. Someone else recommended the book The Gift of Fear. That's a good resource.

Once the relationship is very serious, people who don't know about coercive control can still sense that something is wrong and they need to get out. But if you can put a name to it, you can be made aware of the risk involved and the many resources to help women with strategies for escaping.

I think that if this family had understood more about coercive control, there is a chance they could have applied some risk mitigation techniques. Maybe they could not have avoided all harm, but at least they would have had a fighting chance.

There are a lot of maybes there @OrangeCrushes . I wouldn’t want to blame a specific family for their lack of knowledge (and when I said ‘we’ know that leaving a relationship is dangerous, I really meant fellow mumsnetters) but I agree more could be done to educate society as a whole. And of course to educate men in how NOT to be abusive controlling murderers, but that seems
like a pipe dream.

@Hotandbothered222 I did not say it's the family's fault.

Agreed that the best solution would be to eliminate male violence. But failing that, we need to openly acknowledge abuse and ensure that signs of abuse (including the subtle ones) are widely recognised and understood.

I agree with this, part of the perpetrator's mo would have been gaining the trust of the 'man of the House'.

This is getting out of hand. You have no idea whatsoever that Clifford had the trust of the ‘man of the house’ at all or what their individual relationship was.

Armchair psychology at its absolute worst.

OP I don't think you're saying anything the Hunt family haven't and tbh I think it's best coming from them. Amy said that, to them, 'he was just a man' and towards the end they didn't think he was particularly nice but they never saw any sign of what he was capable of. The whole point of coercive control is that the controlling partner is usually a master manipulator who both controls their partner so they don't tell anyone, and simultaneously charms their friends and family.

My ex was incredibly controlling, systematically isolating me from family and friends. This escalated into violence but he'd only hit me where the bruises wouldn't show. At one point after a particularly vicious attack we were invited round to my parents' and my mum was enthusiastically asking when we were thinking of having kids etc. I just wanted to lift my top and show her the bruises all over my torso but at that point he'd convinced me that nobody would believe me so I played along, smiling and laughing.

I don't blame my family at all. How can you tell? Really?? My siblings never liked my ex but (after we split) said they couldn't put their finger on why. My mum loved him. The thing is, nobody is inside another person's relationship and if everything seems fine and they seem and sound happy, why would you not trust their judgement?

I also feel that you're expecting them to have come to that interview to educate the British public on coercive control. I'm sorry but that is not their role. They spoke about their lives experiences and emphasised that, in THEIR experience, there was nothing to suggest any of this. I felt that they were essentially warning that people who seem completely normal 'just a man' could actually be capable of horrific acts. I'm not sure what more you expect? They probably already feel extreme guilt, are you expecting them to sit there reading up on every sign they failed to spot and delivering a lecture on the subject rather than a heartfelt interview? Victims and their families owe the public nothing.

So I guess your vote is for there being zero hope for victims of coercive control (YANBU)?

What risk mitigation techniques would you have suggested. An armed former soldier against three unarmed women. Hire a security guard? Guard dogs? All the women carry mace at all times? Even when men are coercively controlling as my ex was the vast, vast majority do not go on to harm their ex's family! Or do you mean in terms of talking to Louise? I don't know about your experience but in mine my DB in particular said to me several times to leave (not because he thought I was being controlled or abused, he just didn't like him). I didn't, because that is the nature of coercive control.

OP your tone in this thread is way off the mark. By all means, advocate for more education on this for the person IN the relationship (love bombing, isolation etc) but bringing Louise's family into it is in poor taste to say the least.

No. I'm saying direct the education at victims/potential victims. They're the only ones who know what's actually going on.If the man seems normal and your friend/family member seems happy then how are you supposed to know?

control is often silent to others. there's an analogy about it being like a dog whistle - as in only a dog can hear it. i was in that situation and you end up not knowing up from down.

it's hideous what John and his family went through and are going through.

And still the OP is dogmatically doubling down. And refusing to answer what she thinks John Hunt should have known/done in order to protect his family.

she appears to be trying to justify starting this thread because John Hunt and his surviving daughter chose to do an interview. Which seemed to me about wanting to describe his wife and daughters and not let them be defined by their horrendous deaths. Not for his situation to be hijacked by someone on social media. The OP could have started a thread about coercive control without bringing a grieving family into it. She could even have used her own lived experience if she chose. To use someone else’s like this is disrespectful and distasteful.

How horrible to reply so dismissively to someone who has been a victim, shared their experience and not even say to them that you’re sorry they went through that. Good grief.

She hasn't said that. She's right in that people do not understand what coercive control can look like and that if someone who's daughter was killed can't even see that he was controlling then what hope do the rest of us have.

But she doesn’t know he was- she wasn’t there!!!

The OP has stated that the signs were there, for someone who knows about abuse. And that it seems like the family are afraid of being blamed.

I think we don't fully understand coercive control and the various ways. Hence one of the reasons why I oppose assisted suicide.

This thing called Kyle also had another relationship on the go while he was seeing Louise.

She left him because he was a nasty bit of work, made allsorts of racist and misogynist comments to here and she realised how unpleasant he was.
She was also aware he had a brother he was visiting regularly in prison.
I thought the family knew what he was like and urged or supported her in breaking it off.

The best thing he could have done was to have stayed away from women together

Utterly selfish act taking a man's family out because the daughter finished with him.
Having a partner is dangerous and some people would be better off staying single.
He's ended up disabled and in prison was it worth it?

He could have tried to get some help for his anger and thoughts etc.

"I think that if this family had understood more about coercive control, there is a chance they could have applied some risk mitigation techniques. Maybe they could not have avoided all harm, but at least they would have had a fighting chance."

I think this is unfair OP. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It sounds like family, and friends, didn't really notice any signs and that it was only reading her personal messages since the murders that it has come to light. Even if they had realised there was coercive control, it is a massive leap to think that someone purporting to be exchanging belongings, in a house with multiple people, is going to commit murder like this. There are many many men who are controlling, thankfully murders like this are very rare. I agree there needs to be more awareness of coercive control, signs within a relationship and how to leave a relationship safely. And for coercive control to be seen as being abuse. But I think your point, whilst saying you don't blame the family, is coming across as if they are somehow responsible. And I don't think that's fair.

Oh right yeah, I'm sure all her friends and her own sister are lying about him being a piece of shit 🙄

I have been a victim as well. It would have been nice if my family and friends knew about coercive control because the signs were all there. As I am sure they are in most cases if people know what to look for.

In this case, evidence suggests that a young woman who used to enjoy having male friends, going out at night, and wearing makeup was forced to stop all of that. Red flags anyone? 🚩🚩🚩