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

But they did. They said they didn't see the signs and then later on when he painfully went through the messages it became apparent.

I think this is very poor taste. Do you not think the family wish every second that they could have seen it at the time. I also doubt very much that they want to be on TV talking about how subtle it can be.

Yet they did it to draw attention to this issue.

I've not been able to articulate this anywhere, OP, thank you for saying exactly what I've been thinking - and never being able to say

I've felt too, how John Hunt is saying how he 'felt sure he'd have been killed too' is hard to convey that the murderer and rapist was only ever going to target women. He wasn't ever going to hang around for a man to return from the work shift he knew he was doing, when he'd killed, tortured, raped the women in the house.

I'm sorry to have written my thoughts

This is such a very, very weird way of framing it, and again, a wildly uncompassionate response to someone who has shared a very personal experience of domestic violence.

I find it bizarre you choose to take the Daily Mail's account of this 'abuse' as gospel, even though John Hunt said in the interview how inaccurate those reports were, and how there were no signs of abuse.

I suspect he'd know better than a tabloid rag on account of actually having met the killer.

Believing you know better than him as to what was going on, really? Give your head a wobble.

I found the interview very, very, strange, and uncomfortable to watch. It was almost as though they were defending Clifford. But at the end, John read out his victim's statement, where he basically wishes him to burn in hell forever. I feel there is (obviously, needless) guilt about not spotting something different or unsettling about this man, and a need to protect Louise's memory - they want her remembered as someone strong, not as someone who was coerced. Very odd to ask for the interview and I'm afraid it gives everyone the perfect right to discuss this awful case.

Stay Single it's safer.

I have now watched some of the interview and this is also my take. They seem offended by the idea that Louise could have been an abuse victim or coerced in some way.

If that's true, it's a real pity because there should not be anything shameful about being a victim of abuse. The abuser is the one who should hold that shame.

@OrangeCrushesyou say in your OP ‘the signs were there.’ So I’ll ask again: what do you think John Hunt should have done differently to protect his family? And what evidence are you basing that on?

Yes I actually think you're right, almost as if they think Louise would be blamed somehow if he was abusive, victim blaming. It could also just be pure denial about the whole thing which they can't be blamed for.

My elder DD was a victim of coercive control and I didn't have the faintest idea until she found the strength to kick him out, thank God. He was (seemingly) intelligent, pleasant, charming, financially independent- all the things you would want for your daughter, but behind closed doors he was accusing her of infidelity and constantly flirting with other men. As soon as he'd gone and we knew about it, we changed all her locks and did a digital detox of her phone, laptop etc. A couple of months later, he turned up in the street with flowers and tried to get back with her, but she refused to have anything to do with him. Providentially, a couple of days later my DH did some work on DD's car, and found a tracking device fixed to it, (probably installed the same day he brought the flowers) so we then got a court injunction against him.

Incidentally, when I sought advice about a digital detox from a computer-savvy (male) friend, it turned out he was very knowledgeable about this, as HE had been a victim of coercive control himself, I had no idea.

OP you are right, it's very common, to varying degrees.

@Bikergranso you didn’t have the faintest idea until your daughter acknowledged and acted upon it. I get that. It sounds horrendous what happened with your her.

The OP, however, is asserting that ‘the signs were there’ and that John Hunt is somehow not acknowledging that. In his victim statement he said that his daughter ended the relationship in a ‘textbook manner’ and that amicable messages passed between the two. It was after the horrendous murders that he looked through messages on his daughter’s phone and saw signs of ‘gentle manipulation.’

Its so disrespectful and hurtful to single out a family like this when that is their lived experience only.

The premise of my OP is that coercive control is not recognised or well understood and that's as far as my OP goes. Louise's family are now claiming even in hindsight that there was no coercive control, even despite seeing abusive messages and being aware of Clifford putting Louise down.

Though this does not form part of the premise of my OP, since you asked, I firmly believe that there were signs of coercive control, because there always are (and also based on available reporting). It sounds at a minimum as if Louise changed her appearance (stopped wearing makeup) and habits (was pressured to stop going out or seeing male friends). There are reports her friends noticed these things and were aware the controlling relationship was the cause. Surely her parents would also be able to see these things if they were so close and lived with her. However, people who don't know about coercive control may not know to connect changes in their loved one with a controlling and dangerous relationship.

The appropriate response by a victim's family would obviously depend on the specific facts of any given case. I have not put myself out as some sort of expert on combatting coercive control, but have acknowledged that resources of this sort exist.

What reports is this based on?

@gattocattivo I have posted all of this above. I'm not accountable to you and you obviously have some kind of problem with me. I won't be responding further.

This horrifying and high profile case feels like the visible tip of a cultural iceberg that we aren’t dealing with. Really hoping this relatively new government can be persuaded to take VAWG seriously at some point.
Online misogynists are grooming young lads without any sanction.

I feel like the government should resurrect the Law Commission project of looking into making misogyny a hate crime. It should be.

The Daily Mail.

@WhatTheShitive read a fair bit on this and an issue seems to be that making it a hate crime could result in it being harder to convict these men. It’s complicated.