Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for August 5th, 2009

WHY won’t we ask WHY judges underestimate lethality risk in domestic violence cases? (papers.SSRN.com)

with 10 comments


Before this:

I would like to personally apologize for the lousy hyphenation in the last post.  I will bring this to the attention of my webmaster (when I get one).  As to blogging, I’m an old dog learning new tricks.  As to polishing my blogs — my life still falls under these lethality risk categories, which the abstract below refers to as “Danger Assessment” (“D.A.”, not to be confused with “D.A” meaning “District Attorney” in some jurisdictions), and has for years, and when I feel that the “survival” aspect has changed, I will probably (from thence forward) be more careful.    

Til then — and I do realize partly BECAUSE long-term family law entrapments have made long-term planning a “moot point,” I will for the short-term, get them up there, period.  I tried about 3 ways yesterday to get the chart within the confines here.  I also know that one cannot post a link to this particular database which actually saves the search.  Instead, it brings one only to the search page.  

If I were a different person, I’d just slap up the article and barely commment on it.  All these “Says Who?” and “Why THIS focus in such an important field?” wouldn’t resonate within my mind.  

But being who I am (daughter of a research scientist who talked back to ideas, including writing his backtalk to the author in MY books), and also, no longer so credulous about the “helping” institutions  / nonprofits that structure most of our environments, for any single promiment assertion — and even moreso for any “intervention” into my life on the supposed basis of helping (and PARTICULARLY) from an expert whose own life — or whose children’s, or friend’s children’s — safety, futures, and course of life are not affected — I will continue to say WHY are only THESE questions being posted, and not other, seemingly obvious ones, and post this as I can.  

I‘ve found that the answer to Why Not ask THIS?” usually points to financial emotional involvement, or other vested interests between the theorist and the ongoing business that such an unsolved problem drives in the direction of these fields of theory.  (In other words, conflict of interests…)

The other part of “who I am” is someone who experientially understands the profound disinterest shown by court denizens (may I use that word?), and moreso, policy-setters (including judges) in whether or not their decisions actually compromise someone’s safety or solvency, or a child’s contact with the parent who just experienced the switch from custodial to NONcustodial.  

(The long sentences is bad writing. I don’t recall this coming from my father, so I’ll take personal responsibility for it.  Especially the long sentences with all the parenthetical phrases, which lack a main verb, that I typically see later.  I guess my brain’s RAM filled up, and the main subject just dropped off the back end somehow before I got in the matching verb.  I’ll work on this, but doubt I’ll join the “Twitter” generation.) 

Anyhow, sorry, it’s not on the map, to fix everything, I don’t have time.  I will try to get some help on how to quote articles, though, so hyphenation happens.  In former work life, I was a stickler on format, down to the commas and unseen spaces, and in fact something of a copyeditor.   (Long-term exposure to trauma-producing events DOES change one’s priorities, and thinking, too).

Meanwhile, my policy is to get the information POSTED, and those who care to follow up (are highly motivated to do so) will have some more tools, and possibly ask some questions they might not have thought of before.  IN short, I am leaving a track record and a paper trail, in part in CASE something untoward happens.  The status quo of my case — and life — since the moment it left renewing a restraining order, and took the exit chute into family law — has been, both inside and outside the court — that if I accepted the current abusive status quo (whatever abusive, work-destroying and income-deleting level it was at), and did NOT try to enforce ANYTHING (or expose prior illegal/criminal activity), then POSSIBLY, like a good little doggie, I might get some tidbits, even POSSIBLY a glimpse of one of my daughters.  If not, then escalation.  

This same venue applies I believe in the courtroom arena.  As domestic violence has been exposed, action on it has mostly been diverted to TALK and TASK FORCES.  And publications.  As thankful as I am for the developing body of research by all these experts which seemed to validate both my experience and what I wanted to happen, appropriately given the violent background of our marriage, somehow it just never did.  

I now believe all this is a stalling technique.  The researchers, building their reputations, often have a leisure the “participants” don’t. 

The EXPERTS are generally “ABOUT” developing liaisons, alliances, conferences, and sometimes (unfortunately) cronies.  The LITIGANTS are NOT invited, generally.  This is the EXACT opposite of what I believe those leaving abuse need.  They need to be free and self-sufficient as MUCH as possible, and not have to sell their souls — cheap, at the most vulnerable points of life — to the closest available bidder, and cheap, too.   

Survivors generally don’t have that long a leash, timewise.  The thing they need is safety, and a long enough break from abuse, to get free and economically independent.  This goal is intrinsically opposed to what the controller/abuser/batter wants, as we gradually come to learn (I use the “we” as to that category).    Any policies which require them to depend in any way upon that batterer are going to be a recipe for trouble, and a chink in the protective armor.  

Anyone who has survived BOTH abuse AND then a season in family law (and if they won custody, AND maintained it under a challenge from the ex-abuser; i.e., stalking through family court or otherwise, I think there’s  probably one of two main reasons:

1.  They already HAVE strong alliances in this venue, and resources (which are a protective factor in leaving abuse, incidentally), OR

2.  They REALLY have some savvy, or are with someone who REALLY has some savvy on the HOW to get corruption to “back off.”  that requires a different, skeptical, and challenging (whether openly or not) mindset.  For example, “I know who’s paying you off.”


  • An acquaintance of mine (not mentioned anywhere on this blog) recently found evidence that a forensic videotaped interview of her child, one that I think was instrumental in a custody switch, had been tampered with (sections deleted / edited) illegally.  That is a powerful tool for her.  
  • My case has had multiple transcript errors, some of then understandable, but still significant, including getting two individuals’ names confused, and then a significant deletion to a clear, coherent and concise statement I knew that the entire courtroom heard (no expletives, but a pointed comment).  The mediator’s report is almost not worth a mention; every one had factual errors, and there were substantial procedural errors, also.
  • The bottom line is the judge.  The judge is the one who signs the order.  Beyond that, in practice, there is the issue of what happens when those are ignored.  (What a morass!).

If you don’t understand the dynamic of trying to “please” and “cooperate” with an abuser, or abusive (essentially meaning corrupt and intentionally oppressive, in order to achieve a private — not public —  personal benefit, typically related to power or money) organization, then either talk to a woman who got out of such a relationship or pick up Patricia Evans’ “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” and read the chapters about Reality I (Power Over) and Reality II (Cooperation, or whatever its term was).

The family court language AND structures THROUGHOUT talk about sharing, cooperating, mediating, conciliation and so forth.  In TRUTH, it’s exceptionally abusive and tyrannical in how this plays out.  

So, here’s my attitude:  I give credit for altruism where it’s due.  

“In God We Trust.  Every one else pays cash, upfront.”


“Pays cash”-in the form of evidence of other cases helped, or having stemmed the tide of family wipeouts, or in short whatever the case in point is — and they do so upfront, like an attorney’s retainer.  This should go for attorneys and nonprofits alike.  Unfortunately in this venue (once in it), often a crisis of some sort provokes a series of hearings.

Operating on hope in this venue is certifiable insanity.  Don’t go that route — do your own research, even in a crisis.  Do your best to NEVER get caught in a crisis.  I did, but the reason was, I kept hoping in the wrong institutions.  Leaning on a broken post or fence.

I would like to personally THANK the judge that provided the first restraining order, which enabled me to physically/financially PROVE that even under severe duress, and after a lot of destruction, that with a LITTLE space and a LITTLE support, I could indeed make it financially, emotionally, personally and socially, etc., and so could (have) my daughters.  I have already proved that the issue was indeed the abuse, and that with this person out of my household, and not in daily contact, I could manage.

I would also like to personally thank the organization in the city where I lived (it had the word “Family Violence”) in it, even though in several aspects, the order and the process WAS a real screwup, they DID get that initial order.  For that I think them, and the mistakes they made, I later called back in.  I don’t see that practices have changed in the past 10 years or so.  They are beholden to who pays their lease, as we all are, and which MOST people don’t think twice about, but litigants SHOULD.

Well, let’s get to today’s point, which struck a nerve with me, although it  was incidental to looking up something else):

I don’t know WHY I ask questions that I don’t see getting asked VERY often among — especially not among — experts in the fields I am an “expert” (absent a Ph.D. saying I am) as to experience AND reading lots of the literature.  


WHY? do judges so underestimate the lethality risk in cases that involve domestic violence?

This abstract of an upcoming social science article proposes that they “just don’t understand,” as do many well-intentioned family court reform movements, which I am not part of for that reason.  This upcoming appears to propose that inserting a lethality risk assessment IN the courts — although I think a good thing to publicize — might save lives.  

I disagree.

The underlying premise is that the judges, including most or all judges, in these venues care.

Based on experience and hearsay, and headlines, I also disagree.

In fairly recent months, in the United States, we have had (anecdotal from my memory, some details may not be precise):

  • An Illinois Governor ousted for corruption.
  • Another Governor caught cheating on his wife, although WHY that is actually headline news beats me….
  • 2 Pennsylvania judges convicted of taking kickbacks, depriving hundreds of juveniles of their legal rights and sending them into detention or camps at locations the same judges had financial interest in.  THey DID get caught, but it took time.
  • A Texas area (Fed. District) judge sued for sexual harassment, long term, of some of his female employees.
  • This is older, but a NJ (as I recall) judge with last name Thompson was caught traveling to Russia for sex with (as I recall) an underage boy, and also caught substantial child pornography.  This was a JUDGE.

The illusion that all people in public office, or working to protect children — or for that matter women — is a dangerous one that needs to be dropped.  The motto is not appropriately, “Just Trust Me…” but the Texan “Don’t Tread on Me,” when it comes to governmental representatives on public payrolls.  With the vacant space of warm fuzzy feelings of connection in one’s mind, insert principles, and phrases, from the U.S. Bill of Rights AND our Constitution, which our President is sworn to uphold, and if He or should it some day become a She, does not uphold this, He or She should be impeached or “encouraged” to resign.  

Side-benefit — you’ll be better informed, and this is great for self-confidence.

This Constitution and those civil and our legal rights (in any individual custody case) are a “use it or lose it proposition.”

The social science of risk assessment may have validity, and I believe many times does, BUT the key issue should be due process in decisions, and afterwards enforcement.

An honest look — and “Let’s Get Honest” — I’ve got a start here, AND some tools on the site — at the finances of our government will show that a way COULD be found to get sufficient law enforcement of existing laws if there were a communal, a corporately communal policy will to do so.  

Beyond that, the 2nd Amendment is a crucial one for survivors of Intimate Partner Violence, and it’s time we understood this.  Perhaps when more abusers understood that we UNDERSTAND this, they might back off, and let us get back to the other principal issues of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness — or at least a roof over our heads, and food.

Advocacy is necessary, but we need to pay close attention of which of our advocates are advocating for what, HOW they do so (do THEY respect due process, and open communications) and what they are really about.  The best advocate in any situation for an individual is the one that has the most at stake, and when it comes to DV, that is, literally, lives, honor, and fortunes, like those (OK, men), who signed, so long ago.

OK:  from the valuable site, http://www.SSRN.com, free to join and informative. …. with a warning, it’s not a standalone in “family court matters” — there are major players and publishers also in the courts, whose abstracts I don’t find on here, and a warning that one needs to look at the funding, and in short, spend a good amount of time researching the people in the field to get a grasp of it, I was glad to find this database (huge) on a variety of topics, many of them within “Family Court Matters.”




Stop the Killing: Potential Courtroom Use of a Questionnaire that Predicts the Likelihood that a Victim of Intimate Partner Violence Will Be Murdered by Her Partner

Lynn McLain 
University of Baltimore School of Law

Amanda L. Hitt 
Government Accountability Project (GAP)


Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, Fall 2009 

(The draft of this article is currently undergoing cite checking and revision by the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society and will be published in final format in the Fall 2009 issue of the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society.)

Judges in domestic cases often underestimate the risk to a mother and her children that an angry and abusive father or other intimate partner poses. In a recent Maryland case, for example, {{CASTILLO}} two judges refused to deny a father visitation or require that visitation be supervised, despite the fact that the father had threatened suicide. During the father’s unsupervised visitation, he drowned all three of his children, then attempted to kill himself.  {{THE MOTHER IN THE CASE WAS, I THINK, A PEDIATRIC DOCTOR, THE IGNORANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS OUTRAGEOUS – IT WASN”T JUST HEARSAY TESTIMONY AS TO HIS MENTAL STATE}}.{{Or in at least one Maryland case, “Castillo”}

The Danger Assessment tool (the D.A.) developed by a Johns Hopkins Nursing professor and validated by herself and other social scientists shows how much the father’s thoughts of suicide increased the risk that he would commit murder. Had the judges had that Danger Assessment, the children might have been kept safe.

NO, I say, “had the judges had — AND HEEDED — that Danger Assessment”


The attached article does something that we think has never been done before. It takes the D.A., which has been used widely to counsel domestic violence victims, and investigates whether and how it might be admissible in myriad types of court proceedings, both civil family law proceedings and criminal matters. The primary goal is to inform judges of the importance of the impact of the complex of factors in a particular case, including unemployment of the abuser, access to a gun, the presence in the home of children from an earlier relationship, and threats of suicide. 

My co-author and I hope this will be a pivotal article that will lead to the taking of steps that result in heightened understanding by judges and provision of greater protection for victims and their children. We suggest (1) how the D.A. evidence may be admissible (or not) under current rules; (2) the possible advisability of amendments to current rules or statutes; and (3) judicial training on the D.A. factors.


Keywords: domestic violence, intimate partners, suicide, homicide, Danger Assessment Tool, family law, visitation, abusers, guns, weapons

JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K49, I18

Accepted Paper Series



This (still being checked for cites) informative paper is available at link above; I recommend reading it.


The “LETHALITY RISK” or “HOMICIDE /FATALITY REVIEW”  is not exactly new:

National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence

Warning:  list of links/titles may trigger PTSD in survivors.

Can you handle this?


1985, by a Ph.D./RN, Jacquelyn Campbell

and possibly the study referred to above:


DANGER ASSESSMENT, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, PhD, RN. Copyright © 1985, 1988. 

1990, by an attorney, Barbara Hart

Formerly @ PEnnsylvania CADV, now property of MINCAVA (Minnesota; below).


 Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence1990, 

Barbara J. Hart’s Collected WritingsMinnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, St. Paul, MN.

Copyright © 1995-2004 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.



1999, Campbell et al.

Stalking & Femicide

Homicide Studie.


STALKING AND INTIMATE PARTNER FEMICIDE, Judith M. McFarlane, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Susan Wilt, Carolyn J. Sachs, Yvonne Ulrich and Xiao Xu, Homicide Studies (volume 3, number 4, pages 300-316), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA: November 1999. Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications. 

2000, CDC Epidemiologist


Maternal (pregnancy) mortality had fallen 99% this century,

except homicides….. 

RESEARCHERS STUNNED BY SCOPE OF SLAYINGS: FURTHER STUDIES NEEDED, MOST AGREE, Donna St. George, Washington Post, Washington, DC: December 19, 2004. Copyright © 1996-2004 The Washington Post Company.

In the mid-1990s, Cara Krulewitch sat in a dark, cramped file room in the office of the D.C. 

medical examiner, poring over autopsies for days that became weeks, then months. She was an 

epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, assigned to the District.  


Krulewitch wanted to see whether maternal deaths were being undercounted, as was common 

elsewhere across the country. Granted access to confidential death files, she assumed she would 

find more deaths from medical complications of pregnancy – embolism, infection, hemorrhage – 

than anyone knew.  


What she stumbled upon instead was a surprising number of homicides:

Krulewitch dug into medical archives and came across a 1992 journal article from Chicago and a 


1995 study from New York City. In both, homicide had emerged as a significant cause of 

maternal death. It was difficult for the uninitiated to comprehend: Were pregnant women being 

killed in notable numbers?  


“I didn’t understand it at all,” said Krulewitch, whose study was published in the Journal of 

Midwifery & Women’s Health.  


Her research came at a time when maternal mortality rates in the United States had fallen a full 

99 percent from the last century, with fewer than 500 women a year dying of medical problems 

related to childbearing.  


Even now, studies that analyze maternal homicide are relatively rare.  


One of the most comprehensive studies came from Maryland, where researchers used an array of 

case-spotting methods, expecting to find more medical deaths than the state knew about. Instead 

they discovered that homicide was the leading cause of death, a finding published in 2001 in the 

Journal of the American Medical Association.  


In 2002, Massachusetts weighed in with a study that also showed homicide as the top cause of 

maternal death, followed by cancer. Two of three homicides involved domestic violence. “This is 

clearly a major health problem for women,” said Angela Nannini, who led the study.  


2000, Chicago, Women’s Health Risk (collaborative)

2002, West Coast U.S.

Women’s Nonprofit Justice Center 

2003, Reuters Health Report

Post-mortem when they didn’t die:


I have some commentary, so am expanding this one:

Many Women at Risk of Being Murdered Don’t Know It


By Alison McCook

Friday, November 28, 2003

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Nearly one half of women who are about to experience an attempt on their lives at the hands of a boyfriend or husband may not realize they are in danger, new research reports.

A look back at warning signs for 30 women who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner revealed that 14 did not know their lives were at risk, and said they were “completely surprised” by the attack. {{ABOUT 1 out of 2}}

Most attacks occurred around the time that women tried to end the relationship. And while nearly all women had experienced previous episodes of abuse and violence from their partners, not all instances had been severe.

These findings suggest that, in some cases, the warning signs that a woman’s life is in danger may be hard to read, lead author Dr. Christina Nicolaidis of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland said.

Nicolaidis and her colleagues interviewed 30 women between the ages of 17 and 54 who had survived an attempted homicide by their current or former boyfriends or husbands.  {{NO ONE should have to undergo this!}}

All but two of the women had experienced episodes of violence or controlling behavior, such as stalking or preventing them from going anywhere alone, from the man who tried to kill them.

{{I have been reporting such behavior to professionals in my case both on AND off the record.  I have signed statements of witnesses in the file.  There was a prior DV restraining order, and I have sustained serious injury already.  There were weapons.  There has been CONSISTENT stalking, which frightens me – almost as much as the nonresponse to it by others in authority also frightens me.  My last “feint” at getting an anti-stalking order was this past spring (I think).  The last incident was last month.  There is a reason WHY this is being systematically ignored in courts — specifically but not only family courts.  But I have also been reporting this to police officers responding to an event since the year 2005 at a minimum.  It is COMMON SENSE that stalking resembles the type of stalking actually done of a hunter by its prey.  When it comes to people, it has a dual purpose:  it may be to kill, or it may be to send a clear message sent to terrorize which (basically) it does.  I have a blog here on what this did to my life, almost half a post as I recall.  The absolute NON response of too many authorities to this issue tells BOTH the stalker AND the prey that the situation is uncontrolled, and (she) is on her own.  I have also been stalked  — and I would back this one up in court if challenged — THROUGH other people, and several of them.  In order to accommodate this, I have ceased significant contact with these people, explaining why.  AFTER all this, my daughters disappeared on an overnight visitation, and they were NOT informed of all the allegations in print and in person by their parent about the situation.  This was not done out of love for the girls, I am sure, but as a hostage taking in this unwrapping situation.}}  {{Excuse me…..}}

And while 22 of the homicide attempts occurred when women were trying to end their relationships, most women said they were breaking up for reasons other than violence.

Classic risk factors for an attempted homicide by an intimate partner include escalating episodes or severity of violence, threats with or use of weapons, alcohol or drug use, and violence toward children, Nicolaidis noted. While every woman included in the report experienced at least one of these standard signs, they were clearly not all “classic” cases, she added.

“The problem is that we often expect women to come to us describing a life filled with many or all of these risk factors, when in fact there may only be a few (risk factors) buried beneath the surface,” Nicolaidis said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Lorrie Elliott of the University of Chicago Medical Center writes that these findings demonstrate that counselors need to recognize that “any level” of physical violence or controlling behavior from a partner can signal a woman’s life is at risk.

{{True, BUT – — BUT – – – it’s judges, and law enforcement that I’ve found need to recognize this, as I did since I left the guy until now.}}

“Curricula on domestic violence should be revised to reflect these findings,” she notes.

{{WHOSE curricula?  Because family law pretty much is being “revised” as a profession to dilute this awareness, from my experience.}}


2004, DV Death Review Team, CANADA

ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CHIEF CORONER: CASE REVIEW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATHS, 2002Al J. C. O’Marra, BA, MA, LLB, LLM, Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Government of Ontario, CA. Copyright © 2004 Queen’s Printer for Ontario.


2006, VPC, East Coast USA

Washington, D.C. nonprofit

Homicide Data Analysis

VPC Theme:  Gun control (I believe), and Alaska is the Worst

ALASKA RANKS #1 IN RATE OF WOMEN MURDERED BY MEN ACCORDING TO VPC STUDY RELEASED EACH YEAR FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN OCTOBERViolence Policy Center, Washington, DC: September 20, 2006. When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2004 Homicide Data – Females Murdered by Males in Single Vilctim / Single Offender Incidents    



2007 Boston Globe,

“Special Report”

Theme:  Why they kill; Promotion:  Upcoming book

CONTROL ISSUES DRIVE MEN TO KILL SPOUSES  SPECIAL REPORT, Laura Crimaldi, Boston Herald, Boston, MA: September 3, 2007. Copyright© 2007 Boston Herald Inc. Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners.   


Batterers who use lethal force against their partners are engaged in a losing game of control that pushes them to kill because otherwise they have no chance of getting their partner to submit, according to a veteran psychologist.


{{As “Let’s Get Honest,” I chime in with my opinion:

Except in LITERAL self-defense (not, defense of the ego, or self-concept), as in cops responding to domestic disputes, or a person physically assaulted in certain situations, and even then Killing is a choice, just as abuse is, or any other — especially repeated — criminal behavior.  The mark of a person is what he or she will or will NOT allow him or herself to be “pushed” to do.  PERIOD.  This is pyschology talk, and while it’s true, it still falls short, making linguistic excuses.}}


{{{JUST a note:  For at least — at LEAST — SOME major monotheistic religions (all 3, I believe), this is conceived of a divinely-ordained, and a requirement of women.  ONE of these religions means “Submission” (I’m told).  ANOTHER, this mandate is taken out of context (of itss text), but in my case, was continually “an excuse for the abuse.”  ANY policies dealing with such men will have to deal with the issue that to them, failing to control “their women” is sometimes genuinely conceived of as having failed their God.  Hence, the killing, to “win.”  I have been personally (before separation) warned never to oppose this man or he woudl “escalated” til he wins.  From what I can see, that hasn’t changed yet, that dynamic, and there is a track record to display evidence.  

When here comes a venue, family law, that tells us to “reconcile” parenting, or almost anything else of importance, with a person holding such a viewpoint, it is basically consigning the relationship, the children, and the target parent, which will be the woman under this religious view, to defending her own life, as the courts aren’t going to.  It’s an intolerable situation, and transmits these ideas down, another generation.}}



David Adams, co-founder and co-director of Cambridge-based Emerge, a batterer’s program, is the author of “Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners,” to be published this month by Vanderbilt University Press. 


((FYI:  NOTE:  The other Co-founder and co-director, I believe, was Lundy Bancroft, who I often cite, have posted on, and have a link to.  }}



In the book, Adams identifies five types of lethal batterers: the jealous partner, the suicidal partner, the career criminal, the substance abuser and the materially motivated partner. 


Adams interviewed 31 men who killed their female partners as well as women who were nearly killed by their batterers. {{From the Horse’s mouths.  If reported well, I’d listen!}}


He said the men who resorted to fatal force were “possessive,” “more controlling” and tended to come from households where they witnessed abusive fathers beat their mothers. At some point in their lives, the men decided to mold their behavior after their father’s behavior, he said. 



“For many of the killers that I interviewed, some of them said that they had in effect lost – that they had lost a relationship, lost the partner that they only fought to control and the only thing left was to kill,” Adams said.  “It was the ultimate act of control, but also an ultimate act of defeat.




June, 2009, Public Health Perspective;


The effect of TV News items on IPV deaths


Conclusion: Given the results observed in the case of IPV-related news, t

here is an evident need to develop a journalistic style guide in order to determine what type of information is recommended due to the potential positive or negative effects.

Keywords: battered women, copycat, femicide, mass media.


 I’ll be back tomorrow.  BUT — do we think there is a need to study the topic some more?  Or to take a woman seriously when

she expresses this concern? 

I am so far beyond “reporting” or being aware of these things, PAST the point where I realize who is not interested, and now

working on the WHY are they not interested in the places that have the MOST authority to do something about it.


In the meanwhile, self-defense and safety awareness skills count.  A lot.








%d bloggers like this: