O.J. Simpson’s Suicide Letter
[Letter discovered on June 17, 1994, shortly before Simpson's televised Bronco ride and arrest.]
To whom it may concern: First, everyone understand I have nothing to do with Nicole’s murder. I loved her, always have and always will. If we had a problem, it’s because I loved her so much.
Recently, we came to the understanding that for now we were not right for each other, at least for now. Despite our love we were different, and that’s why we mutually agreed to go our separate ways. It was tough splitting for a second time, but we both knew it was for the best.
Inside I had no doubt that in the future, we would be close as friends or more. Unlike what has been written in the press, Nicole and I had a great relationship for most of our lives together, Like all long-term relationships, we had a few downs and ups. I took the heat New Year’s 1989 because that’s what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy and was advised it would end the press hype.
I don’t want to belabor knocking the press, but I can’t believe what is being said. Most of it is totally made up. I know you have a job to do, but as a last wish, please, please, please, leave my children in peace. Their lives will be tough enough.
I want to send my love and thanks to all my friends. I’m sorry I can’t name every one of you, especially A.C. man, thanks for being in my life. The support and friendship I received from so many: Wayne Hughes, Lewis Markes, Frank Olson, Mark Packer, Bender, Bobby Kardashian.
I wish we had spent more time together in recent years. My golfing buddies, Hoss, Alan Austin, Mike, Craig, Bender, Wyler, Sandy, Jay, Donnie, thanks for the fun. All my teammates over the years, Reggie, you were the soul of my pro career. Ahmad, I never stopped being proud of you. Marcus, You’ve got a great lady in Catherine, don’t mess it up. Bobby Chandler, thanks for always being there. Skip and Kathy, I love you guys, without you I never would have made it through this far. Marguerite, thanks for the early years. We had some fun. Paula, what can I say? You are special. I’m sorry we’re not going to have our chance. God brought you to me I now see. As I leave, you’ll be in my thoughts.
I think of my life and feel I’ve done most of the right things. What the outcome, people will look and point. I can’t take that. I can’t subject my children to that. This way they can move on and go on with their lives. Please, if I’ve done anything worthwhile in my life. Let my kids live in peace from you (press).
I’ve had a good life. I’m proud of how I lived. My mama taught me to do unto other. I treated people the way I wanted to be treated. I’ve always tried to be up and helpful so why is this happening? I’m sorry for the Goldman family. I know how much it hurts.
Nicole and I had a good life together. All this press talk about a rocky relationship was no more than what every long-term relationship experiences. All her friends will confirm that I have been totally loving and understanding of what she’s been going through. At times I have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend but I loved her, make that clear to everyone. And I would take whatever it took to make it work.
Don’t feel sorry for me. I’ve had a great life, great friends. Please think of the real O.J. and not this lost person.
Thanks for making my life special. I hope I helped yours.
Peace and love, O.J. [smiley face inside the O]
Excerpts from two 911 calls from Nicole Brown Simpson (Oct. 25, 1993):
NICOLE: Can you send someone to my house?
DISPATCHER: What’s the problem there?
NICOLE: My ex-husband has just broken into my house and he’s ranting and raving outside the front yard.
DISPATCHER: Has he been drinking or anything?
NICOLE: No. But he’s crazy.
DISPATCHER: And you said he hasn’t been drinking?
DISPATCHER: Did he hit you?
DISPATCHER: Do you have a restraining order against him?
DISPATCHER: What’s your name?
NICOLE: Nicole Simpson.
DISPATCHER: And your address?
NICOLE: 325 Gretna Green Way.
DISPATCHER: Okay, we’ll send the police out.
NICOLE: Nicole: Thank you.
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Uh-huh.
(The dispatcher issues a call for any patrol car to respond to the address at Gretna Green. Minutes later, Nicole Simpson called back.)
NICOLE: Could you get somebody over here now, to … Gretna Green. He’s back. Please?
DISPATCHER: What does he look like?
NICOLE: He’s O.J. Simpson. I think you know his record. Could you just send somebody over here?
DISPATCHER: What is he doing there?
NICOLE: He just drove up again. (She begins to cry) Could you just send somebody over?
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Wait a minute. What kind of car is he in?
NICOLE: He’s in a white Bronco, but first of all he broke the back door down to get in.
DISPATCHER: Wait a minute. What’s your name?
NICOLE: Nicole Simpson.
DISPATCHER: OK, is he the sportscaster or whatever?
NICOLE: Yeah. Thank you.
DISPATCHER: Wait a minute, we’re sending police. What is he doing? Is he threatening you?
NICOLE: He’s (expletive) going nuts. (sobs)
DISPATCHER: Has he threatened you in any way or is he just harassing you?
NICOLE: (Sighs) You’re going to hear him in a minute. He’s about to come in again.
DISPATCHER: OK, just stay on the line…
NICOLE: I don’t want to stay on the line. He’s going to beat the (expletive) out of me.
DISPATCHER: Wait a minute, just stay on the line so we can know what’s going on until the police get there, OK? OK, Nicole?
DISPATCHER: Just a moment. Does he have any weapons?
NICOLE: I don’t know. He went home and he came back. The kids are up there sleeping and I don’t want anything to happen.
DISPATCHER: OK, just a moment. Is he on drugs or anything?
DISPATCHER: Just stay on the line. Just in case he comes in I need to hear what’s going on, all right?
NICOLE: Can you hear him outside?
DISPATCHER: Is he yelling?
DISPATCHER: OK. Has he been drinking?
DISPATCHER: OK. (Speaking over radio to police units) … All units: additional on domestic violence, 325 South Gretna Green Way, the suspect has returned in a white Bronco. Monitor comments. Incident 48221.
DISPATCHER: OK, Nicole?
DISPATCHER: Is he outdoors?
NICOLE: He’s in the back yard.
DISPATCHER: He’s in the back yard?
NICOLE: Screaming at my roommate about me and at me.
DISPATCHER: OK. What is he saying?
NICOLE: Oh, something about some guy I know and hookers and Keith and I started this (expletive) before and …
NICOLE: And it’s all my fault and ‘Now what am I going to do, get the police in this’ and the whole thing. It’s all my fault, I started this before. (sigh) Brother. (inaudible)
DISPATCHER: OK, has he hit you today or…?
DISPATCHER: OK, you don’t need any paramedics or anything.
DISPATCHER: OK, you just want him to leave?
NICOLE: My door. He broke the whole back door in.
DISPATCHER : And then he left and he came back?
NICOLE: Then he came and he practically knocked my upstairs door down but he pounded it and he screamed and hollered and I tried to get him out of the bedroom because the kids are sleeping in there.
DISPATCHER: Um-hum. OK.
NICOLE: And then he wanted somebody’s phone number and I gave him my phone book or I put my phone book down to write down the phone number that he wanted and then he took my phone book with all my stuff in it.
DISPATCHER: OK. So basically you guys have just been arguing? (Simpson is yelling)
DISPATCHER: Is he inside right now.
DISPATCHER: OK, just a moment.
SIMPSON.: Do you understand me? (inaudible) Keith is a nothing. A skunk, and he still calls me. (inaudible)
DISPATCHER: Is he talking to you?
DISPATCHER: Are you locked in a room or something?
NICOLE: No. He can come right in. I’m not going where the kids are because the kids …
DISPATCHER: Do you think he’s going to hit you?
NICOLE: I don’t know.
DISPATCHER: Stay on the line. Don’t hang it up, OK?
DISPATCHER: What is he saying?
DISPATCHER: What is he saying?
NICOLE: What else?
SIMPSON : (inaudible)
(Sound of police radio traffic)
NICOLE: O.J. O.J. The kids are sleeping.
SIMPSON: (More yelling)
DISPATCHER: He’s still yelling at you?
(Nicole sobbing into telephone)
DISPATCHER: Just stay on the line, OK
DISPATCHER: Is he upset with something that you did?
NICOLE: (Sobs) A long time ago. It always comes back. (More yelling)
DISPATCHER: Is your roommate talking to him?
NICOLE: No, who can talk? Listen to him.
DISPATCHER: I know. Does he have any weapons with him right now?
NICOLE: No, uh-uh
DISPATCHER: OK. Where is he standing?
NICOLE: In the back doorway, in the house.
SIMPSON: … I don’t give a (expletive) anymore…. That wife of his, she took so much for this (expletive) (inaudible)
NICOLE: Would you just please, O.J., O.J., O.J., O.J., could you please (inaudible) Please leave.
SIMPSON: I’m leaving with my two (expletive) fists is when I’m leaving. You ain’t got to worry about me any more.
NICOLE:: Please leave. O.J. Please, the kids, the kids (inaudible) please.
DISPATCHER: Is he leaving?
DISPATCHER: Does he know you’re on the phone with police?
DISPATCHER: OK. Where are the kids at right now?
NICOLE: Up in my room.
DISPATCHER: Can they hear him yelling?
NICOLE: I don’t know. The room’s the only one that’s quiet.
DISPATCHER: Is there someone up there with the kids?
(Yelling continues in the background.)
DISPATCHER: What is he saying now? Nicole? You still on the line?
DISPATCHER: You think he’s still going to hit you?
NICOLE: I don’t know. He’s going to leave. He just said that. He just said he ain’t leaving.
SIMPSON: You’re not leaving when I’m gone. Hey! I have to read this (expletive) all week in the National Enquirer. Her words exactly. What, who got that, who? (inaudible)
DISPATCHER: Are you the only one in there with him?
NICOLE: Right now, yeah.
DISPATCHER: And he’s talking to you?
NICOLE: Yeah, and he’s also talking to my, the guy who lives out back is just standing there. He just came home.
DISPATCHER: Is he arguing with him, too?
NICOLE: No. Absolutely not.
DISPATCHER: Oh, OK.
NICOLE: Nobody’s arguing.
DISPATCHER: Yeah. Has this happened before or no?
NICOLE: Many times.
DISPATCHER: OK. The police should be on the way it just seems like a long time because it’s kind of busy in that division right now.
Dispatcher to police: Regarding Gretna Green Way, the suspect is still there and yelling very loudly.
DISPATCHER: Is he still arguing? (Knock at the door.)
DISPATCHER: Was someone knocking on your door?
NICOLE: It was him.
DISPATCHER: He was knocking on your door?
NICOLE: There’s a locked bedroom and he’s wondering why.
DISPATCHER: Oh. He’s knocking on the locked door?
NICOLE: Yeah. You know what, O.J.? That window above you is also open. Could you just go, please? Can I get off the phone?
DISPATCHER: You want, you feel safe hanging up?
NICOLE: Well, you’re right
DISPATCHER: You want to wait til the police get there?
DISPATCHER: Is he still arguing with you?
DISPATCHER: He’s moved a little?
NICOLE: But I’m just ignoring him.
DISPATCHER: Okay. But he doesn’t know you’re…
NICOLE: It works best.
DISPATCHER: Okay. Are the kids are still asleep?
NICOLE: Yes. They’re like rocks.
DISPATCHER: What part of the house is he in right now?
DISPATCHER: And you’re upstairs?
NICOLE: No, I’m downstairs in the kitchen.
SIMPSON: (continues yelling)
DISPATCHER: Do you see the police, Nicole?
NICOLE: No, but I will go out there right now.
DISPATCHER: OK, you want to go out there?
NICOLE: I’m going to hang up.
Nicole Brown Simpson Letter to O.J. Simpson
Text of undated letter from Nicole Brown Simpson to O.J. Simpson introduced in Simpson’s civil trial.
O.J. — I think I have to put this all in a letter. Alot of years ago I used to do much better in a letter, I’m gonna try it again now.
I’d like you to keep this letter if we split, so that you’ll always know why we split. I’d also like you to keep it if we stay together, as a reminder.
Right now I am so angry! If I didn’t know that the courts would take Sydney and Justin away from me if I did this I would (expletive) every guy including some that you know just to let you know how it feels.
I wish someone could explain all this to me. I see our marriage as a huge mistake and you don’t.
I knew what went on in our relationship before we got married. I knew after 6 years that all the things I thought were going on — were! All the things I gave in to — all the “I’m sorry for thinking that” “I’m sorry for not believing you” — “I’m sorry for not trusting you.”
I made up with you all the time & even took the blame many times for your cheating. I know this took place because we fought about it alot & even discussed it before we got married with my family and a minister.
OK before the marriage I lived with it & dealt with (illegible) mainly because you finally said that we weren’t married at the time.
I assumed that your recurring nasty attitude & mean streak was to cover up your cheating and a general disrespect for women and a lack of manners!
I remember a long time ago a girlfriend of yours wrote you a letter — she said well you aren’t married yet so let’s get together. Even she had the same idea of marriage as me. She believed that when you marry you wouldn’t be going out anymore — adultery is a very important thing to many people.
It’s one of the 1st 10 things I learned at Sunday school. You said it (illegible) some things you learn at school stick! And the 10 Commandments did!
I wanted to be a wonderful wife!
I believed you that it would finally be “you and me against the world” — that people would be envious or in awe of us because we stuck through it & finally became one a real couple.
I let my guard down — I thought it was finally gonna be you and me — you wanted a baby (so you said) and I wanted a baby — then with each pound you were terrible. You gave me dirty looks of disgust — said mean things to me at times about my appearance walked out on me and lied to me.
I remember one day my mom said “he actually thinks you can have a baby and not get fat.”
I gained 10 to 15 lbs more that I should have with Sydney. Well that’s by the book — Most women gain twice that. It’s not like it was that much — but you made me feel so ugly! I’ve battled 10 lbs up and down the scale since I was 15 — It was no more extra weight than was normal for me to be up — I believe my mom — you thought a baby weighs 7 lbs and the woman should gain 7 lbs. I’d like to finally tell you that that’s not the way it is — And had you read those books I got you on pregnancy you may have known that.
Talk about feeling alone ….
In between Sydney and Justin you say my clothes bothered you — that my shoes were on the floor that I bugged you — Wow that’s so terrible! Try I had a low self esteem because since we got married I felt like the paragraph above.
There was also that time before Justin and after few months Sydney, I felt really good about how I got back into shape and we made out. You beat the holy hell out of me & we lied at the X-ray lab and said I fell off a bike … Remember!??
Great for my self esteem.
There are a number of other instances that I could talk about that made my marriage so wonderful … like the televised Clipper game and going to (illegible) before the game & your 40th birthday party and the week leading up to it. But I don’t like talking about the past It depressed me.
Then came the pregnancy with Justin and oh how wonderful you treated me again — I remember swearing to God and myself that under no circumstances would I let you be in that delivery room.
I hated you so much.
And since Justin birth & the mad New Years Eve beat up.
I just don’t see how our stories compare — I was so bad because I wore sweats and left shoes around and didn’t keep a perfect house or comb my hair the way you liked it — or had dinner ready at the precise moment you walked through the door or that I just plain got on your nerves sometimes.
I just don’t see how that compares to infidelity, wife beating verbal abuse –
I just don’t think everybody goes through this –
And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me to be anything like the person you are — I would have done so after the (illegible) incident. But I didn’t even do it then. I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not. But I didn’t pursue anything after that — I didn’t prosecute, I didn’t call the press and I didn’t make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it to. But I’ve never loved you since or been the same.
It made me take a look at my life with you — my wonderful life with the superstar that wonderful man, O.J. Simpson the father of my kids — that husband of that terribly insecure (illegible) — the girl with no self esteem (illegible) of worth — she must be (illegible) those things to with a guy like that.
It certainly doesn’t take a strong person to be with a guy like that and certainly no one would be envious of that life.
I agree after we married things changed — we couldn’t have house full of people like I used to have over and barbeque for, because I had other responsibilities. I didn’t want to go to alot of events and I’d back down at the last minute on functions & trips I admit I’m sorry –
I just believe that a relationship is based on trust — and the last time I trusted you was at our wedding ceremony. It’s just so hard for me to trust you again. Even though you say you’re a different guy. That O.J. Simpson guy brought me alot of pain heartache — I tried so hard with him — I wanted so to be a good wife. But he never gave me a chance.
Note: O.J. Simpson testified he never received this letter.
- § 2251. Sexual exploitation of children
- § 2251A. Selling or buying of children
- § 2252. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors
- § 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography
- § 2252B. Misleading domain names on the Internet
- § 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet
- § 2253. Criminal forfeiture
- § 2254. Civil forfeiture
- § 2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries
- § 2256. Definitions for chapter
- § 2257. Record keeping requirements
- § 2257A. Record keeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct
- § 2258. Failure to report child abuse
- § 2258A. Reporting requirements of electronic communication service providers and remote computing service providers
- § 2258B. Limited liability for electronic communication service providers, remote computing service providers, or domain name registrar?1
- § 2258C. Use to combat child pornography of technical elements relating to images reported to the CyberTipline
- § 2258D. Limited liability for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
- § 2258E. Definitions
- § 2259. Mandatory restitution
- § 2260. Production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States
- § 2260A. Penalties for registered sex offenders
The Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau is investigating how a police security video that captured a young man’s suicide ended up on a Web site devoted to violence and pornography, a department spokesman said yesterday.
The young man, Paris Lane, 22, of Harlem, used a 9-millimeter handgun to kill himself on March 16 in a lobby at the Morris Houses project in the Bronx, where he had been visiting his girlfriend.
His foster mother said yesterday that she had notified the police when she learned the video had been posted on the site.
The 45-second video, which is no longer displayed there, shows Mr. Lane and his girlfriend standing near an open elevator door. She pulls her hands across her face as if wiping away tears and kisses him briefly, then they hug for a long moment, until she gently pulls away and steps into the elevator.
Mr. Lane waits for the elevator door to close, stares at it for a second, then pulls out the gun, puts it in his mouth and fires once, falling to the ground.
The site, Consumption Junction, describes itself this way: ”Sociopathic surfers have declared this free site the best place to get their fix of sick free adult humor, tasteless (but way funny) dirty jokes, and free video clips that include shocking moments, brutal stupidity, and a healthy dose of hardcore sex.”
It says it does not pay for the materials, which are sent in by its users, but it gives an award for one submission each month. The more printable video titles were, ”The Beer Helps You Lower Your Standards a Little” and ”His Air Bags Didn’t Inflate.”
The video of Mr. Lane’s death was labeled ”Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects.”
Mr. Lane’s foster mother, Martha Williams, 56, called the Web site racist. She said she began receiving calls on Sunday from people telling her that the video, which does not identify him, was on the Internet. She said she had looked to confirm it was true, but could not watch it.
She went to C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president, for help. A spokeswoman for Ms. Fields said Ms. Williams had previously asked the police if she could view the video, but had been denied.
Ms. Williams said the video’s appearance on the site ”desecrated” the memory of her son.
”I just started back to work. I started healing, and this kicked me backwards. My whole body was shaking,” she said.
The camera that captured the suicide was part of an extensive police surveillance system that had been installed in 15 of the city’s housing projects, said Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman. It records digital images, which means they could have been easily sent by e-mail, he said. He said the department still had the original compact disk containing the video.
The police were investigating whether someone could have hacked into the system. ”But we’ve never had it happen,” Mr. Browne said.
The department has obtained a subpoena to learn who owns the Web site and will try to learn how the video was obtained. Mr. Browne said he did not know why the video had been removed from the site. It disappeared on Tuesday, a day after Ms. Williams notified Ms. Fields and the police.
In a chat area on the site, members debated whether the video was genuine or staged. ”It’s 100 percent real,” wrote one member, smitty4699. ”I submitted it, I know the cop who was at the scene.”
Mr. Lane had apparently killed himself because he was despondent over his relationship with his girlfriend, Mr. Browne said. He had prior arrests, including one on domestic violence charges, Mr. Browne said.
Ms. Williams had cared for him since he was 11, when his father died of AIDS and his mother entered a drug rehabilitation program. His mother died about six years later, also of AIDS.
In an article about World AIDS Day in 1999, Mr. Lane, then 17, told The Times-Union of Albany that when his mother died, ”That’s when I lost all faith in everything.”
He continued, ”I couldn’t understand why God would take away someone who was trying to make right from wrong.”
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE VIDEO
Lane was an aspiring rapper who used the name Paradice. He hugged a friend goodbye, she gets on an elevator, and he shoots himself. It just happened that it was being captured on video.
There were three closed-circuit cameras in the lobby of 1358 Washington Ave. in the Gouverneur Morris Houses that captured Lane’s final moments. The shocking footage, recorded March 16, shows Paris Lane, 22, embracing a teenage girl as she gets into an elevator, then shoving a gun in his mouth and firing.
The girl, Krystin Simmons, 16, was stunned when her phone began ringing with friends telling her that footage of the tragic last goodbye was being played on the Web. “I gave him a hug and got into the elevator. When the elevator got to the second floor, I heard the shot,” Krystin said.
People v. Sanchez
114 Cal.Rptr.2d 437
Court of Appeal, 3rd District, California, 2001
FACTS: In August of 1997 Sanchez’s neighbors went to his property because a calf had been bawling loudly for 2 or 3 days and could be heard by neighbors a mile away. The neighbors found animals living in hideous conditions. The calf was tied to a post, unable to get any food or water. Eight rabbits were caged without food or water, 4 were dead and 4 were dying. The bodies of several dead ducks, chickens and geese were scattered about. A corpse was being eaten by a dog. In June of 1998, an animal control officer went to Sanchez’s property and found several severely malnourished geese. He opined that they may have been without food or water for up to a month. Other neighbors testified that at unspecified times, they saw a chicken tied around a dog’s neck, they saw Sanchez firmly kick dogs with steel-toed boots for no apparent reason, they found a burn pit at the back of the property containing dead and dying calves and chickens, and saw dead cows, starving dogs, and dead rabbits. In 1999, a police officer went to the property where he found a dead peacock in a pit and a pig’s head attached to a tree. In June of 1999, the same officer found a puppy with one dead eye and a deeply infected hole between its eyes, which was full of live maggots that were moving and eating inside the wound. The puppy was impounded and euthanized. Sanchez was arrested and charged and convicted of multiple counts of animal cruelty. He appealed 7 of the counts. At issue was the requirement of a unanimity instruction. A unanimity instruction is used when the State charges one crime but relies on multiple acts to support that one crime. When multiple acts are alleged the jury must be unanimous as to which act or incident constitutes the crime.
ISSUES: Whether animal abuse may be committed as a continuous course of conduct, and when so committed requires no unanimity instruction; whether a unanimity instruction was required with respect to the count alleging cruelty to dogs in view of evidence of 2 separate incidents each of which established the offense; whether unanimity instructions were required as to counts alleging that defendants had abused rabbits, ducks, chickens, and geese, as each was based on a continuous course of conduct; whether a unanimity instruction was required with regard to the count alleging defendant’s failure to provide any medical treatment for the severely wounded puppy.
1) A unanimity instruction must be given where the evidence shows that more than one criminal act was committed which could constitute the charged offense, and the prosecution does not rely on any single act.
2) A unanimity instruction is not required where the criminal acts are so closely connected as to form a single transaction or where the offense itself consists of a continuous course of conduct.
3) An offense is of a continuing nature when it may be committed by a series of acts, which if individually considered, might not amount to a crime, but the cumulative effect is criminal.
4) When the language of the statute focuses on the goal or effect of the offense, the offense is a continuing offense.
5) Animal abuse may be committed as a continuous course of conduct, and when so committed requires no unanimity instruction.
6) Unanimity instruction was required with respect to count alleging cruelty to dogs in view of evidence of 2 separate incidents each of which established the offense, so this count was reversed.
7) Unanimity instructions were not required as to counts alleging that that defendant had abused rabbits, ducks, chickens, and geese by failing to provide adequate food and water on ongoing basis, as each count was based on a continuous course of conduct.
Deason v. State
881 So.2d 58
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, 2004
FACTS: On December 9, 2002, appellant Deason was visiting a home where pigs were kept in the backyard. Deason and three other individuals were allegedly in the front yard when they heard a pig squealing in the backyard. Everyone went to the backyard, where they found a pig that had been stabbed in a cage. When deputies arrived at the scene, they observed “Big Bob” lying on his stomach attempting to pull the injured pig out of the cage. He had a knife in his hand, but it was not the knife that had been used to stab the pig. Deason was still present, wearing clothes that were covered in pig feces, mud, and what appeared to be blood stains. Animal control was called to euthanize the pig, and Deason was arrested. No one testified that they saw Deason stab the pig, and the only physical evidence linking him to the crime was the reference to blood on his clothes. Deason attempted to introduce evidence that “Big Bob” was a confidential informant for the sheriff’s office in order to establish bias on the part of the deputies. The State objected and the trial court ultimately sustained the objection. Jury found Deason guilty of cruelty to animals and attempted inhumane slaughter of an animal. Deason appeals.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred by prohibiting Deason from establishing bias on behalf of the deputies by introducing relevant evidence that “Big Bob” was a confidential informant in unrelated cases.
HOLDING: Yes, the evidence that “Big Bob” was a confidential informant was relevant. The evidence should have been presented so that the question of whether it establishes bias could be resolved by a jury.
Cotton v. State
589 S.E.2d 610
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003
FACTS: Appellants Thomas and Gloria Cotton appeal from their joint conviction for allowing livestock to roam at large, and Thomas Cotton also appeals his conviction for cruelty to animals. In April 2001, a deputy from the sheriff’s office went to investigate a report that cattle were without drinking water. The deputy observed cattle and calves in a small pen, the ribs on some of the cattle were showing, and they were without food and water. When the deputy released the cattle from the pen, they ran frantically to a nearby mud puddle to drink water. The livestock inspector who accompanied the deputy to the site described the cattle as in very poor physical condition and suffering. According to a neighbor who lived by the property on which the Cottons kept their cattle, frequently ten or fourteen days would pass before the Cottons came to check on the cattle. The trial court found both Thomas and Gloria Cotton guilty of the livestock running at large charge. The trial court also found Thomas Cotton guilty of cruelty to animals. The Cottons appeal these convictions.
ISSUES: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Thomas Cotton’s conviction for cruelty to animals and whether the trial court erred in finding Thomas and Gloria Cotton guilty of the civil statute relating to livestock running at large.
HOLDINGS: Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support Thomas Cotton’s conviction for cruelty to animals. Yes, the trial court did err in finding Thomas and Gloria Cotton guilty of the civil statute relating to livestock running at large; this is a civil statute, which does not impose criminal liability.
Sirmans v. State
534 S.E.2d 862
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000
FACTS: Appellant Sirmans and his family live on a farm where they raise cows, chickens, ducks, goats and hogs. In April 1998 the humane society director contacted the sheriff’s office regarding complaints that both departments had received about Sirmans’ alleged neglect of his animals. The humane society director drove past Sirmans’ property where she observed farm animals that appeared to be deprived of food and water in plain view of the roadway. After reporting her findings to the sheriff’s office, several humane society employees, two sheriff’s deputies, a veterinarian and the humane society director went to Sirmans’ farm to investigate further. Sirmans refused to allow them to look around his property; however, the large animals were in plain view and had no food and water. They loaded the animals that were in the worst shape onto trucks and transported them for veterinary care and shelter. The trial court convicted Sirmans of four counts of animal cruelty and one count of simple assault. He appeals.
ISSUES: 1) Whether the trial court erred in denying Sirmans’ motion to suppress evidence; 2) whether the humane society employees were subject to constitutional restrictions on search and seizure of private property; 3) whether the warrantless search of Sirmans’ property and the seizure of his animals was authorized under the plain view exception; 4) whether the trial court erred in overruling Sirmans’ motion to sever the assault charge from the animal cruelty charges; 5) whether the trial court had the authority to deprive Sirmans of those animals which the state failed to prove were abused.
HOLDINGS: 1) No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence. Sirmans affirmatively stated at trial that he had no objection to the admission of the evidence, and so his right to contest the admission of the evidence on appeal was waived. 2) Yes, the humane society employees were acting as agents of the county and in concert with the sheriff’s department in seizing Sirmans’ animals, and thus were subject to constitutional restrictions on search and seizure on private property. 3) Yes, the warrantless search and seizure was authorized under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 4) No, Sirmans was not entitled to severance of the assault charge from the animal cruelty charges. Though the assault is not directly related, it is unlikely to have occurred if Sirmans had not neglected his animals. 5) No, the trial court was without statutory authority deprive defendant of those animals which the state failed to demonstrate were neglected or abused.
State v. Larson
941 S.W.2d 847
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, 1997
FACTS: Dr. Larson is a veterinarian and a farmer who owned and operated a hog farm. On August 2, 1995, the sheriff’s department received reports of stray hogs. After unsuccessfully trying to contact Larson, the deputy sheriff went to Larson’s farm and returned the stray hogs. The deputy sheriff observed that the hogs were emaciated. Two days later the sheriff’s department received more calls regarding stray hogs. Based on the deputy sheriff’s observations from August 2, a warrant to search Larson’s property was obtained. During the search, the deputy sheriff and two veterinarians observed bad flooring in parts of the farm building, abundant refuse from the disposal system, a “sickening odor,” the remains of approximately 250 dead hogs, and live hogs displaying various stages of malnutrition. Larson was charged with fifty counts of Class A misdemeanor animal abuse and fifty counts for failure to properly dispose of dead animals. He filed a motion for bill of particulars. The trial court denied the motion, and Larson was convicted on all counts. He appeals.
ISSUES: 1) Whether the trial court erred in denying Larson’s motion for bill of particulars; and 2) whether the deputy sheriff’s entry onto Larson’s property in order to notify him of the stray hogs, and the subsequent search warrant that was issued were unlawful.
HOLDING: 1) Yes, the trial court did err in denying Larson’s motion for bill of particulars. Counts 1 through 50 were not sufficiently detailed to inform Larson of the pig to which they were referring. Therefore, conviction on counts 1 through 50 was reversed and remanded for a new trial with the prosecution to provide a bill of particulars on each animal. 2) No, the deputy sheriff’s entry onto Larson’s property and the subsequent search warrant were not unlawful. The “plain view” doctrine is applicable because dead and malnourished hogs were visible to the deputy sheriff before he entered the property. Conviction on counts 51 through 100 for improper disposal of dead animals was affirmed.
State v. Sheets
677 N.E.2d 818
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Highland County, 1996
FACTS: Appellant William Sheets was charged with cruelty to animals for failing to provide sufficient quantities of food to ten horses. Sheets had one hundred and twenty-two horses on his property, and after a search of his farm, the Highland County Humane Society seized all one hundred and twenty-two. The trial court found that when the Humane Society seized nine of the horses for which Sheets was charged with cruelty to animals, they were located on the Adams County portion of Sheets’ farm. Sheets pled no contest to the nine charges of cruelty to these horses. Sheets contested the tenth cruelty to animals charge, the charge of cruelty to a horse named Jamala Christie. Trial court found Sheets guilty of cruelty to Jamala Christie. Defendant appeals all of the charges.
ISSUES: 1) Whether the trial court erred in overruling Sheets’ motion to suppress evidence resulting from the search of his farm; 2) whether the search warrant issued by the Highland County court was valid for the Adams County portion of his farm; 3) whether trial court erred in requiring Sheets to surrender all one hundred and twenty-two of his horses even though he was only convicted of cruelty to ten of these horses; 4) whether the trial court erred in overruling Sheets’ motion for acquittal involving the cruelty to Jamala Christie.
HOLDINGS: 1) No, the trial court did not err in overruling Sheets’ motion to suppress evidence resulting from the search of his farm. The affidavit established probable cause for a warrant to search Sheets’ farm. 2) Yes, the search warrant issued by Highland County was valid for the Adams County portion of the farm. Sheets did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the pasture area of the Adams County portion of the farm, and therefore no search warrant was necessary to search that area. 3) No, the trial court did not err in requiring Sheets to surrender all one hundred and twenty-two horses. The conditions of probation were not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion because the probationary conditions had a relationship to the crime of which Sheets was convicted. 4) No, the trial court did not err in overruling Sheets’ motion for acquittal regarding Jamala Christie because there was reasonable evidence to support this conviction.
State v. Lapping
599 N.E.2d 416
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull County, 1991
FACTS: Appellant Lapping, an osteopathic physician, purchased farmland with the intent of raising cattle. Knowing little about the cattle business, Lapping purchase twenty-eight head of beef cattle over a period of six months. In March 1990, the sheriff’s department received information that there was a dead cow floating in a pond on Lapping’s property. After obtaining a search warrant, humane officers entered Lapping’s property to check on the cattle. They found the dead cow in the pond, another dead cow next to the barn, and most of the rest of the cows in a pasture with no hay and sparse grass. The humane officers believed that all of the animals looked thin. They confiscated all of the animals, providing them with food, water and medical treatment. Lapping was charged with thirty counts of cruelty to animals. The trial court denied his request for a bill of particulars, and the case proceeded to jury trial. One of the counts was dismissed, and appellant was convicted of twenty-eight of the remaining counts of animal cruelty. Trial court denied Lapping’s motion to treat the twenty-eight counts as allied offenses. Lapping appeals.
ISSUES: 1) Whether a failure by the prosecuting attorney to provide a bill of particulars as to the specific animals that were alleged to be mistreated. 2) Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that animal cruelty is a strict liability crime, which does not require a showing of intentional or reckless activity.
HOLDING: No. In this instance the state did not possess the specific information requested by the appellant as the cruelty charged took place over a period of time and the appellant better knew when that cruelty occurred. Yes, the trial court did err in instructing the jury that cruelty to animals was a strict liability offense. The court held that the animal cruelty statute was not a strict liability statute based on the principles of stare decisis. The decision was remanded due to the improper jury instruction.
State v. Hafle
367 N.E.2d 1226
Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Clinton County, 1977
FACTS: Appellant Hafle and his wife moved from their residence in Missouri to a twenty acre farm in Ohio, bringing with them forty head of beef cattle, a horse, and two sheep. Nine months later, the director of the humane society received a complaint from the neighborhood about Hafle’s neglect of his cattle. The director and a member of the humane society went to Hafle’s farm, talked to him, and inspected the cattle and the premises. The director and member returned to the farm again the next day and again two days after that to inspect the animals and get the matter worked out. At this time Hafle said that he would sell some of the cattle to a neighbor and take the rest to the stockyards by February 27, the following day. On February 28 the cattle were still on Hafle’s farm. The humane society then had all of the livestock removed from Hafle’s property in accordance with an order prepared in the local solicitor’s office. Hafle was convicted of cruelty to animals and he appeals.
ISSUES: 1) Whether the cruelty to animals statute under which Hafle was convicted was unconstitutionally vague; 2) whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence hearsay testimony of statements made by Hafle during a custodial interrogation; 3) whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
HOLDINGS: 1) No, the cruelty to animals statute was not unconstitutionally vague. 2) No, the trial court did not err in allowing the hearsay testimony as evidence because of the inapplicability of Miranda to misdemeanors and because no interrogation took place. 3) Yes, there was not only adequate but overwhelming evidence to sustain the conviction.
Com. v. Barnes
629 A.2d 123
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1993
FACTS: In May 1991, David Philipe, an environmental inspector with the Erie County Health Department, went to appellants David and Alice Barnes’ horse farm. Philipe went to investigate a complaint concerning odors coming from the farm. When he arrived at the farm, no one was home. Philipe did notice a strong odor of dead or rotting animals though, and after walking around the farm, he saw the carcasses of dead animals, including two horses. Looking into the barns, he saw several horses that appeared to be uncared for and undernourished. Philipe notified David Barnes of his violation of health Department regulations, and also informed Merle Wolfgang, chief cruelty officer of the Erie Humane Society, of his findings. Wolfgang then went to the Barnes’ farm the next day and found conditions to be as Philipe described. When Wolfgang returned a few days later, intending to obtain the Barnes’ permission to search their farm, they informed her that they had given the horses away. As she was leaving the farm though, Wolfgang saw several sick and malnourished looking horses in a nearby field. She learned that the Barnes were renting the field. Wolfgang then obtained a search warrant, and removed seven horses from the field. A farrier and veterinarian examined the horses and concluded that they were suffering from numerous, severe, chronic health problems. David and Alice Barnes were found guilty of ten counts of cruelty to animals. They appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, where they were convicted of seven counts of cruelty to animals. Their post-verdict motions were denied and they appealed.
ISSUES: 1) Whether the statutory grant of police powers to the Humane Society was an improper delegation of governmental authority; 2) whether the statutory provision under which the Barnes were convicted is unconstitutionally vague and violative of due process; 3) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Barnes’ convictions.
HOLDINGS: 1) No, the statutory grant of police powers to the Humane Society was not an improper delegation of governmental authority. The actions of the Humane Society agents were regulated and constrained; the agents could be considered police officers because they had been given the power to arrest when acting within the scope of their employment; their searches were reasonable; the agents were paid employees and so they are not shielded from liability by the “good Samaritan” statute. 2) No, the statutory provision under which the Barnes were convicted is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate due process. There is a statutory exception for activity which is “undertaken in normal agricultural operations,” however the Barnes’ utter neglect of the horses does not fall within the exception. 3) Since the Barnes’ neglect of their horses does not fall within the “normal agricultural operations” exception, their challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit.
State v. Gadreault
758 A.2d 781
Supreme Court of Vermont, 2000
FACTS: On December 3, 1997, a search of defendant Gadreault’s property revealed three frozen dead pigs in an unsheltered pen in six inches of liquid manure. There was also a calf tethered to a fence post that appeared weak and to have difficulty standing. Gadreault was charged with four counts of animal cruelty in violation of Vermont’s animal cruelty statute. Jury found Gadreault guilty of three counts of cruelty to animals. Gadreault appeals.
ISSUES: 1) Whether the court erroneously excluded the intent element from the crimes with which Gadreault was charged; 2) whether the court denied Gadreault the right to a speedy trial; 3) whether the search warrant was unlawful because the information upon which it was based was illegally obtained; 4) whether Gadreault’s sentence was excessive; 5) whether Gadreault’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was not allowed to assist his attorney, the State failed to call a particular witness who was present at the search of the house, and the judge should have been recused because he was acquainted with Gadreault.
HOLDINGS: 1) No, the court did not err in excluding the intent element. The statute’s subsections do not include an intent element; therefore the Legislature intended that offenders be held strictly liable. 2) No, Gadreault has not identified any prejudice to his defense, thus there is no violation of his right to a speedy trial. 3) No, the search warrant was not unlawful because Gadreault did not identify anything in the record to show that the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record. 4) No, Gadreault’s sentence was not excessive because there is nothing in the record to show that he preserved this issue for appeal. 5) There is insufficient information with which to address these issues.
Wisconsin District Attorney “Sexted” Abuse Victim
A prominent Wisconsin district attorney sent repeated text messages trying to spark an affair with a domestic abuse victim while he was prosecuting her ex-boyfriend, a police report shows.
The 26-year-old woman complained last year to police after receiving 30 texts from Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth Kratz in three days, according to the report obtained by The Associated Press.
“Are you the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA … the riskier the better?” Kratz, 50, wrote in a message to Stephanie Van Groll in October 2009. In another, he wrote: “I would not expect you to be the other woman. I would want you to be so hot and treat me so well that you’d be THE woman! R U that good?”
Kratz was prosecuting Van Groll’s ex-boyfriend on charges he nearly choked her to death last year. He also was veteran chair of the Wisconsin Crime Victims‘ Rights Board, a quasi-judicial agency that can reprimand judges, prosecutors and police officers who mistreat crime victims.
In a combative interview in his office Wednesday, Kratz did not deny sending the messages and expressed concern their publication would unfairly embarrass him personally and professionally. He said the Office of Lawyer Regulation had found he did not violate any rules governing attorney misconduct. That office cannot comment on investigations.
“This is a non-news story,” Kratz shouted. But he added, “I’m worried about it because of my reputational interests. I’m worried about it because of my 25 years as a prosecutor.”
Van Groll told police in Kaukauna, Wis., where she lived, that she felt pressured to have a relationship with Kratz or he would drop the charges against her ex-boyfriend.
Kratz then removed himself from that prosecution and the state Department of Justice took over. He resigned from the crime victims board, which he helped create, after more than a decade as chair. He and his wife filed for divorce last December, although he said they were separated when the messages were sent.
Kratz has remained the top prosecutor based in Chilton, where he has served since 1992 and earns a $105,000 salary. Kratz, a Republican, said he intends to run for re-election in November 2012.
“Nothing really happened to him and I had three days of hell,” Van Groll said in a phone interview with the AP. “They gave him a slap on the wrist and told him not to do it again. If it was anybody else that did something like this, they’d lose their job.”
Domestic violence experts called Kratz’s text messages disturbing and unethical for several reasons, including the power differential between a prosecutor and a younger abuse victim.
“If what’s being alleged is true, it’s sad a prosecutor would use the same sort of power and control over a woman who has already experienced that in her personal life,” said Patti Seger, executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Kratz may be best known for prosecuting Steven Avery in the 2005 killing of Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer. The case won national attention because Avery had spent 18 years behind bars for a rape he did not commit in a separate case before DNA evidence implicated someone else. Kratz received glowing media attention and flirted with a run for Congress in 2008.
Last year, around the time he was texting Van Groll, Kratz was back in the spotlight for prosecuting a woman who worked with others to lure a boyfriend to a hotel room and glued his penis to his stomach as revenge for his cheating.
In the interview, Kratz said he was proud he helped achieve legislation creating the first-of-its-kind crime victims’ board and that he had dedicated his career to their cause.
“I wrote the law on crime victims in Wisconsin,” he said, pointing to a picture of him with former Gov. Tommy Thompson signing that law. “That’s the irony here.”
A spokeswoman said the board has not received a complaint about Kratz and is not investigating his conduct toward Van Groll.
Kratz cited an undisclosed conflict of interest in stepping away from the abuse case after Van Groll reported the text messages, court records show. An assistant state attorney general acted as special prosecutor and won a conviction on one felony count of strangulation against the man, Shannon Konitzer.
Van Groll said Kratz sent the first text minutes after she left his office, where he had interviewed her about the case.
He said it was nice talking and “you have such potential,” signing the message “KEN (your favorite DA).” Twenty minutes later, he added, “I wish you weren’t one of this office’s clients. You’d be a cool person to know!” But he quickly tried to start a relationship and told her to keep quiet about the texts.
Van Groll at first was polite, saying Kratz was “a nice person” and thanking him for praise. By the second day, she responded with answers such as “dono” or “no.” Kratz questioned whether her “low self-esteem” was to blame for the lack of interest.
“I’m serious! I’m the atty. I have the $350,000 house. I have the 6-figure career. You may be the tall, young, hot nymph, but I am the prize!” he texted.
Kratz told her the relationship would unfold slow enough for “Shannon’s case to get done.” “Remember it would have to be special enough to risk all,” he wrote.
Van Groll said she went to police on the third day after the messages started becoming “kind of vulgar.” She provided copies of 30 messages and her responses, which the department released in response to an AP request.
“Stephanie feels afraid that if she doesn’t do what he wants Kratz will throw out her whole case,” an officer who interviewed Van Groll wrote.
The department referred the complaint to the state Division of Criminal Investigation because it works with Kratz’s office on prosecutions. Van Groll, a college student and part-time preschool teacher who has moved to Merrill, said she has been told Kratz won’t be charged because “they didn’t think he did anything criminally wrong.”
Kratz on Wednesday waved a copy of what he said was a report by legal regulators that cleared him. He would not give a copy to AP, and slammed the door to his office when the interview was over.
Wife of Evander Holyfield Files for an Order of Protection
Candi Holyfield, the wife of boxing great Evander Holyfield, has filed for a protective order against her husband.
According to documents filed last week in Fayette County Superior Court, Candi Holyfield accuses her husband of a violent act against her in the presence of the couple’s two children. The petition for a protective order was posted on www.radaronline.com. The file number for the court filing matches a filing found on Fayette court’s Web site.
Candi Holyfield accuses her husband of hitting her in the face, the back of her head, and on her back during the middle of the night, according to the petition for temporary protective order.
“He got up and turned the light on and started looking at my face and told me he was sorry, that he knew he shouldn’t have done that,” Candi Holyfield stated in the petition.
The incident allegedly began because the heat was cut off in the couple’s home, and Candi Holyfield attempted to discuss it with her husband.
“He told me that I was only thinking about myself,” Candi Holyfield stated. “He started telling me that I needed to start putting God first in my life.”
Evander Holyfield, 47, hung up on a reporter when reached by telephone Wednesday afternoon. Candi Holyfield could not be reached for comment.
Candi Holyfield claims her husband’s abuse against her began six months into the marriage, when she was pregnant with the couple’s first child.
The Holyfields were married July 1, 2003, in a Fayette County courtroom. It was Candi Holyfield’s 24th birthday. Candi, now 30, is the boxer’s third wife, and the couple has two children, ages 6 and 4.
“At first it was mainly emotional,” Candi Holyfield states in the petition. “There was incidents where he had pushed or grabbed me but it has escalated since 2008.”
In 2008, Evander Holyfield allegedly choked his wife in front of the couple’s daughter and housekeeper, Candi Holyfield stated in the petition. Last year, Candi Holyfield said, her husband hit her in front of the couple’s children.
Candi Holyfield asked that her husband not be allowed within 500 yards of her, and that he have no contact with the couple’s two children, according to the court documents. She also requests use of a Porsche Cayenne and a Mercedes Benz.
Ken Sanders, the boxer’s manager, said he is not aware of any problems between the couple. Sanders said the boxer is currently in Las Vegas.
Holyfield, a four-time undisputed heavyweight champion, has won more than $200 million in prize money. Fights in South Korea, Ethiopia and Uganda were cancelled due to a lack of funding. He also has an April 24 fight scheduled against Derric Rossy in Las Vegas.
UPDATE: The former heavyweight champion of the world and his wife have decided to work things out, after Candi Holyfield decided to drop her protective order request against her husband Evander for spousal abuse, the couple are moving forward to seek some marriage counseling from none other than Dr. Phil McGraw.
Michael Jackson Discusses Child Abuse by His Father, Joe Jackson
Michael Jackson admitted that his most vivid memory was of rehearsals, countless hours, spent in the studio to get the notes and the dance steps right. Joe’s ferocious push to harness his son’s talent and whip them into a world class act wasn’t just to satisfy a father’s obsessive ego, or to snatch vicarious thrills through his children, or because of dollar signs dancing in his eyes. Joe, and so many other hard case black fathers of that time, saw entertainment and the stage as their son’s ticket out of the ghetto; a sure fire escape for potentially at risk young black boys from poverty, racism, and the perils of the streets.
In an age when parenting roles were far more rigid and sharply defined, Joe’s idea of being a loving, caring and responsible father was to bring home the paycheck, expect his dinner to be waiting on the table, and to be stern, tough, and no nonsense with their children, especially their sons. Joe’s fierce drive paid big dividends with the Jackson’s. The fame, dollars, and adulation rolled in. The boys did not do drugs, join gangs, commit any crimes, and could not be accused of educational or professional underachievement.
Joe hit the jackpot with Michael. The fierce discipline, focus, work ethic, and business and marketing savvy that Joe drilled into Michael laid the foundation for Michael’s transformation from a child R&B star into a music immortal.
(excerpt from Earl Ofari – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/demonizing-joe-jackson_b_223116.html)
Cycle of Abuse
Domestic abuse falls into a common pattern, or cycle of violence:
* Abuse – Your abusive partner lashes out with aggressive, belittling, or violent behavior. The abuse is a power play designed to show you “who is boss.”
* Guilt – After abusing you, your partner feels guilt, but not over what he’s done. He’s more worried about the possibility of being caught and facing consequences for his abusive behavior.
* Excuses – Your abuser rationalizes what he or she has done. The person may come up with a string of excuses or blame you for theabusive behavior—anything to avoid taking responsibility.
* “Normal” behavior — The abuser does everything he can to regain control and keep the victim in the relationship. He may act as if nothing has happened, or he may turn on the charm. This peaceful honeymoon phase may give the victim hope that the abuser has really changed this time.
* Fantasy and planning – Your abuser begins to fantasize about abusing you again. He spends a lot of time thinking about what you’ve done wrong and how he’ll make you pay. Then he makes a plan for turning the fantasy of abuse into reality.
* Set-up – Your abuser sets you up and puts his plan in motion, creating a situation where he can justify abusing you.
Your abuser’s apologies and loving gestures in between the episodes of abuse can make it difficult to leave. He may make you believe that you are the only person who can help him, that things will be different this time, and that he truly loves you. However, the dangers of staying are very real.