Stalked to death: Laura Richards Pt.2

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective sy a side of life the average person is
never exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.

(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.

(00:45):
Welcome back to part two of my chat with renowned
criminal behavioral analyst Laura Richards.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Welcome back, Laura, Thank you good to be here with you.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
We have got so much to talk about and unpack.
I find the work that you do fascinating, But the
thing that's really coming across is that you're looking for
solutions to prevent crime. Having spent the majority of my
career as a homicide detective, I was a reactive investigator
a crime had happened, and then I'd try and solve

(01:15):
the crime. The thing I missed and what I would
have liked to do is prevent the crimes through proactive investigation.
You've identified criminal behaviors that a red flags indicators, and
I know you've been very prominent when you talk about
the stalking cases. Do you want to talk to us

(01:36):
about what it is about stalking that causes you so
much concern? Like I feel silly saying that question, because
it's obvious if you're a stalker, something is not right.
That's my take on it from a detective or just
as a member of society. If you're stalking, there's problems. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Well, I think even if you take the word stalking,
it's still used in a comedic sense of I'm not
stalking you high. It's seen as something that's funny rather
than something that's quite sinister and insidious and actually really
terrifying when it happens to you. And my first five
years working at New Scotland Yard on stranger rate, murder

(02:14):
and abduction cases, majority of them the offenders when we
caught them, we would call them predatory stalkers. They were
doing indecent exposures. They were doing lots of gateway crimes
that we wouldn't necessarily called stalking, and so the stalking
would be missed. And when we think about it in
the predatory sense, they're the most dangerous types of offenders,

(02:34):
but we often also see it with domestic violence offenders
the course of controllers. And one of the cases that
really alerted me to the risks and dangers myself when
I worked at New Scotland Yard was the murder of
a young woman called Claire Burnell who was shot dead
in Harvey Nichols. And it was in two thousand and five,
September thirteenth, two thousand and five, and I was working

(02:57):
late at new Scotland Yard and it came on the
news headlines that the news presenter said two people have
been shot dead in Harvey Nichols. And I thought that
sounds odd, two people being shot dead. And then my
pager went and you know, my phone went that I
was asked by one of the heads, one of the commanders,

(03:20):
would I review the case that the two people who
were shot dead. Well, Claire Bernow was working in Harvey Nichols.
She was working on one of the makeup counters. But
the other person who was shot there was someone called
Michael Pesh. He shot her and then he shot himself,
So our homicide detectives went in to Harvey Nichols. It

(03:41):
wasn't like an active shooter situation. It was a what
we found out to be a relationship that Claire didn't
want anymore. And this guy worked as part of the
security team at Harvey Nichols and he had actually lost
his job because Claire had reported him for his behavior.
And when I started to do a desktop review, because

(04:04):
the commander said, I want to know everything about this case,
what was known to us, and I did the review
and found out that she had reported multiple times to us,
the police, and that we didn't really understand what was
going on. And you know, I say that because the
language of stalking wasn't understood and it wasn't used. Claire

(04:25):
was saying that she was terrified of this man, Michael Pesh,
who she had dated on three occasions, and that he
had declared his love for her on date number two
and it made her feel very uncomfortable. And date number three,
he forced her to drive to her home address and
he refused to move from her home address, and she

(04:48):
just didn't know what to do because she couldn't get
him out. But it was the first time that she felt,
you know, she didn't want this relationship. She didn't want
to upset him. She was trying to let him down gently,
but she told him, I don't want to go out
with you anymore. Well, the next time she encounters him,
she had finished work in Harvey Nichols and had gone

(05:09):
home on the tube and he had blocked her exit
from the tube. He was following her and on the
same carriage as her, and she went to get out
and he blocked her exit, and she stepped forward and
he stepped forward to her, so they were nose to nose,
and he smiled, and she said, get off of me,
or I'll call the police. And he says, as he

(05:29):
strokes her face and smiles, if you call the police,
I will kill you. And if I can't have you,
no one can. This was written on the crime report Gary,
and I literally the hairs on my arms and the
back of my neck went up, knowing that he meant
what he said. And that was her first report to
the police. She had told her friend who worked in

(05:50):
Harvey Nichols as well. When she got home what had
been said, and the friend said, you must tell the
head of security at Harvey Nichols, and that's what they did.
They made the call. They met with the head of
security at Harvey Nichols and he said, we must report
this to the police. He took it very seriously, so
that was the first report, and you know, from there

(06:13):
on out, I found out a lot of other things
that had happened. But she reported him. He was arrested
when he was in uniform in Harvey Nichols and as
a security guard, and of course that didn't go down well,
and then he ended up being balled. And it was
when he was bailed. He left the country, went back
into the country with a firearm, and he had actually

(06:36):
been suspended at this time from Harvey Nichols. The head
of security took it that seriously and then he lost
his job and he blamed Claire for it. And he
went back into Harvey Nichols at twenty to eight. He
realized all the security guards had been told not to
let him in, but he knew the layout of the store.
He went in through a side door and we had
eyewitnesses confirmed that they saw him. Claire was looking at her,

(06:59):
what saying, we're almost done here because they were going
to wend their shift in twenty minutes, and he went
up behind her, shot her once in the back of
the head, four times in the face to obliterate her.
And you know, my colleagues went in and that was
the crime scene that they found. But for me unraveling
all the things that happened, well a lot of it
was on our crime reports system, and I said, you know,

(07:22):
it's not good. She had told us these things. She
was in fear of her life, and we arrested him,
we interviewed him, but then he was bailed. And the
first thing that the first bail, he went round to
see her immediately and threatened her. And then he's re arrested,
but he's bailed again. And that's the problem that it

(07:43):
was only ever seen as a harassment case, a Section
two harrissment, even though he made threats to kill, and
he was bailed because it wasn't seen as that serious.
And one of our officers who interviewed him, she was
a probationer, just off of probation, no supervision, which is
why for me it's always I look to the supervisors.
And she interviewed him and he said, look, I just

(08:05):
love her. I just want to tell her that I
love her. Come on office, so you've been in love
before and she kind of yeah, you know, I understand that,
but that wasn't what he was and who he was
if she had understood his behavior better, but she didn't
because she was a probationers. She didn't have experience, she
didn't have a supervisor helping her, and things you know,

(08:26):
ended up in a catastrophic event.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
Just on that that taking it back, but I love her,
and the officer buying into that, I can just see.
I've got a vision of how that plays out in
the police station. You've got a probationary constable taking that report,
interviewed him and look, he's not going to harm her.
He says that he loves her. Like to me, that's warning, warning, warning,
but that I suppose that comes with experience and seeing

(08:50):
the end results as you would have. But I imagine that
probationary constable then goes to a supervisor and the briefing
would be, I look like, I think he's a risk
because he said he loves her. I think he's he
just wants to get back together again, So the supervisor
would be going, ah, okay, that's okay, and then the
case is forgotten. What you've just outlined there. I was

(09:13):
in horror right from the yeah I love you on
the second date type situation. That was warning, warning, there's
a potential problem there. You've talked us through what's happened,
what points should have something been done differently? And what
is that thing that should have been done differently, whether
it's a bail, whether it's a courts How do you

(09:36):
think we resolve a situation like that so it doesn't
happen again.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
Well, I mean, in this case changed my life, and
it changed my whole career and my whole way of thinking.
So it really did have an impact because I met
her mother and I learned so much more from her mum, Tricia,
of what was going on behind the scenes. And you know,
Tricia said to me, when Claire came to me and
told me everything that was happening, I never ever thought

(10:03):
that he would kill her because that happens to people
in the newspapers, not to people like us from Tunbridge Wells.
And that was the first learning point that families never
expected to end up in that place, and nor did Claire.
But the risks were very apparent. And Tricia was giving
her advice as a mum, saying, oh, well, maybe he's

(10:24):
just fallen in love. But Claire was saying, no, you know,
I don't love him, and what am I meant to
say to him? You know? She felt so uncomfortable. And
then he was using other people in Harvey Nichols to
make his case to her of why she should give
him a second chance. He used other people to stalk
her and pressure her. So if we had done our
jobs right in terms of collecting all the evidence, we

(10:46):
would have got a proper statement from Claire. I mean
it was half a page long. And yet when I
sat down with Trisha and when I dug into the case,
there was so much more to it. The head of
security really intrigued me and I wanted to know how
he took it seriously, and it came down to experience. Right.

(11:06):
He was a former police officer. He understood how dangerous
Pesh was. But you know what could we have done differently, Well,
we could have got a statement from him and looked
at in his investigation, but we didn't. So to sack someone,
you have to have a whole documented history of you know,
going through the oral warnings, the written warnings, the suspension,

(11:27):
and then you fire. But the officers didn't take the
information that he offered them, and that was a huge
problem for me because I felt that on review of
the case that you've got the new and the old.
You know, back off, old timer, we're the police, don't
tell us what to do. I can imagine that kind
of attitude, and unfortunately it ended up with Claire being

(11:50):
brutally killed because if they had looked at that investigation,
they would have found out that he was asking colleagues
what kind of sentence do you get for murder in
this country? He was asking questions that showed intent that
he planned to do something far more odious and sinister,
and that's exactly what he did. So I come I
use this case in training a lot because there's so

(12:13):
much more that we could have done and should have done.
There was a section four A sorry, Section four harassment.
There are two tiers to the Harassment Act, which really
came in for stalking, but the section four carries up
to five years in prison. But they didn't even look
at it as a Section four case. It just got
dropped to a Section two, which is you go to
magistrates court maximum six months, but most get a slap

(12:37):
on the wrist. So that's where the stalking law came in.
There wasn't a stalking law per se, and that's what
I wanted to change. But there was a threat to
kill and there was a Section four harrissmen, and the
CPS dropped it to a much lesser and that was
hugely problematic. So the investigation was problematic because oh, he
just said he loves her, he doesn't mean to harm her.

(13:00):
Whole understanding of what Claire was telling us, you know,
it wasn't understood as stalking is serious. That he didn't
physically hit her, but what he was threatening, the way
that he delivered the threat was so chilling, and yet
it wasn't followed up on. So there were there were
so many junctures where I call it, you take a
domino out and you change, you know, that escalation of behavior.

(13:24):
And look, he still could have been fixated, right, he
could have gone to prison and served let's say six
months or let's say eighteen weeks. He still might have
come out and been fixated on Claire or he then
moves on to the next woman. He always would have
been a problem. And that's why I always say to
police and others that I train deal with it right time,
first time round, because they're still going to be a

(13:47):
problem down the line. And that's the nature of fixation
and obsessive behavior.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
Okay with that, whether the courts have a responsibility as well.
But whinding it back to the figures you were to
talking about one in two if they've been in an
intimate relationship and they're stalking and they make a threat
to kill. So once that's done, just based on past
behaviors statistics, there's a fifty to fifty chance this person

(14:13):
might be killed. Imagine the resources that would be applied
if you came out with that saying this person is
going to be killed. But we miss the point, don't we.
So it is a large part of it is about education.
And you use the story of the retired, wise, battle
hardened cop that's now working security, knowing from his experience

(14:37):
how dangerous this is. But in the police it's been missed.
But that's tragic, isn't it. So like every part of
when you're breaking down the incidents, red flag red flag
concern concern and it wasn't circumvented. Do you think there's
and I want to delve into coercive control, but we're

(14:58):
stalking a situation like that, because invariably a stalker doesn't
back off after the first warning, like Okay, we're going
to go to the police AVO. Then they breach the AVO,
they go to the court, blah blah blah. What about
electronic monitoring on people like that? Do you think that
there's something that we've just got to adopt technology like
ankle bracelet.

Speaker 2 (15:19):
I do, and I don't know why we're not doing it.
I mean, it's the simplest thing really to do, to
use technology. We know that orders on their own, a
piece of paper doesn't stop a stalker. So I think
we've just got to get real to the fact that
a piece of paper saying don't do it again, it
is not going to stop them. But that's also where
I would like to see them on the same register
as sex offenders. You know, they some of them are

(15:42):
sex offenders, and some of them are incredibly dangerous who
go on to murder. And so if you start one woman,
two three, you know, why aren't we putting them on
the same database as terrorists and sex offenders and problem
solving them in the same way. And some of them
do need a psychiatric intervention, so we're just going to
it's a revolving door. We keep having to deal with

(16:02):
the same people and their histories aren't being joined up.
And that's what's for me, the twenty three year campaign
to join up violent men's histories. It's predominantly men, not
always exclusively, but you know, it's these are power and
control related crimes, and the police, the courts, the system
has to take the power and control back and away

(16:23):
from them from these dangerous individuals, so you have to
problem solve them, and with that you need a multi
agency response.

Speaker 1 (16:31):
And are you making headway in that front? Correct me
if I'm wrong, But twenty thirteen the world's first national
stalking Advocacy service. So you're starting to get the message out.
But what has actually happened with what you're promoting and
what you're pushing. What steps forward have we taken or
do we just sit here horrified, going this shouldn't happen

(16:53):
and do nothing and wait until the next one happens
and we are how did that occur.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
Yeah. I mean my work always been evidence based and
Claire Bernow's case was one of many that I use
to talk to parliamentarians about in terms of changing the
law and creating the stalking law. And then when you
talk out in the media, victims contact you. And I
was receiving hundreds and hundreds of contacts every time I
talked about stalking. So that's where Paladin came from. The

(17:20):
National Stalking Advocacy Service, the first of its kind in
the world. But we're still not doing enough, you know,
And I think predominantly we spend too long looking at
what the victim did or didn't do, and we don't
spend enough time looking at the perpetrator and closing them down.
And that's the bit that all across the world is
missing the accountability and responsibility on the perpetrator and working

(17:44):
in a multi agency forum, just like we do with
the most dangerous terrorists, the most dangerous sex offenders, to
look at every aspect of their life and work with
them to create that change. And that's where it's Some
do need psychiatric assessment, some not all of them, but
often it is about power and control. That's what they're
trying that's what's motivating them. So you've got to take

(18:06):
it away from them. And we've still got so much
more work to do. The resistance to tackling this, whether
it's in Australia, America, the UK, Canada, there's been such resistance, Gary,
and I really feel it's because most the majority of
legislators are men and it just doesn't happen to them,
So they just don't understand how frightening it is to

(18:29):
be a woman moving about in this world. And men
only get it when they have a daughter and then
she's dating and then they realize, you know, what the
risks are. But oftentimes, you know, by the grace of God,
go I. And that's why we need more legislators, and
you know, senior folk who are women, Because with Sarah Everett,

(18:50):
all these women came out and talked about how we
have to risk manage our day, even going out, you know,
to go for a rum. Women are murdered. Oh wish
she shouldn't have been wearing headphones, or she shouldn't have
been looking at her phone. Oh well, she shouldn't have
left her drink unattended. We spend far too long looking
at what the victim did, and not focusing on the offender.
And that's been really the hill that I'm going to

(19:11):
die on, the of transferring you know, the lens onto
the offender. And it's kind of what Justsel Pellicott's saying
in France, right, the shame needs to switch sides, that
we need to flip our gaze onto the perpetrators and
focus on them rather than keep saying that we don't
believe victims, we don't take it seriously. Oh, they're not

(19:31):
going to escalate to murder. That's the stuff of movies.
I hear police officers say this to victims every day,
you know, and it's really disheartening when you look at
the increasing femicide rate. So I kind of feel I'm
still in the eye of the storm of my work.
It's not finished. I'm not just a podcaster. I put
this stuff on a podcast because I think people learn

(19:52):
at different times, and podcasting is very intimate that you
hear things I have on crime analyst, judges, magistrates, probation officers,
police officers, psychiatrists, you know, the full gamut of people
who listen. They're the ones that can create the change.
And you know, the media form of podcasting makes this

(20:13):
knowledge now so much more accessible. That's why I do
the podcast to raise awareness and to put the solutions
out there. But it's about people grabbing those things and
being really committed to want to create change and not
just paying lip service to it, which is what happened
in the wake of Sarah Everett. There was no grip,
there was no grasp from legislators. They didn't. They voted

(20:36):
down having the Register of serial domestic abuse as is stalkings,
and that will make the biggest change.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
I think who would vote that down? I don't see
any harm in having a register like that. I think
the evidence supports the need for it. And why people
think that's an invasion the privacy will be in stalked
by someone's an invasion of privacy too, Like I not,
for the life of me see why people wouldn't buy
into that.

Speaker 2 (21:03):
Well, that's it, Gary, it's who are we protecting? Are
we protecting the right people?

Speaker 1 (21:07):
You know?

Speaker 2 (21:08):
And you can have that debate in court if you
decide that you're going to put the perpetrators right to
privacy ahead of the victims right to safety. And for
too long it's been skewed to perpetrators and that needs
to be course corrected because as long as you're making
defensible decisions i e. They've done A, B and C
and that's where the risk assessment comes in, then you

(21:30):
can defend your.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
Decision on that risk assessment. Do you want to break
that down? That's DASH? Is that the acronym for it.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
The domestic abuse? Yeah, domestic abuse, stalk, king and harassment
and on a base violence risk model. Hence why we
call it the DASH because it's a real mouthful.

Speaker 1 (21:49):
Just break that down the type of things and how
that can be used and to be used by law
enforcement officers so they can have a look at it
and quantify what the risks are.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
Yeah, I mean the idea behind it was having profiled.
I didn't just profile murders. I took four hundred and
fifty domestic violence, sexual offenders and serious offenders and looked
at them backwards their histories and then one hundred and
fourteen thousand allegations of domestic abuse in one year in
two thousand and one that was recorded and reported to police.
And out of that I looked at the patterns because

(22:21):
you can't just take murder. And when I presented on
those patterns. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner at New Scotland Yard
said in front of three hundred officers that research is
really interesting, but what difference does it make to the
late term van driver at three in the morning. How
does she respond differently to the domestic violence call out?
And that's where this set of questions came from. So

(22:43):
I worked with lots of different police officers, agencies, specialist agencies,
victims groups, We ran focus groups and this took years
to do and created what was first called the SPECS
plus and then it evolved into the DASH. So it's
a set of questions that there's a call out to
the police, or it might even be housing or education
or health. Anyone can use this tool and you ask

(23:06):
the victim this set of questions and they are the
mirror because they know the perpetrator the best. They hold
up the mirror to the perpetrator's behavior and then they
are the expert on their own situation. And then you
can start to inform your investigation as well as collect
evidence as well as understand risk as it's standard, medium

(23:27):
or high, and if it's high, then it goes to
a multi agency meeting who problems solve the case and
they should look at safety planning for the victim, but
perpetrator risk management and they're two sides of the same
coin and you have to do the two things together.
So across England and Wales we had every police force
using this one toolkit and all partner agencies signed up

(23:48):
to it and it's a really important tool that is
evidence based and we reduce murders by using the tool
and we also saw a reduction in women killing the abuser.
So we previously in London we would have at least
six women every year who would kill the abuser because
there was never an intervention. And then we went to

(24:09):
zero zero, zero zero zero because women were being believed
and listened to. And that's an important thing to say
right here in America with the Menendez brother's case where
they were victims of course of control and sexual violence
and then they killed the abusers because they realized that
no one was going to save them. It was a

(24:30):
safeguarding failure. So that's where the tool is so important
for victims, including children, of understanding what's going on for them,
validating their experience and then using it as information for
action to understand risk and then get into the risk
management piece.

Speaker 1 (24:47):
You just mentioned the brothers. I want to talk about
that because it's very prominent the moment. There's a lot
of moody going on now and I as I understand
that it's about whether they should be released from prison.
What's a bexter that. Because it's on Netflix, it's got
world wide attention. What's your knowledge and background on that.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
Yeah, I've been covering this case for almost two years
before it was sort of really talked about as it
is now in the media, and I was really perplexed
about the fact that these brothers were well everyone was
told through the DA's office and the media that they
were greedy, rich kids. But I remembered at the time,

(25:27):
the crime scene didn't point to that. The crime scene
pointed to obliteration, and when children obliterate their parents like that,
there's something else going on. And so I kind of
went into the case not knowing what I would find.
But the biggest challenge for me was understanding why the
judge made certain decisions. At trial one Court TV, it

(25:48):
was all televised and it ended up in a hung
jury because there were two sorry, two juries. They heard
evidence from fifty three witnesses from school teacher, coaches, and
family members who all talked about Jose's abuse of the
two boys. And they had experts like Dr Rambergess who testified,

(26:10):
having assessteric that he was sexually abused by Jose and
it resulted in a hung jury. Now, there are a
number of other things that happened in LA between the
time of Trial IE and Trial two, like the Rodney
King case where there were race riots in the wake
of the acquittal, and then you had oj Simpson eight

(26:30):
days before Trial two starting being acquitted and the judge,
the same judge, Judge Stanley Wisberg, presided over both trials,
and what I couldn't understand in Trial two was why
he made the decision to not allow all the previous
witnesses to testify to the abuse. And the DA's office
made the case that it was irrelevant to hear that evidence. Well,

(26:53):
it was wholly relevant to the defense in terms of
the why they did it? This was never a who
done it? Case? Right, the boys confessed to it. It
wasn't who done it? Was a why done it? So
it's wholly relevant and talks to motivation. But Judge Stanley
Weisberg eviscerated the defense. He then determined that not only
would he agree that they shouldn't testify, so it was

(27:14):
only Eric who testified about the abuse. He then decided
that the defense were not allowed to use the imperfect
self defense defense, i e. That the boys, in their
state of mind, they believed that there was a genuine
fear that they would be killed. Therefore they killed before
because of the thousand cuts of abuse before that, and
with that, it meant that only murder was on the table.

(27:37):
It was murder or nothing, It was never manslaughter. Yeah, yeah,
So the jury in the penalty phase, because it was
a death penalty case as well, only ever had murder
or nothing. In the penalty phase, they heard all about
the abuse, and some of the jurors said, if they
had heard about that abuse, they would not have voted
for murder, and their appeals ran, but they weren't. They

(28:02):
weren't seen as well. The appeals weren't granted in two
thousand and five. But in twenty twenty, Court TV put
all the first trial online and so I started to
go back through it or and found Lar's testimony just
so compelling and then covering the case. Once the Menudo
and Menendez. Sorry, the Menendez and Menudo boys portrayed documentary

(28:24):
landed on Peacock in twenty twenty three, and myself and
Jim Clemente dug into that and realized that Jose Menendez,
as I had always believed, harmed other boys, not just
Lyle and Eric. So that was new evidence that was
found by Robert Randa, journalist who had followed the case,
both sat at both trials, reported on it. But he

(28:46):
also found a letter that Eric had written to his
cousin Andy Caino, where eight months before they shot their parents,
he had talked about the sexual abuse. So that's the
new evidence that's now in the habeas petitions.

Speaker 1 (28:59):
Signific new evidence, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah? The trials never they know at the court never
heard about that. And then you've got the rehabilitation and
resentencing peace. So they've got the habeas petition that talks
about the new evidence that was submitted twenty four hours
after the Peacock Menndas and Menudo documentary landed. But you've
also got in California there's the resentencing and rehabilitation arm

(29:24):
to the District Attorney here, George Gascon has started that
when you look back in time, if cases were disproportionately sentenced,
or if the offenders have been rehabilitated, their unit will
look at those cases and resentence because the Mennder's brothers
have always been model inmates, and you know, the rehabilitation

(29:44):
piece shows that. You know, they've both got degrees, they've
helped paint murals and done green projects, and they've mentored
other abuse victims in prison, and lots of the wardens
say they would have them as neighbors. So there's a
case to be made for the resentence, and that's what
George Gascon has said the district attorneys. So the whole
family flew in last week to La to talk to

(30:08):
George Gascon's unit, the re sentencing unit, about why from
both sides of the family, Jose's family and Kitty's family,
why they support their nephews, their cousins, and why they
believe they should be released. Which I don't know if
you've ever seen that in your career, but I've never
seen something like that, And I went to the courthouse
and I was absolutely amazed by what they said from

(30:33):
both sides of the family. I've just never seen that before.
In almost thirty years of view.

Speaker 1 (30:37):
No, I definitely haven't seen that, but what a fascinating
case because I've watched it from afar. But thanks for
the insight into that. I can see why it's captured
so many people's attention. Fascinating. We want to talk coerci
control before we leave the stalking that it's a situation

(30:59):
that people have got all appreciate it for the crime
that it is and the potential, the warning signs, the
indicators there, and you know, we talked about trying to
make a difference on podcasts or people a platform for people.
Law enforcement's got to be educated about it, the courts
have got to be educated about it, and people have
got to accept that stalking is a crime that is

(31:22):
an indicator that something terrible might happen down the track.
I just want to bang on about when we all
supposedly had COVID they could track everyone's movements all over
the country, and that we had the technology and the capability.
Why someone who's stalking someone, perhaps they get one chance warned, Okay,

(31:42):
your attention is not welcome. After that, the courts put
an ankle bracelet on them. That has to give the
victim some peace. And you talked about Hannah Clark's situation.
Lloyd and Sue Clark. I know Hannah's parents and I've
had them on the podcast and got to know them
quite well. That was coercive control and the relationship that

(32:06):
Hannah was in with the killer. But they talked about
and I asked Lloyd and Sue whether if they had
an ankle bracelet, if he had had an ankle bracelet,
would have that made Hannah feel safer because they could
see the warning signs coming in And they said most definitely.
I would go as far as to say if she
knew that he was in the area, that she and

(32:29):
the three beautiful children would still be alive. So it's
a pretty heavy way to lead into coercive control. But
I know you've been instrumental, not just here in Australia
but overseas as well about getting legislation changed.

Speaker 2 (32:46):
Yes, I mean Hannah's case with the children, Dahlia, Leana
and Trey just utterly just devastating. And I remember that
unfolding and watching that from here in Los Angeles, and
I did one day immediately what his history was of
doing that. I mean, setting them on fires, just one
of the cruelest and most torturous ways to harm and

(33:09):
to kill. And I suspected he would have a history.
And you know, often we do see course of control
and stalking the two things co occurring together, and you
can be stalked within a relationship as well as after
the relationship ends. But the course of control element what
we it really is about a power imbalance and an unfreedom.

(33:33):
They're the first words are used to describe it. The
unfreedom is that the victim doesn't have their own agency
and autonomy and they've often been psychologically undone and isolated.
So it's a behavioral regime where someone creates this codependency

(33:53):
and way of controlling the other person, whether it's isolating them,
which you see in most cases, where it's controlling finances,
controlling their movements, who they see, their time, what they wear.
You know, the set of rules and regulations that come
in slowly and insidiously that most victims don't even know

(34:13):
that those rules exist, and they have to live by
the perpetrators rules and regulations and if they break those
rules and regulations, there's a consequence. But the rules and
regulations there's a double standard. They don't apply to the perpetrator.
They only apply to the victim and or the children.
So it's the psychological undoing that's very important to understand,

(34:37):
the lack of freedom of choice. So with Hannah not
being allowed to wear pink, not allowed to wear a bikini,
he said, let's do a joint Facebook, i e. If
they have a joint Facebook account, he can control everything
that's going out there. Although it might look like, oh,
let's just be a nice couple, you know, to everybody else,
it looks like, you know, maybe they're just being very

(34:59):
too z and coupperly, But actually it's about how he's
creating all these mediums to control her space for action,
and that really is what we look for, you know,
whether the victim does have freedom of choice and whose
rules are they living by and whose needs are being met.
So it's actually quite a sophisticated thing, and most victims

(35:21):
don't even know they're being victimized because of the power
imbalance between men and women that still exists in everyday
daily life and in the patriarchy. And it literally is
just a notch up from what people see as acceptable
behavior to unacceptable behavior. And you know, that power imbalance.

(35:42):
Hannah being that much younger than him.

Speaker 1 (35:45):
You know.

Speaker 2 (35:45):
Sometimes we see it in age, sometimes we see it
within status like celebrity reaver Esteamcamp and Oscar Pistorius, O J.
Simpson and Nicole you know. So that there's a lot
that we have to unravel. But I always look for
the power balanced before and unfreedom. Does she have freedom
of choice or not? Or is she being coerced into

(36:07):
behaving a certain way? The walking on eggshells because she
doesn't want to upset him and the rules that he's
laid down.

Speaker 1 (36:15):
Yeah, and so to implement that type of type of
behavior understanding, I'll talk about it from a police officer's
point of view with domestic violence that quite often we
would attend and it's yeah, it's the bread and butther
of most frontline police attending domestic violence situations. But without

(36:37):
the coercive control we had to look for. Okay, as
there been a physical assault, has there been a criminal offense?
And we didn't have in the legislation. The criminal offense
at coercive control is that there is an offense being committed.
If let's say your bank account, you're not allowed to
access your bank account, I'll drip for you the money

(36:58):
you're not allowed to contact your friends. I need to
check your phone. That type of behavior. Is that controlling
behavior you talked about, And what as I understand that
you're trying to do and what he's been done. With
legislation being implemented, that that can be identified as an
offense in meeting those parameters and action can be taken.

(37:19):
Is that a fair breakdown of the coercive control situation
and the benefits of having legislation.

Speaker 2 (37:25):
Yes, it's basically all the non physical stuff that before
we never paid attention to. And I call it death
by a thousand cuts. That you have all these psychological
and emotional and other elements that are being done to
a victim. But it's only when it turns physical do
police and others say, oh, that's the crime. But they

(37:46):
miss the twenty two years of that control related behavior.
And what's more insidious about coercid control is that it's
about entrapment, and the victim becomes entrapped and it happens
to children too, this entrapment, and it's about utter domination.
And that's the best way to describe course of control.
It is about an utter domination of another person. So

(38:10):
oftentimes it's invisible. It's like a spider's web that you
see parts of it glint in the sun. But you've
got to ask more questions about what's going on and
just a nod. Back to the Menenda's case, both of
the boys, Eric and Laile were coercively controlled by their parents,
and more sinister was Jose Menendez's control and sexual abuse
of them. That was coercive. And with children, they look

(38:34):
for the love and the validation of that parent, so
they put themselves in harm's way to get the approval
and validation and love of the parents. So it is
so damaging to your brain as a child, but also
to your psychosocial development. It interrupts your whole development, which
is why Lyle, at the age of twenty one, had
an emotional maturity or immaturity age of fourteen and Eric

(38:59):
or he had just turned eighteen when he was assessed.
He was actually the age emotionally of an eight year old.
It's like you get frozen. So it's so damaging to.

Speaker 1 (39:08):
Children stunted at that age the emotional.

Speaker 2 (39:11):
Yeah, yeah, and for women it's so damaging. I mean,
that's why you get you know, with suppressing down you know,
fear and what you want in life and having to
put yourself last all the time. You know, it's why
a lot of women have autoimmune disorders and things. That
the body will keep the score. That even though he
may not physically have hit her, often he doesn't have to.

(39:34):
He keeps her in fear, always second guessing, always, you know,
walking on eggshells, and that is very damaging to your
own health state as well in terms of your psychology
and your emotions. And the body will keep the score.
Basil Vanderkolt's work that all of that stuff will go somewhere,
and that's where we see self harm and suicides. We

(39:56):
see more women disproportionately and their their own lives because
of a course of controller. So course of control does
correlate to femicide and for millicide, children being killed, homicide,
and to suicide, and it significantly correlates. So it really
is this big red flag that when you see it

(40:17):
with the mindset, the psychopathology of the offender, I must
win it all costs. It ends my way. And when
I say it ends, these sorts of things when they
want revenge, they will scorch the earth and they are
incredibly dangerous and there's a proportion, well, there's a number
of them who are psychopaths, and that's why we have

(40:37):
to take it seriously because they're master manipulators, and often
police and others have no idea who's in front of
them when they're interviewing them, and they don't understand their
master manipulators.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
And it all comes down what you're saying there, and
I do understand exactly what you're saying, but it comes
down to education, education of police officers so they understand
what they're actually dealing with because I know quite often
you hear from a victim's point of view, I'm too
scared to leave him because if I leave him, and

(41:08):
I think the facts would play out, those statistics would
play out. That is a danger period where someone has
left a coercive relationship. So we get the legislation in
that's one thing, but I also know as a former
police officer, legislation is one thing, but we've got to
know how to use the legislation and the courts have
got to accept the legislation. Do you think that is

(41:30):
part of the introduction of the legislation that will play
out that police will be educated and see it as
a tool, a worthwhile tool that they can use and
the courts will back up the police.

Speaker 2 (41:42):
Expert led training before any new law comes in is
an absolute must and New South Wales have done that training.
Scotland they did the training before the law came in
England and Wales we put it through Parliament and we
were voted down and we didn't have that mandatory training
and we've been trying to play catch up ever since.
So yes, you're absolutely right, and you know it has

(42:03):
to be expert led training of understanding how the law
makes contact in the real world, because often I hear
things like, oh, this law is so hard to prove,
where actually the practical points are very clear. If an
officer and court staff are trained, it's actually really clear
and obvious. And as I always say, once you're trained

(42:23):
to see it, you can't unsee it. And that training
is just so important. It's a lifeline. And that's where
I think often we just don't invest in quality training,
and I've delivered training to people all over the world.
I've got my next Course of Control master class on
December fourth and fifth coming up, where we go through

(42:43):
not just the behaviors and the victimology, but the psychology
of the offenders and the legislation in different parts of
the world, because it has to make contact with the
real world and not just be an academic exercise. I, Laura,
are just all the things that you've got your head
across and the things that you're doing.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
I honestly don't know where you get the time to
do all this, but clearly you have a passion for it.
But fighting town hall as I call it, when you're
trying to argue change legislation. But we've always done it
this way. Yeah, stupid, but it's not working. We're trying
to change things. I know what you're up against, so
full credit to you. But there's other stuff, and I've

(43:23):
got so many things I want to speak to you about.
But Dirty John, you have some knowledge about that. People
might know about that case through a game, through a
TV series, but that's often how people are educated. Do
you want to just talk us through that particular case, incident, scenario,
whatever you want to describe it as, what your knowledge

(43:44):
and involvement is in that.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
Yes, I'm in Real Crime profile my other podcast. We
were asked before the podcast Dirty John dropped, which was
an LA Times and Wondery podcast and Christopher Goffard was
the La Times journalist and we were asked to interview
him before the podcast dropped, so we got all the
transcripts and had a pre listen and I was just like,

(44:07):
oh my goodness, this case is about course of control
and stalking. So you know, when talking to Chris, I
was doing the interview from London, it was like the
middle of the night, and you know, I was trying
to get my brain engaged. But you know, I said
to him, you know, this case is about coerce of
control and he said, I've never heard of that term.
What is that? So I explained it to him, and

(44:28):
to Chris's credit, he said, if I had understood that before,
I would have told the story differently. And the case
really is about a very dangerous individual who would target
lots of different women at any one time and basically
try and get their money from them, but he would

(44:49):
also coercively control them and abuse them and harmed many
different women. But the story with that Chris was telling
really happened sort of towards the end of what Mehan
was doing and the last relationship that he had, and
the story is kind of unbelievable in many senses, because
he did try and kill Deborah's daughter Terror, And I mean,

(45:12):
here's the spoiler. If somebody hasn't listened to it, you know,
what effectively happened was John couldn't get to Deborah, so
then he targeted her children, and he went for her daughters.
And it was Jacqueline who ran the alarm to say,
I think I just saw John outside my apartment. You know,
called her mum, called her sister, so they were all
on red alert. And this is after Deborah had reported

(45:34):
him to police and had disappeared herself for six months
because she knew he was going to try and kill her.
And then he tried to abduct and kill Terror, only
she ended up grabbing the knife off of him and
killing him. And that's really why the case was of
such interest. That Matt Murphy was the district attorney. He

(45:55):
decided that he wasn't going to prosecute Terror. This was
self defense. And so Chris Govard decided to tell this
story just months after that had happened, so the family
was still in trauma. Effectively, when I interviewed Chris and
said all of this unbeknownst to me Deborah was listening,
as was her best friend, and they contacted me and

(46:18):
said that coercive control that you mentioned, You've given it
a name, and it's so amazing. It's like you know me,
but you've never met me. And I just want to
say thank you. That's what Debra said, and we ended
up meeting and I ended up being her advocate. There
was going to be the scripted show. There was going
to be a documentary. Deborah didn't want to do any
of that. She got very cold feet about it because

(46:40):
of the way the podcast landed, and she got blamed
for a lot of things because of the way the
podcast positioned her of being married four times. There was
a lot of judgment and the podcast didn't include all
the steps that she took to protect herself and her children,
and so there was a lot of criticism of Deborah
and I ended up being advocate. It was a scripted show.

(47:02):
In the end, she did sign the contract. It ended
up going out on Bravo. Connie Britten played her and
Eric Banner played played John. And there was the documentary
which I was a consulting producer on, where all the
women that John had targeted and abused all the horror
story of the true story of what happened. We put

(47:23):
into a documentary called Dirty John The Dirty Truth. And
then I worked with his first wife of ten years, Tanya,
and we did an audible investigation with Tanya at the
center of it called John Meehan's Reign of Terror. And
Tanya thought she had processed everything, but as I said
to her, you don't know the half of what John
meehan was up to. I mean, he was a very

(47:43):
dangerous serial stalker, course of controller and psychopath. And so yeah,
now when people say, oh, what's course of control? I
always say, watch Dirty John, or listen to the podcast
or my episodes with Tanya and Deborah, because the unrap
it's like a thread that you put on a jumper.
There's so many parts to it, you know, or a sweater,
there's so many parts to it that and he got

(48:07):
away with it for so long. Gary. You know, the
authorities when Deborah was reporting it, they kept saying to her,
even though he threatened to kill her, they said, this
is a civil matter, go to the civil courts. And
she got turned away from four different police stations where
they said nothing to do with us.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
Shows like Dirty John and other shows, whether they're scripted
series or documentaries. That's a way of educating people, isn't it.
Because what you've said there with coercive Control and Dirty John.
I speak to people about it too, and quite often
people don't understand it, but your reference to Dirty John
gives people a full understanding of what the nature of
the crime is and what exactly is occurring. So that's

(48:47):
another way of educating people, it is, and.

Speaker 2 (48:49):
That's why Deborah just to say, for Debra, that's why
she wanted her story told to help people and raise awareness.
And that's been that's an important part to a lot
of survivors that what happened to them isn't just you know,
a horror story that it's actually put to use to
educate other people who may find themselves in that situation.
But I can also use it to educate legislators, you know,

(49:10):
and say we'll listen to this podcast or listen to
crime an unless my interview with Deborah and Tanya, and
then they get it the far broader and fuller picture
of what coercive control is and what serial perpetration is about.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
And I think it also not only educates but helps
victims who are quite often left in isolation, appreciate that
this is happening to other people, not just myself, and
I think there's some comfort that's brought from that that
and they are victims, there's nothing to be ashamed of.
It's an offense as being committed against them, but I
think there's sometimes shame that they don't want to speak out.

(49:46):
They're embarrassed by their situation. So getting that discussion talking
about is a good thing. I just want to ask
you with stalking, if police aren't taking it seriously, what
advice would you give to a woman that's being stalked
and she's gone to the play station not getting the response,
what other things that can let person do?

Speaker 2 (50:08):
It really depends in which country they live. If they're
in the UK, then I would recommend that they contact Paladin,
the National Stalking Advocacy Service. That they do have independent
stalking advocacy case workers there and there's a lot of
information on the website. So if you're anywhere in the
world being stalked, do you go on Paladin's website. It's

(50:29):
an incredible resource of information, and equally on my own website,
the Laura Richards dot Com, there's information on stalking specifically
and coercive control, and I would recommend that they tell
people what's happening for them, people at work, people who
are in their everyday orbit, friends, family, Let them know
that something's happening, because often with victims of stalking, your

(50:50):
world shrinks down and you don't tell people, and that
level of isolation compounds issues around your mental health. But
also it gives the stalker room to maneuver, and often
they've enabled them their way into their relationships. So let
other people know. Go on the DASH Risk Checklist website.

(51:11):
Answer the questions on the DASH and it doesn't matter
where you are in the world. If you filled that
out and there's stalking, and let's say there could be
coerc of control as well, fill it out. Go in
see the police and say that you've listened to Laura
Richards and you've heard that these things are high risk
factors and that you're concerned for your safety and you

(51:32):
want them to help and be very be very matter
of fact about that. One of the things I've learned
from working with thousands of victims and setting up Paladin
is often they can equivocate and say things like it
might be something or it might be nothing. I mean, Gary,
you've worked in the police. The minute says someone says
something like that, it might be something that might be nothing, right,

(51:53):
it gets written off.

Speaker 1 (51:54):
It might be and so exactly.

Speaker 2 (51:57):
That's always a big problem.

Speaker 1 (51:59):
I think that's that's great advice and I really take
on board telling people it's nothing to be ashamed of.
If you've been stalked, tell people and it makes it
harder for them. But that's fantastic advice.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
The other thing I would just quickly say is collect evidence.
You know, if it's on your phone or you've got
pictures or emails or texts, make sure you collect all
of that and keep a diary of what happened, where
it happened, and how it made you feel. You have
to document all of these things. And then you know,
as I said, reach out to experts on stalking. And
there are experts in Australia, there's experts in America, in Canada,

(52:34):
in the UK. So do reach out to other specialist
services who can help you.

Speaker 1 (52:39):
One hundred percent agree. The other advice I give, or
in continuation of that, is make contemporaneous notes, document it,
and walk into the police station with that documented and
hand the documents over to the police, and also get
the police officer's name that you're handing it over to,
and little little things like that can make a difference
on what sort of action gets taken. I left law

(53:01):
enforcement and came into the world of media and doing
things like the podcast series. I was really concerned. I
didn't want to glorify crime like that was just the
copying me thought, Okay, how do I navigate my way
through here without glorifying crime or sensationalizing crime? What I
found with podcasting world and I just want to get

(53:22):
your thoughts on it. It is a good way to
get messaging across. You can make a difference, and it
might be as simple as having a victim on a
podcast to explain what they went through and people all
of a sudden get it. How have you found you've
worked in law enforcement, now you're working in the media.
How have you found the transition and have you Do
you feel comfortable in the role that you're doing within

(53:44):
this space in the media.

Speaker 2 (53:46):
Yeah, that's an interesting question because it's been an evolving
space and I find that I feel very uncomfortable when
people sensationalize the killers, and you know, hold them up,
give them monikers and talk about them as if they's
something to be celebrated. And you know, to be frank,
there's no serial killer who's called the small dick killer.

(54:07):
They are always given these big names, right's yeah. And
for me having worked those cases, a lot of those
names like the Yorkshire are word, the Yorkshire Ripper, I'll
say at once that was the moniker that was given
to him, and it made law enforcement police officers think
he was this big, scary character when actually he was
this small, weedy, you know, high pitched man who every

(54:31):
time he was in front of them, they couldn't make
that leap. And so the monikers are really problematic because
they make the offender feel special, and that still goes
on in this space of oh, serial killers, like it's
a real fun thing. But you and I both know
the devastation and the trauma that's left behind when someone's killed.
So that makes me feel very uncomfortable. And I think

(54:52):
there is a balance to be met that you can
do ethical true crime, you know, reporting or talking about
a case, allowing victims and survivors to have a platform
to tell their stories, which is really important for them.
And you know, making sure that you're telling the right
facts about a case, because I think there's a lot
of podcasters who rely on wiki and you and I

(55:14):
both know that what goes on with the case and
what's put out, you know, either on wiki or in
the media, it can give a very distorted view of
what really went on. And I think those false narratives
can be very problematic. And you know, podcasters who don't
even get the victims name right. You know, all of
those things. It all comes down to, you know, doing

(55:34):
your research and doing things in a responsible way rather than, oh,
isn't it exciting, we're talking about true crime and we
want to make some money and make this a comedy show,
and isn't it funny this woman was killed? You know.
That kind of stuff I really find very difficult.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
Yeah, well that's good because it's interesting speaking to someone
that's gone a similar path. And the things that you
hit on Mare is that if you're being involved in that,
you understand the devastation that crime has. I feel comfortable
in what I do on the podcast and what I
do in other media forums. I'm not glorifying crime. I'm

(56:09):
helping people understand crime and also making people aware of
the stuff that you're doing, like stalking. Hello, we're shouting
out if someone's stalking you, there's a concern, and we
shout that out to the police. If someone turns up
and they've been stalked, have a look at it, because
it's serious coercive control. I know the work that you've
done on that and how far that's spread. Such an

(56:32):
important thing. So there's only so much you can do
in law enforcement to make a difference. But media provides
a platform, and podcasting I think provides a great platform
to get that messaging out. As long as it's the
right messaging.

Speaker 2 (56:46):
I agree. It can be very empowering. And you know,
I've heard from thousands and thousands of people. Just today,
I've got another four messages saying that what I've said
on a podcast has really help them, and that for
me makes me walk ten foot two. You know, there's
no metric to show that success, but for me, that
is success helping one person. I mean today four people

(57:08):
message me to say that. Because when you're being victimized,
often you don't realize the seriousness of what's going on.
And often if someone was telling you it, you might
not believe it. So when you realize it in your
own time. It's a very different experience, you know. And
as I say to people, if they're worried about a
relative or someone that they love but they're resistant to

(57:29):
the conversation, We'll just point them in the direction of
Dirty John or my podcasts on Crime Analyst. It can
be so powerful as that kind of tool, and that's
why I do what I do. And yeah, time is
always a challenge for me because I'm a mum of
a little toddler. But I really believe in educating people
and mainstreaming what I'm doing and not just sitting with

(57:49):
the knowledge myself, you know, or writing it into an
academic paper that no one reads. I really want to
mainstream and get the risks out there because it will
say lives and it has saved lives and changed lives.

Speaker 1 (58:03):
If people want to listen to your podcasts, where can
they get your podcasts?

Speaker 2 (58:08):
Yep, Crime Analysts and Real Crime Profile are on every platform,
so whether it's Spotify, Apple. I've also got a YouTube
channel for Crime Analyst, and I also have a Patreon
where we have a lot more discussions, extra episodes and
it's called the Crime Analyst Squad where I put a
lot more information, you know, and content on there, and

(58:29):
we have happy hours where people can ask me questions,
so you know, it's a way where I can engage
with people at a far deeper level than you know,
the seven platforms on social media where I get trolled
horribly because I'm spotlighting you know, male violence to women,
and there's a lot of people who don't like the
fact that I'm talking about saving women's lives. But that's

(58:51):
not to say I don't work with men either, because
I do. It's just that when we look at who's
doing what to whom, the majority of the cases that
can end up up where you know, people are murdered
and escalating, it does tend to be men who are
killing women. It's a disproportionate level. So that's important to
say because too often women are too polite about what's

(59:13):
happening to them, or they feel shame or humiliation or judgment.
So the bit about going into the police, taking someone
with you, you know, an advocate, and filling out the
risk assessment is really important. But yeah, you can find
me on all social media platforms, and do listen to
the podcast because it's unraveling lots of different types of cases,

(59:34):
and I hope that that is helpful to.

Speaker 1 (59:37):
People most definitely. I know there'll be a comment going,
but what about the blokes that are stalked? What about
the men that the victims of coercive control. Yes they're victims,
and yes they do need attension, But the sheer volume
of women the victims in these situations far outweigh the men.
Would that be a fair assessment, So we're not ignoring

(01:00:00):
the men, it's just the nature of the crime is
more orientated towards women being victims.

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
Well, a female firefighter put it this way. She said,
when she gets a call out to a house that's
burning and it's in a terrace, she goes to the
house that is burning in the middle of the terrace.
She doesn't go to houses that are either side of it.
And that's what we have to understand that when we
look at the stats, we look at the figures, we
look at the disproportionate nature of women being killed by men,

(01:00:28):
and that's why we have to have that conversation about
what's going on for men. And that's not to the
detriment of excluding boys and men, but we all have
to be part of the solution, and unfortunately, you know,
we do see a new Scotland yard. I never started
my career saying I'm going to work on male violence

(01:00:48):
to women. It's just what was given to me in
terms of the cases that kept happening. You think about
most serial killers, well, who are they targeting. They're targeting
women and children. It would make no sense at all
to disregard what our figures and our statistics and our
cases show us. And in fact the Home Office in
England and well show that ninety three percent of the

(01:01:10):
perpetrators have coerci control domestic mind its are men and
why would you disregard that information? It makes no sense.

Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
Well, look from what I've saying, I've learned about your work,
and we've only touched on some of the work that
you've done. We might have to get you back on
it on again. But the work that you're doing, you
are actually making a difference. So full credit to you,
and i'd like to say thank you, but thank you
for coming not just on the podcast, but you're making

(01:01:41):
the world a safer place. Keep up the good work.

Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
Thank you. Yeah, I mean I think that legacy is
very important. I want a better place for my son,
because right now I fear for the next generation with
the likes of Andrew Tait and just some of the
things that have been going on. And I take that
responsibility very seriously and I've always followed the work rather
than a promotion or a career, So I play my

(01:02:05):
part in the way that I can. And I really
thank you for the work that you've done, and also
for talking with me and being somebody of shining a
light and what needs to change. And we need more
men like you Gary doing that and talking in this
space and helping people understand what needs to change and
what needs to be done.

Speaker 1 (01:02:24):
So thank you, cheers. It's a nice, nice way to end.
Thanks very much. What an impressive person, Laura Richards is.
I found that chat fascinating and I hope it informs
people about the dangers of stalking and coercive control and
all the other indicators that we've got to look out

(01:02:46):
for that can prevent major crimes from happening. But the
work that she does, not just here in Australia but
across the globe is worth what

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Stalked to death: Laura Richards Pt.2

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes

Stalked to death: Laura Richards Pt.2

Dateline NBC