ALL RIGHT.
DONALD DUTTON, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
YOUR HONOR, I HAVE PRESENTED THE COURT WITH A COPY OF PROFESSOR DUTTON'S CURRICULUM VITAE YESTERDAY. IF THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE ONE HANDY, I HAVE ANOTHER ONE.
I HAVE TALKED TO THE DEFENSE, AND FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING ONLY AND LIMITED ONLY FOR THESE PURPOSES, THEY MIGHT OFFER TO STIPULATE AS TO THE MATERIAL STATED FORTH IN THE CURRICULUM VITAE AND THAT DR. DUTTON WOULD QUALIFY AS AN EXPERT WITH REGARD TO DYNAMICS OF SPOUSAL ASSAULT.
DOCTOR, IN YOUR WORK HAVE YOU DONE ANY STUDIES OR BEEN FAMILIAR WITH A SYNDROME KNOWN AS THE BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME?
DOES THAT SYNDROME IN ITSELF GO TOWARD THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY CERTAIN AFFECTS OR ANY ONE PARTICULAR DYNAMIC OF SPOUSAL ASSAULT?
WELL, IT IS TYPICALLY USED TO DESCRIBE REACTIONS THAT BATTERED WOMEN HAVE, BUT THERE IS ALSO SOME MATERIAL IN THE LITERATURE THAT DESCRIBES THE KIND OF RELATIONSHIPS THAT WOULD BRING ABOUT WHAT'S CALLED BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME.
NOW, BEYOND BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME, HAVE YOU DONE ANY WORK OR DONE ANY RESEARCH IN ANY AREA OR DYNAMIC OF SPOUSAL ASSAULT OTHER THAN BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME?
I MEAN WHAT WE DO IN OUR RESEARCH IS TO DO PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILES OF MEN WHO ARE COURT-MANDATED FOR TREATMENT FOR WIFE ASSAULT AND SOME MEN WHO COME IN WHO ARE SELF-REFERRED, AND THEN TO COMPARE THOSE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE TO THEIR WIFE'S REPORTS OF THE MAN'S ABUSIVENESS, PHYSICAL ABUSE, EMOTIONAL ABUSE AND OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE. WE TRY TO MATCH THE TWO UP, IN OTHER WORDS, TO SEE HOW THE WHOLE PROFILE STANDS.
YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO PROFILE WORK WITH CERTAIN BATTERINGS OR BATTERED POPULATIONS?
AND WHEN YOU SAY "POPULATIONS," HAVE YOU LOOKED AT OR RESEARCHED ANY SPECIFIC POPULATIONS IN ADDITION TO THAT?
VARIETY OF ETHNIC POPULATIONS AND PRIMARILY A VARIETY OF ETHNIC POPULATIONS AND DIFFERENT SOCIOECONOMIC POPULATIONS.
ANTICIPATED THAT THAT MAY COME UP. HAVE YOU DONE ANY RESEARCH OR ANY WORK COMPARING OR LOOKING AT THE FACT WHERE THIS WORK IS DONE COMPARED TO THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
OH, YEAH. SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH IS REALLY AN INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE AND I AM IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH MY U.S. COLLEAGUES AND WE ARE COMPARING PAPERS BACK AND FORTH ALL THE TIME. THERE DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO BE MUCH EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS ANY PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE DETERMINANTS OF INTIMATES ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE BETWEEN CANADA AND U.S., FOR EXAMPLE. SOCIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BUT NOT PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A SOCIAL SCIENCE ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH IN THE DEFENSE BRIEF, ESSENTIALLY TO SUMMARIZE IT, THAT BECAUSE THERE IS 2.5 MILLION BATTERINGS A YEAR AND, SAY, ONLY ONE TO 2000 DOMESTIC HOMICIDES OR SPOUSAL HOMICIDES, THAT THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN THOSE TWO?
THIS IS SOMETHING CALLED THE "CONFLICTS TACTICS" SCALE, A SCALE THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY DR. MURRAY STRAUSS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. THIS IS A SCALE THAT HAS BEEN USED IN ALL OF THE U.S. NATIONAL SURVEYS OF INCIDENTS OF SPOUSAL ASSAULT. HE DID A NATIONAL SURVEY IN 1975, HE DID ANOTHER ONE IN 1985, HE DID A THIRD ONE IN 1992. NOW, TO BE CONSIDERED ASSAULTIVE, ALL THAT HAS TO HAPPEN, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO MINIMIZE THIS, IS THAT A MAN HAS TO OR -- THE SURVEYS ARE DONE BOTH WITH PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS. THE RESULTS MAY BE SURPRISINGLY ABOUT THE SAME. THERE IS NOT A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATE WHETHER YOU ASKED THE QUESTION "DID YOU DO THIS" OR WHETHER YOU ASK THE QUESTION "WAS THIS EVER DONE TO YOU," BUT IF SOMEONE ANSWERS "YES" TO ANY ONE OF THESE QUESTIONS: "PUSHED, GRABBED OR SHOVED THE OTHER ONE, SLAPPED ANOTHER ONE, KICKED, BIT OR HIT THE OTHER ONE, HIT OR TRIED TO HIT WITH SOMETHING, BEAT UP, THREATENED WITH A KNIFE OR GUN OR USED A KNIFE OR GUN," THEY JUST HAVE TO ANSWER YES TO ANY ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS TO GO INTO THIS GENERAL POOL OF MEN WHO ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ASSAULTIVE.
UMM, WELL, IT IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT IS A RATHER LIBERAL CRITERION, I THINK, GIVEN THE KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS CASE. AS THE NUMBER OF ACTS BECOMES MORE SERIOUS AND MORE FREQUENT, THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU GET INTO A DIFFERENT KIND OF PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PERSON WHO WAS COMMITTING THOSE ACTS. I MEAN, JUST TO GIVE A CASE IN POINT, IF A MAN ONCE IN HIS MARRIAGE, IN REACTION TO SITUATIONAL STRESSES, HAPPENS TO PUSH HIS WIFE, HE STILL QUALIFIES FOR THIS LARGE POOL OF MEN WHO ARE CONSIDERED TO BE BATTERERS, BUT I WOULD SAY AS A PSYCHOLOGIST THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT MAN THAN SOMEONE WHO IS USING THESE MORE SERIOUS TYPES OF PHYSICAL ASSAULTS AND IS USING THEM REPEATEDLY. AND WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE MEN USING THE "BEAT UP" AND THE MORE SERIOUS TYPES OF ASSAULT REPEATEDLY, THEN YOU ARE DOWN TO TWO PERCENT OF THE U.S. POPULATION.
DEFINITELY NOT. THIS JUST MEASURES PRIMARILY PHYSICAL ACTIONS. PROBABLY AS IMPORTANT A SCALE IS ONE THAT WAS ALLUDED TO IN COURT PREVIOUSLY. IT IS DEVELOPED BY DR. RICHARD TOLMAN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SOMETIMES CALLED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MALTREATMENT OF WOMEN INVENTORY, BUT WE WILL CALL IT THE TOLMAN SCALE, AFTER THE FOUNDER. THIS SCALE MEASURES A VARIETY OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE ITEMS, PUT DOWN BY PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, INSULTED ME OR SHAMED ME, CALLED ME NAMES, SWORE AT ME. THIS IS ONE CATEGORY OF THE TOLMAN SCALE THAT DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH EMOTIONAL ABUSE, THAT IS ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE THE SELF-ESTEEM OF THE OTHER PERSON.
IT NARROWS IT CONSIDERABLY, AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SECOND FACTOR ON THIS SCALE, WHICH IS CALLED DOMINANCE ISOLATION, WHERE THE ONE PERSON IS TRYING TO TOTALLY CONTROL THE OTHER PERSON'S USE OF SPACE OR TIME, MONITORED MY TIME AND MADE ME ACCOUNT FOR IT, ORDERED ME AROUND, WAS STINGY IN GIVING ME MONEY, THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS TIE INTO THIS SECOND FACTOR ON THIS SCALE, WHICH IS THE DOMINANCE ISOLATION SCALE. NOW, IF YOU GET SOMEONE WHO AGAIN IS FREQUENTLY USING A LOT OF THESE ITEMS ON THIS EMOTIONALLY ABUSED SCALE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PHYSICAL ABUSE, THEN YOU'VE GOT A MUCH SMALLER GROUP OF MEN WITH A MUCH HIGHER RISK FACTOR, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMES OUT OF THIS SCALE IS A VERY STRONG MOTIVE FOR CONTROL OF THE OTHER PERSON, CONTROL AND DOMINATION OF THE OTHER PERSON.
THIS HAS REDUCED IT GREATLY AND ACTUALLY THIS SCALE GOES RIGHT THROUGH TO AND INCLUDING "THREATS" DOWN TOWARD THE END, SO YES, THAT LIMITS IT VERY GREATLY AND WOULD INCREASE THE RISK FACTOR.
NO, THAT IS NOT THE ONLY SCALE WE WOULD LIMIT IT TO, BUT AS YOU INCREASE DATA -- SEE, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS HUGE POOL OF MEN WHO ARE CALLED ASSAULTIVE WERE BASED SIMPLY ON MEN WHO ANSWERED "YES" TO ONE QUESTION ON THAT FIRST SCALE. OUR RESEARCH SHOWS YOU CAN GO WAY BEYOND IT AND AS YOU GO WAY BEYOND IT YOU GET TO A PSYCHOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT GROUP OF MEN WHO ARE USING CONTROL AND DOMINATION AS A PRIMARY MOTIVE IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND THESE ARE MEN WHO I WOULD CALL ABUSIVE PERSONALITIES BUT THEY ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT FROM EVERYBODY IN THAT BROADER CATEGORY.
WHY -- WELL, WHEN THE FIRST -- THE STATISTIC THAT CAME OUT THE 2.5 MILLION WAS TALKING ABOUT PHYSICAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT CASE OF SPOUSAL ABUSE OR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS ABUSIVE PERSONALITY, DO YOU LIMIT YOUR INQUIRY ONLY TO PHYSICAL ACTS?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. WE LOOK AT THE BROADER PICTURE OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE DOMINANCE ISOLATION. WE LOOK AT INTRUSIVENESS, IF THE COUPLE HAS SEPARATED. WE LOOK AT WHAT MIGHT BE CALLED STALKING BEHAVIOR AND WE ALSO LOOK AT PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.
THESE OTHER BEHAVIORS THAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED, THE EMOTIONAL ABUSE, VERBAL ABUSE, HUMILIATION, STALKING, PHYSICAL ABUSE, DO YOU EVER LOOK AT FINANCIAL ABUSE OR FINANCIAL --
WE CONSIDER FINANCIAL ABUSE TO BE PART OF THE DOMINATION CONTROL SUBSECTION ON THIS SCALE. IT IS ONE ASPECT OF IT.
YES, THEY ARE ALL HIGHLY STATISTICALLY CORRELATED. THEY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED TO EACH OTHER.
WELL, THE MAIN COMMON CHARACTERISTIC IS THAT THEY ALL HAVE AN UNDERLYING MOTIVE OF CONTROL OF THE OTHER PERSON.
AND IN YOUR OPINION, IN TRYING TO FIND A LINK BETWEEN THE HOMICIDE AND THE BATTERING POPULATION, IS IT PROPER TO LOOK AT THIS BROADER 2.5 MILLION SUBSET OR SET?
NO, NOT REALLY. I MEAN, YOU ARE COMPARING, IN MY OPINION, FENDER-BENDERS WITH HEAD-ON COLLISIONS IF YOU DO IT THAT WAY.
AND IN YOUR OPINION, IF YOU HAVE THE MULTIPLE TYPES OF ABUSE WITHIN A HISTORY, WITHIN A PERSONALITY, THAT POPULATION, THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN THAT AND SPOUSAL HOMICIDES?
THERE IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL LINK. THERE HAS -- IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT EMPIRICALLY, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A WHOLE SEPARATE SET OF STUDIES AND THOSE ARE SOME OF THE STUDIES WHICH ARE ALLUDED TO IN COURT THE OTHER DAY, WHICH ARE STUDIES THAT ARE DONE ON WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS AND WHERE THE RESEARCHERS HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THAT STUDY. THAT IS, THEY START WITH THE CORONER'S REPORT, WORKED BACK TO THE POLICE REPORT, AND IN SOME CASES GONE BACK AND INTERVIEWED THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF THE VICTIM TO FIND OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD ABOUT WHAT THE BACKGROUND FACTORS WERE IN THOSE RELATIONSHIPS.
NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT ONE OF THESE HISTORIES, IS IT SIGNIFICANT TO YOU TO LOOK AT INCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THE PAST YEAR?
UMM, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TEN YEARS IN THE PAST IS HISTORY AND UNRELATED, IN FACT WHAT FREQUENTLY GOES ON IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS IS VERY DIFFERENT. LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A QUICK EXAMPLE IF I MIGHT. I HAD A MALE CLIENT WHO BEAT UP HIS WIFE IN 1985. WHEN HE BEAT HER UP HE SAID, "NEXT TIME IT IS GOING TO BE WORSE" AND SHE REPORTED TO ME THAT WHEN HE BEAT HER UP HIS FACE CHANGED, HIS PHYSIOGNOMY CHANGED, HIS NOSTRILS FLARED, HE HAD A VERY DIFFERENT EXPRESSION ON HIS FACE. FOR THE NEXT SIX YEARS HE NEVER HIT HER AGAIN, BUT WHENEVER SHE SAW THAT EXPRESSION ON HIS FACE, SHE IMMEDIATELY TOWED THE LINE, SO THERE WAS A CONTINUING CONTROL THAT WENT ON EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SEVEN-YEAR GAP BETWEEN THAT 1985 INCIDENCE OF PHYSICAL ABUSE AND THE NEXT INCIDENCE OF PHYSICAL ABUSE.
THEY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION. IF THE TWO -- IF THE INTERACTION OF THE CONTROL DOMINATION EMOTIONAL ABUSE IS NOT CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PHYSICAL ABUSE, YOU LOSE THE CONTEXT OF THE PHYSICAL ABUSE, YOU LOSE THE MEANING AND MOTIVATION OF PHYSICAL ABUSE.
IN REGARD TO THE STUDIES OF SPOUSAL HOMICIDE, IS THERE ANY ONE MOTIVE THAT HAS COME OUT AS PREDOMINANT?
WELL, THE MAIN PRECIPITATING FACTOR -- IN FACT, THERE IS SIX DIFFERENT STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE. THE FIRST ONE WAS MARTIN WOLFGANG, DID A STUDY IN PHILADELPHIA, WHICH IS STILL A CLASSIC IN 1948, BUT THE TWO MAIN THINGS THAT COME OUT IS, FIRST OF ALL, ESTRANGEMENT, JEALOUSY, A HISTORY OF PHYSICAL ABUSE AND/OR JEALOUSY IN THE RELATIONSHIP AND RECENT ESTRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PERPETRATOR AND VICTIM.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN DIVORCE. "ESTRANGEMENT" IS REALLY SORT OF A SUBJECTIVE TERM. IT MEANS THAT THE PERPETRATOR IN HIS MIND -- AND I'M TALKING HERE ABOUT WOMEN BEING KILLED BY MEN, SO I USE THE TERM "HIS" -- IN HIS MIND THE PERPETRATOR HAS SEEN THE RELATIONSHIP AS FINALLY LOST. THAT TOTALLY CHANGES HIS PSYCHOLOGY AT THAT POINT, SO IT GOES FROM CONTROL AND DENIGRATE TO DESTROY AND THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PSYCHIATRIC LITERATURE ON THAT AND SOME OF THIS LITERATURE WE HAVE USED IN OUR OWN RESEARCH.
NOT NECESSARILY IF THEY ARE DIVORCED, BUT THE MAN STILL IS HOLDING OUT SOME KIND OF HOPE THAT THEY MIGHT RECONCILE, THEN HE HAS STILL BONDED HER AND HE MIGHT NOT SUBJECTIVELY SEE THEM AS BEING ESTRANGED AT THIS POINT.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE A MAJOR EVENT. IT COULD BE A MINOR EVENT, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT MAN CONSTRUES THE EVENTS AND WHAT ITS SYMBOLIC VALUE IS TO HIM.
WELL, I MEAN, UMM, IF -- LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, A WOMAN HAS ALWAYS ANSWERED HIS PHONE CALLS EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN DIVORCED, OKAY, AND SUDDENLY SHE STOPS ANSWERING HIS CALLS AND STOPS RETURNING HIS CALLS, REPEATEDLY OVER TIME, EVEN THOUGH THAT MIGHT SEEM LIKE A TRIVIAL THING, MORE OR LESS, IN THE OVERALL SCHEME OF THINGS, TO HIM THAT MIGHT HAVE MAJOR SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE, TO TELL HIM THAT POSSIBLY THIS RELATIONSHIP NOW IS LOST, OKAY?
AND IN SUCH A CASE WHERE YOU WERE TO LOOK AT A HOMICIDE WHERE THIS ESTRANGEMENT OR MORBID JEALOUSY, AS YOU CALL IT, MIGHT BE THE MOTIVE, ARE CONTROL HISTORIES IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT?
CONTROL HISTORIES ARE IMPORTANT AND ONE OF THE STUDIES THAT WAS DONE, AGAIN THEY FOUND NINETY PERCENT OF THE CASES HAD SOME BACKGROUND OF CONTROL AND ABUSE THAT PRECEDED THE HOMICIDE.
You are comparing, in my opinion, fender-benders with head-on collisions if you do it that way.
It goes from control and denigrate to destroy and there is considerable psychiatric literature on that.
One of the studies found ninety percent of the cases had some background of control and abuse that preceded the homicide.
If the interaction of the control domination emotional abuse is not considered in conjunction with the physical abuse, you lose the context of the physical abuse, you lose the meaning and motivation of physical abuse.