Hi, and welcome to the Animal Welfare Junction. This is your host, Dr. G, and her music is written and produced by Mike Sullivan. This is Season One State versus Stefan Baldwin, episode nine, the Monster Behind The Mask. And I am happy to welcome a special guest, Maya Badham of the Center for Animal Inclusive Safeguarding. Maya is a very special guest because she has a special interest in both the assistance of humans and animals that are victims of domestic violence and coercive control. So she's going to give us an insight into Stephan Baldwin's case, but also this is going to help in general in the identification assessment and potentially being able to help, uh, victims and survivors of domestic violence.

I'm Maya Badham. I'm the founder and CEO of the Center for Animal Inclusive Safeguarding. Uh, but my background spans over a decade in, um, kind of violence against women and girls direct survivor support. Um, I have two degrees. My first degree is looking at, kind of gender depression throughout time. Um, and my master's is in human rights law. Um, and then my first job out at uni was at coroner's office. So I was doing inquest into suspicious and then natural deaths, and that's where I could then kind of shifted over to kind of that frontline prevention, intervention support with, uh, survivors of, of domestic and sexual abuse. Um, and then I got into, into kind of animal welfare, um, canine behavior in around 2019, uh, with my own dog Podrick. And since then I kind of mashed the two worlds together. So now what I do mainly is, uh, provide training and education to across sectors and in between sectors, trying to get them to understand that interlink between interpersonal violence and um, animal cruelty. Um, I also do consultancy and research, and I'm about to start my PhD in October. Um, uh, we'll be looking at the, um, exploitation of the human canine bond as a tactic of cohersive control and the impact of that on the human and the dog. So it'll be one of the first times dogs have been looked at as kind of victims in their own right. Um, and I want to look at the kind of emotional and behavioral impact of living in an, a domestic abuse environment on the dog because we focus previously quite a lot on physical impacts, um, and not so much on that emotional behavioral impact. Um, and I currently am doing some expert witness work with police, a police force in the UK on a case where, um, coercive control was used, um, and the animals featured quite heavily. Um, so I'm starting to move more into kind of that expert witness, um, work as well.

Can you explain to the audience what coercive of control is?

Yeah. So coercive control is an act or pattern of acts of violence threats, uh, humiliation, intimidation that causes fear. Um, so, uh, a lot of the time that that pattern is really explicit, uh, and important. Um, and the reason why it's important to talk about coercive control, controlling behavior within that wider domestic abuse context is because there is a myth still that domestic abuse is mainly physical violence. Um, whereas the majority of the time, um, the coercive control is that every day, minute by minute abuse that that person lives with. Um, so whilst violence is a part of that, often a part of that, there are some cases where there is no history of physical violence. Um, but there's been very tight coercive control. So what that means is, um, you know, monitoring someone, so stalking behaviors, um, not allowing them to like live freely and independently. So they'll, they'll try to isolate them, create dependency on them. Often there's economic abuse involved in their, um, manipulation, gaslighting, that kind of warping of reality, um, for the, for the victim survivor. Um, and it's. You know, been described as kind of a world of everyday terror, really, that there's this, uh, the perpetrator will create a world a, a set of rules. Um, the victim survivor spends all their energy and time and focus trying really hard to, to, to meet those rules and not break those rules. But then what will happen is the perpetrator will move those roles, shift those roles, change those rules, um, without the knowledge of the victim survivors, it's very emotionally exhausting living, um, in that kind of world where they're just trying to appease the perpetrator as much as possible as a survival mechanism. Um, which is, uh, why that kind of victim blaming attitude can sometimes creep in. You know, the, if it was that bad, why didn't you leave? If it was that bad, why did you do this? Uh, rather than focusing on the, the person that's creating that environment, which is the perpetrator, um, so coersive control is, um, lessen known really, um, from that kind of wider domestic abuse Context, but it's really central to understanding why victim survivors behave the way they do. Um, how the perpetrator uses specific tactics to maintain that power and control, which is at the center of ultimately what they, they want. Um, and when you talk about, um, animals, um, so much of what they want from animals is rooted in the same thing, like unconditional compliance, unconditional obedience in all situations, in all contexts. There's no room for bad behavior, no room for anything outside that box that they've kind of set. Um, and unfortunately that can end, you know, can have very severe consequences for humans and animals.

And then they, they will use the animals as a method of control for the humans, right.

Absolutely. And that can look like different things too. So again, quite often people will default down to, um, physical violence, so hitting the animal, um, killing the animal, um, which is absolutely can be a part of that, that wider, um, tactics. But actually it can be as simple as threat, a threat to harm. Um, and that's a really powerful tactic because for many of us who have animals or, or share our lives with animals, you just have to think. If someone threatened to harm my animal, I would do, I would comply with whatever that person wants me to do because I don't want my animal to be harmed. So we, we sometimes forget that there's all these other non, what we call like a non-contact offense, like a non-contact, uh, piece of violence, but it's emotional violence. Uh, psychological violence. It can be things like economic abuse. So not allowing them to buy food, not allowing them to do parasite prevention, not allowed to take them to the vet, um, without there being consequences. Um, so the use of animals is much more wider, you know, even down to kind of stalking behaviors. So the use of kind of GPS trackers on the collar and, um, lying to kind of microchip companies to find out an address when someone moves. Like the, the use of animals is, is the, the depth of the entanglement of the tactics is, is a lot deeper than what I think a lot of people first understand when they think about the use of animals.

Our second episode is the rabbit hole because there's just so much to it and everything that. That I keep finding. It's like there's more and more and more and more, and this has been a huge task to undertake, right? Like making this, this season just because it's kind of like never ending. But I think the big question is kinda who is this person and how does he get away with doing this for such a long period of time? Um, now when we were discussing, before we were talking about his childhood, so let's start there. Let's start kinda like with the beginning of a monster. Like how, how, how do you feel that his childhood affected who he became? And is that a reason or an excuse?

So I think I said to you as well beforehand, we only have his word for kind of what his childhood was like. And I, I honestly don't know how we would ever in disentangle, like truth from lies from what he says, because every other word he says is, is, is a lie. I think, um, um, however, if we take what he said about his childhood as even semi true, um, I think, you know, it's not unusual for perpetrators of violence and abuse to have troubled childhoods. However, in my sector, we, we are very clear that, um, domestic abuse coercive control is an active choice to perpetrators choose to abuse someone, and there's never an excuse for their behavior. So, whilst I'm sure if what he says is correct, he was, there is trauma there from his childhood, which I think, um, does impact people in different ways, um, it's not, it's too simplistic and reductionist to say, oh, he had this, uh, childhood experience, therefore. Um, he's acting like this because it takes part of the responsibility away from him. Um, and there are many people out there who have had horrendous childhoods, really, really negative traumatic childhoods who do not go on to abuse other people, who do not go on to be violent. So, um, there has to be an, and so yes, maybe there was a violence and abuse or something happening in his childhood, but plus something else that made him behave how he did. And when we talk about perpetrators, uh, male perpetrators against female victim survivors, a lot of that and comes from misogyny, sexism, and living in a patriarchal environment, which allows them to basically act this way with, with impunity because of the way in which we police or don't police crimes against women. So, um, I think we can't, uh, take away his experiences as part of who he is, and it would be a disservice to do that. Um, but I think it's not the whole picture. Um, and I'd love to see a psych eval. I think your last guest also also was kind of quite interested in, in, but the thing is they will manipulate everyone. They will manipulate professionals. They will manipulate, uh, public, they will manipulate obviously, their intimate partners and their families and their children. So even the most skilled professional with him, I think would be hard pressed to try and detangle like exactly what's going in on inside his, his head. Um, but certainly I think, you know, um, his childhood probably didn't help, um, who he, who he was. But I think, you know, it can never be, or should never be given as an excuse for his behavior. And I think the accountability and the responsibility for his, his actions and behavior should remain on him.

He is obviously very good at lying and very good at making people believe his lies. Um, and, and some of that has to come from being good at reading people, right? Like how, how do, how do people, you know, it's not just the women that he abused, but also the people that he took advantage of, I mean, myself included. So, um, how, how does that happen?

So, very similar to how, um, child abusers a pedophiles groom, their victim survivors, the perpetrators will groom everyone around them because there's no better protection than people who won't believe the truth because they've got this kind of, uh, mass. So what you'll often find is perpetrators who are well-known members of the community, well, respected members of the community, um, they will often seek, um, positions of power. So, you know, um, he was, he had a history of, I know there's confusion about exactly what he did in the military, but he was, you know, in there at some point. Um, and often perpetrators are drawn to profession, professions where they can have some sort of power and control or, um, exhibit kind of rigid, rigid kind of rules a lot of the time. So military policing, um, you know, other kind of official roles. And, you know, you talked about, um, uh, he became like executive director of the Humane Society, was it? Yeah. The Humane Society. Yeah. So, so like that is perfect for someone who wants to portray themselves as a trusted professional, um, someone to be admired and looked up to and revered even. And I think he really, um, wanted that, that re reveration. I don't, you know, that God-like complex, um, that just huge ego. Um, that was I think a, a big motivating part for a lot of what he did, but also it's a, a great exploitation tactic in getting money, which was obviously a huge part of his, his kind of, um, uh, crime crimes that he did was. You know, scamming people out of money. And what you find a lot of the time is, uh, perpetrators and narcissists and psychopath, sociopath, they like money. There is like a, a thing around having money. And I think that's also where, going back to his childhood, I, I don't think he had a lot of money. I think there were periods of time where he didn't have a lot of money. And so that, again, that's not an excuse, but that may feed into some of that motivating behavior around money is that fear of being without money sparked his need almost to have an extreme amount of control, um, over kind of money. And partly, I, I personally think he, he got some sort of pleasure out of scamming people. I think there was probably something going on in his brain when he successfully did these things. That gave him a bit of a kick, a bit like almost like an addiction, which I know he also had, uh, struggles with, with, um, addiction. And, um, I think that that, like, that was, I think, could fed into that mentality of more and more, more rising up the ladder, being seen as this person, uh, whilst being someone else. Again, I think that probably gave him a little bit of a kick because I dunno if you used that phrase in the States, but it gave him like something Yeah, it gave him like a sense of like, that that deception is probably a thrill, like a high thrill. Yeah. Like thrill is like a thrill there to, to it as well. Um, but, but for sure, um, they will, they will manipulate everyone around them. Um, mo when you see, uh, so he's kind of like a really interesting case because this is like one of the o one of the only cases, one of the bigger cases where he's manipulating so many people, um, uh, on a smaller scale with like a lot of the work that I do, um, kind of with, I don't wanna sound blase, but kind of like your average perpetrator, because I think he is pl, you know, he's a very Dan, like, there's a very dangerous, very, um, almost like unique in some of the things that he was doing. Um, but if you scale that down, what, um, what perpetrators will do is they'll obviously groom their partner, um, before they get into the relationship, which I, he, he did classically by the book and we call that the entrapment process. So, um, the first is called conditioning or the grooming stage. So that's where you'll see that kind of white night savior love bombing. So gifts and, uh, making them feel really good. Often at this stage they'll mirror, so what you are interested in, they're also really interested in, and that's a tactic that he used. When I was listening to some of the other, that that's a tactic that he used with people generally. Um, but he used that

with me when I, when I first met him, I said, this is what I'm interested in. And immediately that was what he was interested in, you know? Yeah. And that's how like, you know, we started our partnership was because, you know, this, this was my idea. And he's like, oh yeah,

that's my idea too. And it's so effective, um, making that bond immediately. And that's what, um, in the entrapment process from an intimate partner, um, perspective is often it's very quick. So everything is sped up. So there'll be like early declarations of love. They move in really quickly. Um, there'll often be lots of kind of, um, showering like of gifts, um, decor, um, like, uh, flowers or, you know, something that, whatever they need sometimes, like, oh, you need, um, you know, oh, you're a little bit low on the rent. Oh, I'll help top that up. Or, you know, they, they come in, um, and they, they kind of, then what you do is like, where we're bound, like grateful. So there's like that, um, um, it's really effective because then if someone else came and said, oh, do you know that person isn't very nice? You are like, well, they're nice to me. Like they're really nice to me. They're a really good person. So you are the one that's not nice because you are talking about this person negatively. And so that's that isolation beginning too, because you're then not trusting anyone outside that sphere of reality that they're building. Um, which then leads into stage two, which is around normalization and dependency. So this stage, they'll start, um, drawing the, the person even more into their reality. So they'll create a reality. The expectations around that person moving only within that reality. Any steps out may mean there are consequences, whether that's physical abuse or something else. But, um, that, that they're teaching that person the line to walk basically. Um. So you'll see like control increase in this stage. You'll see threats start to, to come in the stage and you may even have like an early violent episode in this stage as well. Um, and then the third stage is, is like full entrapment. So by this stage, often the person is economically tied to the perpetrator. Um, there's definitely more like rigid rules, the consequences for breaking those rules, um, they're emotionally dependent on this person. Um, I think, you know, one of his tactics as well, um, other guests has talked about is, you know, um, the use of drugs and alcohol, which for some perpetrators again, is a very effective tactic because if you are, say the supplier and you've, you've isolated that person so they can't drive. 'cause I know, you know, one of the victim survivors, I dunno, uh, about names, but, you know, uh, one of the victim survivors talked about, you know, not having access to a car, um, not living near a, but you know. Geographically isolated. Um, then if you get someone addicted or, um, you know, um, dependent on drugs or alcohol, and they're the only person able to supply you with that, there's that additional layer of dependency on that person. And really there's a lot of sometimes blame that goes along with that. So, um, you know, there's a lot of stigma around those who struggle with drug and alcohol use. Um, but ultimately sometimes for victim survivors, that's like a lifeline, that that is the only thing they feel like keeping them alive, really, because their environment that that person has created is so bad that that is their only means of escape is in the substances. Um, and therefore the blame for that should lay squarely at the feet of the perpetrator that has created that environment, um, for that person. And quite often that that's exacerbated by humiliation and degradation. So calling people names, you know, um, taking away their self-esteem, making them feel like they would be nothing without them, um, guilting them. So look what I've given you, um, like even around like, you know, debt debting. So, you know, um, oh, I spent this much on, originally what was a gift now is kind of like you owe me for that. Um, in some way, shape or form, whether that's an unpaid labor or whether that's maybe sexual favors, uh, you know, sexual coercion essentially that's what that is. Um, but they owe them that. And so that there's this kind of, um, you know, that's that emotional dependency as well. So I think the most important thing with domestic abuse and coercive control is absolutely anyone can be a, become a victim, survivor of perpetrator. So lots of us like to think, you know, walk around thinking that'll never be us. Um, you know, I'm not stupid enough to fall for them. We are all one arms throw away from a perpetrator. We all know a perpetrator, we've all interacted with a perpetrator. We've all been taken in by a perpetrator. Um, it's luck of the draw, whether that person, um, you know, continues on that kind of path with the, with, with you. But we all have vulnerabilities that can be exploited. If you have, if you love your job, if you have a child, if you have an animal, um, if you have any form of like normal level empathy at all, they will exploit it if they choose you to be a their victim. So that's why that victim blaming it really needs to kind of stop in terms of there's an us and there's the victims. It can literally be anyone, um, anyone of us. And in his case, it was a hell of a lot of people. So,

yeah. Yeah. He was able to, yeah. Manipulate people and, and he did it, you know, he picked something easy, which is the animals, because, you know, every, most people love animals, and the people that love animals really care deeply about them. So he was able to take advantage of the emotions that people have. Yeah. Uh, and utilize that.

Yeah. And a lot of people that are like, you know, like people like us who are like above, there's animal lovers. And then there's like some of us, which are, which are like, uh, you know, very, very deeply into kind of animal welfare. A lot of us have previous experience, negative experiences with people and or our own trauma. Therefore, we gravitate towards animals, especially animals in need because of the fact that animals give unconditional love. They're like truly innocent in lots of ways. And so, um. Again, the animal welfare world is, is kind of full of people that are, that have vulnerabilities, that have previous histories of trauma that they will then exploit and they're quite adept at targeting, uh, knowing like they will deliberately pick someone. So lots of victim survivors have internalized shame and guilt. They, they really feel like they deserved, they've done something to des and they, they're being told that by the perpetrator a lot of the time. Like, if you didn't do this, I wouldn't need to do this. You know, they, they're, they're always warping it to that. Um, and even once the victim survivor leaves that stay, you know, that psychological abuse is what stays with people the most and takes the most work to undo. And some people it never really truly goes away. Um, which is one of the hardest impacts, I think, is that, that they're kind of. Self worth and self-belief is always have this, uh, person in the back of their head saying, you know, you are worthless. No one likes you. Um, you know, all these kind of things and, and that, that really can stick with people for life, really, which is, it's such a shame, um, because none of that is their fault. And so I spent a lot of time where, when I worked frontline with survivors, you know, telling them that they're not to blame nothing they did, they didn't deserve it because they will target people who, you know, one of the, um, victim survivors that, um, I listened to that you'd interviewed, she talked about, she said, I'm not perfect a lot. And, um, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what kind of person you are. You do not deserve, no one deserves to be treated how he treated people. So, um, that's one of the saddest, um, the saddest parts about it's then victim survivors are not only internalized that, but society victim blamed. So society says, whilst you must have done something, because we have this, uh, this, this theory is called just world theory. And basically what that is, is, um, in order to function as human beings, sometimes we like to think good things happen to good people. Bad things happen to bad people. So if something bad happened to you, so you must have done something to deserve that. And so perpetrators feed off of that. They love that society thinks that because it just feeds into their world and their warped reality. Um, so, so yeah, I think, oh, you know, the question you asked me was around that kind of manipulation and I think he was just extreme. He was extremely skilled gaslighter manipulator, mask wearer. Um, you know, potential sociopath, psychopath in terms of his nature, I think. And they, they're just very, very good at reading people, which is exactly what you said.

I think, I think that one of the interesting things with him and his partners is that he didn't keep a partner. Like he kept rotating through partners. Right. And we think about these domestic violence perpetrators, how they're so manipulative that they don't want that person to leave. So they will use the animals, they will use the kids, they will use whatever reason to keep him from leaving. But he was literally tearing these people down mm-hmm. And then getting rid of them. Mm-hmm. Like, you know, like you're no, you're no used to me anymore. Next. Yeah.

But I think part of that, do you know, I think, I can't remember if I said it just now, or I said it before we started recording. I think that part. Is like that. Yes, he's a, he's a da perpetrator and potentially like psychopathic sociopathic because with a lot of perpetrators, they, um, are triggered by separation. So separation is the most high risk time for domestic homicides, uh, to occur. For him, he just seemed to be like, well, onto the next, you know, he really, really, and so that not caring at all, I think fits more into that profile of psychopath, sociopath. Um, and also I think arrogance. I think he didn't have trouble meeting women. I think, you know, he, he, um, he he puts himself out as an attractive person. So he is quite easily able to use that, um, um, to his favor. I'll never forget the first per perpetrator I ever met. He reminds me a little bit of, of this person, as in I formally met, um, in my work, it was at family court. And 'cause normally obviously I don't see the perpetrators at all because I work with the survivors, but this was in family court setting and, um, a lots of people have in their minds like what a perpetrator looks like. So a perpetrator is someone with unkept hair and, you know, dirty teeth in a, a trench coat and they, um, you know, they skulk around in the dark and they're like, dah, dah. And um, you know, this perpetrator that I met was dressed in a perfectly fitted suit, young, very attractive looking man, um, just exuded charm, like without even speaking. And so that was my first true understanding. 'cause obviously I'd done my. Uh, training and I knew, oh, perpetrators can be like that. But when you see them in real life act like that, look like that, you really start to understand that perpetrators can be anyone. They can be teachers and doctors and police officers, and literally your your next door neighbor, your, uh, your brother, you know, they, they can be anyone, an anyone. And once you start to understand that that's that first kind of peeling back of the victim blaming, because then you're not able to pinpoint that. 'cause they'll use that as a cover. Like, oh, he can't be, he can't be, you know, you see it all the time of like, um, child sex abusers who are like, I don't know, head teachers and they do all this really great work and they volunteer and they do sports day and all of this. Um, and then what happens is, you know, one person is brave enough to disclose and they're not believed. Because they're like, how can that person, that person is? No, don't say that. You know, and you see that in families too, that, you know, if you are, if we believe this person, then that, then that shatters that family and victim survivors that weighs heavy on them to, you know, that, that, that the, the courage it takes to, to, to tell someone that what's happened shouldn't really be underestimated because it's, it's an immense bravery brave act to do that. Especially against someone who is powerful, who has friends in high places, who presents how they do like he did. Um, you know, I think that we should thank the people that have come forward and spoken, um, and, and, and give them the respect that they deserve really.

Some of the, some of the damage that he caused, you know, two of his ex-partners ended up dead. Mm-hmm. And he didn't really have a direct hand on it, but he's still responsible for it. Right. Like, how do you explain that, you know, from, from A to B?

Yeah. So, um, if you look at the domestic, so, so we would call, I would call those two as fitting within domestic abuse related deaths. So that's where, um, you know, either there's a direct homicide or there's, there's, uh, domestic abuse related suicide. Or there's like, um, like the sec, sorry, I can't remember her name, but the, the second one that passed away that, um, I think from drug addiction or drug use. Yeah, that was Amanda. Yeah. That was directly linked to him. So that wouldn't necessarily fit into homicide or suicide related, but he created that environment. So, um. I think there's two things. One is the environment in which the perpetrator creates, um, often makes victim survivors feel like there's no other way out, and that they can't be free. And there is that person sitting on their head all the time. And I think this is the other thing that we need to go heads out of is, um, if it, if their death didn't occur immediately, um, afterwards or during the course of the relationship that is not linked to that person because that trauma is with that person for forever, essentially. So, you know, you can have, um, um, a, a domestic abuse related suicide 10 years on. Maybe they've not even spoken, but the impact of that relationship has, has haunted basically that person to which they to, to again, where they feel like there's no way out but to, but to take their own lives. Um, and so I think he absolutely is culpable, whether that, you know, I'm talking in a moral sense. Um, 'cause I, you know, from a legal sense, I, I can't say over here we have, we've kind of had a shift in that, in terms we're trying to shift that. So if the, if someone does end their own life as a res direct result of domestic abuse, um, that that person is held accountable through like manslaughter or, you know, some other, um, kind of, kind of charge, uh, we're still kind of working on that. But I dunno what it's like in the States. So for now, let's just keep it within a moral, but like within a moral setting, I think, you know, there is that direct link well, that, that person wouldn't be, uh. That situation if they had not ever met him. So you, that is like, um, a direct causal link I think between unfortunately what happened, um, you know, with them losing their lives and with him, even if he wasn't physically the one who took their life.

One of the other things that, you know, as we're talking about how they have this control even after the relationship has ended, you know, I know that that Litsa is really hurt about the fact that his girlfriend at the time did not come forward and talk about what had happened to Remy. And you know, it took her a really long time to actually say, you know, kind of what, what happened. And that is part of that control still, even after, I mean, he's in prison now and I feel like he still has that control over people.

Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's completely normal as in normal for, um, perpetrators to, to exhibit or for, for them to still continue to have that control over the victim's survivor. And I think, I think it comes down to like tr the trauma of domestic and, and cove control not really being truly understood and in like a meaningful way. Uh, uh, these, I mean, uh, she talks a lot and the victim survivor, she talks about like her whole reality, and that's still, she struggles with, uh, with like the under, you know, creating her own reality because of the reality which that he created. Um, and that's, that's very common as well. I mean, I've, I've had survivors who have come out of relationships, and it doesn't take long as well. Like PE people think, oh, you know, oh, they were only together for two months. Oh, they were only together for six months or a year. Um, really that, that doesn't really matter because what really matters is the tightness of the course of control. So how much control was there that directly correlates to kind of impact and, and, and kind of ongoing impact as well because, uh, the higher the control, the higher the risk. And I think he's a extremely dangerous person. Um, and when you are living with an extremely dangerous person, you are lots of the type your, the victim survivor's brain switches to survival. And that doesn't always look neat and pretty to the outside world, but when you look at it through a trauma-informed lens, you can see that, um, there is a reason why they're acting a certain way. And I think, um, you know, she, the victim's survivor you're talking about, she, she spoke about, she actually didn't know a lot actually about what was going on. So, um, and, and I know she, she feels herself a lot of, um, guilt around that. And, um, that's not uncommon either. I don't think any blame should be placed on her at all. Um, um, although I think it's, it's valid for other people to, to, to kind of have those questions. Um, but from like a, a, um, a victim kind of rights perspective and from a trauma-informed lens, it makes complete sense. Um, that she even talks about, you know, first of all there's that reality of just, you know, he's created and that, you know, he could probably spin it, that, I mean, even, even yourself, you talked about he, it's plausible, like what he was saying seemed plausible. So, and she talks about coming from a non-animal background, non welfare background, you know, so you've got someone with no experience. So first of all, he's putting her, if you look at it from, um, like a work perspective as an employer. He's putting her in a risk and a dangerous situation because she's got no background, no training, and he's not even offering any of that. He's then isolating her, taking away her finances, so economically abusing her, and then not least, um, you know, reducing her self-esteem, which we know from her, you know, she's talked candidly about having a previous relationship that, uh, she called it unhealthy, but likely it, it would come under coercive control. And so that put previous partners, al already kind of laid the groundwork for Steve to come in and kind of build on it. Um, and she, she was a, he absolutely did the entrapment process, uh, with her. Um, came in as that white savior came in as, um, you know, helping live together really quickly. Um, quickly took control of e the economics never paid her. For any work that she did do, made her live in what sounds like squalor a lot of the other time that he, she was talking. So, um, our brains are just, you know, when we're in that traumatic situation, it, it can just turn inward in terms of I can only try and survive this. And, you know, um, someone on the other episodes talked about a previous girlfriend talking about he threatened her with a gun. I'm almost certain there'd be threats to kill spattered throughout all of the relationships. Um, and so that fear, that that real, real deep seated fear every single minute, um, of the day, really takes a huge toll on victim survivors. You know, a lot of the time they'll also, um, manipulate their, their, or like disrupt their sleep. They'll force substances on them. So they're keeping them depend, like isolated, dependent. And so, um, it's a really tricky thing to look at and say. It's really, it is really easy to look from the outside and think, why, why didn't you do that? Why did you go along with this? Why do, but ultimately, um, the, the real, the reality for I think that, um, victim survivors is much different. Um, and really they are, they are, they are just preoccupied with trying to keep that person happy so that they don't turn on them. I mean, I'm really surprised that that his history, you know, you said there'd been no previous, uh, to our knowledge, any previous police reports around violence and I mean, there's been these like anecdotally, you know, people talking about his previous past, but I think he is a high risk perpetrator, um, and, and a real danger to, to, to people, but women and animals obviously, especially. Um, and I think also we just don't know, unless you're in that situation, you just don't under don't understand or, or appreciate the, like, um, that the depth of, of that, um, and the heaviness that that has, um, on a person and on their, on their mental health as well. Um, so yeah, I hope that that kind of helps.

Yeah. Well, and something interesting that we had discussed previously was about how people blame victims for falling into the same pattern, right? From going from one situation into the next situation. Yeah. And it's not really on the victim, it's on the perpetrator. Right.

So perpetrators will, they're very skilled at picking their victim survivors. So they will pick people that, um, have sadly the hallmarks of a previous relationship. I mean, he knew she was still in that relationship when she met him, so he knew that, um, that relationship wasn't good and that there were things going wrong and that she wanted out. So he became the, out like he became that, um, uh, the out. And so the other thing is that domestic abuse is common. People really think that it's, oh, it doesn't really happen. You like globally, it's one in three women will experience some form of violence and abuse throughout their life. Often. Uh, what we're seeing now is, um, women are more likely to have multiple. Acts of violence across their life or, or abuse over the course of their life. Um, and there's just a lot of perpetrators. I think again, we just mis, we misunderstand the sheer scale of the problem. Um, and so we default to, um, a bit like we just talked about, that just worthy through that while you must have done something, you know, there's a problem with you. Rather than look at the history of this person, what is the common denominate between all these women? Is this is him. Um, so that, that's, that's what they'll do, that they'll pick people. And even if they pick someone who hasn't had a history of domestic abuse, they might, might have a history of, uh, struggles with addiction. They might have a history of childhood, um, abuse. They might have a, um, a history of something else. But ultimately, like I said just now, it doesn't have to have, be a history of anything is we all have vulnerabilities. They, they look for people that have something that they love. And they look. Um, one of the things I'll do immediately, like we talked about, is, um, they'll be very intense often about this, but they'll, they're mining for information which makes them look like they're actually very interested in what you have to say, which is very attractive quality, especially for women. 'cause we're not really listened to that much generally on the whole. Um, and so it's very unusual. And so we kind of feel well they, they create a sense of safety, a false sense of safety and security, uh, which will then, they'll then go on to continually exploit. Um, but they want to know as much about you as possible. So we, we give away information. And that's not a blame on us because I mean, like you said, if you have a child, so one of the first questions when you're dating is, you know, oh no, do you have any children? Oh yeah, I have children. And they'll even groom the children in some cases and or the animal. So, um, they'll like get the animal to like them. They'll be really nice to the animal and those, those who have animals. So I think also this myth around like, oh, animals know if they're a bad person. No, like most of the time, no. Like lots of bad people have pets that like, love them. So, um, yes, I think, I think there is something to that in some circumstances. But on the whole, if you are nice to an animal, they, they're gonna like, they take you at face value a lot of the time. So, um. But people have this myth that, oh, you know, oh, he was so good with the animal. The animal liked him. And that's also nice for us. 'cause we feel like, oh, they accept, they're accepted and oh, they, you know, they came and they were really pleasant to my child. They maybe brought my child a gift, you know, so they're grooming everyone. Um, and we all have something that can be exploited.

One of the interesting things too, that we were talking about is, you know, how people that grow up to love animals is because as children, they, and you know, like in, in, in my experience, my personal experience, you know, I had dogs and I would feel more comfortable being with the dogs, that being with some of the people, like the dogs were not judgmental, you know, and, and that kind of stuff. Um, but he, from anything that I have seen or heard, and even from talking to him, I don't think that he ever grew up with animals. So that would make it. Rare, right? That as a, as an adult, he would all of a sudden develop this attachment to animals.

Yeah. I, I don't think he did have an at attachment to animals. I think, um, uh, uh, those who want to exploit people, exploit animals. So it's just like a mechanism. I think for him it was a mechanism, a mechanism to get to what he actually wanted, which was money, fame to inflict pain for probably for pleasure to, he got out of it. I, I think that the animals were literally just a mechanism. A bit like, um, I watched a documentary, well, a bit like, you know, the first thing that comes to mind is like, like the Tiger King guy and the roadside road, uh, roadside zoo people. Um, they think that they like animals, that they love animals, but actually it's all exploitation. Um, for money and obviously, obviously your note, you know, that animal abuse links to organized crime, gangs, guns, sexual violence, domestic, you know, it, it links to loads of offshoots. Um, and so animals you think about like, um, people that do backyard breeding and puppy farming and all of that, that's not because they like puppies and they like, they like money and they like things to exploit things. So the animals are just like a mechanism and, and like I think you said before, um, there is no better real, really sector to find people to exploit because, um, animal people really care so deeply. Um, and that is a vulnerability and it is a really good vulnerability. People should care, you know? Right. But you know, like, um, they, it shouldn't be that we have to, as a society, care less because someone may exploit it. It's, um, it's a real shame that they do. Um, but I don't want people to think, think, sit there now thinking, analyzing themselves as, oh my gosh, of all these vulnerabilities. Like they are the best part of you. You know? And it's not on us when other people look to undermine that. Um, there's no blame, blame or shame should be honest for that. Um, because they are very good at, good at it. But yeah, I think the animals were, I think he could have stumbled into a number of different things. Just so happens he stumbled into animals. Um, so, so yeah, that's what I think about kind of why he used animals.

Yeah. And from his previous experience, you know, he talks about when he was in California before he came to Ohio, that he ran a homeless shelter. And then he also was part of a veterans, uh, type place. So, you know, he is looking for that kind of population that needs help and that will get the public, you know, worked up into trying to, trying to help them.

Yeah. But his ego is just so dominant because he, um, you just remind me when I was listening to that podcast where he was talking about h helping out the, you know, he talks about giving the homeless, um, and how this person a lift in his like amazing car, in his convertible car, and

it was like the best ride of his life.

We were a homeless resource center, not a shelter, so there was no beds. If you wanted a bed, you had to go down to the Salvation Army, which was like five miles away. And it was typically reserved for women and children first, and then men just kind of got the leftovers, you know, as, as it should be if you're homeless. Yeah. The women and children need the shelter the most. So there was a couple of dudes and they're like, oh man, look, we never make it there in time. You know, we're just gonna go sleep on the streets. And I had my 65 Dodge Dart and I was like, you guys wanna ride my car? And so it was convertibles. I popped the top. I had a little power convertible button to hit the button goes back,

they're probably so stoked.

Oh, they were so stoked. I wish I, there was like, this was what, 2003? So cell phones existed, but no one was taking pictures with them. Really. Like we were still just calling and texting. There was no selfie camera.

Yeah. It was like,

you are just your, it's just, it's just unbelievable. Like the, the kind of ego that he had was massive and, um, just, yeah, yeah, just really warped sense of self. Complete. Yeah.

Well, and that's why when he was, uh, the, the director at the Union County Humane Society, which was the first job that he got, by lying to them and saying that he had all this experience, which he really didn't have, but he even talks on, on the one podcast about how that wasn't enough. You know, he was doing this for the dogs, this was doing that, and it just wasn't enough. Mm-hmm. And then he started doing the humane agent and rescuing dogs, and then that gave him that high, but he couldn't do what he wanted. And I think primarily as part of the Humane Society, you know it, when, when you're part of a, of a group and you do something, the group did something and that doesn't reflect directly on just him. So he left to create his own group so that it can be, you know, like the, the one man show. And then he's actually. Saving these animals, he's actually protecting things and he can start drawing money for himself. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and one of the things that you said earlier on was about how these personalities look for positions of power. And by becoming a humane agent, he, he even said, which is not true, that he had full police powers and he had a gun that was part of his uniform, which is not true. He was not allowed to carry a gun, but he had a gun and he had a badge. And he presented himself as not only a humane officer for Union County, but for every county in Ohio, which is also not a thing. You have to be a humane agent for each county. So it was this ultimate, you know, like self-made power trip that he got into.

Yeah. That does not surprise me in the least. Um, yeah, absolutely. They will seek, seek. Uh, positions where they, they can have more power, more control. And I think, you know, the, the officer even said that, um, it became clear that it was like a one man show. Um, and probably because he didn't wanna share, because I don't think he's capable of like, even understanding the word share. Um, but, you know, um, that makes, that fits with him completely, I think.

Yeah, that was one of the, that was one of the things, and actually it was one of the charges that he had as far as theft and corruption because he, his nonprofit was partners with our nonprofit. However, he raised the money and he was supposed to split the money and he never did. He would keep it all, and then he was keeping the money for his nonprofit. But not even using it for the animals, he was using it for himself, you know? Yeah. He's like buying himself things. He was paying for his rent, he was paying for his child support out of the, out of the nonprofit.

And he bought guns with it too. Yeah, yeah,

yeah. So, you know, it's like, yeah, I what you're saying as far as he doesn't wanna share. Yeah, he definitely didn't wanna share. Yeah,

yeah. Yeah. It's classic, unfortunately. I mean, kind of fortunately, because it meant that no one else was involved in that perpetration, which, 'cause the other thing, and, and I'm not saying that this happened with, uh, with, with his victim survivors, but one of the other things that perpetrators, criminal perpetrators will do is they will, um, purposely include the victim survivor in their criminal activity. To make, make them kind of, um, as a, a blackmail. So, you know, if anything happens to, to me, you are coming down with me because you are a complicit. Um, so often, you know, if, if the person is a, uh, drug dealer, they'll make the, the victim survivor deal drugs or do the accounting, you know, they'll be involved. They'll, they, they'll, um, force them to be involved in some way with the criminal activity. And so I'm, I'm, I'm not saying that that's what happened with, with him, but just to say from that wider con context, that's very common as well. Um, that they'll coerce them into doing, um, you know, different, um, criminal acts.

Switching gears a little bit from the humans that he harmed to the animals that he harmed. Mm-hmm. Right. Uh, um, I am really interested in the hoarding issue, right. And hoarding as a mental health disease. And he fits the personality of an exploiter hoarder because he kept accumulating all of these dogs, but he was literally using them for, you know, he wasn't doing it because he cared about the dogs. Yeah. He was doing it for his own gain.

A hundred percent. I mean, it, it's very clear that he, he didn't care about animals at all. Um, I mean, what can we say in terms of like, the impact on the animals themselves? It's just so hard to think, even think about, isn't it? You know, not so, you know, not least because animals lost their lives as a result. I mean, I, I've been calling him, so I, I met with a friend, um, earlier and I said, I'm doing this, like speaking with Alba later about this, this guy, because obviously in the UK he's not, we didn't really know anything about this case. So I've had to do a bit of a deep dive and, um, I called him a serial killer of dogs because ultimately he is a serial killer. Like that is exactly what he does. He has an mo, he has like a method. Uh, he has the opportunity, you know, that is kind of what he, he's doing. Um, but it fits what you are saying because I don't think he's killing because he necessarily enjoys killing. I can't say for sure. I think possibly there's like, there is some element of that, but he's killing because he kind of, um, it's linked directly to that financial as it is linked to red. It serves. Yeah. Um, but I think, you know, the state that, you know, um, the victim's further talked about that they were living in, in terms of neglect that intersection with neglect and how I think, um, Litsa also mentioned, and she made a really good point, you know, that. Um, if you're even gonna try and help dogs with behavioral issues, improve the environment is the first place you start. And she talked about how, you know, um, shelters are often not the best place to see the true dog anyway because there's fear in all these other things. But it seems like that was just replicated in his, his, in his facility, if you can call it that. You know, that, um, he was never gonna be successful or it was a very slim chance of him being successful anyway because he created an environment of such little care. Um, and I think therefore his culpability goes beyond only the dogs that died and to those dogs who were further traumatized further behaviorally. Now, you know, behaviorally have additional issues that may. May never trust again. You know, all these additional impacts on the animal that he's left, like that legacy, um, of trauma that he's left on, not just the dogs, um, in that facility, but the ones that we, you know, we, you and I talked about the ones that were placed inappropriately and the like, widespread ramifications go so much wider than just, you know, you know, that, that circle, um, that direct circle in which he was kind of interacting with. Um, and then I think, you know, you talked about him training. I mean, it's just, so then that's not necessarily even with it all, but he's probably spreading misinformation. So like the, and then you've got someone out there who thinks what he taught them was right and it's just doesn't, it's just, just mind boggling. The sheer ripple effect that this one person has had on so many people and so many animals and will continue to have for several years as a result, really, until all of those dogs that he ever lives he ever touched, pass away. He, and, and then humans too, he will remain, there will be essence of him remaining. And that's one of the, the biggest things that annoys me about perpetrators is that you are never truly rid of them as long as they're kind of alive and you are alive, especially if they have children with you, have children with them. Or if you have shared custody of an animal with them that post separation abuse and essentially, I think this could easily fit into kind of that, to be honest.

Yeah. And you know, one of the things that he said that is somewhat true is the fact that, you know, an animal can be in a, in a shelter situation and act aggressively or, or have a certain behavior and then you take him out of that into a home and then they do better. So for, for what he did, he was taking dogs that had no history of biting, had no history of aggression, and after living with him, they bit someone, they had problems. Right. So you would think that going into his home, his sanctuary, like these animals are going to flourish. And in the contrary, they just declined significantly. Yeah, yeah,

yeah. I mean, you, and you would see that if you replaced the word dog with child, you know, they have the, the, the cognitive ability and emotional capacity of around a toddler. And I think, you know, you would see that that's neglect, emotional, physical, environmental neglect leads to trauma and then trauma leads to what you've just talked about. So, so yeah, I mean it's just, where's it even start and end with that, you know, there's so much harm.

How does it, how does it play? You know, because he, he even harm, well, not physically, but monetarily, he took advantage of a homeless person. He fundraised for this homeless person, and then he didn't, he kept all the money for himself. Mm-hmm. And you have to lack empathy completely. Right. To be able to do something like that and come out of it without any issues.

Yeah. That's why I think he fits the psychopath, sociopath potential, you know? Uh, what's it like criteria, because, um, I really don't think he has the capacity to empathize. I think he's driven purely on exploitation and what he can get from people, which is where I think, you know, um. There are different kind of like typologies of perpetrator. And that's why I think he fits this, like this specific type because um, when you're looking at kind of a family, you know, a family perpetrator where it's kind of contained, um, so yes, they might still groom, they're like nab their neighbors and their work, whatever. But this was like mass scale, geographic crossing, geo geographic lines, you know, um, even,

even other countries he

had, yeah,

he took animals from other countries and, you know, made them think that he was gonna give these dogs a better life. And he ended up euthanizing them too.

Yeah. Yeah. Which is why I just think he, he is, there's like just different ingredients for him. Like just the massive ego, um, like the, the, the kind of. Um, reach, you know, there's, there's quite, he had like an unusual reach. Um, and I know like the officer talked about this in the, in the episode, you know, where he, he came down and he was like a bit worried about saying like, oh, he's a bit of a star here and we're gonna have to like, convince them basically to, and there's that is, that is just, um, do you know, I listened to that episode and I was like really impressed because, um, so many police, police officers and law enforcement people just don't understand, you know, it's over here. It is a daily battle to get them to understand, um, kind of coercive control. I don't know. It wasn't specifically do coercive control, but from like that, um, he had a status. Um, that, that is to some people quite important. And, you know, at every stage, you know, the, the person then, I can't remember the, the exact title that he had, but you know, he approved it and I was just like, this is, this is what it should be. Like. You know, this just went really well, uh, everyone and kind of did their part. But it could easily have not, he could easily have got away with this. I mean, he did get away with it for a very long time, but if we hadn't had as dedicated officers, you, you didn't have, and I know there was issues at the start, you know, where people weren't taking it seriously. And I don't wanna invalidate that, but, um, it could easier fallen apart. And I think even in the first episode, uh, no, it might have been the second episode, you know, where the officer said, if we had just left this at Remy only, he would've probably just walked out. It might have got fine or something, or, you know, and that speaks to kind of how we view animal cruelty. More broadly is like less important as kind of, and that's why I think, um, it's a shame. I think there was a missed opportunity to make a better link towards him and coercive control and I mean, I've just remembered that over here. So there's a campaign over here to expand the cos of control legislation. So in the uk, um, we mainly, um, use cos of control legislation in the domestic abuse legislation for intimate partners or ex-partners or family members. So there's some sort of like relation aspect, but what they're talking about is expanding that to include like non relations. So I do a lot of work. I, um, or I've done some work, maybe a lot is a bit of a stretch, but some work with like the, um, national working group on spiritual and ritual abuse and uh, uh, so, so they're talking about like those who, um, you know, like religious leaders that exploit people to give money cults. Um, they use coercive control tactics is exactly the same tactics, but they're not covered under the legislation because they're not an intimate partner, ex-partner, or family member. So what I see Steven doing, or Stepan, is he is u he is coercively controlling many, many different people. So I think it would've been a good, would've been good if there was like some links or more links made like that because that speaks to his danger level. Um, 'cause I think most of the case, if I'm correct, centered really around kind of the fraud and the ex animal cruelty side of things, right? Yeah. The theft, the

corruption, and then the animal cruelty, which,

which is super bad, don't get me wrong. But then when you add in like violence, you know, violence towards people, coercive control, um, I think if he's ever released, which, you know, there's a chance that, um, that. I mean, I, I, I am worried I would be worried upon release on like what he will do. Um, it's highly likely he, if, if he doesn't do anything to anyone involved in kind of what happened, he will find someone else. He will continue, he will be a serial cos of control perpetrator for, for as long as he's has access to people, but especially to kind of intimate partners. Um, and then obviously his children, um, as well. I think, I really hope that if he ever is released that there's like a really robust risk assessment and really robust kind of post-release monitoring of him. 'cause I think he's, he could be a case of like, release and something really, really bad goes down. I truly, truly believe that.

Yeah. And you know, we, one of the reasons why I interviewed James Renner is because James Renner was looking into him because of this missing person named Maura Murray. And, you know, it's, some people are like, oh, could he do that? And to me personally, because of knowing about the link and knowing about the animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, my first thought was, yeah, I can totally see him doing this, right? Mm-hmm. Like, he, he fits the kind of person that would disappear somebody. Yeah.

It's about that. There's two missing people, women as well, so his mom as well. And so, I mean, who has that kind of history, right? You know, like two, two women dead, two missing. And I'm not, and, and like we know, you know, I'm not saying he was directly complicit in the, in the, but, but the think the common denominator right, is him. Yeah. So. I I the same as you. I really, I think for someone to be able to kill as many animals as he did without any emotion. 'cause um, so in one of the episodes, talked about what he was like in the courtroom. So someone talked about the fact that he kind of, um, inter I think maybe you talked about intimidation and the staring and the, um, smirking and the smugness. And that is just again, classic perpetration tactics. So, um, I mean, I had a case once where, um, the perpetrator would cough and that was a witness intimidation. I mean, I, I, I dunno how he didn't get done for wi on top of everything for witness intimidation based on what was said in, you know, he was doing. Um, but I also know in the states you don't have access to, um. Some of the stuff that we have in the UK in terms of what we call special measures in a courtroom. So over here, uh, we can have screens so the victim can't see the perpetrator and the perpetrator can't see the victim. Or sometimes the victim can give evidence from outside of the courtroom through a video link so that that reduces the likelihood of them being able to kind of witness, intimidate, but also from a trauma perspective for vi for the victim survivors that they feel as comfortable as possible to give their evidence. Um, that's kind of an important kind of mechanism that we have here that I don't think you have.

No, it's not. And the, and, you know, going into, into the courtroom, like the, you know, we have video of the, of the courtroom and we were literally sitting testifying right next to him. So it's the chair, uh, a small, you know, like gap in between where I was sitting and the defense table, and he's right there. Mm-hmm. Um, you know, so it feels like within reach, it feels very real. And he kept in, in my case, and it probably comes mostly because of testifying, like I testify as an expert witness, so I know how to handle myself in, in court. So I never made any eye contact with him. Um, and I could see him in my peripheral vision view, um mm-hmm. Making faces like moving, like trying to get my attention. His attorney even stood behind him almost to force me to look at him, and I still just kept looking. But individuals, especially individuals that have been under his control, are not gonna have that, that strength to look away. From, and from what I see in, in some of the courtroom testimony is, how do I say? Almost like a different person from what, how I know them outside of the courtroom and how they were behaving, the things that they said outside of the courtroom. And then in the courtroom they're just like, you know, a shell of themselves. Like mm-hmm. Not, not wanting to say something because they don't know what's gonna happen to them.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's that, um, underestimation of like the fear. So how terrifying it would be for, for a victim survivor to stand in the same room, let alone that close. Um, that alone is enough to enough kind of rattle someone's ability to give their best evidence. Which is why, in why in the UK we have things like special measures for what we call what, what the court calls vulnerable or intimidated witnesses because, um, what we want is them to give their best evidence, um, to the best of their ability. And, and, and that's undermined in, in our, in the UK opinion or in my opinion, that their ability to do that is significantly undermined when you've got, you know, your, especially when most domestic abuse course of control perpetrators will also be rapists because you can't give consent if there's coercive control. Because, I mean, in the UK these are laws. There's, in order for there to be consent, you have to have freedom, choice, and capacity. And if you are living coercive control, you do not have choice, capacity, and freedom to make informed choices. So you are sat next to someone who is sexually, physically, emotionally destroyed you a lot, most of the time, and you are expected to give best evidence. Like it just doesn't make any, and that's why we have such low conviction rates. Yeah. Because there's just no way of getting around that. And I think, um, what was really interesting as well, I've just had it here on my notes, was he did this other classic thing, which is where he made himself out to be the victim. So he did this classic thing where he reverses victim perpetrator, so poor me, I'm the victim. Like they're the bad person. Um, that is, that's also really, really classic perpetrator behavior because they just, um, a lot of the time they don't, it's really weird because they kind of know what they're doing is wrong, but they also. Don't acknowledge it, it's wrong. So like, they know it's wrong because they hide it a lot of the time from the world. So if they really thought that it was okay to, you know, physically and sexually abuse women, then they would be going out there and saying that, which a lot of them to be fair do. But, um, most of them actually don't, don't say that. And instead put forward this mask of, of nice person. Um, and so that, that kind of reversal of they're the victim that they, there's, you know, 'cause um, with um, Litsa, you know, when he was talking about when she rang him or something and he was saying like about it's the one year anniversary of um Yeah. Of his girlfriend's death. Yeah, the death. And I loved Lisa 'cause she was like. I don't mean to be insensitive, but I don't care. Right. I was like, yes, girl, go on. Because, um, that would've shaken him probably like, 'cause he's using it. Like, he's probably like fake crying and all this kind of stuff because um, that's what he's trying to do is make out that, you know, and there's al there always something like, you know, whenever she tries to make contact, there's like always something going on with him, something bad going on. Like, I think one time she said, uh, he said, um, uh, I didn't really wanna publicize it, but I'm like going through a really bad mental health time. Like, you know, it's just constant poor me, right? Feel sorry for me, um, to deflect, like constantly deflect. And that's very common as well.

And he did that all the way through. You know, he did not, he did not testify on his own behalf, which I can completely understand because he would've been horrible as far as, you know, trying to explain these things that he, that he did. But he did have an opportunity to speak during sentencing. Right. Had the opportunity to explain to the judge, you know, like his side of things to a, to a certain extent. And everything was about he, he basically apologized for having been made to do the things that he did. Right. So it's like, yeah, I took on this dog because they were gonna kill it. So, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done it, but they were, they were gonna kill it, you know, they were gonna euthanize it at the shelter. Like everything was, uh, I did this, but this is why, and yeah. Everything justifying it. Yeah. And everything was about feel sorry for me. And he never mentioned his victims. At one point, I believe that he referred to his victims as the people in the back. Right. So, yeah, and as a, as a judge, I would think that, you know, and, and Judge Hogan was very good in, in seeing through him and reading what was happening. Um, you know, after, after he got done, he, one of the things that, that he said was, you're telling me that you're sorry, but I don't know if you're telling me the truth or not.

I have to tell you, you, you, you have verbalized remorse. I, I don't have a clue whether you're telling me the truth or not. I, I, I, I, if somebody asks me later on, Hogan, what did you think of that? I go, heck, I don't know. I mean, I saw all this behavior proven during the trial, um, and then I hear this from you. Um, I don't know. I can't tell. So I, I can't check. This shows no genuine remorse, but I, I can't check the one that says you are remorseful because I don't know.

There's no way he, he, I mean, he probably feels badly he got caught. Right. Um, but he definitely shows, or assume, will show no form of accountability or responsibility at all. And that's just this ego will not allow him, you know, his, his reality will not allow him to look at self-reflect mm-hmm. Um, at his behavior. Uh, and that's why portrait is also dangerous, because rehabilitation is limited with them. I think for him, for him especially, I do not see. He will never change. I, I, I would be very, very surprised. Uh, I mean, I'm almost certain he won't. Um, because the first step to change is taking accountability. It's like right. Recognizing that you've done things that aren't okay. And I think he could manipulate someone into think them thinking that he has, but I don't think he ever truly will change.

And you know, it's one, one of the things that he offered was, uh, you know, like, well, I know that they don't want me working with animals, so I will, I, I promise not to work with animals anymore. Like he's trying to barter, you know, like his release for I'll do what, what they want me to do.

So even though I have had people, uh, try to hire me after my arrest and even after my conviction, I had people who wanted me to put on training session. And I did activate my website for one month out, four and a half years. I believe that standing up today and offering to retire to remove myself from this kind of work permanently is the one thing that I have that still has some kind of value that I can give away. I believe that my permanent retirement in the field and rescue and the advocacy work that goes with it might need more than just an apology. And if that lets people move forward after today with their own healing, that I'm as happy to give it up as I was happy to help and I was asked.

And, and he doesn't understand. No. What people want you to do is pay for what you've done, right? Like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Just, yeah. He held responsible for all the things that you do, but he truly thought that he could talk his way out of it. Like he truly believed that at the end of the day, he was gonna go home. He didn't think that he was going to prison

because he just That's arrogance though, isn't it? Yeah. That is just sheer arrogance. Yeah,

I do, I, I doubt that it would happen, but I do hope that somebody does a mental health evaluation, uh, while he's in prison and, and truly dives into who he is and, and what he is because Yeah, I mean, he can, he can tell anybody whatever they want to hear. He's pretty good at that.

Yeah. And I think there's just such a danger with him because, uh, professional, most professionals that work in the statutory sector, they don't think that they can be manipulated. They have the, they have their own ego, so they have their own Right. Oh, you know, that would, uh, you know, I never, that never happened to me. Oh my gosh. It is. All the time happening to you. That's why we have dangerous people being released frequently because they're lying to you and you are believing, um, because they're really skilled and you have this thing that you think, that you think that they can't get to you, but they can and they do. And that that's why, uh, they're dangerous.

Yeah. I

mean, I don't even know if I could trust any mental health assessment that came out. Just, you just can't, can you? And that, that's the problem with the per with perpetrators. And like I said, with with trying to rehabilitate them, like how can you ever know? And that, that actually sometimes what you do when you put, um, dangerous perpetrators on perpetrator programs and or change programs is actually you teach them how to be better.

Um, you, you teach 'em what you want out of them, so then they can give you what you want. And

they, you teach them what signs they're looking for, so they know how to try and dodge them. So, so actually you have to be really careful. You're not just making small, skilled perpetrators.

Yeah.

And I know you've got a lifelong ban on keeping animals, um, companion

animals,

companion animals, but who polices that in reality? And I,

and I think that it's, it only applies to the state of Ohio. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, and once he leaves his, um, I say like his probationary period, he has to stay in Ohio for a certain amount of time. So it will follow him at least for, for a bit. But, but yeah, no, I, I completely agree. Like there are a lot of, of things that they're not supposed to do that they do it anyway, because mm-hmm. Yeah. It depends on the monitoring. It's like he can't do drugs and alcohol. Well, are you testing. Frequently enough or randomly enough, because if not, you're, you're not gonna know. You know,

I think the one good thing is he has hundreds and thousands possibly of eyes on him that aren't law enforcement. So, you know, if he pops up in another state doing, 'cause social media is such a massive part of business mm-hmm. That he, you know, will all, well mainly you over in the states, but, you know, I'm sure that someone will see immediately and there'll be some sort of that the problem is whether, you know, if it's in a different state, you have to kind of start all over again with them taking it seriously. And therefore that's where sometimes it can, can fall down again. Um,

yeah. At least. Yeah. Here in Ohio people know who he is, so it's gonna be harder for him to get away with things here. Mm-hmm. But once he is released to other places than, yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you so much for, for doing this. You're welcome. And for what you do. Um, because yeah, I mean, I mean, I, I'm hopeful that this helps people, like the people that he victimize mm-hmm. Understand why they fell for things and not blame themselves for it, because it's not them. Yeah. It's him. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, maybe it helps. Some people avoid these traps.

And yeah, and I just think really the biggest thank you should go to all of you that stood up because it's, it wasn't easy. Um, I'm sure it wasn't easy. And, um, I think there was a lot of, there probably was fear involved in there too, and you all did the right thing, you know, and, and what, what we, what we are hope we would all do, but it takes so much strength and, you know, I think especially for Litsa and her husband who started it, and it's been years for, for, for all of you as well. I think that's, that's again, stolen time, stolen life, lifelong impacts. And you did all of that for justice, for, for, you know, for, for the animals and for the people. And I think there should be, you know, recognition of that strength too.

Thank you. Yeah. And it's again, kind of like trying to encourage people if they see that, hey, people, people spoke about this and mm-hmm. Something happened. Mm. He was held accountable that it gives others hope that if they come forward and speak, that something may happen to their perpetrator.

Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a lovely place to end on, like hope. Yes. You know, that something came outta it that was positive at least then he's not here Right. Uh, at the moment. And, um, there was some form of justice and then there's hope.