‘Just Say Goodbye’ (January 2013 online edition)

‘Just Say Goodbye’the media in a neutral way that shifted responsibility away from theperpetrator and the agencies that failed to protect the victims (Neale &Worrell 2010). The violence was rendered invisible and an impressioncreated that the situation was one of ‘mutual combat’. This was despitethe fact that the wife had never been violent towards her husband. The‘conflicts’, ‘tensions’ and ‘difficulties’ in the relationship, described in themedia, were not acknowledged as being the direct result of the husband’sviolence (Neale & Worrell 2010).In describing the case, police were reported to have said, ‘there were coretensions and her leaving was probably at a relatively advanced stage. He mayhave thought he would lose his kids. I guess the factors combined to producethis horrendous case’ (Guardian 31 August 2001 cited in Neale & Worrell2010). The victim is inadvertently blamed, as her leaving is seen to be a triggerfor violence. This interpretation ignores the alternative explanation, that theman’s violence was driving his family away (Neale & Worrell 2010). In thiscase, the victim was also judged for staying in the relationship, as one mediacommentator noted, she ‘not only stayed with her husband but had three morechildren with him after the initial violent episode’ (Guardian 1 September 2010cited in Neale & Worrell 2010).It is therefore important to be mindful that the primary sources of informationabout filicide – police and court records and media reporting – may obscure thesignificance of a history of violence against the mother. It is highly likely thatthe extent of such violence in many filicides, including some of those outlinedhere, is not known.The following cases highlight the role of violence towards intimate partnersin the parents’ separation and the events preceding the filicide.43