Interesting how I'm seen as "blaming" anyone. I believe my post is non-judgmental, non-threatening, non-hostile, focused, fact-seeking and brief. Nowhere did I say, "If so and so had done such and such this would or would not have happened." How is that unfair to anyone?
I abhor the ad hominem argument, but I can't help but engage it here briefly. Since I don't know if you're male or female I'll ask my question to you this way: If you were the aunt or uncle of two active teenagers whom you clearly and dearly loved, would you wonder why they stopped seeing or talking with you for several years? Would you also not go a step further and actively seek an answer as to why they're "avoiding" you for all that time?
I hope others don't see my questions as "harsh" when all I am asking is that others think about what I've asked went on for 4 or 5 years and then add their own questions such as: Were Christmas's shared?, was 8th grade graduation shared? Did anyone go to grandpa's house for his birthdays? Did anyone go to grandma's house for her birthdays? Did anyone go to the gramps for their anniversaries? Feel free to add your own question (I was hoping I wouldn't have to add them myself. I actually was hoping to see a tag-along post that asked one or more of those questions.)
If you answer "No" to any of those questions, that does not assign blame to anyone, it just says that's the way that family functioned. But, I submit, it is out of the ordinary. And that, in hindsight, is what becomes remarkable.
(Analytically, I would think this now would suggest that if the family operated this way there was self-imposed family-wide estrangement, whereas while in most classical instances most families are kept apart by the alleged abuser's "controlling" behaviors [such as geographic separation or as threats: to self, to significant other, to significant other's child or children, or towards significant other's family, etc.] there is no one, who has the skill and expertise in helping families, getting made aware there's a serious problem brewing and that serious intervention may become necessary.)
And really, nothing is obvious in hindsight. That's just the problem. If there's no observable or definable problem other than a knee-jerk reaction for an "easiest" solution then Caitlin's death may have been in vain. And I can't believe that's any consolation to anyone.
But the poster is mostly right of me when it's remarked "...this analysis makes you feel confident that YOU would know the signs ..." because I believe the more that is learned about human interaction the greater the opportunity to see where early-on detection can be offered because even highly-functioning families may need help badly (perhaps even desperately) and if the most subtle signs, previously overlooked, are recognized perhaps more can be helped, will be helped and most hopefully, saved.
You never think that your family will be hurt by someone you know, let alone someone you once cared for. But that's exactly what happened to one family. The story begins in a small town in Oklahoma, a safe place just like any town in the heartland of America. Donna and Jerry dated for five years, but when Donna tried to break off the relationship, she could never have predicted the lengths to which Jerry would go to hurt her. This real life drama unfolds with horror and violence and unimaginable twists and turns, but ends with a message of hope. See what good Dr. Phil believes can come from an unthinkable tragedy. Join the discussion.
