Continuing Coercive Control After Intimate Partner Femicide: The Role of Detection Avoidance and Concealment

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/15570851231189531
• Author: Claire Ferguson,Freya McLachlan
• Date: 01 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Feminist Criminology

2023, Vol. 18(4) 353–375

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15570851231189531

journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

Continuing Coercive Control

After Intimate Partner

Femicide: The Role of

Detection Avoidance and

Concealment

Claire Ferguson

1

and Freya McLachlan

1

Abstract

Links between IPF and homicide concealment have been observed but not explained.

We theorize IPF perpetrators use concealment to continue coercively controlling

investigators, children, courts and f‌inances post-IPF. We compare abuse in the re-

lationship and surrounding IPF in f‌ive diverse cases. Facilitated by concealment, of-

fenders use versatile, subtle and overt tactics to extend control post-IPF. They

capitalize on opportunities for concealment and regaining control, sometimes without

other benef‌its. Tactics are akin to those employed previously, aligning with the power

and control wheel. Concealment allows offenders to dominate the death narrative and

assists with remaining unaccountable.

Keywords

intimate partner violence, intimate partner femicide, femicide, coercive control,

detection avoidance

1

School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Claire Ferguson, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD

4001, Australia.

Email: claire.ferguson@qut.edu.au

Introduction

Feminist research has consistently demonstrated a strong association between intimate

partner femicide (IPF) and coercive and controlling behaviors by perpetrators (Johnson

et al., 2019;Monckton Smith et al., 2017;Stark, 2009). Recently, links between IPF and

offender attempts to conceal the homicide have emerged, indicating IPFs are not

uncommonly masked as non-suspicious deaths such as suicides or accidents (Bitton &

Dayan, 2019;Eke, 2007;Ferguson, 2021;Ferguson & Sutherland, 2018;McLachlan,

2023;Monckton Smith, 2019). Explanations for IPF offenders concealing homicides

are limited and unspoken, seemingly based on assumptions of perpetrators avoiding

accountability (Eke, 2007;Ferguson, 2021;Monckton Smith, 2019). Such explanations

have a major limitation: most homicide offenders likely wish to avoid prosecution. The

question remains then, why so many offenders perpetrating IPF attempt to conceal the

femicide.

We draw on links between IPF and feminist theories of coercive control (CC) to f‌ill

this gap. Using collective case studies (Stake, 1995), we argue that within an IPF,

concealment helps offenders maintain control over the victim, her proxies, the story of

their relationship, their children, and his reputation and f‌inances. CC in the relationship

extends to the planning, perpetration, and post-IPF behavior of the offender, allowing

them to punish the victim, regain control, and remain unaccountable. This makes

concealed IPF an attractive alternative to separation for some abusers.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and IPF scholars may view this theory as self-

evident. Despite strong support in the IPF and detection avoidance (DA) literature,

though, explanation for how CC is used during and after an IPF has been absent. To

address this, we use the feminist scholarship on CC to argue that it continues after a

female partner is murdered. Then, prof‌iles of controlling IPV offenders as chronically

manipulative and instrumental are compared to those of offenders who use DA,

showing marked similarities. Next, control tactics used by offenders during their re-

lationships are compared to those used surrounding a concealed IPF, with the power

and control wheel as a framework; highlighting signif‌icant overlap in the behaviors

observed. Finally, illustrative case studies drawn from the concealed IPF research are

described, demonstrating the versatile ways that concealment allows CC to continue

after a woman is murdered by her intimate partner.

A Continuing Need for Control

In 2007, feminist scholar Evan Stark conceptualized IPV as resulting from and re-

inforcing CC, where a person is entrapped by a pattern of abuse that establishes and

maintains the dominance of one partner over another. Stark def‌ined CC as “a strategic

course of self-interested behavior designed to secure and expand gender-based priv-

ilege by establishing a regime of domination in personal life”(Stark, 2012, p. 21). As

Stark’s framework gained momentum, other researchers advocated for individual-level

factors as contributors. For example, Day and Bowen (2015) examined cognitive and

354 Feminist Criminology 18(4)