Thursday, April 21, 2016

Sheriff Ron Batemen: Wife Statement Analyzed

Sheriff Ron Bateman has been accused of Domestic Violence with some calling for his resignation.  Please note that all subjects are considered judicially innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

In two parts, we will look at his wife's statement, his statement (Part II) and conclusion of the analysis of both.

His wife issued a statement, and so did he.  We have both statements for analysis to get to the truth.

I.  Wife Statement with Part II in the next article.

Please note  that emphasis, including underlining and color is added for instructional purposes, with the actual analysis in bold type.  

I would like to clarify what occurred between my husband and I on April 10, 2016 as some of the information that has been released and reported has not been accurate, and may be the result of
some misinterpretations. 

The couple is in a difficult situation where they both feel the need to explain to the public what happened.  Some in the public are calling for Sheriff Bateman's resignation, which is likely what has prompted a public reply.
Where one chooses to begin a statement is always important and in some cases, it is the reason for the statement itself.  It shows priority for the subject.  
a.  She "would like" to clarify begins with weakness, of what one would like to do rather than directly doing it.  You might say, "I'd like to thank Mr. Jones for..." or you could say, "Mr. Jones, thank you for..." as a much more direct path, increasing the level of commitment and even emotion via the direct route in communication. 
b. "clarify" means to make clearer.  The subject is not saying that the report is false, but it is in need of clarification instead.  
c.  "what occurred" tells us that, in deed, something did occur that day. 
d.  "my husband" is not a complete social introduction, though it retains the pronoun "my"
e.  Accuracy of what has been reported:  She affirms that only "some" has not been accurate which uses the word "some", which is a 'dependent' word, meaning, it only 'works' when another reality is in play.  This tells us that "some" of it is inaccurate while some of it is accurate.  Remember, 90% or more people will deceive by withholding information rather than a direct fabrication of reality.  Here she tells us that "some" of the information is reliably accurate.  
f.  She further weakens the notion of "clarification" by taking yet another step away from verbal commitment:  the portion that may not be accurate "may" be due to misinterpretation.  
This is to say:  what happened did, in fact, happen, but how it is interpreted may be what is in need of clarification.  
Since the topic of how to interpret what happened between them has come in the opening sentence, along with confirmation that other portions of the information are accurate (not in need of clarification or re-interpretation) we see if this is, in fact, her priority in the statement.  She now goes back in time (out of sequence for now) to her "interpretation" of what happened.  The reader should now be on alert for:
1.  An accurate and reliable description
2.  The subject's own interpretation of her own description.  

Ron was at an event with some friends. I was out to dinner with my son. 
Here he is "Ron" and she wrote the word "with" in between "Ron" and "friends."  This is to create distance between Ron and the friends.  She did not say "Ron and our friends..."
One might question her feelings about his friends.  They are "some friends" and not "his" friends.  
We see the same distance with her son, and he is introduced without a name equaling an incomplete social introduction.  In context, this may be due to not wanting to use her son's name in the press.  Note also that "my son" is generally a signal of biological son.  The distancing language of "with" could be anything from the eating of different meals, or actual psychological distance due to relationship and/or topic of conversation issues.  
Both sentences, viewed in structure, are likely to be reliably stated.  We believe what one tells us unless we are confronted with structure that tells us otherwise.  This is likely to be truthful and has no interpretation or 'clarification' needed by the subject.  
As far as the account:  please note that this is where she began her "account" of what happened.  This is a priority in the context of the event that needs clarification.  It is a "second priority" after the initial "clarification" priority.  It is a sub-context priority for the subject. 
She is addressing Domestic Violence with "what happened" and she has begun her statement, not in the home where it is alleged to have taken place, but in restaurants.  
What happened between the subject and her husband is as a result of what happened at the restaurant.  
I had not been drinking. 
This is a very important statement. 
a.  It is in the negative, elevating its importance.  She does not tell us what happened, but what did not happen. 
b.  It is reliably written, meaning that statistically, it is likely that she was not drinking. 
c.  Note the strong pronoun "I" 
d.  Note that she introduced the topic of alcohol in context of an alleged Domestic Violence incident. 
e.  Statement Analysis deals with what one says and what one does not say. 
She does not say that her husband had not been drinking.  This is vital.  Another hint into what happened is her verb tense; she does not use the perfect past tense, "I did not drink."
Instead, she wrote "had not been" drinking, which stretches out time.  
This is an indication for the reader/analyst to be aware that she may believe that not only was her husband drinking, but the drinking was long and spread out over time, heightening that he was likely intoxicated.  This is something to consider, though not concrete at this point.  Will the statement affirm this?  Deny it?  Or, will it not be addressed?
When I came home at about 6:30, Ron was here alone. 
She now brings us to the point of her arrival and she is thinking of time, with "when" and while considering the element of time, it is important for her to tell her intended audience that Ron was "here" (at her location of the writing) and that he was "alone."
She does not say "Ron was already home" but Ron was "here" (not his "home" as her language shows.  She came "home" but Ron was "here"; this suggests that the investigator should explore any relationship troubles between them.  Ron was not "home alone" but "here" and he was "alone."
Was she expecting him to be somewhere else?
Was she expecting him to be with someone else?
There may be something else to consider what would produce the word "alone" in her language.  She went to dinner with her son and then returned to the home.  
As she returned, she did not mention her son.  
The reader/analyst should consider:  Did her son witness the abuse?
He was upstairs, and came downstairs.
This is the language of Domestic Violence abuse victims.  His location (which slows down the pace) of where he was initially and where he went, is very important to her.  This is sometimes part of the language due to the element of fear. 
Remember:  most D/V victims are not controlled by violence; but by the threat of violence.  This is so important to her that her senses or awareness is on high alert:  She is recalling the evening in question and recalls his initial location (situational awareness) and his next location:  not that he "went" downstairs, but, in her language, 
he "came" downstairs, suggesting that it was her entry to the home that brought him to the location where she was.  
The language here also suggests heightened hormonal activity.  
 He appeared agitated, and told me he wanted me to leave the house. 
That he "appeared agitated" is to show a sensory response.  The communicative language of "told" rather than "Ron said..." shows an increase in tension, as it is authoritative language.  One might consider what conversation she and her son had at dinner including the possibility of one or the other (husband or wife) moving out, or perhaps to soothe the son's concerns.  It is related to what happened as it was important enough for her to mention in context of D/V. 
Initially I refused. 
The language suggest veracity.  He "told" and she "refused" is consistent.  "Initially" tells us that another thought came later.  
Why did she refuse?  We look for her language to guide us:  
He went back upstairs, and I followed him into the master bedroom. We began to argue like alot of married couples do from time to time.
She used the word "we" regarding argument between them.  This is an insight to her thinking at this time.  She sees them as still together rather than separate.  
Note "like a lot of married couples do from time to time" is, in Statement Analysis, "normal"; that is, when someone uses the word "normal" or words that wish to portray something as normal, routine, etc, it is a very strong indication that it was anything but normal.  It is a need to persuade the audience that what took place between them was just like others.  This need to persuade tells the analyst:  
This was not like other couples from time to time.  She has just elevated the account and has left off simply reporting what happened and is now editorializing the account.  
This was not a normal argument, though she sees herself as connected to him, via the instinctive pronoun "we" in her language.  
At no point in the argument did Ron punch or hit or kick me. 
Here she tells us what he did not do "in the argument", which is to indicate that she leaves out:
a.  what he did do to her during the argument 
b.  what he may have done to her after the argument (or even before it).  Telling us what did not happen elevates the situation, affirming the analysis of "normal" above.  He did do something to her during this argument, however, which now brings us to her point of introduction:
how she interprets what he did to her: 

He did not intentionally hurt me.
He hurt her but she interprets this as not "intentional", ascribing to him a motive.  This is to affirm her introduction and why she brought in the word "interpretation" to the text.  
This is to say:  he did assault her and he did injure her, but she wants it to be interpreted as unintentional.  We must consider that "hurt" may be physical injury, or pain, as well as emotional.  This is something that investigators need to explore, by specific interviewing technique:  their history and her verbalized perception of it.  

No one is perfect, or has a perfect marriage or relationship. 
This is to revisit the term "normal" in analysis, moving to the "universal second person" distancing language.  It is an unnecessary statement and it is very important.  She does not wish to be 'alone' with what he did to her.  
I did not obtain a Protective Order because I am not afraid of Ron, and do not need one.
Here is a very sensitive point to her:  she feels the need to explain why she did not get an order of protection.  Yet, even in her reasoning, she gives us additional information.  The 'law of economy' tells us that the shortest statements are those most likely to be truthful and have less emotion.  By adding in "and do not need one" is unnecessary to say since she already said the reason 'why' she does not need one.  
This is akin to "attempt to persuade" but it appears in context to be not simply her audience, but herself.  
Please consider this with the initial description of "when" she arrived home:  fear triggers the hormonal response which gives heightened situational awareness and shows itself in language.  She knew exactly where he was, where she was, and where he went and felt it so important (it is unnecessary for the account) that while recalling what happened, she does not go to the argument but goes to:
the restaurant.  
that she was not drinking. 
She placed him also at a restaurant but does not tell us that he was not drinking.  
 I do not believe anything that occurred between us is
criminal, and was nothing more than a heated argument between a husband and a wife. 
Here is her interpretation again.  It is a weak assertion.  She did not write, "What happened between us was not criminal" but only that she "believes"; which allows for her to change her mind, and for others to believe something different. 
She then uses another small word that is similar to what we find in Domestic Violence victims, including those who may have lived their entire marriages without a single assault, yet were controlled by the threat:   "is."
This is present tense language of a past tense event.  The reduction in commitment is noted, yet it suggests some ongoing trauma (post trauma) impact upon her, to the point where she is writing.  
Note also the "universal" distancing again with "husband and wife."
This need to distance herself tells us how acute this event was.  
I do not wish to pursue a criminal prosecution.
She does not say "I will not pursue criminal charges" only that this is her "wish" right now, also leaving herself the option later.  This may be a strong message to him.  
Please consider her vulnerability:  if he loses his job, they all suffer...again.  

This is the only public statement I intend to make regarding this incident.
Another weak assertion.  "This" brings it very close to her (consider this word "this" rather than "that", when you re-read her use of the word "is", in present tense, to understand just how this may be affecting her at the time of the writing.  This was no small or 'normal' argument.)
 I did not appear at the press conference with Ron yesterday because I felt it was more important to be available to my children,
Hence the need to explain "why" she was not there is already answered in her own wording.  Note that "I" and "Ron" is separated by the word "with", which gives the distance. 
Note the children and consider the need to tell us who she was at dinner with. 
Her "wish" and "intentions" are all non-conclusionary:  her choices remain open.  She has likely thought of, or have been spoken to about seeking protection not only from the court, but, perhaps, from the help of  a Domestic Violence Shelter: 
and shelter them from the media.
This word is the word she chose, not us, and indicates what is on her mind.  She is concerned about her own safety but here she also signals that she has seriously mixed emotions:  the word "we" regarding herself and Ron, and the need to protect the children from even witnessing D/V.
Children, including infants in the nursery are impacted by Domestic Violence, for many years to come, including adulthood.  Here she is telling us that she is a conscientious mother.  
 It is my desire that Ron and I alone deal with this privately, and that
people stop making statements and comments about things they do not fully know or understand. 
She does not say that this is "our" desire.  It may be that 
she is telling us that she is more interested in staying married that he is.  Although it is likely that he wants it to stay private, it is interesting to note that she does not ascribe this to both; only to herself.  This is a form of 'assertion' and may be a signal to others.  It is likely that this subject is one who, as a norm, invites people into her personal life, and now may have a need to "un-invite" them, such as common with people using social media to affirm their love, repeatedly, which shows sensitivity and, perhaps, the need to persuade.  I sometimes joke that when someone goes on and on and on about their professed love of spouse, publicly, a divorce is not far away.  It is in the repetition that sensitivity is seen, and it can become a need to persuade, both self and others, of that which is hoped and longed for, rather than what is.  There is a difference between spontaneous devotion and a need to persuade...the public, (and self) of something.  
They are hurtful to me and my family - especially my children. I would ask that everyone respect our privacy,
and stop calling me and asking me questions. Thank you.

 The subject is familiar with the language of abuse and likely is a long term victim of Domestic Violence.  Her 'recantation' is deceptive and she actually reveals that her husband was highly intoxicated and violent, and that she has lived with this before. 
Analysis Conclusion will follow Part II. 
Next up is the denial from the husband, Sheriff Ron Batemen.  Will he be truthful?


Hope said...

Here is the 911 call

911 Call from April 10:

911 Dispatcher: What's going on ma'am?

Wife: "Um, the sheriff is drunk, and he punched me in the eye."

911 Dispatcher: "Are you injured ma'am? Do you need an ambulance?"

Wife: "No, but (inaudible)."

911 Dispatcher: "And you're near Fort Smallwood Road, correct?"

Wife: "Yes."

911 Dispatcher: "And who hit you?"

Wife: (inaudible)

911 Dispatcher: "Who's he? Is this your husband? Or who is it?"

Wife: "Yes, he is."

911 Dispatcher: "Has anybody been drinking or doing any drugs?"

Wife: "He went to some place tonight. (inaudible)"

911 Dispatcher: "I'm sorry, what was that?"

Wife: "He had an event he had to go to, and he was drinking, yes."

911 Dispatcher: "So he has been drinking?"

Wife: "Yes."

911 Dispatcher: "Anybody been doing any drugs?"

Wife: "No."

911 Dispatcher: "Anybody have any weapons?"

Wife: "Well, he's the sheriff, he's got guns everywhere, yeah."

911 Dispatcher: "He's got guns everywhere?"

Wife: (inaudible) "He's the sheriff."

911 Dispatcher: "Where are they at inside the house?"

Wife: "We're upstairs now, and he's got on (inaudible)."

911 Dispatcher: "So where are they at in the house?"

Wife: "We're upstairs now, and he's trying to call everybody, trying to say I smacked him in the face."

911 Dispatcher: "You said there were guns in the house. Where are the guns at?"

Wife: (inaudible)

911 Dispatcher: "Ma'am, what's your last name?"

Wife: "Bateman."

911 Dispatcher: "What was it?"

Wife: "Bateman, like Sheriff Bateman, Anne Arundel County Sheriff Bateman."

911 Dispatcher: "What's your first name?"

Wife: (inaudible)

911 Dispatcher: "I'm sorry, what was it one more time?"

Wife: (inaudible)

911 Dispatcher: "Spell your name one more time for me?"

Wife: "Elsie."

Yelling is heard at this point in the call.

Wife: "I'm on the phone with the cops!"

911 Dispatcher: "Ma'am, we're on the way. Do you feel safe to get off the phone? Or do you want me to stay on until we get there?"

Wife: "No, I'm good. I'm going to get go out front."

911 Dispatcher: "OK, wait for the officers outside, OK? We'll be out there shortly."

Michele said...

Question: If someone gives a reason without the connecting word (i.e. because)is it still a need to explain? Here is the statement I'm working on "Never spoke to him. He usually puts everything in writing." The person makes it two sentences, instead of one leaving out the connecting word. I'm fairly certain the writer and the person he is writing about have spoken at some point, even without the weakened commitment shown by leaving off the "I".

C5H11ONO said...

Could it be that he "told" her to make a statement denying the domestic violence because he could lose his job. I get the feeling that she is denying what she can, but has cautiously spoken using words that would not come back to haunt her in the future should she need a divorce. If I would have been a victim of domestic abuse such as what she described above in her 911 call, I just would not speak publicly to anyone about it under any circumstance, except - being made by my abuser to "clear" him of any wrongdoing. I think she denied to his satisfaction without using her own words to jeopardize her later. He must have read the statement before going public and given his OK.

Nic said...

I did not obtain a Protective Order because I am not afraid of Ron, and do not need one.
I do not believe anything that occurred between us is
criminal, and was nothing more than a heated argument between a husband and a wife.

The dropped pronouns (I/it) tell me that she isn’t confident that 1) she doesn’t need a protective order or that 2) the argument was “nothing more” than that.

Nic said...


"Never spoke to him. He usually puts everything in writing."

The word "never" doesn't mean hasn't ever (they may have talked about other things, and maybe even the subject at hand). Regardless, the dropped pronoun weakens his assertion about speaking to the person. What is reported in the negative is sensitive to the writer. Defensive.

The word "usually" weakens the notion that the person documents "everything" in writing and they might have discussed [it] but there's no evidence they did. In other words, If it's not documented then it could be argued [it] wasn't discussed and the writer can't be blamed.

Nic said...

Insightful analysis, Peter.

"is" present tense about a past evident re D/V is a good lesson.

Nic said...

Peter said:
At no point in the argument did Ron punch or hit or kick me. Here she tells us what he did not do "in the argument", which is to indicate that she leaves out: a. what he did do to her during the argument b. what he may have done to her after the argument (or even before it). Telling us what did not happen elevates the situation,

911 call
Wife: "We're upstairs now, and he's trying to call everybody, trying to say I smacked him in the face."

I guess we'll never know if she was parroting his words or if she smacked him in the face? (What wasn't revealed that happened during the argument?)

Nic said...

Peter said:
Note the children and consider the need to tell us who she was at dinner with

When I came home at about 6:30, Ron was here alone.


Is there an affair going on? She at dinner with "her son" but only she arrives home, not "we".

Ron is home alone when she gets back alone and he's agitated. Where are the children? Did he anticipate an argument (when he confronted her)?

He asks her to leave and she refuses. He goes back upstairs to the master bedroom. (To finish packing her bags?) Does he call her a name and that's when she allegedly "smacks him in the face"?


Hey Jude said...

'I do not believe anything that occurred between us is criminal, and was nothing more than a heated argument between a husband and a wife.'

I think the construction of this sentence is such that in addition to saying she does not believe anything that occurred between them was criminal, she also is actually saying that she does NOT believe anything that occurred between them was nothing more than a heated argument between a husband and a wife.

I think she is not saying that nothing criminal was done to her; she says 'anything which occurred between us' - that which also involved her actions toward him/participation, was not criminal.

annoymous17 said...

The fact that she listed what he didn't do sounds to me like she has been interviewed by a social worker who works on protective orders, because she listed it out just as they tend to do. And she left A LOT out: choking, pushing, throwing down, grabbing--so there are a lot of things he could have done to her. She used the same minimization I have heard before, and so does he, even in using the term "assault." That's a way of minimizing what happened from his perspective.

I have found in conducting interviews that you should never ask a domestic violence victim, "Did s/he assault/rape/etc. you?" because using those words is often very hard for victims to use as it means recognizing the enormity of what happened and it requires making a conclusion about the behavior of someone you love. Instead, I have used very general questions like, "Has he or she ever put their hands on you in a way that causes you pain or made you afraid?" and then leave it to them to describe the specific contact. When I originally used the former question, I would hear "no" a lot, but then when asking follow-up questions, would find out the batterers horribly attacked these same DV victims.

Lis said...

She seems more concerned about the embarrassment than the safety of her children and herself.

lynda said...

She says he did not hit or kick her

According to the 911 call, he did not

He did "punch" her.

The present tense "is" in the language is a great lesson. I Would have never thought/recognized that.

Great analysis Peter

lynda said...

Shoot! Meant to say that according to 911 call he "punched" her. Since she specifically states that he did not hit, punch, or kick, which to me is a bizarre word (kick) to use, does this mean he actually did all three things to her? She has already reported that he "punched" her, why is she using the other 2 descriptive words of "hit" and "kick"?

Nic said...

What strikes me is her immense lexicon for assault.

punch, hit, kick, smack

Nic said...

More information about what happened:

A police report states that while the couple argued, Elsie Bateman locked Ron Bateman out of the house, and he kicked in the garage door. The documents state the argument continued upstairs where "Mrs. Bateman said Mr. Bateman grabbed her again and she slapped him in the face ... Mrs. Bateman said Mr. Bateman had thrown her into a wall in the craft room, and she hit the back of her head before she yelled for her son to come and help her."

So their son was there/arrived home with her and it was her son she was at dinner with.

Nic said...

This is awful. Their son is 14 and having to defend his mom. "Cutting her off" so she is imprisoned and cannot leave is despicable.

Bateman’s wife told officers that she and her husband argued and that he had assaulted her, police said. When officers arrived, authorities said, they found that the woman had been injured and the house damaged.

In a statement released by the sheriff’s office, Bateman wrote that he “categorically” denied assaulting his wife. He said the incident was an “emotional family dispute” and that “no criminal actions took place.” He has been placed on leave pending an investigation by Anne Arundel police, officials said.

Charging documents filed in court said Bateman and his wife argued Sunday evening after she came home from dinner. She told authorities that she went outside to “rearrange their vehicles” and Bateman came out and allegedly told her to “keep away from his stuff.”

They continued to argue inside the home, officials said. Bateman allegedly told his wife to get out of the house.

According to police, his wife told him she was going to leave but didn’t have any money. She said she grabbed his money clip, which had cash in it. His wife said Bateman had “cut her money off,” the court documents stated.

Police said Bateman got angry when she reached for the money clip, because she was trying to take his money.

The two continued arguing and Bateman allegedly pushed his wife onto a bed in the master bedroom, police said. She then shouted for her 14-year-old son.

The teenager came into the bedroom, police said, and saw Bateman “holding his mother down on the bed.” He told police that Bateman was “using both hands to hold [his mother] down.”

The boy was able to get Bateman off the woman, police said, although the court document did not detail how. His mother told him to go back to his room

The couple continued to argue in the hallway, authorities said. Bateman’s wife said he grabbed her, and she slapped him in the face. According to police, he then allegedly pushed her to the floor of a craft room and she yelled for her son again.

When the son came into the craft room, authorities said, he saw his mother lying on the floor with Bateman holding her down, the son later told police

Bateman then threw his wife against a wall, and the back of her head hit the wall, according to the charging documents. She told police she was also hit in the left side of her face and mouth during the incident.

The documents say Bateman told the responding police officer that he had been drinking, and he admitted to getting into an argument with his wife. He said his wife “tried to take his money before she left the house,” according to court documents.

Bateman said that he did not hit his wife “at any time,” the documents state. But he said he “did hold her down on the bed in an effort to retrieve the money clip she had taken without his permission.”

Nic said...

I wonder now if the reason why she switched to the pronoun "I" arriving home, instead of "we" was to conceal the fact that their son was thrust into the middle of what went down. She also was very clear about her husband being home "alone". Now I wonder if he truly was alone, or if she was attempting to conceal the fact that all the kids were witness to seeing and/or hearing the abuse.

The sheriff should be forcibly removed from his office. He classifies the domestic violence as an "emotional family dispute". He minimizes his violent behaviour by "categorically" denying that he assaulted his wife. He "just" held her down.

Throwing your wife against a wall is not assault? Oh, so the *wall* assaulted her? Talk about warped.

Restraining your wife monetarily and physically is okay because you're not using your hands to hurt her? Just because there is no law on the books to imprison him for "cutting her off" (from her ability to leave the abuse, so unlawful confinement in my books,) or from physically restraining your wife, doesn't make it "right". It's wrong. He's "categorically" wrong.

It's obvious to me, now, he was angry that she was out spending "his" money.

She needs to get herself a good lawyer and take the kids and get out.

Nic said...

Re shielding the children. It is clear that there was serious trouble that night - inside and outside the home. I wonder why neighbours didn't call 911. And if they wouldn't call in what they were seeing/hearing that that night, then does that mean there are other incidents they were privy to that they ignored, as well? Is it that they neighbours wouldn't "dare" call in the sheriff? Did they feel a consequence to "snitching" on the sheriff? I don't understand how it is that there is that much yelling and kicking in the door that people around them wouldn't be alarmed -- if not for EB, then for their kids' safety?

In one part of the 911 call released Wednesday, Elsie Bateman can be heard saying, "don't come near me, I swear to God."

But in another instance, Elsie tells the 911 call-taker she's hanging up and is going to wait for the police outside. That occurred after the call-taker asked Elsie Bateman if she felt safe enough to end the call.

So the posted transcript has been redacted in some parts (inaudible)

In addition, while prosecutors would be unable to compel Elsie to testify if she invokes her marital privilege, they would be able to compel Elsie's teenage son, who appears to have witnessed at least part of the incident, according to court records.

Court records state that the boy told police his mother slapped Bateman in self-defense. However, prosecutors weigh many factors when deciding whether to compel a juvenile to testify.

"You have to balance the harm that could be caused to the child with the need for the evidence, the safety of the child, the safety of the victim," she said.

Safety. Huh. How about protective services step in and request the sheriff be removed from the premisses and the kids and mother be given emergency counselling?

Lisa21222 said...

"I do not wish to pursue a criminal prosecution."

As a resident of Maryland, I know that it is the STATE that files charges against a domestic abuser, with the "complainant" being listed as a WITNESS. This is because so many women would call the police, have the partner removed, then kiss and make up, wasting valuable police resources. This way, the State can still take him to court, and she would have to testify if called ("I don't recall" is a popular response to the prosecutor's questions at these trials).

This may explain why she said SHE does not wish to pursue prosecution... the choice is not hers to make. She may even have told LE she did not want to press charges, but again, the STATE is the plaintiff, the husband the defendant, and the decision as to whether or not to proceed is not hers to make.