Friday, April 22, 2016

Domestic Violence Victim's Language

I have written that in the formal training, analysts learn that victims of domestic violence often adapt language patterns, just as they adjust their own life patterns to avoid violence, threats and escalation from the abuser.  
Certain wording suggests pattern, or 'norms' in life.  Here, let's revisit the statement by the Sheriff's wife, using the analysis already complete, to see if a portrait or profile emerges from her words, allowing us to either obtain insight into her life, or to prepare for the investigatory interview that is to follow.  
Allegation:  Assault 
The alleged assailant is an elected Sheriff.  His statement showed "Deception Indicated" and was such that those without formal training recognized the deception, particularly of the "never ever ever" statement.  What may not be so recognizable, however, is the patterns that are suggested in the words he chose, as well as in the order presented.  Here is his wife's statement.  
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 subject is in a peculiar position.  She called 911 to report that her drunken husband attacked her.  The husband is a public figure.  She may be dependent not only upon him for her provision, but she may be dependent upon his reputation for her lifestyle.  This may be what is behind the heavy Facebook posting.  
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.  We sometimes find two introductions:
1.  The introduction in the statement itself. 
2.  The introduction of "what happened" found within the statement.  
These show dual priorities, with the priorities separated by context.  If you want to know what happened that night, listen to them both and they will tell you the truth.  
In the audio, Bateman's wife is heard describing the situation.
Wife to 911 operator: "The sheriff is drunk and he just punched me in the eye."
Wife to 911 operator: "He's going to call everybody and tell them; he's saying I smacked him in the face."
Here she shows concern over his persuasion as "the sheriff" will be used against her.  
Note "I smacked him in the face" is not an embedded admission; she is quoting him, in the present tense.  It does not mean that she didn't smack him, only that this is commonly referred to as an admission, which it is not.  
Wife: "Don't come near me, I swear to God."
It is important to note that in this 'excited utterance' what she calls her husband.  To her, in this desperate of time, he is "the sheriff."  He is not "my husband" nor does she use his name.  This is to highlight the public persona that he has and may even be a cry against hypocrisy.  
Note that he "just" the element of time. 
Note the structure of the sentence suggests, statistically, reliability.  
Note the threat, along with the oath.  This suggests dishonesty and the desperate need to be believed.  Her oath may be due to other threats she has made.  Investigators should explore the history of domestic violence (which I stated in the analysis that I believe already exists) specifically looking to learn how often she has threatened, but not carried through, particularly in exposing him.  
a.  She "would like" to clarify begins with weakness, of what one would like to do rather than directly doing it.  
b. "clarify" means to make clearer.  The subject is not saying that the report is false, but it is in need of clarification instead.  This makes its base reliable, only the surface needed "some" clarification.  
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"which tells us of her perspective;  incomplete social introduction indicates trouble within the relationship, while using the pronoun "my", she still takes possession of him.  We must be open to the possibility that the victim still wants to be married to him.  
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.  
This now makes more sense in light of the release of the 911 call in which she expresses her concern that he is going to tell "everyone" by calling everyone, and blame her.  My guess is that she has some issues with his "friends" and may report some being loyal to him due to his position as "the sheriff", rather than the man.  
Who was at the event?  It was "Ron"; first name.  Here he is not "the sheriff", which may strengthen the possibility of an expression of hypocrisy in the call.  
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.  We now learn, from the release of the 911 call, that she reported him as drunk.  
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?
*This reminds me of some other analysis on the blog. 
"They said I was a rapist and a recluse.  I'm not a recluse."  Mike Tyson
Recall the man who was accused of writing on a waitress' check and said that he, in his home, wasn't raised that way, introducing the question of:
"Was your wife raised differently than you?" 
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?
Updated info:  We now learn that her son may have been present when the father held her down on the bed, perhaps even at her throat.  This is traumatizing for anyone, but the impact is worse for children.  As a young teen, consider:
The boy would be not strong enough to protect his mother;
Not strong enough to stop his father;
Horribly conflicted about being both incapable of helping mother, but also in attacking father.  
Domestic Violence sets up children, as witnesses, for a life of trouble.  
He was upstairs, and came downstairs.
This is the language of Domestic Violence abuse victims. Think of how she is 'scoping out the landscape' of the violence.  
This is what victims do. 
This is indicative of the presence of the fight/flight hormone elevated. 
 His location (which slows down the pace, intensifying the view or visual perception expressed linguistically) 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.  We are not told what caused the change of location and now may consider the son's presence.  
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.  Even while it is a weak assertion (as if this is her recantation that the husband told us to expect) she still reveals information.  
He "appeared" agitated is a good example of one who does not want to commit to agitation (assertion) yet her own words tells us otherwise. 
Even in recantations, Statement Analysis gets to the truth, just as it does in False Confessions.
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.  
The pronoun "I" is strong and this tells us of defiance.  Updated information is the 911 call where she swears an oath defying him to come closer to her.  
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.
Domestic Violence Victims routinely blame themselves.  
Some are even creative in the way they blame themselves.  This may be due to several variants but consider:
*Long term living under the threat of violence teaches a woman how to be very careful with her words in the home.  She becomes 'successful' over time by her 'walking on eggshells' skill of keeping him pacified.  This is the type who knows how to keep him quiet and happy, including keeping the kids happy.  This overtakes everything in life, from the children, to meals to the bedroom.  Her life is not her own. 
Now, consider this:
In this long term "success" of avoiding his violence, when it finally happens, she blames herself, as a "failure" to maintain the peace; something she works at every day and every night, in all aspects of life.  
His statement reeks of bully.  His "hi folks" is nauseating.  This is not Statement Analysis, but an emotional reaction to a politician addressing the public after being accused of a drunken assault.  It is not the language of penitence, admission, nor of even concern for his wife.  
If there were those calling for his resignation before the statement, the statement itself likely built a wall of anger against him.  
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. 
This sounds awkward and for good reason. 
"Ron did not punch me" or "Ron did not punch or hit me..." would be a direct contradiction of reality if her 911 call statement was truthful. 
Now, based only upon structure, let's look at the two statements together:

911 Call:  The sheriff is drunk and he just punched me in the eye."
Recantation:  At no point in the argument did Ron punch or hit or kick me. 
The first is 'straight forward' language.  It is not complex.  The law of economy says that the shortest sentence is best, and takes the least effort (we are lazy creatures) and that additional information is vital.  If the additional information is "unnecessary", it becomes even more important. 
If the "additional" and "unnecessary" information then includes words of which the sentence will remain compete if removed, we are looking at crucial information.  
The first is "Reliable on its Form."  It is present tense, and the additional word "just" introducing the timing of the event, which appropriately matches the present tense verb.  There are no sensitivity issues, nor anything out of the ordinary.  Statistically, it is very high on the reliability scale.  
To deny this, she should follow the same formula of reliability. 
"The sheriff is drunk and he just punched me in the eye" should become
"Ron didn't punch me in the eye..." which would directly confront her initial statement. 
It is rare that one would lie in this manner.  Look at the element of "time" between the two assertions:
"At no time" places the element of time ahead of everything else.  It avoids the direct "Ron did not..." while spreading out time.  "Just" was in present tense, indicating timeliness:  it happened just prior to this sentence.  It was precise. 
"At no time" is in the negative and it is imprecise.  
Then, we have something that should not be missed:
"Additional" information.  "At no point in the argument..." also addresses time, but now, instead of being indeterminate, she restricts the element of time to the contrary:  instead of the vague "at no time" (which 'no time' does not exist) she uses a very strict interpretation and this statement may even be true!
"during the argument" follows "at no time" which tells us:
In her description of their argument, they spoke, likely at one and another ("told")  and when he punched her in the eye, it came after the argument, not during the argument. 
At no point in the argument did he punch, hit or kick her. 
I believe her.  
When we look at violence, especially domestic homicide, we often find the element of communication just prior to the assault or murder.
Cain and Abel went out to a field (private) to talk.  The talk escalated into violence. 
This pattern has been repeated by human nature ever since. 
It was something that she said that likely triggered this specific punch.  
Did she threaten to leave him?
Did she threaten to expose him?
Investigators must focus upon this specific time.  Remember, people rarely ever lie outright, making even deceptive statements valuable for content!  
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). 
Communicative language is a separate chapter in study and it is vital in assaults and domestic homicide statements.  
It is very likely that although deception is both indicated and intended, that the words are, technically, 100% truthful.  
 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.
Note the past tense change to present tense. She "did not" because she "is not" afraid of him. 
After all that has come out, including his arrest (something I believe she has threatened to do in the past) she is not, currently, afraid of him.  
If you think reading into the verb tense is too much, note the additional, unnecessary wording:  "and do not need one", which is present tense.  Yet, since "I am not" is present tense, this additional wording is most unnecessary and very important.  
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 a signal that she is a long term victim.  The minimization is expected.  
"What happened between us" is the language of a victim blaming herself.  She was not, in her wording, "successful" in three things:
1.  Keeping him sober
2.  Keeping him calm
3.  Keeping her son sheltered 
As to keeping him sober, note that she not only begins the story with him going to an "event" where "she did not drink", but uses distancing language regarding his "friends."  This may have been the initial disapproval.  
Keeping him calm is what D/V victims do, every day and every night.  It is why "personal hygiene" is so important to them:  they lock the bathroom door, and they control life, even if but for a few minutes.  Hence, "I woke up, brushed my teeth..." enters the language of D/V victims whereas most people have no need to share something personal like teeth brushing.  
She does not rely upon a denial, as she did above, but seeks to 'hide' or 'share' within a crowd of "everyone else" in relationships.  
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.  This threat may be why she is not, presently, afraid of him.  
Please consider her vulnerability:  if he loses his job, they all suffer...again.  This may be the threat by which she gains a measure of control over him.  

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.)
We may hear other public statements from her.  
 I did not appear at the press conference with Ron yesterday because I felt it was more important to be available to my children,
Here is some more insight:  she found it more important to be "available" to her children.  She called them "my children" (biological) and tells us:
There are things in life where she has felt that she has not been "available" to them. 
This may refer to the public persona that an elected official lives by, and her many FB posts, as well as a reflection of her threat to regain some control over him, including counseling, though if you listen to them both superficially, they argued like "anyone" and "everyone", therefore, what need of counseling?
This may further infuriate many while reading his "never ever ever" statement.  
One may wonder how it is a sheriff in law enforcement can be so unfamiliar with simple Lie Detection 101 and use such an obvious lying response.  
When we speak, as soon as we begin to freely edit our own words, the timing is less than a microsecond that the brain chooses the words. Emotionally, "never ever ever" has a powerful need to persuade, belying his own assertion.  It is as if it is Statement Analysis 101, Chapter 1, page 1.  
I do not think the Sheriff is going to schedule a seminar with Hyatt Analysis Services any time soon.  
Back to the analysis:  
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.
Here she uses the language of someone else.  This suggests that she has spoken to:
a.  someone with Domestic Violence experience in investigating or;
b.  A Domestic Violence advocate
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 who feels guilty for not being available to them, and for not sheltering her son, who may have witnessed, to his detriment, the violence. 
 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.
That she adds "children" here suggests that she is part and parcel in the world of appearances for the sake of his career.  She already exposed her children to his violence, and her son, in particular.  This, alone, is enough for child protective services to investigate.  She does not want questions and this is within the context of her children.  

Analysis Conclusion 

 The Sheriff, Ron Bateman, assaulted his wife in front of their son. 
Her language suggests that she is not only a victim of D/V, but 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. Her wording shows injury and a desire to protect her husband, as she blames herself, while struggling to maintain her own dignity.  She has revealed a neglect, for his career, of her children, as well as a failure to protect.  
Whatever words exchanged that night, he assaulted her in a criminal manner, one of which she is unwilling to deny, leaving open the possible consequences upon him.  
His abuse of her has violated the trust the public has in him as Sheriff and his statement shows not only deception, but a lack of concern for his wife, his children and for anyone other than himself and his public persona.  As a public official, he has lied to the public and likely coerced or pressured his wife into the false recantation.  


Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

MOUNT HOLLY, N.J. – A woman who set her newborn on fire and left her in the middle of a New Jersey street has been sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Hyphernkemberly Dorvilier was sentenced Friday after pleading guilty in February to aggravated manslaughter.

Authorities say the 23-year-old Pemberton Township woman doused her newborn with accelerant and set her on fire in January 2015. The baby had third-degree burns over 60 percent of her body. She died two hours after she was flown to a Philadelphia hospital.

Prosecutors had recommended the 30-year sentence.

Prosecutors say she hid her pregnancy from her mother and sister. Investigators say the baby was found with her umbilical cord and placenta attached.

This nowhere near long enough.
This should have been a death penalty or LWOP punishment.

Murdering a child is heinous.
Burning someone alive is torture and heinous beyond belief. It is probably the most feared way to die by man and beast.

That she did this to her newborn baby is simply horrific.
Her baby was a newborn and unable to have anyway of protecting itself either from her mom or the flames.
Her oh too short life consisted of cold and then agonising pain which lasted till she finally died.
Perhaps death was a blessing in disguise knowing all the suffering and constant pain she would have suffered during her life, the numerous operations.

We know how it feels when we burn our hand when cooking, imagine that all over your body unable to escape or even to try and put the flames out.

The mother should have been executed for the sheer horror of her crime.
If Death was off the table then LWOP should have been the sentence.

It scares me that one day she will be out and on the streets.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Thank you, Peter, excellent analysis. I was reading earlier this morning that the wife went to the hospital for x-rays the next day. So she's documented the event via a third party.

The heart wants what it wants and that means that as long as the wife wants the sheriff, the kids will be subjected to more of the same.

I think CPS should step in and give the parents an ultimatum. Either the sheriff leaves (the threat) or the children are removed, because the mother (and the father) cannot make a rational decision about what's best for the kids when all they can think about are themselves. IMO, it would be beneficial for the kids to stay in their home, with their mother, keep to their routine at school, activities and friends and leave the having to deal with the upheaval to the sheriff.

Nic said...

First off let me start by saying YES I am fine and will be fine Secondly so is My husband Ron Bateman. i would appreciate all the nasty comments to STOP immediately … let me know one perfecf person who is in a relationship engaged married etc that has never had an argument before and Ron and I will ne the Only two people involved in this situation …So leave my children alone and do not ask them any questions ever … Ron is a wonderful man and an amazing Sheriff ..SO “if” You are that PERFECT PERFECT person that has never raised your voice or had an argument then by all means go live your perfect life and stay out of ours
thank you

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Official press release by the sheriff:

Nic said...

Elsie Bateman
April 9 at 10:32am

"Hey ladies just a head up Ron Bateman is a free man....better snatch him up quick and good luck.

Anonymous said...

I'm not excusing the abuse, but,
Why would she stay in the house when he asked her to leave?
Why would she then follow him upstairs to argue?

Again, I'm not excusing his behavior but she did not make good choices that evening.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lynda said...

This is typical of DV, ask any cop. They are one of the most dangerous calls to go out on because 9 times out of 10...when LE starts to take the guy away, the woman starts defending him. Going so far as to attack police officers to let her man go.

This woman, though obviously a victim of D/V has missed her chance this time. They are in a destructive, co-dependant, violent relationship. She is throwing her son under the bus to stand "united" with her son's abuser. I'm a little disgusted by this. This was very public, her amount of support (financial, emotional, etc) is at an all time high I would think, and she didn't leave, and I'm disgusted because of what they are putting their son thru. The children should be taken out of the home...definitely.

Bobcat: She ran after him because that is how it works. It's a depraved cycle of love, passion, arguments, violence. They're co dependent and emotionally sick...both of them. One can only hope she finally leaves before he kills her or before the first time her SON hits her.

lynda said...

John...Did you know your mate was hitting her or was she hiding it the whole time? Did he verbally abuse her in your presence?

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

lynda said:
her amount of support (financial, emotional, etc) is at an all time high I would think, and she didn't leave,

You're right. Everything from hereon in is downhill. I'm thinking part of the reason she stays is because she enjoys the status of being the sheriff's wife. She comes off as pretty bossy @ 1:56pm It's like she just realized everything got "real" (the charade is over,) and she's freaking out.

"... leave my children alone and do not ask them any questions ever..."
This really bugs me. The kids are at risk and she's threatening everybody to back off from asking her kids (if they're okay,) out of fear one of them (her 14 y/o son?) will express their fear and reveal just how much abuse goes on.

She may not have a choice in the matter. At least I'm hoping she doesn't, anyway.

My husband
wonderful man
amazing sheriff

very, very, very,.....


lynda said...

John..that story is so familiar. It's a shame you had a falling out over it but you DIDN'T let her down! It sounds as if you did everything you could. He sounds classic. The isolation, the jealousy (that at first she was flattered by because he loved her SO much!) They have to isolate because otherwise someone would step in, the people she's closest to are the ones to go first because they have influence, at least for a time. I pray that she is on to a better life and that you and she become close again. BTW..they're ALWAYS charming. They have to be, if they showed who they really were up front they'd never get a woman. It's almost impossible to see the evil that lurks inside tho angel on the outward side.
I do hope you're no longer a mate to him tho!

lynda said... John stated above. Isolation is usually the key tho cops are usually quite social, as are their wives. Since it came out she's not isolated anymore. She had TONS of support and offers of help I am sure. Now, she has cried wolf (tho it is true she is a victim of abuse) or at least that is what a large number of people are going to think, and when she cries again, it will be all uphill for someone to help/believe her. I have a feeling she probably does some hitting/abusing herself. It's the son that truly bothers me. What is he to emulate? He has a good chance of becoming his father and marrying a woman like his mother so it can start all over again. Now, she is as bad as the Sheriff. They are BOTH abusing the son. After her little rant, she is united with her wonderful husband against the world. I've seen this so many times and it is SO frustrating that I become angry.

lynda said...

John and Nic...Have you seen Davey's new blog today? It is unbelievable. After this blog I really don't see how people don't realize that DAvey is one empty, dark soul.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

A long time friend of mine's mother's boyfriend " (passivity intentional, identity, withheld), :0) punched my friend in the mouth/jaw, in broad daylight in the driveway. My friend is just under 6' and close to 300 lbs today, but at that time, around 200. So she's is/was a big girl. He knocked her on her a@@. Her mother didn't turf the boyfriend and if any neighbour saw it happen, then the incident wasn't reported. The mother stayed with her boyfriend (until he died). My friend moved away right after college. Since that assault, my friend has suffered non-stop (weekly) migraine headaches because of the blow she took to her jaw, they can last for days. She wears a guard every night because of it. She has been part of every study/has been given every therapy going to try to alleviate her migraines but no luck so far. She's 50, so that's decades of pain. She continues to suffer all because the mother was too insecure to let the abusing boyfriend go. She let her daughter go, instead.

Neglect and abuse is epidemic.

John Mc Gowan said...

Sums up:

Johnny Cash - God's Gonna Cut You Down

LittleFish said...

OFF TOPIC : It's been 4 years since the disappearance of little Isabel Celis and her parents gave a new interview. Does anyone have time to transcribe for analysis?

lynda said...

John, I LOVE YOUR MOMS SAYING! I'm going to steal it!

Hey Jude said...

Bobcat - she had no money - it got physical when she tried to take money from his money clip (presumably to leave). She said he had cut off her money - he has control of the finances, common in domestic abuse.

She called her son to help her twice during the assault - maybe she thought her husband would stop attacking her if he saw the boy. It is surprising neither says they feel bad about him witnessing and being involved in that. The boy is not the Sheriff's biological child, he is his step-son- maybe she did not want to leave her son with him, and had nowhere to take him, plus no money. I don't know how many of the children are biologically the Sheriff's - practically, she may not have been able to to leave without all or any of her children. Only the family knows if he is also violent towards them.

As she is a long-term victim of domestic abuse she may not be strong enough, psychologically, to leave him; she may prefer to batten down the hatches and to work on their marriage, she may feel safer since the abuse has become public knowledge, or she may decide to leave him yet. She speaks of counselling for her and her husband, but there is no reference to the emotional welfare of the children, not even of the son who witnessed the attack. If they are all to stay in the home, someone outside the family needs to speak to the children. To demand they not be asked any questions is either a very controlling or a desperate ask - or both. I think that is the most worrying aspect - it the children are not to be questioned then there are things which she does not want them to say; probably they have witnessed a lot, yet no mention is made of help or counselling for them.

Hey Jude said...

On the plus side, at least the Sheriff's guns have been taken away from him - that must be a few less things to worry about.

Nic said...

lynda, it is frustrating. I used to work with a young woman who confided in me the abuse she was going through at home. Out of concern I researched women's shelters and passed along telephone numbers to her, but she continued to live with the abuse. She wouldn't take my advice or use the information I gave her. She just kept on like she had no alternative. It was exhausting. I finally had to ask her to stop confiding in me because the answer to her problem seemed so easy to me (leave!) but she didn't see it that way.


I will check out the new site. Last I was on it, I was having a hard time loading all the posts, there are so many now.

Nic said...

*it being the thread

@Hey Jude, since the 14 y/o son is her biological son, then his allegiance is to his mom. I betting, he would totally take down the sheriff if given the opportunity which is why she doesn't want anyone asking (him) anything, ever. Big boy wearing daddy's pants.

Nic said...

And something else I just thought of, speaking of "daddy's pants", if his biological father is in the picture, there is some serious sh!t about to hit the fan. If he were my kid, I'd be calling my lawyer to do whatever was necessary to have him removed today.

Hey Jude said...

Nic, yes, hopefully those kids have someone outside of the home to look out for their best interests. It's concerning that the mother's anxiety about the kids seems only to extend to them not being asked questions - I know the focus is on the couple, and they are the story - but their own focus is too much on themselves. As she is denying the violence, she has to be trying to make the boy deny what he saw, too, and that he did or tried to pull his step-father off his mother, because he was more or less strangling her. The boy is being entangled in the abusive relationship, and must want to defend his mother and say what happened, yet she is denying it, and in so doing denying him. That has to be messing with his head - it's emotional abuse. He maybe has said he is not going to lie for them, so she is desperate to prevent him being asked any questions. How angry must that kid be? His mother described what happened, and his involvement, and what he saw - now she's saying it was just a heated argument, leave them alone, don't question the children - he must be hearing all that. She didn't go to the press conference in order to avoid being questioned herself, and to be 'available' to her kids, probably to prime them in not responding, or not responding truthfully, to any inconvenient questions.

Nic said...

I was thinking the reason she didn't go to the press conference was because of the result of the beating she was wearing on her face (eye and mouth according to what was reported earlier today). God forbid anyone interpret that.

It was also reported that she had been to the hospital in the morning for x-rays. She probably didn't have any choice about it as what happened is under investigation and they needed to document the physicality of the "argument".

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

“It is been very important to us as a police department that we did the right thing for the right reasons at the right moment in this incident,” said Anne Arundel County Police Chief Timothy Altomare.

Nic said...

Also included in the report is a text message chain between Mrs. Batman and a domestic violence and assault investigator.

In it, Mrs. Bateman talks to the investigator about getting X-rays, about her husband’s plans to go to counseling and says Sheriff Bateman “cleaned out our bank account.”

Nic said...


Look who's on top...

Hey Jude said...

On the subject of wife-beaters:

When I was a kid, one of our neighbours, who was an alcoholic, used regularly to beat his tiny wife, and then push her out of the front door. She'd sit on the little concrete porch wall for hours, shaking, in her hairnet, overall and slippers, calling upon 'Mary, Jesus and Joseph!' (Irish Catholics) - sometimes she'd pretend to be gardening, without any tools, in all winds and weathers. If my mother, or any of the other neighbours, asked if she'd like to come in for a cup of tea, she proudly refused. She'd sometimes be there when we came home from school. My mother would say Mrs X had been sat there all day, and that lazy slouch of a husband of hers was probably sleeping off the drink. Mrs X, beaten or not, would be out at cleaning jobs by six in the morning six days a week, and some evenings, too - the husband sometimes worked, but he probably drank what he earned - if really he worked, and was not just out propping up a bar with his wife's cleaning earnings. They seemed only to live out of a chip-pan, which sometimes caught fire, and brought the fire brigade to the street.

In all the years I knew the children, they declined to answer any questions about their parents, birthdays, or Christmas - they weren't allowed to talk about home, and they didn't. The youngest daughter rarely spoke about anything, and was very withdrawn, it was hard work to get her to speak, or to laugh. When we went to the shop for our parents, she sometimes, on the way back, ate a raw sausage - other times she scooped fingerfuls of lard from the packet. The first time I saw that I was shocked and repulsed, but she was that hungry - she did not seem ashamed, or to know that it was an odd way to behave. For us, eating in the street was not allowed - to eat raw sausage and lard in any circumstance, let alone in the street, was off the scales of edibility and social embarrassment. Yet at those times she was happy, and unselfconscious - which hardly she ever was. By comparison, I found myself to be all respectable, with my father's newspaper, ten cigarettes and box of Swan matches - eight years old. How times and social attitudes change - someone would call social services these days if a child was sent to buy cigarettes and matches, or seen eating sausage or lard in the street.

When M was about fourteen she met the boy she later married. At intervals, starting a few months after they began 'courting' (that sounds such a quaint term now), a few of us kids went to his house to confront him about all the bruises on M - he sneered and snarled abusively, while she denied he beat her. He knew we would not have dreamed of calling the police or social services - well, there were no cigarette burns, nobody was dead, and she defended him - we went a few times, but you can't help those who won't help themselves. Within a couple of years she had stopped seeing anyone but him.

She would not believe that she deserved better - he was the only boyfriend she ever had - a big, nasty bully, like her father. She was delicate, sweet and fair - like a china doll: a thousand boy-men would have worshipped her, but she chose the jerk, as though there were no choice. I often wonder if her own children grew up silent, ate raw sausage and lard, and married wife-beaters.

Hey Jude said...

Yes, you're probably right, Nic - it happened April 10th, so a black eye would probably still be visible.

lynda said...

Hey Jude,

Exactly. The boy, filled with impotent rage and fear of his stepfather is either going to lead to a tragedy where as a young boy, he will do something to the Sheriff where he can never hurt anyone again, or he will become him. That's why I've had it with the wife at this point, she is throwing her son to the wolves and not caring one iota about how damaged he is becoming.

Hey Jude said...

Lynda - she's probably in denial, or has been - they're probably in a good financial position - people like that tend to compensate for their shortcomings by over-indulging their children materially, as though that makes them 'happy'. The publicity should serve as a reality check. Maybe she grew up in an abusive household herself and married someone like her father. Whatever the economic position, she is likely to feel psychologically trapped, and to have such low self-esteem, that she doesn't believe in herself, or see a way out. If she's getting help, she might find the strength to leave him. I think she said he was a good man and a great Sheriff - that's not the same as saying he is a good husband and a great father, so as someone said earlier, it might be her social position and standard of living she wants to preserve, rather than the marriage. It is not two weeks since the incident - she might be working out an exit while she feels safe, but does not want to end up with her kids in an emergency woman's refuge - he's the wife-beater, if anyone leaves the home, it should be him. They have lost their good image, so she might feel free to drop the pretence - I think she is leaving open her options. If they love each other, and are going to stay together, well - love is blind, and best luck to them, but they need to think more of the children.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

UW Police say there's no evidence sex assault reported April 8 actually happened

MADISON (WKOW) -- UW-Madison police say the April 8 alert about a woman being a sexual assault at knifepoint has been investigated and they have found no evidence a sexual assault happened.

Police say on Friday, April 8, an officer saw a woman that appeared to be in distress near the UW Alumni House on Lake Street. The 23-year-old woman, who was visiting Madison, indicated she was sexually assaulted by three unknown men at knifepoint sometime between the time she left a downtown bar and when the officer found her. She could not provide a description of the suspects.

UWPD says its investigators retraced the woman’s footsteps from the downtown bar to the Alumni House, reviewing surveillance video, conducting interviews and canvassing the area for witnesses. They found she left the bar at 9:53 p.m. and was approached by the officer at 10:37, but they could not find evidence to support a sexual assault occurred in that timeframe or at that location.

Based on information from the woman about a sexual assault that occurred a number of years ago, the UWPD sensitive crimes detective assigned to the case believes it is highly likely the woman was referring to a previous traumatic incident.

Jessica Blans said...

A number of people are theorizing why the wife stays with the her husband. Some mentioned status (she likes being the Sheriff's wife) or financial need (she doesn't want him to be fired or jailed and no longer provide for her and kid(s)). It might be simpler than that. She loves him and perceives him to be one person most of the time, the man she loves and married. The abuse may be infrequent enough that she does not see that abusive person as being truly "him." Notice how she calls him her husband in the recantation, but calls him the Sheriff in the 911 call. In her mind these are not exactly the same person. And once the episode is finished she blamed herself for summoning the Sheriff (she followed him. She refused to leave). If we just look at her statement and risk profiles of women who stayed in dv relationships, it is fairly common for women to stay because they love the "real" person and the abuse is an aberration of the the "real" person.

Zsuzsanna said...

Off topic:

Woman attempts to hitchhike through the Middle East to prove Muslims are peaceful. Instead gets raped and murdered three weeks into her "peace trip":

Katprint said...

Regarding victims blaming themselves: The perpetrators also blame the victims. They tell the victims that it is the victims' fault because the victim made them jealous, dressed/acted like a slut, etc. or made them angry by failing to keep the house clean, accidentally burning dinner, and so forth.

Regarding the use of the world "shelter" in connection with "my children": IMO this reflects the sheriff pointing out to her that if he loses his job, they will lose their house i.e. their shelter. It reflects her conscious decision to put up with the domestic violence in order to continue to provider her children with a place to live, food to eat, clothing to wear and other necessities of life.

It may also reflect a concern that if she divorces her husband, she will be left with nowhere to live and might have to seek out a domestic violence shelter or a homeless shelter. Maryland is not a community property state. Marital property is divided "equitably" taking into consideration each spouse's contributions, monetary or nonmonetary, to the well-being of the family. So, the property tends to be awarded to the spouse who earned it. The other spouse may be awarded alimony and child support but that is based on ability to pay, and if the sheriff is unemployed then his ability to pay alimony and child support would be minimal. Very likely the language that sheriff used when he demanded that she leave the house was that it was HIS house.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Zsuzsanna said...
Off topic:

Woman attempts to hitchhike through the Middle East to prove Muslims are peaceful. Instead gets raped and murdered three weeks into her "peace trip":
April 23, 2016 at 11:37 AM

This is terribly sad and avoidable.

What was so empty within her life that she took up this cause for an ideology of sexual violence against women?

It is heartbreaking.

These seem so distant to us, but they are sisters, mothers, daughters, and loved ones who's emotions run wild into illogic and are destroyed.

Thank you for posting it, however, as it is a reminder of the need for truth and how illogic is destructive.

lynda said...

That's why I was hoping that since her support network was high because of the publicity that she would gain the insight and strength to leave. This isn't the Dark Ages. If she were to Divorce him she would most likely get the house, half his pension. She's the comptroller of the State of Maryland for Gods sake. She won't be starving. Based on what she just posted on FB tho, which makes me vomit in my mouth a little, Elsie's not going anywhere and is basking in the spotlight to show how much her and the beater are meant to be. Funny, one of their friends complimented their pic and said they were the "Ike and Tina Turner" of the County and they took it as a compliment of their "star" status. SOmebody should point out to them that Ike used to beat the shit out of Tina and she finally had the strength to leave!

lynda said...

Ugh..I have to read more. I had no idea that this marriage is only 11 months old! I thought they had been married for years. Now the "star" status and the lovey dovey, stand by your man attitude makes a little more sense after looking at her FB. She's not going to leave and he knows it.

Hey Jude said...

Lynda - So some of us have been barking up the wrong tree, it seems - she has not been living in fear and trembling of the Sheriff for years, after all. :-/ That Ike and Tina Turner comment on her FB was a bit pointed but she didn't get it - maybe she's too young to remember how that really went. I don't know what to think now - not going to start wondering what her previous husband was like... well, not much.

Hey Jude said...

Zsussana - that happened in 2008.

Grace 66 said...

My spidey sense is tingling. Elsie M. Mallonee Bateman, is the comptroller of the State of Maryland yet there is virtually nothing about her on the internet outside of financial reports and her Facebook. She obviously has her own salary in triple figures. Next, she has only been married to Ron Bateman, who is the Sheriff of Anne Arundel County, why would he necessarily have more money than her? How could he have already been in control of her available assets (money and credit cards) in that short of time. Why was she reaching for his money clip? If she was leaving she could have used her own credit cards. Who calls their 14 year old son into a room with a man who is armed most of the time, where guns are probably kept, if this man is assaulting her? Was she trying to get him killed? Why did the police use the term "this" incident. If it were the only incident in the 11 month marriage wouldn't it be "the incident"? Where is the proof that Bateman has been abusive before? Why would he let her mouth off so much on Facebook if he were so controlling? If he truly was strangling her so soon into the marriage, what could she have done to enrage him so? If he was this violent over something trivial don't you think there would be other incidents of violence to women in his past? Yet none have surfaced so far, and I think they would have.

Whatever it is, both he and her want to keep it quiet. My gut says Bateman better watch his back. She could off him and claim self-defense to take everything he has. If she divorces him now she would get nothing, and it kind of sounds like she had nothing to begin with. I think that is why she used the word shelter in connection with her kids. She would literally have no where else to go if she left, and that would not be befitting of the treasurer of the State of Maryland.

lynda said...

Grace, I made a mistake. When you first start typing her name in for FB it comes up with her name and "Comptroller of Maryland". I assumed that's what she was. Looking again on her page, she has "management" comptroller of maryland. So she is NOT the comptroller, she works in Management at the Comptrollers? I'm sure her salary is still 6 digits tho.

Hey Jude said...

Grace - Peter Franchot is the Comptroller of the State of Maryland.

According to her Facebook Mrs Bateman has a management position within the organisation.

Hey Jude said...

Cross posted, sorry. :)

Lis said...

Nic said...

First off let me start by saying YES I am fine and will be fine Secondly so is My husband Ron Bateman. i would appreciate all the nasty comments to STOP immediately … let me know one perfecf person who is in a relationship engaged married etc that has never had an argument before and Ron and I will ne the Only two people involved in this situation …So leave my children alone and do not ask them any questions ever … Ron is a wonderful man and an amazing Sheriff ..SO “if” You are that PERFECT PERFECT person that has never raised your voice or had an argument then by all means go live your perfect life and stay out of ours
thank you

I smell a rat.

John Mc Gowan said...

Public relations hurdle: Repairing Sheriff Ron Bateman's image

John Mc Gowan said...

If Sheriff Bateman were deputy: Elected official enjoys protections not available to other law enforcement

Anne Arundel County Sheriff Ron Bateman is not the first law enforcement officer in the county to be charged criminally in a domestic violence incident.

Yet his unique position as an elected official appears to shield him from the repercussions his deputies and other rank-and-file county law enforcement officers would face in similar situations.

Bateman has been charged with second-degree assault in an April 10 incident involving his wife at his home in Pasadena. Although he has maintained his innocence, he has since suspended his police powers and placed himself on administrative duty until the matter is adjudicated.

Those actions are consistent with those that would be taken against deputies under his command under similar circumstances, said Capt. Ed Smith, a Sheriff's Office spokesman.

While County Executive Steve Schuh and others have called for Bateman's resignation, there appears to be no mechanism in the state constitution to remove him from office, even if he is convicted.

That's not the case for rank-and-file officers and deputies who find themselves in similar situations. If convicted criminally, officers and deputies would likely face termination, according to spokesmen for the county Sheriff's Office and police department.

But under the state constitution the sheriff can be removed only if convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving his official duties — neither of which apply to Bateman's situation.

The Sheriff's Office could launch its own administrative investigation, but ultimately the decision to enforce any disciplinary action belongs to Bateman, Smith said.

"In this case, if he's found guilty, it's going to be a learning experience for everybody," Smith said.

If convicted, Bateman would be prohibited from carrying a firearm.

A number of national studies conducted in the 1990s concluded that families in which a member is a police officer experience domestic violence at a much higher rate than other families.

Two such studies concluded that 40 percent of police officers' families experience domestic violence, as opposed to 10 percent of families in the general population, according to the National Center for Women and Policing, a division of the California-based The Feminist Majority Foundation.

Reached by phone Friday, Kathy Spillar, the group's executive director, attributed the problem to the types of people recruited to police forces nationwide.

"It reflects the type of personalities being recruited for police departments — a type of personality prone to use force to gain compliance," Spillar said.

The issue is "interrelated" with the problem of excessive force by officers, she said.

In addition, Spillar said, there is a "high tendency" for victims of domestic violence in police families to not report the crimes.

"They know several things: 'He's got a lot of friends on the police force ... plus, he's got a gun,'" she said.

Spillar said domestic violence situations account for the largest number of 911 calls.


John Mc Gowan said...


"Now you're sending officers to homes, and the chances are that one of these officers has engaged in violence in their own family," she said.

Spillar also said that police departments across the country are still mostly male-dominated.

Female members account for 11.5 percent of Anne Arundel police, the county's largest police agency, according to spokesman Lt. Ryan Frashure. In 2013, 88.4 percent of full-time law enforcement officers nationwide were male, according to the FBI.

"You need to look for a different kind of man for these police departments and you need to balance the gender ranks," Spillar said.

Police brass, she said, can address the problem not only through recruitment, but through tougher discipline when officers are accused of domestic violence.

"Police agency leadership must be very clear: 'There is no three-strike policy. It's one strike and you're outta here,'" Spillar said.

But Michaele Cohen, executive director of the Maryland Domestic Violence Network, stressed that domestic violence affects all communities.

"Generally speaking, it can happen anywhere to anybody," Cohen said.

National studies have consistently shown that about one out of every four women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime, Cohen said.

And while domestic violence most commonly occurs against women, men can also be victims. In addition, domestic violence occurs in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, Cohen said.

Cpl. Jackie Davis, a spokeswoman for the Anne Arundel County Police Department, said that while such incidents involving officers happen, they are "few and far between."

In 2015, there were no internal investigations launched against any of the county's officers stemming from domestic violence incidents, Davis said.

There are around 720 sworn officers in the county department. On average, the department conducts 80 to 100 internal investigations each year, Frashure said.

County officers charged with a misdemeanor are suspended with pay until the charge is adjudicated. If they are charged with a felony, Police Chief Timothy Altomare has discretion to suspend them without pay, Davis said.

At the conclusion of the internal investigation, the administrative charges against the officer may be ruled sustained, unsustained or unfounded. Depending on the administrative charges, if a charge is sustained an officer may face discipline ranging from a written reprimand to termination, Davis said.

Under the Maryland Law Enforcement Officer's Bill of Rights, which provides safeguards for officers accused of misconduct, if an internal investigation results in a "sustained" finding against the officer, the officer may appeal the finding to a hearing board.


John Mc Gowan said...

In most cases, police agencies will wait until a criminal case has concluded before charging an officer administratively.

If an officer is convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it's likely administrative charges against that officer will be sustained. While the state has to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, the burden of proof in police administrative hearings is less stringent.

Smith, who has been with the Sheriff's Office for 32 years, said he was aware of only one deputy who was the subject of a protective order following a domestic violence accusation. The order was later dropped and the deputy returned to work, he said.

With less than one-tenth the law enforcement officers of the county police department, the Sheriff's Office conducts 10 to 15 internal investigation against officers each year, Smith said.

Rebecca Smith, a Baltimore-based attorney who represents state troopers in administrative proceedings, acknowledged that there are cases in which troopers are accused in domestic violence incidents, but said they are infrequent.

She was unable to provide an estimate of the number of her cases involving domestic violence.

But "the state police will seek termination in those cases," she said.

Nic said...

lynda said...
Ugh..I have to read more. I had no idea that this marriage is only 11 months old! I thought they had been married for years. Now the "star" status and the lovey dovey, stand by your man attitude makes a little more sense after looking at her FB. She's not going to leave and he knows it.

This is interesting. When I linked her FB "broadcast", I thought it was super sensitive of her to list every known relationship to man, i.e., relationship, engaged, married. Now I see this as her documenting how long the abuse has been going on in the lifecycle of their longterm relationship.

She's got stars in her eyes and she doesn't like to be told she's wrong. Those poor kids.

I'm wondering if the other children (14 y/o was the only one home) were with their biological mother? I was thinking they were with their grandparents that night (projecting!) LOL... IMO, neither the sheriff (who has announced he will run for re-election in '18,) nor the wife are capable of prioritizing beyond what they "want" or see their way of life as emotional trench warfare. I'm praying the biological parents are seeking legal assistance to have their kids removed from that hellhole.

Grace 66 said...

Thanks for the clarification on her job title. My point was she has a job and should be able to provide for herself, and not need to be grabbing money clips. Just my opinion. I think she called 911 as a manipulation tactic, and has now opened up a big ole can of worms she didn't see coming.

Lis said...

My thoughts, too, Grace 66.

I think it's possible the violence goes both ways in this relationship. Her comment "I slapped him" may be the truth.

Grace 66 said...

She sounds like a sociopathic, social ladder climbing, gold-digger to me. Your mileage may vary. She may have something on the sheriff, as bold as she is.

Grace 66 said...

Does anyone know the time of the 911 call? Thanks!

Hey Jude said...

She was Elsie Horn previously - I looked through various FB messages she left over the years on relatives' and friends account, and there are some instances in which she uses the language of violence in a way which seems to be intended with humour in context. ie - she says she wants to punch someone in the face or mouth etc.

Anonymous said...

I think they need to have a good long look at Sheriff Bateman's computers, is all I'm saying...

Anonymous said...

Where was GOD! I hate this world and the evil people in it. A newborn baby was burned alive!!! I wish there was a God.

Anonymous said...

The hardest thing I did was leave a 9 year abusive marriage. It's been four years now and I still cannot sleep at night without all the lights on. Even what should be a simple trip to the grocery store is scary. It's very easy to say "just leave" but it's much harder to do. I knew his moods and could keep things safe. But now, I simply have to wait and see if he finds me. It keeps me in a highly anxious state. Know that saying: Keep your friends do close and your enemies closer? I do. And I understand it.

His Secret Obsession said...

Did you know there’s a 12 word sentence you can say to your man... that will trigger intense feelings of love and instinctual attraction for you deep within his chest?

Because hidden in these 12 words is a “secret signal” that fuels a man’s instinct to love, please and protect you with all his heart...

==>12 Words That Trigger A Man’s Love Response

This instinct is so hardwired into a man’s genetics that it will drive him to work harder than ever before to make your relationship the best part of both of your lives.

In fact, triggering this powerful instinct is so important to having the best possible relationship with your man that once you send your man one of these “Secret Signals”...

...You’ll immediately notice him open his mind and heart to you in a way he’s never experienced before and he’ll see you as the only woman in the world who has ever truly understood him.

And the powerful “secret signal” found in those 12 words is just one of many that veteran dating coach and relationship expert, James Bauer, has discovered throughout his career.

Thousands of women are already using these “secret signals” to transform their failing relationships into the passionate romances they’ve always dreamed of.

And countless other women are using them to hook great guys from the very first time they meet.

Imagine knowing the exact words to say to a man to truly open up his heart to you and fuel his desire to be daring and romantic…

...And what keeps his love and attention transfixed on you and only you.

This presentation reveals these relationship secrets and much, much more... and it’s a real game changer for any woman who knows she deserves better.

If now is a good time, you’ll want to watch this life changing presentation while it’s still up.

==>12 Words That Trigger A Man’s Love Response

Sign Off