A Brief Analysis of Evan Rachel Wood's Testimony on Being a Victim of Coercive Control While in a Relationship With Marilyn Manson, and How She In Turn Implemented Coercive Control in her Custody Battle With Jaime Bell



Evan Rachel Wood testified over Zoom on 24 March 2021 before the Connecticut State Senate in favor of a domestic violence bill nicknamed “Jennifer’s Law,” for Connecticut mom Jennifer Dulos, who disappeared in 2019 amid a contentious divorce with her husband.

The state senate bill, Jennifer’s Law, would expand the definition of domestic violence in Connecticut to include “coercive or controlling behavior.”

As I stated in my last post, in 2020 Evan began to significantly change her own narrative of abuse in order to fit her story according to the accepted signs of coercive control, while working on a new bill that she helped pass in California with Senator Susan Rubio in September 2020 on "coercive control". This is why we see in Phoenix Rising a more targeted emphasis on signs of coercive control, such as isolation from family and friends as well as isolation in the home. The Coercive Control Bill is separate, though a supplement, of the Phoenix Act and is related to domestic violence.

Even in November of 2019, Evan spoke about coercive control. In an interview at that time with Bustle, we read:

Among the things that Wood wants to bring awareness to is new language that is being used to better define and expand our understanding of domestic violence. One such term is coercive control, which refers to nonviolent crimes. "It’s so important," Wood says, "because right now we just measure [abuse] by ‘Is your arm broken?’ or, ‘Let’s measure this bruise you have. How deep is the bruise?’ We’re not really acknowledging the scars on the psyche, which most survivors will tell you are significantly worse.”
 

 
Below is the full transcript of Evan's testimony and her answers to questions from the Connecticut Senators.


Evan's Testimony

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up, I have Evan Rachel Wood.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Hello.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good morning, madam. We can hear you, but we can't see you.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Yeah, my Internet is pretty bad, so I have my audio on.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, go ahead.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Ready?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, go ahead, please.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Okay. To the Members of the Judiciary Committee, I’m here to give my testimony in support of SB 1060. When I was a teenager, I was groomed into an abusive relationship with a man almost 20 years my senior. In the beginning, he was nice and charming, and I never thought he would hurt me. He entertained my friends and family, he seemed encouraging like he wanted me to see myself in a different way.

He moved very fast in our relationship, telling me I was his soulmate and that we should move in together just shortly after we started dating. And the longer we were together, the more he slowly chipped away at my freedoms. He had trapped me before he ever became physically abusive. He changed from the person I thought I knew, and he started sabotaging my relationships with friends and family, by becoming irate and inconsolable when I had contact with them.

He often monitored when I ate and when I slept, sometimes resulting in no sleep or food for days on end, which weakened and disoriented me. He became critical of how I looked, which led to certain things I wasn't allowed to wear. He would not allow me to pay for anything which, at first, seemed romantic, but after we moved in together, I realized it was about control. I had no rights to anything; he wouldn't allow me to pay my share of the rent. He could throw me out at any time and he did. He used coercion to take photos and videos of my naked body, and at times threatened to release them publicly without my consent, which I later came to understand is illegal and called "revenge porn". He hacked into my phone and social media accounts so I could not reach out for help. He was monitoring me in a number of ways.

There are various types of coercion used in coercive control, whether they're monitoring conversations, financial control, sexual violence, blackmail, or outright threats against victims and the victims’ families. On their own, these things are already dangerous and scary, but multiple forms of isolation and control against one person can be deadly. These things didn't happen to me all at once, but once they were in place, I had been successfully trapped and the sexual and physical abuse became severe. And if I had been educated about coercive control, I may have been able to spot the signs. I would have been more aware of my civil liberties slowly being stripped away. And people who exert this kind of control over someone are masterful at it. Isolation and control help people who harm clear the pathway from violence, because they know it makes it increasingly more difficult for a victim to escape. And it's also important to allow the actions of the perpetrators to speak for themselves. Perpetrators of coercive control are by definition manipulative, so the burden of proving the intention should not be solely on the victim, and instead the pattern of controlling and isolating behavior should be looked at in its totality. And in my opinion, it's hard to understand domestic violence, without also understanding coercive control. Too often, I’ve heard people's stories describing coercive control as a precursor to physical violence or homicide. But nothing could be done until irreparable harm had occurred or the victim was dead. And I believe strengthening our knowledge of coercive control can save lives. So, thank you for listening today.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, madam. Questions or comments from the Committee? Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Evan, so much for your courage in coming forward telling your story and -- and inspiring others to do the same. I wanted to ask you about some of the components of coercive control that you described. Because, just like some of the other survivors we're hearing from, you said you didn't realize it was happening, and you didn't realize maybe until it was really almost too late. And you felt you didn't have the power to leave or to do anything about it.

Was -- in your testimony, I believe, you said that sexual violence was a component that was used -- was a tool or weapon that was used against you. Can --was that -- Can you go into more detail about that?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Well, I am still in -- there's a pending criminal investigation going on, so I can't go into it too much, but -- so I’m just wondering what I can say safely.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): That's fine, I just -- I’m trying to establish that -- or trying to ask you if-

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Yes.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): The sexual violence you were subjected to, did it leave -- necessarily leave scars and bruises and physical, you know, signs of physical injury or was it -- the injury was psychological and made you feel, you know, dominated, controlled, helpless submissive, was -- what was the sign?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: At the time, it did leave physical injury. At times, I was drugged. So, I would wake up in the middle of it and, at times, I was threatened into doing things that would be videotaped and photographed that I did not want to do, that I was afraid to say 'no' to, because I was terrified of him and what he could do, and of any further violence.

And then, he had leverage on me so, if I wanted to leave, you know, he would threaten to release things or show people, and I didn't think that anybody would ever believe me, so I was afraid of my reputation being destroyed.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So yeah, the revenge porn you described is a very, very powerful weapon of silencing victims and the acts of forced sex or sexual violence, a very powerful weapon to -- to break a person's spirit and their will and their -- their freedom. So, do you think that definition of coercive control, if it's passed into law, should include sexual assault?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: So, I think if it's a part of the -- of the pattern and a part of the -- the fear and isolation, I think all of these things should be looked at in its -- in its totality. And in my case, there are numerous victims, and we all have the same story and the same pattern to compare and so, it's quite obvious that this is something that is calculated. And the intention is to isolate and control and abuse, and so, I think if you zoom out and look at each story and each pattern, the sexual violence was -- was always a part of it, so I think -- I think it does matter.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, and you just raised the issue of intent, the -- the abusers intent. If you had to -- if you were trying to seek protection in the form of a restraining order, and you told the Court everything that you just told us, all of the actions and the patterns and the ongoing abuse, do you think it would be fair to also require you to prove what his intention was, to prove his state of mind as an additional legal requirement? Or should the actions and the patterns of actions speak for themselves?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: I think it would be much more effective if the actions and patterns spoke for themselves, I actually did try to get a restraining order, and I was denied, or told I wouldn't be able to obtain one, because I didn't have any recent direct threats. Even though this person would often send me videos of knives in a -- you know, being stuck into the wall, or, you know, hacking into accounts and ordering the films with, you know, hacking into an Amazon account and ordering films with threatening titles and things like that. While that is not a direct threat, I know what that means, I know it's directed at me, I know he's trying to scare me. But, you know, these are things that on their own probably wouldn't be grounds to get a restraining order, but if I could show it in a pattern of behavior, I think it would be much more effective. So no, I couldn't get a restraining order when I wanted one.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much. Thank you, Evan, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll defer to others who have questions.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Palm.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Miss Wood, thank you very much for being with us today. I admire your courage and your candor. I think sometimes prominent people have a harder time coming forward because of reputation, which you referred to. Did you at the time that this was happening discuss this with your colleagues? And if so, what was their response? I mean, I think a common refrain is that women are not believed when we come forward, was that your experience?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: I’m sorry, can you repeat that question?

REP. PALM (36TH): Yes. I’m asking that as a person of some prominence, did you feel as though you were -- you were not believed the way other people, who will testify today and have done so already, were not believed? Did it make any difference in your world when you came forward with the -- with the allegations?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Absolutely, anytime there's a high-profile person involved, the burden of proof becomes higher, and you are questioned much more about what your intentions are, whether you're after money, whether you're after fame, it raises the bar quite a bit. And I was turned away many times. It wasn't until, you know, there were a plethora of victims that I felt like it was really being taken seriously, and it shouldn't take that many people, -- I don't believe.

REP. PALM (36TH): Well -- and certainly, throughout Hollywood, as we know, dating back to the 30s, there are documented cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual abuse, coercive control, even of people who are prominent. So, I think your voice is a very important one, because it is easy for people to marginalize victims as having somehow brought upon themselves the calamity.

And so, I appreciate very much your being here and speaking on behalf of women who certainly do not have the platform that you have, and I think it took a lot of guts, so thank you very much.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Thank you for having me.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Anwar.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Miss Wood, for your testimony and thank you for your courage to -- to speak and then help us understand this. I wanted to -- just for better understanding if you're able to, are you aware of situations and examples where sometimes family members are used to coerce individuals and also how social media was used? If you would be able to share some examples, should -- would -- if you were able to.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: My social media accounts were hacked. So, all of my messages were being monitored, who I followed, who I was speaking to privately. It made it very difficult to reach out for help. He would also send people messages posing as me to sabotage relationships or to get me into trouble, to get people to, you know -- well, I don't want to -- I can only speak about my own testimony right now, so I won't go into the other victims. But I had -- I didn't have my family used against me in a -- for coercion. I was just completely isolated from them and, again, because I was being monitored, I could not reach out for help to-- I couldn't speak to them.

You know, in the beginning, he was nice to them, but slowly, you know, the analogy I like to use for coercive control is, you know, the lobster slowly boiling in the pot. You don't realize that you're being boiled until it's too late, it happens gradually and slowly, and then suddenly you realize, oh, I can't pick up the phone and call my parents without this person threatening me or cornering me in our bedroom or breaking things. And, you know, when somebody breaks something, you know, near you or in front of you, you know what they're saying is, this could be you, I’m exerting my power, and you know, and while they may not say a direct threat, you're afraid of them because they're being violent.

And my abuser threatened me constantly, but he was very smart about not providing any written threats. You know, a lot of the threats happened behind closed doors and it's just your word against theirs, and it -- it can be hard to prove. And that's one of the reasons why isolation is so important to them, and why coercive control is used to isolate you, because it makes it increasingly more difficult to prove. So, I don't know if I can speak about the family aspect of it, because it was not a part of my experience, but I know that isolating me from my family was a huge -- a huge part.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, thank you so much again for sharing this and also, if I may, my -- my understanding is that the long-term impact on your being, on - on your life from the coercive control and the negative impacts that it has had, would be far more lasting than the physical damage made.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: That is absolutely true. I am still dealing with it. It happened over, you know, 15 years ago, and I’m also still being terrorized by my abuser. He is still not in jail. And my family as well, so it's an ongoing thing and the patterns are still the same.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, Miss Wood, and --and thank you for your courage. And I’m so sorry, you had to experience all this. I’m so sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Senator.

Further questions or comments? Senator Kasser, for the second time.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to follow up., because Miss Wood, you described that in the beginning, you know, he was very charming and attentive and nice and --and a lot of this coercion happened behind closed doors and then, when you actually did come forward, you were not believed.

And I wanted to ask you if you -- if there was an intervention at some point. If there was a screening tool, if someone had sat you down, the social worker or somebody, and asked you questions based on the power and control wheel and -- which is a standard, you know, screening tool for domestic violence, if you had been believed and you had been questioned in a way that elicited the experiences you have had, do you think that would have helped you? You know, would people have then believed you if you had -- if there was an actual standardized procedure and standardized questions that all victims answered and then that could be used not only to identify as a victim and be believed as a victim, but also to, you know, in Court to substantiate the claims?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: I think it absolutely would have helped and it would have helped educate me about what was happening. I think a lot of what happened to me, I was just completely unaware that crimes are being committed when they were being committed. I was unaware of my rights. I was incredibly young. And therefore, you know, easier to manipulate and control, even though I was of legal age, I was still very much a child. And I think the right questions would have, you know, somebody spoke about before giving me that "Aha" moment, which happened years later once I entered therapy. And did start educating myself and was familiar with the power and control wheel and what these things look like. I think it would help.

And, you know, there were certain cases -- certain instances for me where I was not believed, but also instances where I was believed but was just told there -- it was just not enough. And I had so much evidence and there were so many victims and something is not working in my mind, when you can have all that and there still is no accountability and people are still being hurt.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much. I think that seems to be a common experience that even victims don't spot the signs, even victims may not realize what's happening to them and described a lobster, you know, being boiled and not even realizing it until it's too late. But -- and then, subsequently, going forward, still not being believed or being believed and being told there's nothing that can be done. So, there are many --many steps in this process that probably need to be fixed, starting with educating people about how to recognize the signs, then also educating people when they come forward about what their rights are, their legal rights are.

And then, also having a standardized screening tool, so that domestic violence coercive control can be identified in the legal context and -- and there can be accountability in the system. So, thank you so much for coming forward today. Thank you.



A Brief Analysis of Evan's Testimony

1. Evan immediately begins her testimony about how she was manipulated into an abusive relationship. She does this by manipulating her audience into conjuring an image of herself as a very young and vulnerable girl targeted by a much older "senior" man for no other purpose but to be abused: 
 
"When I was a teenager, I was groomed into an abusive relationship with a man almost 20 years my senior." 
 
By doing this, she is in fact offering an interpretation and conclusion right from the beginning as if it is an indisputable fact and a firm foundation on which she could base the rest of her testimony. The foundation, however, is one of manipulation and control.

2. She goes on to give textbook step by step interpretations of what a typical abusive relationship is and makes it fit her own situation. Every sentence is carefully constructed to make Manson look more and more controlling, and make Evan look more and more credible as an expert of coercive control.

3. Sentence after sentence of Evan's testimony is based on "signs" of coercive control you can read in any textbook and internet article covering the subject. An example of this is when she says: "He would not allow me to pay for anything which, at first, seemed romantic, but after we moved in together, I realized it was about control." First, Evan has claimed that she didn't know she was being abused or controlled until well after the relationship ended, yet here she says she "realized" she was being controlled when they moved in together, which was about a year and a half into their relationship in 2008. Second, there is no way she truly realized this until she read that it was a sign of coercive control, probably in 2019 or 2020. If you read any checklist of signs of coercive control, it will list control of finances as one of the major signs. Third, when a boyfriend or fiance pays for everything, it doesn't mean he is trying to financially control you. Financial control is when one person in a relationship has and controls every financial matter and the other has no money to be able to do anything. There is no way Manson controlled the millions of dollars Evan made before and during her relationship with Manson, leaving her dependent on him for everything (her mother was her business manager); they weren't even married for him to be able to do so.

4. "He used coercion to take photos and videos of my naked body...." Let's face the facts, Evan has been nude in photos and videos a lot more times without Manson than with and by him. Evan needs no coercion to do either, as a plethora of her nude photos and videos are out there for all to see, and none are by Manson. Yet she is afraid of "revenge porn" from Manson? Evan was once one of the most willing actresses in Hollywood to get naked and show full nudity, and it wasn't even long ago since she did a nude scene on Westworld.

5. The paragraph on coercive control is the checklist on which Evan built her new narrative as revealed in Phoenix Rising, which was filmed before and after this testimony.

6. As we go on to the questions and answers, Evan always covers every angle to make sure her audience understands that she had no free will, no choice or agency, in whatever happened to her. She does this in a very defensive way. Much of it is Evan covering her ass just in case Manson or anyone that knew her while she was with Manson presents evidence against her, and she can in turn say, "Well, I told you I was drugged," or "I told you he threatened my life and the lives of my family members if I didn't comply". It is one excuse covering another excuse just so she can always be able to say, "But I told you," for everything she is accused of and all the evidence that is presented against her.

7. "And in my case, there are numerous victims, and we all have the same story and the same pattern to compare and so, it's quite obvious that this is something that is calculated." Calculated by who? Calculated by Manson, or calculated by Evan and the other "victims"? There is a lot more evidence it was calculated by the "victims", who had been sharing their stories publicly together since November 2019 and had a number of Zoom meetings prior to coming together in person and sharing their stories for the documentary in October 2020.

8. "Isolate and control and abuse" is the basis of the new narrative against Manson by his accusers, once coercive control became a part of the narrative in 2020.

9. Evan is against restraining orders. Why? She makes many arguments against them, even saying they are motivations for abusive partners to become more violent (there is no real evidence for this, even if sometimes they are connected), and here she even ignores the question about getting a restraining order "while in" or "right after" an abusive relationship by saying that she tried to get a restraining order many years after the relationship was over but it was too late. Even if you don't believe restraining orders work, they are at the very least a strong form of evidence of possible abuse the closer in date to the incident they are sought and are an essential first step. Refusing a restraining order makes you a vigilante, if you plan on doing anything about your abuse without law enforcement. If anything, Evan should be encouraging women to get law enforcement help as soon as possible, but Evan's narrative is to first work out your issues, figure out exactly what happened to you, then take action, which is what the Phoenix Act is all about. The Phoenix Act by nature is anti-restraining order, because a restraining order requires immediate action, but the Phoenix Act encourages victims to wait until they fully understand what happened to them, which could take many years. Evan is anti-restraining order because it holds her accountable for being a vigilante and for promoting her ridiculous and unnecessary Phoenix Act.

10. Here is an interesting paragraph:

"I actually did try to get a restraining order, and I was denied, or told I wouldn't be able to obtain one, because I didn't have any recent direct threats. Even though this person would often send me videos of knives in a -- you know, being stuck into the wall, or, you know, hacking into accounts and ordering the films with, you know, hacking into an Amazon account and ordering films with threatening titles and things like that. While that is not a direct threat, I know what that means, I know it's directed at me, I know he's trying to scare me. But, you know, these are things that on their own probably wouldn't be grounds to get a restraining order, but if I could show it in a pattern of behavior, I think it would be much more effective. So no, I couldn't get a restraining order when I wanted one."

Evan here makes a bunch of unfounded allegations, which if she truly could connect them with Manson then they would absolutely be grounds for getting a restraining order. Amy Berg made a similar claim about Manson, saying her Amazon account was hacked and she received horror movies in the mail while filming Phoenix Rising, even though neither Manson nor anyone on his team knew about the documentary until it was publicly announced a month before its release. Plus, the only one who has the ability to hack into Amazon accounts is Illma Gore, not Manson, so if her claims are true, she should look in that direction first.

11. "I didn't have my family used against me in a -- for coercion. I was just completely isolated from them and, again, because I was being monitored, I could not reach out for help to-- I couldn't speak to them." Wait a minute! Evan makes it clear in Phoenix Rising that she accuses Manson of making a death threat against her father unless she complied with him, and she says she took the threat against her father very seriously. This sounds like she is alleging he was using her family against her coercively, as far as I can see. And just in case Evan said this remark mistakenly, she repeats it further down when she says: "So, I don't know if I can speak about the family aspect of [threats], because it was not a part of my experience, but I know that isolating me from my family was a huge -- a huge part."

12. Regarding Manson throwing things around in a rage, she says: "...when somebody breaks something, you know, near you or in front of you, you know what they're saying is, this could be you, I’m exerting my power, and you know, and while they may not say a direct threat, you're afraid of them because they're being violent." For someone who attended rage therapy by throwing things and breaking them, this is an interesting confession.  However, when people do this in real life, the release of tension that brings them to acts of aggression that does not hurt others when they're mad is thought to be stress-relieving. Yelling, screaming, slamming doors, throwing things — these are all considered to have the same venting effect. It may not be the best way to deal with anger, but it usually has nothing to do with a person being violent or desiring to be violent against another human being. Basically, Evan is spreading a major misconception here. On the opposite end, when people like Evan attend rage therapy sessions, they do tend to direct their rage towards a particular person, and instead of helping a person deal with rage, it only adds rage within them.

13. As far as Evan being isolated in the house for long periods of time and being isolated from family and friends, this is demonstrably not true. For every month Evan was in the relationship, we can document what she was doing or making an appearance somewhere, and most of the time she was not with Manson. In fact, while they were dating, they hardly saw each other because they were both busy with work and off doing their own thing. The fact that she talks about this isolation myth so often is because she read that it is part of coercive control, and she wanted to make sure she covered all the signs on the checklist and added this among all the others. She does this most prominently in Phoenix Rising, and in order to try to fit this accusation of isolation into their relationship, she has herself being isolated by Manson during the time they were not even dating, which lasted a whole year and Evan was off doing her own thing and dating other people, as was Manson. She distorts the timeline of their relationship so bad, that it becomes filled with contradictions.

14. "I was incredibly young. And therefore, you know, easier to manipulate and control, even though I was of legal age, I was still very much a child." This is how she describes her age and maturity while she dated and was engaged to Manson. In fact, they began dating when she was 19 and called off their engagement when she was 22. This age range is what Evan defines as "incredibly young". Evan's present-day guilt for what she did during that time, which garnered bad press for her that followed her for years and at the time she said it was the hardest part associated with being in a relationship with Manson, has made her think that by calling herself "incredibly young" or "a teenager" or even "a child" or "a baby", then she can find sympathy to have the sins of her youth erased. She does this most of all by shifting the blame for her own personal choices and making them the fault of Manson by turning them into an abusive situation.

15. Though Evan named Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner) as her abuser almost two months prior to this testimony, Evan never names him in this testimony nor identifies him as a famous musician or celebrity or anything of the sort, even though everyone at the time knew who she was referring to.

 
Evan's Coercive Control of her Son

The following is part of Jaime Bell's testimony in his custody battle with his ex-wife Evan Rachel Wood for their son Jack in April of 2021, a month after Evan gave the testimony above:


Though this is only an excerpt of the horrible things Evan has been doing with her then 7 year old (now 8 year old) son Jack, what it really is showing us is that Evan is the one using coercive control to manipulate and control her son and in the custody battle with her ex-husband. First, she isolated Jack away from his father without notifying him. Not only were visitations not allowed, but even facetime talking was prohibited, with very few concessions given. Second, Evan was and probably still is instilling fear in Jack of a scary man named Brian who is out to hurt him and his mommy (we also see this being done at the end of Phoenix Rising as Evan puts Jack to bed), which has gone so far that he is drawing pictures of this scary man. She even said to him that his name was Brian and he lived near his father's house in Los Angeles, which is why they had to move to Nashville and cannot visit his father. (The reality of the matter is that Evan probably used this excuse to move to Nashville for dramatic purposes to enhance the effect of her documentary, and it got out of control which led to this whole mess.) By presenting this fictional story to her son Jack as if it is a reality, she is coercively controlling him to be on his mother's side and to feel the need to have to be with her and away from his dad. Third, the isolation and fear being instilled into Jack by Evan has him so terrified that he refuses to do anything "fun" with Jaime until "Brian is in jail", as Jack revealed to his father.

What we get from this is that Evan's studies of coercive control, which she has now been an advocate for in both California and Connecticut, have led her to use these tactics on her son for her custody case (likely for dramatic effect for her documentary).


Concluding Remarks:

You cannot understand Evan's testimony from 2020 onward, and why it took the path it took from then on, as is especially manifested in Phoenix Rising, unless you understand Evan's work with passing the Coercive Control Bills in California and Connecticut. She has studied all the signs typically given for coercive control, and applied all of them to her own situation, thus rebuilding a new narrative of her own abuse. It is a much more persuasive tactic, because the signs of coercive control are almost impossible to prove either way, whether they happened or not, and when someone like Evan gets up in front of a public audience and runs through the checklist of the signs and applies them to her own personal testimony of abuse, it makes her gullible listeners think that she has indeed suffered coercive control, otherwise how could she know all these details. She knows these details because she has studied these things and conveniently applied these things to make her sound as legitimate of an abuse victim as possible. These things have probably run through her mind so much, that she probably wants it all to be true, in some twisted, masochistic way. And by wanting it, she may actually have come to believe it, because in the past few years it has entirely consumed her identity.
 
 

 

We respect your email privacy

Welcome to Marilyn Manson Uncanceled! My name is John, and I am the author of the contents of this website. The contents of this website are written with a certain chronological order, which is why you should begin to read from the beginning, and all past articles can be found in the Archive. At the top of the main page, you will find three vertical parallel lines; by clicking on that you will be able to access the archive, as well as other resources to help you get the facts regarding the Marilyn Manson case. If you have any questions or want to send in some helpful information, do not hesitate to contact me. Please submit your email above to get updates on new posts.