{"id":23946,"date":"2021-03-02T12:10:29","date_gmt":"2021-03-02T20:10:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lelandhale.com\/butcherbaker\/wordpress\/?p=23946"},"modified":"2021-11-12T06:25:46","modified_gmt":"2021-11-12T14:25:46","slug":"elephant-in-room-with-control-freak","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lelandhale.com\/butcherbaker\/wordpress\/2021\/03\/02\/elephant-in-room-with-control-freak\/","title":{"rendered":"Elephant in Room With Control Freak"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Robert Hansen was repeatedly asked to explain his interactions with the women of Anchorage. Women he kidnapped, raped and often killed. He told investigators it was a matter of control. That exercising control over these women made him feel he had control over his own life<\/em>. Because, you see, he felt he had no control over his own life, over his impulses, his wandering thoughts of doing evil things to young women. That was the elephant in Robert Hansen’s room. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But these women were not mere robots. They had dreams and agency and will. They did not always sit and stay<\/em> like dogs at Hansen’s command. They could not be expected to. Hansen had an answer for that, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"elephant\"
Six of Hansen’s 17 known victims<\/strong> (courtesy AST)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Frank Rothschild<\/strong>: “And when asked, well, what happened, Mr. Hansen, if they didn’t go along with the program? ‘Well, then they stayed.’ Those were his words. He would even tell them if things don’t go right, boy, this is where you’re going to stay. To scare them.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact or Assumption?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

It is at this point in his disquisition that Frank Rothschild makes what would become a stunning assertion. This is the other elephant in the room.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And while he doesn’t talk about it or admit to it, it’s obvious from reading through and looking at where things started, and where the women ended up, he hunted them down, Judge. <\/p>Assistant D.A. Frank Rothschild<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Not content to let that statement lay, Rothschild went on, in explicit detail, about what he imagined went on out there, in the Alaska Bush, between Robert Hansen and his young victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frank Rothschild<\/strong>: “He let them run a little bit and then he enjoyed a little hunt just like with his big game animals. He toyed with them, he wanted to scare them, he got a charge out of all of this. They weren’t shot right where it all started, he let them run, he grabbed them and they’d claw a little bit and he’d let them run a little more and played with them.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frank Rothschild is a primary source, then, of the notion that Hansen was the serial killer who hunted his victims like animals. Is it true? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Robert Hansen, big game hunter<\/strong> (copyright Anchorage Times)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Going After The Prize<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

People who hunted with Robert Hansen spoke of him as a relentless, single-minded hunter. He was after the big game, full stop. You can’t toy with a wild animal. They’ll outrun you, they’ll outwit you. They know their territory better than the hunter does. And they’re better equipped for that territory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same cannot be said of the young women Hansen abducted and dragged into the wilderness. This was decidedly not<\/em> their territory. But they did know one thing. They were in grave danger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faced with danger, human reactions reduce to their essence. Just as with any animal faced with threats, humans instinctively go into what is called “fight or flight” mode. What Rothschild describes is exactly that. Fight or flight. And everything Robert Hansen did up to that point put these women in exactly that position. Fight or flight. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He didn’t have to “hunt them down” in some literal version of The Most Dangerous Game.<\/a> It wasn’t necessary. He had conditioned them to act like any other cornered animal. And they did. He was, after all, a hunter through and through. Maybe not an elephant hunter, but a hunter nonetheless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"elephant\"
Dall Sheep, Hansen’s den<\/strong> (copyright Leland E. Hale)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Splitting Hairs<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps, you think, I’m splitting hairs. Fair enough. I am<\/em> making a fine point distinction between willful intent and inevitable outcome. Let that be another elephant in the room. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s worth stipulating, too, that by the end Hansen knew these women had to die. The women in the clubs recognized him. The world was on to him. He also knew what he was doing was wrong. Rothschild makes a point of that. How, then, did he rationalize what he was doing? Did he even bother?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ll say this: Robert Hansen constructed a reality that blamed the victim for a fate that he owned. Not unheard of. All too common. Let me repeat: In Hansen’s warped construction, if they disobeyed him, they stayed. That was a logically, if not morally, consistent way of absolving himself. They did what they did, so he did what he did<\/em>. And the “genius” of his rationalization was that it was predicated upon a simple rule of nature. Fight or flight. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The elephant is starting to come into focus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Complications<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Complicating this algorithm somewhat, however, are the details of what happened. Details about some of the killings. Details about the women who got away. Reality is never as simple as conjecture. And we all know the story of the blind men and the elephant<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"elephant\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n