Summary — Gone Hunting | She Was In My Head (Over My Dead Body, S4‑E7)

Host: Jennifer Portman (Wondery)
Guests: Candace DeLong (former FBI profiler) and Dr. Jane Monckton‑Smith (professor of public protection; coercive control expert)

Overview

This bonus episode revisits the Mike Williams cold‑case murder and the roles of Denise and Brian Williams. Host Jennifer Portman interviews two experts with contrasting interpretations: Candace DeLong focuses on the psychology of “killer couples” and accepts much of Brian’s account; Dr. Jane Monckton‑Smith frames the relationship through the lens of coercive control and views Denise largely as a victim of an escalating, controlling partner. The discussion covers motives, dynamics between the pair, behavior interpreted at trial, legal issues (proffer/immunity), and broader lessons about domestic coercion and investigation failures.

Key points & main takeaways

• Couple-dynamic explanation (Candace DeLong):

  • “Killer couples” (romantic or otherwise) can amplify each other’s destructive impulses; partners often feed off one another and avoid “pumping the brakes.”
  • Affairs can produce intense, tunnel‑vision emotions—what feels like a powerful relationship while illicit often fails in “real life.”
  • Brian’s emotional confession in a proffer (for a deal) and vivid testimony is plausible; Candace trusts much of his account, including his claim that “Denise was in my head” when he shot Mike.
  • Psychological mechanisms (shame, secrecy, rationalization, invoking God) help people justify serious crimes.

• Coercive control framework (Dr. Jane Monckton‑Smith):

  • Coercive control is a patterned set of behaviors designed to entrap someone—she maps the case to an eight‑stage escalation model (history → meeting → relationship → trigger → escalation → homicidal ideation → planning → homicide).
  • Brian fits textbook high‑risk markers: controlling, violent, threats of suicide (which should be treated as homicide threats), inability to tolerate rejection, weapon use, domination of social contexts (e.g., birthing class).
  • Denise’s subdued or “flat” reactions are consistent with chronic fear and learned survival behaviors in coercive relationships—not proof of malice or coldness.
  • Jane rejects that Denise and Brian were equal co‑conspirators; she believes Brian dominated and largely orchestrated events, exaggerating Denise’s role to protect himself and punish her.
  • Sentencing and prosecutorial decisions are criticized: Brian received immunity/leniency despite being the more dangerous actor; Denise received a much harsher sentence.

• Legal & investigative issues:

  • Proffer deals: defendants can receive reduced consequences in exchange for full disclosure; if proven lying, the deal collapses. Both guests discuss reliability concerns when a shooter gets immunity or lenient treatment for testifying.
  • The original investigation allegedly mishandled the scene (delay, item returns), which may have compromised evidence and contributed to a cold case longevity.

Notable quotes / insights

• Brian’s reported line: “She was in my head, behind me.” (Used to describe Denise’s presence in his mind when he shot Mike.)
• Denise (as reported): “I don't ever want to hear Mike's name again. I don't ever want to know anything you're doing about Mike again. I have to get on with my life.”
• Candace DeLong: “He removed the essence of Mike Williams by doing that”—on the brutality of a facial shotgun wound.
• Jane Monckton‑Smith: “See [coercive control] as a pattern of behavior designed to trap someone in a relationship like a hostage situation.”
• Jane: “If you hear a suicide threat, you interpret it as a homicide threat.” (A key policing risk marker.)

Topics discussed

• Psychology of affairs and secrecy
• Dynamics of couples who perpetrate violent crime
• Coercive control, its stages, and risk markers
• Interpreting victim behavior (flat affect vs. guilt)
• Reliability and ethics of proffer/immunity testimony
• Criminal investigation and evidence‑handling failures
• Sentencing disparities and critique of prosecutorial outcomes

Action items & recommendations (practical takeaways)

For practitioners, policymakers, and concerned listeners:

• Treat suicide threats in intimate relationships as potential homicide risk indicators; train first responders accordingly.
• Increase awareness and training on coercive control for police, prosecutors, courts, and social services so victim behavior isn’t misread as indifference or guilt.
• Scrutinize accomplice testimony where immunity or leniency is offered; juries and investigators should assess motive to minimize/exaggerate another person’s role.
• Improve cold‑case protocols and preserve crime scenes/evidence to avoid compromising future prosecutions.
• For family, friends, or professionals working with possible victims: recognize chronic fear responses (calmness, avoidance) as potential signs of long‑term abuse—not absence of feeling.
• Survivors and listeners seeking help: consider confidential therapy or domestic violence resources; the episode references mental‑health care as useful for processing trauma and racing thoughts.

Final assessment

The episode presents two complementary but contrasting expert lenses: one focusing on shared culpability and the psychology of couples who kill, the other emphasizing coercive control and structural power imbalances that can make one partner primarily responsible. Together they broaden understanding of why people in abusive relationships behave counterintuitively and highlight systemic failures (investigation, prosecution, public perception) that complicate justice. Listeners are left with clearer frameworks to interpret behavior in domestic homicide cases and with concrete indicators of coercive danger.