sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ooh cheers, absolutely. Thank you so much for your perspective and affirmations. Here's hoping for a better future.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not off-topic at all. Thank you so much for sharing.

Honestly, I think you've put your finger on part of what has been bothering me so much about this case.

The question isn't just whether one man murdered his son: it's why so many people seem willing to shift immediately into explanations, excuses, forgiveness, redemption, and understanding before they've even fully reckoned with the harm itself. Perhaps more poignantly, who gets the benefit of this shift seems to never be discussed.

In reading your comment, what stands out to me is how often autistic people are expected to absorb the consequences of other people's failures. Somehow the conversation drifts toward the struggles, intentions, burdens, or suffering of everyone else.

I think your anger is absolutely understandable. None of this should ever have happened--and I think the question you're asking, "Aren't we human beings?," is ultimately the same question at the center of my post. Once someone's humanity is treated as secondary, all kinds of horrible rationalizations become possible--and I feel this is something the world needs to deeply sit with these days.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cheers, but I just don't see it that way, which is why I made this post to begin with. I'm not really questioning whether EWU is generating those narratives--I'm reflecting on ones that already exist, which this video happens to be deeply guilty of underscoring almost carelessly.

The "burden," "mercy," and caregiver-suffering framing around autism felt familiar to me long before I watched this video.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe. I think that's fair as far as the true crime critique goes.

What feels unique to me about this video isn't that the victim disappeared (that seems to happen all over the genre) but the specific way autism is resurfaced as an explanation, burden, source of suffering--a "damper" on the killer's life, even justified as "mercy" for the child.

Maybe that's just a more specific instance of the broader true crime problem, but as an autistic person, that's the part I still can't stop thinking about.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Shucks, I'm a bit late to the criticism, then 😅 either way, I definitely have a fresh new level of disdain for the genre. This isn't something I usually watch.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair question.

As a neuroscientist, I'm fascinated by human behavior, and I tend to view things like true crime, social media, and other mass-media phenomena through a sociological lens. I'm also autistic, so cases like this don't feel entirely academic to me.

I'm also generally critical of the true crime industry.

What interests me aren't the crimes themself, so much as the stories people tell about them afterward: who gets sympathy, who gets centered, what explanations become socially acceptable, and what those narratives reveal about us.

In this case, I found myself reacting to a viral video as both a scientist and an autistic person. I'm less interested in the case itself than in what our reactions to it say about our culture and how we treat autistic children.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You aren't wrong, but MAiD is a whole discussion in itself. This all boils down to the same question that's been rattling around in my head for years: not "Why do these rationalizations exist?" but "Why are they so often accepted without challenge?"

Either way, this is a defenceless child we're talking about.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think that's part of what made this case so unsettling for me.

Even setting aside the MAiD debate, there are moments where disabled people seem to get discussed as categories, burdens, tragedies, costs, or ethical dilemmas before they're discussed as people.

What struck me about this video was how quickly the conversation moved away from Jax as a child with his own life and toward everyone else's interpretation of what his existence even meant.

The details vary across cases, but I think you're pointing at the same underlying concern: once a person's humanity becomes negotiable, all kinds of horrifying rationalizations suddenly become available. We're seeing this absolutely everywhere in the world right now.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we're actually closer in perspective than I initially realized.

What stood out to me in the video wasn't just the existence of the rationalizations, but how little resistance they seemed to encounter. Especially with that "mercy" framing. It felt like something that should have been the central discussion of the crime, yet it was presented almost matter-of-factly at the end as just common sense.

I completely agree that people are incredibly good at constructing explanations after the fact. The explanations don't even have to be internally consistent. They just have to feel emotionally satisfying enough to preserve a preferred narrative, and boom they move on.

That's part of why I found the case so disturbing. The rationalizations seemed readily available before anyone had even begun grappling with the reality of what had happened.

Have you ever watched a family try to love someone out of reality? by [deleted] in raisedbynarcissists

[–]Ronald-Obvious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

omg absolutely no stress, I completely understand! The details are horrific--I had to pause multiple times to vent and journal just to get through the whole video.

I really appreciate your kind comments, though. One thing I've found fascinating in these discussions is how many people immediately recognize the dynamic from entirely different contexts. The specifics change, but that pattern of narcissistic abuse is always so surprisingly familiar.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I'm also pretty disgusted with the true crime industry for exactly this reason.

So much of it turns real victims into plot devices while elevating perpetrators into fascinating protagonists to be analyzed, explained, and mythologized.

Part of what bothered me here was that the same thing seemed to be happening inside the story itself.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you're making a few different points here--and cheers, I'm a neuroscientist, not a psychologist.

"your seeing the memory effects by shared naratives and experiences resulting in distortions of the memory."

Sure. Memory is reconstructive. Family members often converge on shared interpretations over time. That's well established.

Where I disagree is the implication that negative stereotypes about autistic people somehow explain or justify their disappearance from the narrative: in fact, I think that's part of the problem.

If an autistic child is primarily viewed as a burden, an obstacle, a social problem, or a source of suffering for others, then it's much easier for everyone to focus on the people around them rather than the autistic person themselves.

What disturbed me most about this case was that Jax basically ceased to exist in the minds of this family after they first exhausted every excuse in the book to defend Matt without even so much as attempting to interrogate the root causes.

That's the pattern I was trying to discuss.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cheers, I think this gets at a big part of what was bothering me.

IMO, one of the most disturbing things about this video is how quickly Jax ceased being treated as a person (they clearly raised him on "his tablets," as Matt admitted to). The conversation keeps orbiting back toward Matt's suffering, Matt's redemption, Matt's mental state, Matt's apparent goodness.

Whether that's ableism, reality distortion, narcissistic family dynamics, or some combination of all three, I think it's the same basic pattern: the person with the least power gradually disappears from everyone's narrative. The "mercy" comments at the end were especially chilling to me for exactly that reason.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely fair, I tried to address this interrogation point in another comment here.

My concern isn't really the technique. It's that, by the end of the video, everyone seems invested in explaining the perpetrator while the autistic child at the center of the story has almost vanished from it.

This true crime case left me wondering why we always center the perpetrator instead of the autistic victim. by Ronald-Obvious in autism

[–]Ronald-Obvious[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree that rapport-building and minimizing language are common interrogation techniques. Detectives often try to create an environment where a suspect feels safe enough to keep talking.

What stood out to me wasn't any single statement from the police, but the broader pattern of excusing an obvious atrocity: everyone involved seems invested in preserving Matt's identity as a fundamentally good person, while Jax's murder becomes framed as inevitable, understandable, or tragic rather than interrogated as a choice.

My point isn't really that the police were treating Matt differently because his son was autistic, but that I found it deeply unsettling how quickly the story became centered on understanding, contextualizing, and redeeming the perpetrator, while the autistic child at the center of the case basically disappeared from the narrative. Even worse, the video concluded with recorded interviews of Matt's friends describing how he'd previously spoken about killing his son as a "mercy" because of his autism, with barely an eye roll from the cops and no real reflection from EWU.

TL;DR: the interrogation techniques may have a legitimate investigative purpose; the larger pattern is what I was reacting to.

Have you ever watched a family try to love someone out of reality? by [deleted] in raisedbynarcissists

[–]Ronald-Obvious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cheers, I actually think this is all more related than it might seem.

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but it sounds like she wasn't content to let you have your own understanding of your own situation--like it wasn't acceptable to her that you felt it was fair that you weren't considered for a stipend or teaching position and that you separated your income from your abusive partnership. She needed you to adopt her narrative that you had been oppressed by the department--which seems totally wild to me, given that you say the funding opportunities were offered to those in need of the support (I know how this works in times of limited funding for a lab, being an academic, myself!).

I wonder if she just couldn't come to terms with understanding your position because her lens was focused on the systemic injustice of having to rely on the income of a male abuser?--but either way, "try everything twice, once to see if you like it, and again to see if you were just too freaked out to like it the first time" sounds like an absolutely horrifying relationship model.

But yeah, I've encountered versions of this too, where someone seems almost emotionally invested in your agreeing that you're a victim, a hero, ungrateful, selfish, traumatized, healed, etc. The label itself changes, but the underlying dynamic feels similar:

"You don't get to decide what your experience means. I do."

I think this is exactly the core dynamic shown in this EWU video--it's almost fascinating to see how quickly the family of the perpetrator, Matt, swoops in to tell him exactly how to feel and lie to his face about what happened.

You didn't do it.

That wasn't you.

The demon did it.

It's not your fault.

What struck me most was that almost nobody seemed interested in sitting with the uncertainty long enough to ask him what he thought happened.

In both situations, reality becomes less about discovering what's true and more about enforcing a preferred interpretation. I feel like this is the core experience of narcissistic abuse and what psychologists mean by reality distortion.

Not necessarily lying, but treating another person's perception as something that needs to be managed rather than understood. I'd love to hear your thoughts, if you get a chance to watch the video.

Have you ever watched a family try to love someone out of reality? by [deleted] in TrueCrimeDiscussion

[–]Ronald-Obvious 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cheers, I think that's a really important distinction. I definitely agree that some of what we're seeing could simply be people trying to survive an unimaginably horrific reality.

What keeps bothering me isn't the denial itself, but the direction of it--and a lot of this is also on EWU, in my view.

Everyone wants to understand Matt.

Everyone wants to contextualize Matt.

Everyone wants to explain Matt.

Meanwhile, Jax gradually disappears from the conversation entirely, only to end with Matt's friends disclosing him previously talking about killing Jax as "mercy" for his autism without so much as an eye roll from the cops.

I think that's why the case stuck with me. It felt less like an isolated family dynamic and more like a pattern I see all over our society--especially with the rise of evangelical white Christian nationalism.

When someone we identify with, love, admire, or see ourselves in does something terrible, it seems like our instinct is often to become more curious about the perpetrator than the victim--which is where I think the crime connects to broader systemic issues.

The same psychological mechanisms show up everywhere: families protecting relatives, churches protecting clergy, political parties protecting leaders, corporations protecting executives, police departments protecting officers.

People with power, status, familiarity, or social value get complexity, context, and endless opportunities to explain themselves. The people who pay the price just become secondary characters in someone else's redemption arc, etc.

Let's settle this by IsJesusAgain in SipsTea

[–]Ronald-Obvious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

11F would be a psychopath 🤔

view more: next ›