Former Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax - murder/suicide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

+1. Just to put a more concrete example, he could have refused to consent to the kids being placed in public school, while at the same time refusing to pay a dime toward tuition. So yeah, the money matters. A lot.

And alcohol use disorder is known to make it harder for someone to make decisions due to the damage to the brain and cognition (which yes is partially reversible but not during the time when someone is actively abusing alcohol). Imagine being stuck making decisions with someone whose capability to make decisions is actively impaired whether they're currently drunk or in between binges / episodes.

Is this what we call "alcoholism" now?

Yes exactly, anyone drinking anything has alcohol use disorder it's supposed to be for cleaning windows

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And alcohol use disorder is known to make it harder for someone to make decisions due to the damage to the brain and cognition (which yes is partially reversible but not during the time when someone is actively abusing alcohol). Imagine being stuck making decisions with someone whose capability to make decisions is actively impaired whether they're currently drunk or in between binges / episodes.

Is this what we call "alcoholism" now?

Apparently it takes away the determination of whether someone is an official "alcoholic". Especially the person looking at themselves who doesn't want to take the big mental leap into admitting "I - AM - AN - ALCOHOLIC". It's as if there are 10 steps until you cross into official alcoholism and you no longer have to debate if the person is on step 7 or 8 (so not an official alcoholic yet!) Or hey - I'm clinging to step 9.5 - so I'm still ok!

Now it's just: is the way you are drinking causing problems for you? - your health, your job, your family, friends, DUI's, etc. Even if you are only on "step 5". If so, you have alcohol use disorder and need to change the way you use alcohol (or perhaps stop all together).

[Anonymous]

“Watson's attorney said that Watson had one interaction with Fairfax after the alleged assault outside a campus party, during which Watson said "Why did you do it?" and reported Fairfax replied, "I knew that because of what happened to you last year, you'd be too afraid to say anything."[70] Watson's attorney said this showed Fairfax "used the prior rape of his 'friend' against her when he chose to rape her in a premeditated way".[71] Fairfax denied the second accusation, issuing a statement saying”

From Wikipedia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Watson's attorney said that Watson had one interaction with Fairfax after the alleged assault outside a campus party, during which Watson said "Why did you do it?" and reported Fairfax replied, "I knew that because of what happened to you last year, you'd be too afraid to say anything."[70] Watson's attorney said this showed Fairfax "used the prior rape of his 'friend' against her when he chose to rape her in a premeditated way".[71] Fairfax denied the second accusation, issuing a statement saying”

From Wikipedia

No wonder he was spiraling so badly. After all the effort he put into selecting the perfect victim and running out the statute of limitations, he never thought anyone would believe her and that he’d have to suffer any consequences for what he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

The news media reported she had primary custody and he is required to do the alcohol tests pre and post visits with the kids as part of their divorce settlement.

His alcoholism must have been very advanced as even with alcoholism this type of agreement is rare.

Alcoholism makes underlying mental health issues worse.

We need to stop allowing alcoholism as an excuse or reasoning to be irresponsible. I see this all the time at work and other legal things we should remove it as a medical condition as it's used to legally justify low work performance and martial issues

Alcoholism is only an excuse if you immediately go into treatment. I've never seen people get away with being drunk on the job. Family law is a whole other matter, probably not feasible to remove kids from every drunkards home.

[Anonymous]

Anyone have a link to the March 30 court order that all major news outlets keep quoting from?

[Anonymous]

This is the saddest thread ever. Pages and pages of blaming the victim. Makes me sick.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't it had also been disruptive to change schools for the kids? I do think it's strange they kept the kids in private schools. That would have been a start to getting on track financially. How were they able to accrue that much debt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And alcohol use disorder is known to make it harder for someone to make decisions due to the damage to the brain and cognition (which yes is partially reversible but not during the time when someone is actively abusing alcohol). Imagine being stuck making decisions with someone whose capability to make decisions is actively impaired whether they're currently drunk or in between binges / episodes.

Is this what we call "alcoholism" now?

Apparently it takes away the determination of whether someone is an official "alcoholic". Especially the person looking at themselves who doesn't want to take the big mental leap into admitting "I - AM - AN - ALCOHOLIC". It's as if there are 10 steps until you cross into official alcoholism and you no longer have to debate if the person is on step 7 or 8 (so not an official alcoholic yet!) Or hey - I'm clinging to step 9.5 - so I'm still ok!

Now it's just: is the way you are drinking causing problems for you? - your health, your job, your family, friends, DUI's, etc. Even if you are only on "step 5". If so, you have alcohol use disorder and need to change the way you use alcohol (or perhaps stop all together).

I have a disease!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it had also been disruptive to change schools for the kids? I do think it's strange they kept the kids in private schools. That would have been a start to getting on track financially. How were they able to accrue that much debt?

Credit cards, business credit rising in the cost tails of the dentist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it had also been disruptive to change schools for the kids? I do think it's strange they kept the kids in private schools. That would have been a start to getting on track financially. How were they able to accrue that much debt?

I mean, two small business owners would have a significant amount of debt anyway. Her from her degree and buying all the necessary equipment to sustain a dental practice, and him having to cover fees and whatnot for cases on contingency. And it’s not like he made a ton of money when in public service. But one of the news reports also cited over the top trips he was booking for third parties, so I wonder if he just decided to run her into the ground at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the saddest thread ever. Pages and pages of blaming the victim. Makes me sick.

Agree. It’s a coping mechanism so people can feel like this would never happen to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We really shouldn’t be judging how Cerina handled any of this. This woman was managing a household, her own private dental practice, and a ticking time bomb living in her house. Expecting her to make absolutely perfect clearheaded decisions isn’t right. It sounds like she tried her best and that’s all anyone really can do.

But also this was the likely outcome no matter where she lived. I'm the DV survivor that doesn't truly believe my ex couldn't still kill me today should his life suddenly go to sh!t. Abusers believe they own you and that you are the source of all their issues.

I’m sorry but no one would ever believe that a man who once loved you and had two children with you, plus a public profile, would ever be capable of murdering you and leaving his own kids in this state. No one would have called this a likely outcome at this time last week.

Congratulations you've never been in an abusive relationship. I have and he attempted to kill all of us once. 10+ years later it's a non-zero chance he could become violent again even though I haven't been with him for over a decade.

That said, correct, she had no police documented instances of violence which would make what you or the other poster above says wrong. She would have no evidence to show a judge that she wasn't abandoning the property or just plain crazy or making it up. Just like the rape victims who we can see people still believe that somehow they were lying.

I believe more rape or sexual assault victims of his will come forward. I do not believe he only assaulted two women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

+1. Just to put a more concrete example, he could have refused to consent to the kids being placed in public school, while at the same time refusing to pay a dime toward tuition. So yeah, the money matters. A lot.

And alcohol use disorder is known to make it harder for someone to make decisions due to the damage to the brain and cognition (which yes is partially reversible but not during the time when someone is actively abusing alcohol). Imagine being stuck making decisions with someone whose capability to make decisions is actively impaired whether they're currently drunk or in between binges / episodes.

Is this what we call "alcoholism" now?

It’s what we call the town drunk now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it had also been disruptive to change schools for the kids? I do think it's strange they kept the kids in private schools. That would have been a start to getting on track financially. How were they able to accrue that much debt?

Credit cards, business credit rising in the cost tails of the dentist

Can you imaging him running the state of Virginia if he ran his household finances so poorly? Mind blowing.