Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out

by Rick Alan Ross

  Hedda Nussbaum was a former associate editor of children’s books at Random House in Manhattan. Though she was well educated and from a good family, Steinberg had reportedly “brainwashed” her.1096 Nussbaum later said, “It’s incredible how low I had sunk without realizing it. I became a walking zombie.”

  The process Steinberg used to break Nussbaum down and turn her into a “zombie” was at first subtle and slow, unlike the rapid and radical transformation of Patty Hearst by the SLA. It is somewhat reminiscent, though, of “the game” played at Synanon. He began by confronting Nussbaum with criticism, such as offering an ongoing critique of her social skills. Steinberg in effect became Nussbaum’s “therapist” and boyfriend. He also isolated her, explaining that her family was “evil.” Steinberg convinced Nussbaum that she had done “horrible sexual things” but that he would be her “savior.” Three years passed before the physical abuse began.1097

  Hedda Nussbaum tried to run away five times, but she never told anyone the truth about her relationship with Steinberg.1098 It wasn’t until after her daughter’s death that she finally regained her independence, largely due to separation the authorities imposed on the couple. That separation broke Steinberg’s control over Nussbaum and allowed the battered woman to think independently.

  Years later Hedda Nussbaum became a speaker on the subject of domestic violence. In an interview connected to a college lecture, she said, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry I didn’t see. I’m sorry it’s too late to see. But we can help others.”

  Joel Steinberg was released from prison in 2004 after serving two-thirds of his sentence. Despite his conviction the disbarred lawyer never took responsibility for his daughter’s death. In an interview shortly after leaving prison, Steinberg called himself a “good father.”1099

  When asked for her reaction to Steinberg’s release, Hedda Nussbaum said, “I’m not his puppet any longer and I’m taking precautions against him finding me.”1100

  2002—Lee Boyd Malvo, John Muhammad, and the “D.C. Sniper” Murders

  For three weeks during October 2002, a reign of terror took place in the area known as the Washington, DC, Beltway. The so-called D.C. sniper created panic in the city and its surrounding suburbs. During this period ten people were shot and killed, and three were injured. A police investigation would eventually lead to the arrest of John Allen Williams, a forty-two-year-old Gulf War veteran with ten years of military service. Williams had taken the name John Muhammad after joining the Nation of Islam.1101 Also arrested was his accomplice, a seventeen-year-old named Lee Boyd Malvo.1102

  The image that emerged through their criminal trials was that of a deeply close overlapping relationship between the middle-aged Muhammad and teenage Malvo. A psychiatrist testified that Malvo “displayed a pathological loyalty” and that the teenager had effectively “merged with Muhammad.” Defense lawyers argued that Malvo had been “brainwashed”1103 and that the process of molding the boy’s mindset had seems to have taken place over a period of years. Muhammad taught Malvo that emotions were his enemy and that right and wrong were merely artificial constructions.1104

  Lee Boyd Malvo grew up in poverty in Kingston, Jamaica. His parents separated when he was five, and his mother raised him. In 2000, after moving to Antigua, he met John Muhammad and quickly became enthralled with the charismatic man, who would ultimately become his surrogate father.

  Muhammad had fled to the Caribbean with his three children after a bitter custody dispute.1105 Eventually the children were returned to their mother, and Malvo became Muhammad’s “pseudo son.”1106

  In late 2000 Malvo’s mother temporarily gave her son to Muhammad as collateral for fake travel papers to the United States.1107 The boy and his mother later traveled to Florida in 2000, but after only a few months, the teenager ran away to be with Muhammad. He seemed to crave the stability the older man appeared to represent. Psychologist and cult expert Paul Martin later testified, “Instability is a factor in indoctrination. People seek relief from that instability, that sense of insecurity in their life.”1108

  Once Malvo reunited with Muhammad, the older man’s influence and control became complete. Malvo even adopted an American accent and called Muhammad “Dad.” His new father filled the boy’s head with hate. He gave Malvo audiotapes of racist diatribes, which the boy listened to until he fell asleep. Mohammad’s grandiose plan was to start a revolution through random murders and then ransom the government he now despised for the funds to build a “Utopian Society.”1109 The teenager, once reportedly “sweet and obedient,” was transformed under Mohammad’s influence into a cold-blooded killer.

  At trial Malvo’s lawyer compared his client to “the acolyte of a cult.”1110 Mohammad refused to testify as a witness at the Malvo trial1111 despite the fact that he had already been convicted of murder at his trial and sentenced to death.1112 He chose instead to abandon his pretended “son.”

  Despite use of an “insanity defense,”1113 Malvo was found guilty of terrorism and capital murder.1114 The presiding judge, Marum Roush, said the insanity defense required proof that Malvo was incapable of making the distinction between right and wrong. “I imagine someone is going to have to say at some point that the indoctrination in this case was so severe that it made Mr. Malvo unable to know right from wrong,” she said. “I would be sorely disappointed if there is no such testimony.”1115

  Testimony was provided by psychologist Paul R. Martin, founder of Wellspring Retreat, a licensed mental health facility in Ohio devoted to the rehabilitation of former cult members. There were numerous objections regarding the relevance of Martin’s testimony. The prosecutor said, “There is no evidence of a cult in this case.” Martin disagreed. “We call the situation a cult of one.”1116

  Paul Martin didn’t interview Lee Boyd Malvo, but a social worker, Carmeta Albarus, did for seventy hours. She testified that one could understand the relationship between Malvo and John Muhammad by watching The Matrix. Albarus testified, “I saw Neo as Lee” and “Morpheus as Muhammad.” The social worker elaborated, “Neo was ‘the One,’ who was going to contribute significantly to changing the system, Morpheus was to me the authoritative figure and the mentor.”1117

  Ultimately the jury decided against the death penalty for Malvo despite the recommendations of the prosecution. Lee Boyd Malvo was sentenced to six terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.1118

  John Muhammad would again be tried for murder in the state of Maryland in 2006, and during that trial he acted as his own attorney. Muhammad cross-examined Malvo in the courtroom. When the onetime mentor Muhammad referred to his former protégé as “son,” the young man interrupted him. “I would prefer you address me by my name,” he said.1119 The prosecutor asked Malvo how Mohammad had made him feel about white people. “Hate,” he responded.

  John Muhammad was executed on November 10, 2009. He offered no final words and never demonstrated any remorse for his crimes.1120

  Later in an interview Lee Boyd Malvo said, “I was a monster. If you look up the definition, that’s what a monster is. I was a ghoul. I was a thief. I stole people’s lives. I did someone else’s bidding just because they said so…There is no rhyme or reason or sense.” Explaining the relationship between Muhammad and him, Malvo said, “He picked me because he knew he could mold me…He knew I could be what he needed me to be…He could not have chosen a better child. I was unable to distinguish between Muhammad the father I had wanted and Muhammad the nervous wreck that was just falling to pieces.” Explaining Muhammad’s influence, Malvo said, “He understood exactly how to motivate me by giving approval or denying approval. It’s very subtle. It wasn’t violent at all. It’s like what a pimp does to a woman.”1121

  Lee Boyd Malvo also later disclosed that Muhammad sexually abused him. “For the entire period when I was almost 15 until I got arrested, I was sexually abused by John Muhammad,” he said. “I couldn’t say no. I had wanted that level of love and acceptance and consistency for all of my l
ife, and couldn’t find it. And even if unconsciously, or even in moments of short reflection, I knew that it was wrong, I did not have the willpower to say no.”1122

  Much like the victims of destructive cults, individuals dominated through abusive, controlling relationships became dependent on an absolute leader to determine their value judgments. As can be seen from the historical examples, as this type of relationship continues and deepens, the passive person largely loses the ability to think independently and function autonomously. The growing dependence such a relationship engenders often depends on increasing isolation and control of environment and information. All these qualities parallel the similar control features destructive cults use, leading to the description of “cultic relationships” to describe some abusive or controlling situations.

  CHAPTER 19

  ABUSIVE, CONTROLLING RELATIONSHIP INTERVENTION

  Parents contacted me about their teenage daughter, who had become deeply enmeshed in an abusive and controlling relationship and was subsequently estranged from her family.

  This situation initially developed during a family summer vacation when the daughter met a young man, who was several years older. He was staying at the same resort with his mother. Before the family’s relatively brief vacation had ended, the two young people seemed inseparable.

  At the beginning the girl’s parents reserved judgment, even though the relationship had developed so rapidly. But after the family returned home, the daughter spent hours every day, locked in her bedroom and talking with the boyfriend through the Internet. Day after day these conversations continued and soon became the focus of the teenage girl’s life. The daughter appeared to be obsessed with the relationship and left little time for anything else in her life. She became increasingly isolated from her family and old friends.

  The fall came, and it was time for the daughter to begin her first year of college. The school she attended was away from home and offered dormitory rooms for its students. The parents hoped their daughter would find some meaningful balance between school and the boyfriend. In a few weeks, however, the girl dropped out of college and moved into an apartment with the boyfriend in another state. All these changes rapidly occurred within the space of only two months.

  Alarmed by the abrupt changes in their daughter’s life, the father and mother became profoundly concerned about the relationship. When they discussed their concerns with their daughter, communication with her subsequently became less frequent and far more difficult. It seemed like the girl was being coached before and sometimes during her conversations. After some consideration the mother and father concluded that their daughter was under undue influence.

  The parents contacted me for a consultation. I was careful to explain that my intervention approach is purely educational and doesn’t include any form of counseling or therapy. I advised the parents that if they wanted counseling, therapy, a psychological evaluation, or assessment for their daughter, I wasn’t qualified to provide it.

  After a meeting at my office and further consideration, they determined that an intervention was necessary. Together we began to carefully plan how and when this intervention would take place.

  The mother’s birthday was coming up, and after a considerable conciliatory effort, the family was able to persuade the daughter to come home and celebrate the event with her family. The intervention was scheduled to take place during her visit. The daughter agreed to come alone without the boyfriend. At first the boyfriend was reluctant about the trip, but when the parents intimated that they might be willing to help their daughter out financially, he changed his mind.

  The parents and I met for our preparation at my hotel the day before the intervention was set to begin. We agreed that no one else would attend the intervention, with the possible exception of a former babysitter, who was very close to their daughter. We decided that the babysitter wouldn’t attend the first day of the intervention but might participate later with their daughter’s consent. Our concern was not to overwhelm the daughter by having too many people present at the beginning.

  We also discussed the importance of temporarily blocking communication between the boyfriend and the daughter during the intervention. That is, the parents agreed to shut down any potential means of contact. This specifically meant shutting down all Internet access and putting away in safekeeping any devices in the house.

  We discussed the necessity of asking the daughter to agree to a temporary suspension of communication with the boyfriend. This agreement would be in effect until our discussion was concluded, which might be a period of three days. I emphasized that by the end of the first day, she must agree to surrender her cell phone or any device she might potentially use to contact her boyfriend. I repeatedly focused on the importance of parental supervision to maintain this commitment during our preparation meeting. The parents couldn’t physically enforce such an agreement, but they could remind their daughter and persuade her to keep her promise.

  We also discussed the possibility that their daughter might suddenly panic and leave the house, perhaps in the middle of the night, and then contact the boyfriend. I advised them that throughout the intervention, particularly between each of our daily sessions during the evening, they must be vigilant. That is, they must maintain constant awareness of where their daughter was and what she was doing at any given time until we were done. If she insisted on leaving the house for some reason, they must accompany her to make sure she didn’t use that time as an opportunity to contact her boyfriend.

  The first day after their daughter arrived, there was a birthday celebration. She also took some time to visit with old friends. The following morning I arrived at the family home. The daughter had no idea that my visit had been planned, and it was a complete surprise. Her parents began the discussion with the simple explanation that they felt overwhelmed by recent events and were so deeply concerned that they had decided to consult a professional. The mother and father then introduced me as the professional they had consulted, and I quickly entered the conversation and began facilitating further discussion.

  At first the daughter was visibly upset and somewhat angry. She didn’t appreciate being surprised by such a sudden meeting. But despite that initial negative reaction, the discussion moved forward and continued, with everyone in the room actively engaged in dialogue.

  I introduced myself and said I wasn’t there to provide any form of counseling or therapy; I was there only to deliver educational information based on my expertise. The daughter asked what my area of expertise included, and I replied that my work centered on controversial groups called “cults” and the coercive persuasion techniques they use to gain undue influence.

  The daughter was surprised, but her parents quickly explained that they had some concerns they wished to address about recent events in her life that appeared to reflect undue influence.

  I then began to recount specific stories of abusive, controlling relationships. I used as examples the personal accounts of women such as Hedda Nussbaum,1123 Nicole Brown Simpson,1124 and Tina Turner, described in the iconic singer’s book.1125 I explained that highly educated, sophisticated, and often seemingly strong women had been victimized through the use of coercive persuasion in such relationships.

  We then discussed some basic “warning signs” Hedda Nussbaum had once cited at a college lecture about abusive and controlling relationships.1126

  One warning sign might be that the controlling partner pushes the rapid development of the relationship. This may often seem too fast, and long-term plans are being made quickly. We discussed how this warning sign aligned with the daughter’s experience. Her recent relationship had begun as a casual meeting at a resort while on vacation, but it quickly developed and led to dropping out of school, leaving her hometown, and moving in with the boyfriend in another state. All this had occurred in less than sixty days. I asked the daughter if she would agree that her life had changed very rapidly. The daughter nodded but resisted the idea that thi
s might actually be a warning sign of an abusive, controlling relationship.

  Another point Nussbaum cited was that typically controlling male partners often seem to have a strained relationship with their mothers. This was evident regarding the young man in question. The daughter knew this was true, even though the boyfriend had apparently agreed to spend some time with his mother on vacation.

  The young man also exhibited another telling characteristic, which was his fervent striving for the daughter’s undivided attention. He also wanted to “be in charge” at all times. These were both warning signs Nussbaum had cited in her lecture.

  The boyfriend further fit the profile through his highly competitive nature coupled with a constant need to win. The daughter recalled how aggressively the young man played team sports, often bullying young children in games at the resort where they first met. She also admitted that he wouldn’t tolerate criticism and always justified his actions. The boyfriend always blamed someone or something else rather than accept responsibility for his mistakes or failings.

  Another characteristic that fit the profile we discussed was the boyfriend’s unreasonable jealousy regarding the girl’s friends and family. He demanded her total devotion and complete attention, and when anyone else wanted time with her, he seemed to feel threatened and was likely to become envious or even angry. The girl had also seen evidence of his “nasty temper.” It seemed that the boyfriend had little, if any, respect for the opinions of others unless they agreed with him.

  During the previous two months, the daughter had experienced situations when the boyfriend seemed to threaten to withdraw his love and approval based on her compliance. He often pushed her to do things that made her uneasy, such as dropping out of school and moving away to another state, where she knew no one. Again, this history matched the same pattern of behavior Nussbaum had described in her lecture.