Controlling behaviour isn't necessarily overt, so it's possible that he was able to exercise some sort of Svengali/Machiavellian influence over her, but is also possible that there was a Hindley/Brady, or Fred and Rose West thing going on........................on the other hand, MAYBE she didn't truly believe he'd go through with it until the fateful moment she could no longer deny it, by which time he was telling her she was as involved in it as was he, which rather blocked her escape route.
I was thinking more in terms of coercive control Jane,
Some common examples of coercive behaviour are:
Isolating you from friends and family
Depriving you of basic needs, such as food
Monitoring your time
Monitoring you via online communication tools or spyware
Taking control over aspects of your everyday life, such as where you can go, who you can see, what you can wear and when you can sleep
Depriving you access to support services, such as medical services
Repeatedly putting you down, such as saying you’re worthless
Humiliating, degrading or dehumanising you
Controlling your finances
Making threats or intimidating you
These are the main types of control, I can’t match any? Maybe the last one, but she could walk away or tell someone, she didn’t live with him or depend entirely of him?
This leads me to why I don’t think the police coaxed her statement as much as we think, why would they allow her to put all her involvement into the statement if it was rehearsed, why didn’t they encourage her to just say “He always talked about killing his family” or “He always wished his family dead” ect, instead she goes into great detail of their conversations. They then could have added the phone call the night before “ tonight’s the night” and the phone call the next day “ everything is going well”. I think the police were took aback with her and didn’t know what, or how, or if to use her.
The Cheque book fraud and NOW deal is another matter though, NGB doesn’t believe the police were aware of a pre signed deal for the NOW?