Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2008, Page 12
Graeme John Slattery
In February 2004, Graeme John Slattery, 42, went on trial in Australia, charged with
―keeping a woman as a slave in the garage of his family home...‖ between 1996 and 1999
(Silkstone, 2004). While the defense argued that the woman could have left but did not
(thereby providing consent), the ―prosecutor said the woman could not leave Slattery
because she had been subjected to brainwashing similar to that experienced by
concentration camp victims. She was brutalized, her head shaved, and her name taken
away, replaced by the demeaning title ‗toe rag,‘ which was tattooed on her body‖
(Silkstone, 2004). The defense failed, and Slattery received a fourteen-year sentence for
convictions ―on 2 charges, including assault, indecent assault and intentionally causing
serious injury against the woman between 1996 and 1999‖ (Walsh, 2004).
Lee Boyd Malvo
By far, however, the highest-profile case in which the brainwashing defense appeared was
the Washington, D.C. sniper case involving Lee Boyd Malvo, who—at seventeen years old—
was arrested along with John Allen Muhammad in late 2002 for a string of random sniper
killings of ten people. Because of Malvo‘s age, the court appointed a guardian to act as a
replacement for a parent and this guardian, Todd G. Petit, concluded that Muhammad had
brainwashed the boy. ―‗The only conclusion I can come to is that [Malvo] was under the
total control of John Muhammad… This really was an indoctrination and brainwashing of the
boy‘‖ (Petit, quoted in Jackman, 2003).
Petit researched the boy‘s history, discovering that his mother had abandoned him when he
was fifteen. Without a place to live, he moved in with Muhammad, and then probably
listened to the older man‘s teachings of hatred against the United States government and
other bodies. Petit concluded that Muhammad‘s brainwashing ―‗probably started out as
benign and not very forceful, worked its way ...until he could tell Lee what to do, how to
act, and Lee had no choice but to listen‘‖ (Jackman, 2003). With other evidence in hand
about how dependent Malvo was and how controlling Muhammad had been of Malvo,
Malvo‘s defense team decided to go with a temporary insanity defense based upon
brainwashing in an attempt to explain the young man‘s participation in the shooting death
of an FBI analyst in Fairfax County, Virginia on October 14, 2002. According to one of
Malvo‘s lawyers, ―‗Lay folks may use the term ‗brainwashed....‘ Specifically, it is the defense
of indoctrination‖ (Craig S. Cooley, quoted in Kovaleski, 2003). In the end, this defense did
not prevent a jury from finding Malvo guilty, but it might have been the key factor in the
young man avoiding the death penalty and instead receiving life in prison (see Eichel,
2004:3).
During the trial, the press reported about the testimony of defense witnesses who concluded
that Muhhamed likely had brainwashed Malvo. One of these witnesses was Paul R. Martin of
the Wellspring rehabilitation facility in Ohio, who suggested that John Muhammad ―may
have come to control Mr. Malvo‘s mind and free will.‖ In making his argument, Martin drew
―parallels to the brainwashing of prisoners of war in Korea, to the Jonestown mass suicide,
and the Branch Davidian siege in Texas‖ (Liptak, 2003). The press reported on the expert
testimony of another witness, psychiatrist Diane Schetky, who concluded that a ―childhood
marred by abuse, neglect, and the absence of a father figure rendered ...Lee Malvo
susceptible to brainwashing techniques that enabled him to kill without emotion‖ (Bender,
2004).
Along these same lines, psychologist Steve Eichel and psychiatrist Neil Blumberg concluded
that Malvo had a dissociative disorder, with Blumberg concluding that the young man had
lost the ability to distinguish between right and wrong ―because of brainwashing by his
alleged accomplice, convicted killer John Allen Muhammad.‖ Specifically, Malvo was
―suffering from an unspecified ‗dissociative disorder,‘ depression, and a ‗conduct disorder‘‖
Graeme John Slattery
In February 2004, Graeme John Slattery, 42, went on trial in Australia, charged with
―keeping a woman as a slave in the garage of his family home...‖ between 1996 and 1999
(Silkstone, 2004). While the defense argued that the woman could have left but did not
(thereby providing consent), the ―prosecutor said the woman could not leave Slattery
because she had been subjected to brainwashing similar to that experienced by
concentration camp victims. She was brutalized, her head shaved, and her name taken
away, replaced by the demeaning title ‗toe rag,‘ which was tattooed on her body‖
(Silkstone, 2004). The defense failed, and Slattery received a fourteen-year sentence for
convictions ―on 2 charges, including assault, indecent assault and intentionally causing
serious injury against the woman between 1996 and 1999‖ (Walsh, 2004).
Lee Boyd Malvo
By far, however, the highest-profile case in which the brainwashing defense appeared was
the Washington, D.C. sniper case involving Lee Boyd Malvo, who—at seventeen years old—
was arrested along with John Allen Muhammad in late 2002 for a string of random sniper
killings of ten people. Because of Malvo‘s age, the court appointed a guardian to act as a
replacement for a parent and this guardian, Todd G. Petit, concluded that Muhammad had
brainwashed the boy. ―‗The only conclusion I can come to is that [Malvo] was under the
total control of John Muhammad… This really was an indoctrination and brainwashing of the
boy‘‖ (Petit, quoted in Jackman, 2003).
Petit researched the boy‘s history, discovering that his mother had abandoned him when he
was fifteen. Without a place to live, he moved in with Muhammad, and then probably
listened to the older man‘s teachings of hatred against the United States government and
other bodies. Petit concluded that Muhammad‘s brainwashing ―‗probably started out as
benign and not very forceful, worked its way ...until he could tell Lee what to do, how to
act, and Lee had no choice but to listen‘‖ (Jackman, 2003). With other evidence in hand
about how dependent Malvo was and how controlling Muhammad had been of Malvo,
Malvo‘s defense team decided to go with a temporary insanity defense based upon
brainwashing in an attempt to explain the young man‘s participation in the shooting death
of an FBI analyst in Fairfax County, Virginia on October 14, 2002. According to one of
Malvo‘s lawyers, ―‗Lay folks may use the term ‗brainwashed....‘ Specifically, it is the defense
of indoctrination‖ (Craig S. Cooley, quoted in Kovaleski, 2003). In the end, this defense did
not prevent a jury from finding Malvo guilty, but it might have been the key factor in the
young man avoiding the death penalty and instead receiving life in prison (see Eichel,
2004:3).
During the trial, the press reported about the testimony of defense witnesses who concluded
that Muhhamed likely had brainwashed Malvo. One of these witnesses was Paul R. Martin of
the Wellspring rehabilitation facility in Ohio, who suggested that John Muhammad ―may
have come to control Mr. Malvo‘s mind and free will.‖ In making his argument, Martin drew
―parallels to the brainwashing of prisoners of war in Korea, to the Jonestown mass suicide,
and the Branch Davidian siege in Texas‖ (Liptak, 2003). The press reported on the expert
testimony of another witness, psychiatrist Diane Schetky, who concluded that a ―childhood
marred by abuse, neglect, and the absence of a father figure rendered ...Lee Malvo
susceptible to brainwashing techniques that enabled him to kill without emotion‖ (Bender,
2004).
Along these same lines, psychologist Steve Eichel and psychiatrist Neil Blumberg concluded
that Malvo had a dissociative disorder, with Blumberg concluding that the young man had
lost the ability to distinguish between right and wrong ―because of brainwashing by his
alleged accomplice, convicted killer John Allen Muhammad.‖ Specifically, Malvo was
―suffering from an unspecified ‗dissociative disorder,‘ depression, and a ‗conduct disorder‘‖
