Most people imagine intimate partner homicide (IPH) as a sudden explosion, a relationship that “must have always been deadly.” But the science tells a harder truth: IPH is usually the endpoint of behaviors we see every day, minimized, normalized, and mislabeled as “jealousy,” “passion,” or “control issues.” What we call red flags are often early markers of a much darker trajectory. Research maps this progression with painful clarity. What emerges is a pattern: IPV rarely stays at the same intensity. Its logic is escalation.
Control Is The First Step Toward Lethality
One behavior repeatedly separates relationships that remain violent from those that become lethal: coercive control.
Campbell et al. (2003) found that when a highly controlling partner is combined with separation, one of the most dangerous moments for a victim, the risk of homicide skyrockets nearly ninefold. This is not about anger; it is about ownership. Leaving does not “trigger” the violence; it shatters the illusion of control the perpetrator believes he is entitled to.
Messing et al. (2021) reinforce this point with updated evidence: technology-based abuse, stalking-like monitoring, and harassment during separation are emerging as modern extensions of the same old control. Today, control does not always show up as a fist; rather, it often arrives as a notification.
Weapons Don’t Create Violent Men, But They Complete The Pattern
Firearms appear again and again as the single most significant risk factor.
The Campbell study found that a partner’s access to a gun increases the risk of femicide more than sevenfold (2003). Messing’s (2021) Arizona data echo this: two-thirds of intimate partner homicides were committed with a firearm. When a gun is present, everything becomes higher stakes: threats, arguments, separation, jealousy.
Violence becomes efficient. This is not about predicting which abusive partners “might” become lethal; it is recognizing that the means for homicide often exist long before the intent is spoken aloud.
Non-Fatal Strangulation: The Silent Signal Everyone Should Treat As an Emergency
One of the most chilling findings in Campbell’s (2003) research is the role of strangulation. Even a single incident increases the risk of future homicide dramatically.
In many cases, strangulation leaves no visible marks, which means victims often minimize it and professionals sometimes miss it.
Messing et al. (2021) underscore this: strangulation is rarely documented, rarely disclosed, and yet consistently present in the histories of women who were later killed. It signals intent, capability, and a rehearsal for murder.
When Separation Turns Lethal
One of the strongest predictors of IPH across both studies is estrangement, especially when the partner was already controlling.
Leaving an abusive relationship is not the end of the danger; it is often the beginning. The Campbell (2003) study shows that when a woman leaves for another partner, the homicide risk becomes even higher. This is not jealousy in the romanticized sense; it is a perceived loss of ownership.
The Arizona study updates this with contemporary nuance: today’s abusers continue the relationship digitally by tracking, threatening, impersonating, and humiliating online (Messing et al., 2021). The relationship ends; the control does not.
Why Some Victims Never Appear In The Data
Messing and colleagues highlight something we often overlook. Entire groups are missing from the IPH conversation: Indigenous women, LGBTQ+ partners, immigrant communities, trans women, rural victims.
Not because the violence is not happening, but because the systems meant to record it are built on erasure. Risk factors may look different across communities, but the silence around them is the same.
The Road From IPV To IPH Is Predictable, Thus Preventable
The strongest message running through both studies is brutally simple: homicide almost never “comes out of nowhere.” There are signs that are clear, repeated, and research-backed:
• Escalating severity
• Threats with weapons
• Forced sex
• Stalking
• Strangulation
• Separation combined with control
• Firearms in the home
These are not anecdotes. They are empirically validated predictors.
The tragedy is that many victims experience these signals in isolation, feeling scared but unsure whether what they are experiencing “counts.” Many professionals see fragments, not the full picture. And society still minimizes the early warning signs as “relationship problems.”
IPH is not an accident. It is the predictable endpoint of untreated, unrecognized, or unprotected IPV.
Why This Research Matters Now
The Arizona study (2021) ends with a call that should unsettle all of us: the tools we use to assess risk are outdated. Technology has changed abuse. Marginalized communities are invisible in our data. Firearm access has increased.
The world of violence is evolving, and our protective systems are not evolving with it.
IPH is preventable, but only if we understand the path that leads to it, not just the final step.
A Final Note: We Owe Survivors Better
When we zoom out, a pattern becomes clear:
• IPV begins with control
• Escalates to threats and surveillance
• Intensifies through strangulation, isolation, and weapon use
• Peaks during separation
• Ends, too often, in homicide
But this is not destiny. It is a roadmap, and roadmaps allow us to intervene. Science has already shown us where the danger lies. What we choose to do with that knowledge determines whose lives will be saved next.
References
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S. A., Manganello, J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V., & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.7.1089
Messing, J. T., AbiNader, M. A., Pizarro, J. M., Campbell, J. C., Brown, M. L., & Pelletier, K. R. (2021). The Arizona Intimate Partner Homicide (AzIPH) study: A step toward updating and expanding risk factors for intimate partner homicide. Journal of Family Violence, 36, 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00254-9