The devastating murder of 21-year-old water polo coach Lilie James has exposed a chilling blueprint of coercive control that culminated in calculated violence. During the coronial inquest into her death, experts revealed how her ex-boyfriend, Paul Thijssen, systematically stalked, manipulated, and ultimately killed her when she tried to escape his control.
The case has become a stark reminder of how quickly controlling behavior can escalate to fatal violence, with James’ parents delivering an emotional plea for society to better educate young men about respecting women’s autonomy and accepting rejection. Their haunting words – “we will never recover” – underscore the permanent devastation left in the wake of gender-based violence rooted in the inability to accept a woman’s right to choose.
A Relationship Built on Control
The brief relationship between James and Thijssen lasted only five weeks, but experts testified that it was characterized by systematic coercive control from the beginning. Anna Butler, manager of the NSW domestic violence death review team, explained how James was “trying to set boundaries in terms of the relationship and was trying to extricate herself from the relationship”.
Thijssen responded to her attempts at independence with increasingly manipulative tactics. He utilized “emotionally abusive tactics to erase her sense of self” and employed gaslighting and derogatory language whenever James tried to push back against his control. The relationship dynamics revealed a pattern where Thijssen could not tolerate James having agency over her own life and choices.
Digital Stalking and Technology-Facilitated Abuse
One of the most disturbing aspects of Thijssen’s behavior was his use of technology to monitor and control James. Kate Fitz-Gibbon, director of the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, identified his actions as clear examples of “technology-facilitated abuse”.
Thijssen tracked James’ location through social media platforms like Snapchat, behavior that friends initially misinterpreted as caring concern rather than sinister control. This misunderstanding highlights how normalized such surveillance has become, with one in four young people aged 10-17 experiencing some form of digital tracking and harassment.
The situation escalated when James and a friend discovered a fake Snapchat account Thijssen had created. When confronted, he fabricated an elaborate lie, claiming the account was created by someone else to stalk him. This discovery became a crucial “trigger point” where Thijssen lost control over multiple aspects of his carefully constructed facade.
Calculated Planning and Rehearsal
The inquest revealed the truly premeditated nature of James’ murder. In the five days leading up to her death, Thijssen conducted extensive surveillance, driving to James’ house multiple times and photographing her family’s cars. On the day of the murder, CCTV footage captured him visiting the gymnasium three times to rehearse his attack, practicing different angles and positions for the assault.
Forensic psychologist Katie Seidler testified that Thijssen was “terrified at the thought of losing control” and had a fragile sense of self that led him to construct an image of perfection. When James’ rejection threatened to expose his lies and inadequacies, he chose murder as his method of regaining control.
The inquest also revealed that Thijssen had a history of controlling behavior with previous partners. A former girlfriend testified about similar patterns of stalking and intimidation, including hacking into her social media accounts and threatening behavior. This history demonstrated that his abusive tactics were well-established and escalating.
Parents’ Devastating Impact Statement
Peta and Jamie James delivered a heart-wrenching statement to the court, describing their daughter as “beautiful, independent, intelligent, loyal” with “a smile that could light up a room”. Their words carried both grief and urgent warning: “If we are not teaching boys how to accept and value a woman’s opinions and choices and accept rejection, we may be setting them up for failure. Or, in our case, a moment of time we will never recover from”.
Their plea comes at a time when experts are increasingly concerned about the influence of misogynistic online content and the “algorithm of disrespect” that can radicalize young men against women’s autonomy. The case serves as a tragic example of how fragile masculinity, when combined with an inability to accept rejection, can turn deadly.
The inquest continues to examine the circumstances surrounding both deaths, with Thijssen having taken his own life shortly after murdering James. The case stands as a devastating reminder of the urgent need for education about healthy relationships and the recognition of coercive control as a precursor to violence.