Article:

Mr. Eastwood’s filmmaking is expedient (no fuss, no muss), detailed and distinguished by sudden beauty, as when Sully, after the accident, stands alone while framed against the wintry lead-gray sky out of which he just fell. Mr. Eastwood is a musician, and he plays with the story’s competing moods and rhythms with suppleness, setting one scene to the steady beat of everyday life, only to amp another until it races like a thudding heart. The accident, which remains unnervingly in the register of the real, is a master class in direction, as the reassuring engine hum gives way to a spooky near-silence that’s soon punctured by gasps, cries and terrifying shouts: “Brace, brace! Heads down, stay down!”

 “Sully” is a portrait of a hero — Mr. Sullenberger’s decision to land the plane on the Hudson helped save 155 lives, his own included — but one who, after the accident, is troubled both by what might have been (death, destruction) and by an unassuming man’s discomfort with the spotlight. Sully isn’t cut along the cynically frayed lines of assorted current screen heroes, with their nihilism lite and butchery, nor does he fit the existential mode, the man in revolt, like Jason Bourne. Sully is hewed from more classical stuff; he’s the hero whose dignity, as Lionel Trilling wrote, “is wholly manifest in word and deed, in physique and comportment.” Yet Sully is also very much alone, separated by ability and character, as well as by all the directorial choices that isolate him.

 Heroism has long been one of Mr. Eastwood’s themes as an actor and a director, though his portraits tend to be complicated by an annihilating violence often unthinkable in the classical Hollywood days. Draped in black, as if swathed in mourning crepe, some of his most memorable later movies explore the tragic consequences of violence, which runs through communities and individuals alike. They’re profoundly, sometimes uncomfortably, American testaments. By contrast, there’s no tragedy in “Sully,” just sighs of relief, probing questions and an outwardly uncomplicated hero whose extraordinariness is so deeply imbued that it is finally the most ordinary thing about him. You might think that Mr. Eastwood had mellowed, but the very singularity of this movie’s hero suggests otherwise. |||||

 Tom Hanks stars as hero pilot Chelsey “Sully” Sullenberger in “Sully,” a film directed by Clint Eastwood. (Keith Bernstein/Warner Bros. Pictures)

 After a summer of bombast and belly-flops, the fall movie season gets off to a refreshingly sure-footed start with “Sully,” a four-square, upstanding, rock-solid example of filmmaking at its most direct and honestly affecting.

 Tom Hanks plays Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, the US Airways pilot who landed a plane bound from LaGuardia airport to Charlotte on the Hudson River in 2009, after his craft was struck by a flock of Canada geese. But this is no simplistic tale of heroism and crack timing — although they’re in there. Instead “Sully,” which Clint Eastwood directed from a script by Todd Komarnicki, introduces viewers to a man wracked by second thoughts and nightmare visions of what could have happened had he made the wrong decision. What’s more, he’s not the only one with doubts: The film’s framing device is an investigation held by the National Transportation Safety Board, whose extensive simulations and computer algorithms suggested that Sullenberger probably had the engine power and time to make a safe landing back at LaGuardia, or in New Jersey.

 For audiences whose image of Sullenberger is the paragon of modesty and skill, aw-shucks-ing it through interviews with Katie Couric and David Letterman, this part of his story will come as a revelation, and an infuriating one at that: It seems impossible that anyone could second-guess a pilot whose 40-year career was so exemplary that he was known in the field as a safety expert. This alternative glimpse, as well as Eastwood’s graceful staging of Sully’s darkest what-if fantasies, as well as the landing itself, makes “Sully” thoroughly engrossing and exciting to watch, even though viewers know the outcome.

 Sullenberger flies with first officer Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart), left. (Warner Bros. Pictures)

 Sporting a head of cropped white hair and a modest mustache, his face a sallow mask of discomfort with sudden fame and attention, Hanks is the perfect actor to play Sullenberger, whose reserve and low-key assuredness may remind the audience of the title character the actor played a few years ago in “Captain Phillips.” There are laughs to be had in “Sully,” especially in the banter between Sullenberger and first officer Jeff Skiles, played with bristling, barely contained energy by Aaron Eckhart. But there’s nothing gratuitously ingratiating in a movie that instead goes to great pains to adopt the terse, economical work ethic of its protagonist. (Sully joins Sam Shepard’s Chuck Yeager and Ed Harris’s John Glenn in the pantheon of cinematic air heroes: taciturn, inherently trustworthy men of action, not showboating.)

 Beautifully filmed in and around a wintry Manhattan, and featuring spectacular sequences re-creating that iconic landing and rescue on Jan. 15, “Sully” is also suffused with a particularly mournful sense of poignancy; the sight of a plane coming so perilously close to the buildings along the Upper West Side can’t help but conjure the city’s most grievous day eight years earlier, an observation made late in the film by one of Sully’s colleagues. (New York deserves a happy ending, he tells him, especially one involving planes.)

 It’s fitting that “Sully” is arriving in theaters on the 15th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, a date that hovers around the proceedings like a tender, ghostly presence. Eastwood and his team not only pay fitting homage to Sullenberger, but to the squads of first responders who did their jobs so heroically on both days. “Sully” is a classy, enormously satisfying ode to simple competence. To paraphrase the title character, it’s just a movie doing its job. And amen to that. ||||| ‘Sully’: Brace for emotional impact of Tom Hanks’ cockpit triumph

 It remains one of the indelible images of the 21st century.

 On a frigid January morning in 2009, dozens of passengers found themselves perched on the wings of US Airways Flight 1549 — in the Hudson River.

 Well. ON the Hudson River.

 Just a few minutes after takeoff, the plane was struck by a flock of Canadian geese, rendering both engines powerless and necessitating a return to LaGuardia Airport — but when it was determined there wasn’t enough time to reach LaGuardia or any other nearby runway, the plane made an emergency crash landing on the water, and miraculously, all 155 passengers and crew survived.

 At the helm of Flight 1549 was one Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who within 24 hours became one of the most famous American pilots this side of Charles Lindbergh.

 It seems almost a foregone conclusion Clint Eastwood would direct and Tom Hanks would star in the movie version of the story. (Can you think of a better starting battery? I can’t.)

 As accomplished as they are, it would be an understatement to say Eastwood and Hanks meet expectations. This isn’t just a solid piece of work; it’s resonant.

 The 86-year-old Eastwood gives us an electrifying thriller, a wonderful in-depth character study and a fascinating airline safety procedural, while Hanks delivers another in a long line of memorable, nomination-worthy performances.

 (Sidebar: How is it Tom Hanks hasn’t been nominated for an Oscar since 2001 with “Castaway”? Could it be the Academy has fallen into a pattern of taking his comfortable, outwardly effortless genius for granted?)

 “Sully” begins with the immediate aftermath of the water landing, with Hanks’ Sully and his co-pilot, Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart in one of his most measured and authentic performances), seemingly barely dried off being soaked in the icy waters of the Hudson when they have to face down a skeptical group of inquisitors from the National Transportation Safety Board, including Mike O’Malley as Charles Porter and Anna Gunn from “Breaking Bad” as Dr. Elizabeth Davis.

 From the get-go, it’s clear some on the panel believe Sully might have panicked and actually had enough engine power and enough altitude and time to get back to an airport. They ask Sully questions about how much sleep he had before the flight, when he had his last drink — and if he was experiencing any problems at home.

 They’re looking for chinks in the armor of a man who was already being hailed as a hero in the media and who seemed a bit uncomfortable under the lights, but didn’t say no to David Letterman or Katie Couric or plenty of other interview opportunities.

 Eastwood directs with his usual economical style. (Even his longest-running films rarely seem to waste our time with overlong scenes of exposition, or unnecessary supporting characters.) We learn a little about Sully’s love of piloting and his resourcefulness in times of crisis via a couple of flashback scenes, and we’re introduced to a handful of flight attendants and rather thinly sketched passengers, including two adult sons and their beloved old pops, a young woman with a baby and a grown woman and her elderly mother.

 Mostly, though, “Sully” is about Sully. Hanks is so good he could play this character in a one-man show with nothing but a chair and a telephone onstage and it would be riveting.

 On the surface, Sully is a calm, cool, no-nonsense, self-effacing veteran of some 42 years as a pilot. But in the aftermath of the landing, he has visions of the plane smashing into Manhattan buildings, he has dreams of news reporters questioning his judgment, and he confesses his doubts and fears in intimate telephone conversations with his wife Lorraine (Laura Linney, who spends nearly every second of her screen time on the phone with Sully).

 Eventually, at just the right time, “Sully” takes us through those harrowing, incredible 208 seconds when Flight 1549 is struck by those birds, and the engines burst into flames before dying out, and Sully and Skiles react in the cockpit, and the flight attendants repeatedly command, “Heads down, stay down, heads down, stay down!” and a commercial aircraft rapidly sinks in the skies above New York City (of all places) and eventually splashes down on the Hudson.

 The editing and the special effects and the performances are so pitch-perfect, this is as close as you’d ever want to come to being on that flight on that January day.

 “Sully” is an absolute triumph.

 ★★★★

 Warner Bros. Pictures presents a film directed by Clint Eastwood and written by Todd Komarnicki, based on the book “Highest Duty” by Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger. Running time: 95 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for some peril and brief strong language). Opens Friday at local theaters. |||||
What is a summary?

– Sure, there was plenty of "hero sex," but the aftermath of the Miracle on the Hudson wasn't all sunshine and rainbows. It's that story Clint Eastwood has chosen to tell in Sully, starring Tom Hanks as pilot Chesley Sullenberger. Here's what critics are saying: Richard Roeper at the Chicago Sun-Times calls it "an absolute triumph." It's "an electrifying thriller, a wonderful in-depth character study and a fascinating airline safety procedural." Hanks, meanwhile, "is so good he could play this character in a one-man show with nothing but a chair and a telephone onstage and it would be riveting." "That it unnerves you as much as it does may seem surprising, given that going in, we know how this story ends." But Eastwood is "very good at his job, a talent that gives the movie its tension along with an autobiographical sheen," writes Manohla Dargis at the New York Times. In particular, he offers "a master class in direction" during the accident scene, while Hanks makes a perfect Sully. Stephen Whitty at NJ.com says the accident scene is "the best part of the film," but he's not so enthralled with the rest of it. Basically, he concludes "there's not enough story" to warrant a feature-length film. Flashbacks to Sully's youth "add nothing but time," while the National Transportation Board Safety Board investigation delivers no drama or suspense, he adds. Ann Hornaday doesn't agree. Sully is "a four-square, upstanding, rock-solid example of filmmaking at its most direct and honestly affecting," and is "thoroughly engrossing and exciting to watch," she writes at the Washington Post. "To paraphrase the title character, it's just a movie doing its job. And amen to that."


Write a summary based on this article:

A Montana police officer pulled over an unarmed man for a traffic stop and shot him. Officer Grant Morrison testified to a jury that he feared for his life because the man was high on methamphetamines and was worried he was reaching for a gun, so he fired.

 Video viewed by the jury showed Morrison shouting at Richard Ramirez multiple times to put his hands up before he fired three times into the car, killing him.

 The jury cleared him of wrongdoing, and this week also saw the release of dash cam video showing Morrison breaking down moments after he fatally shot Ramirez. In the video, you can hear him breathing heavily as colleagues try to calm him down. At one point, Morrison starts crying and says, “I thought he was gonna pull a gun on me.”

 You can watch the video here, via the Billings Gazette:

 And you can watch the dash cam video of the shooting incident in question (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT):

 [h/t Daily Dot]

 [image via screengrab]

 — —

 Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

 Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com ||||| BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A jury at a coroner's inquest determined Wednesday that a Montana police officer was justified in shooting and killing an unarmed man high on methamphetamine during a traffic stop.

 Police video footage of the April 2014 shooting of Richard Ramirez by Billings Police Officer Grant Morrison, center in screen, is shown to a seven-person jury in Billings, Mont. on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2015.... (Associated Press)

 Police video footage of the April 2014 shooting of Richard Ramirez by Billings Police Officer Grant Morrison is shown to a seven-person jury, not pictured, in Billings, Mont. on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2015.... (Associated Press)

 Billings police officer Grant Morrison testifies during a coroner's inquest on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015 in Billings, Montana. Morrison testified about the events leading up to his shooting of unarmed man,... (Associated Press)

 Billings Police Chief Rich St. John explains his department's use-of-force procedures on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015 during a coroner's inquest into the shooting death of an unarmed Montana man by a Montana... (Associated Press)

 Julie Ramirez, left, consoles her mother, Betty Ramirez during a court inquest into the police shooting of Richard Ramirez in Billings, Mont. on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2015. The unarmed man killed by Billings... (Associated Press)

 The ruling came after Billings Police Officer Grant Morrison testified he feared for his life when he fired the three shots that killed 38-year-old Richard Ramirez.

 The five-year police veteran said he became convinced that Ramirez had a gun after the man reached for his waistband during their 30-second encounter last April in a high-crime area of Montana's most populous city.

 "I knew in that moment, which later was determined to be untrue, but I knew in that moment that he was reaching for a gun," Morrison said. "I couldn't take that risk. ... I wanted to see my son grow up."

 The seven-person jury deliberated about an hour before delivering its decision.

 Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said he does not expect to file any charges given the jury's decision.

 Coroner's inquests are mandatory under Montana law whenever someone is killed by law enforcement or dies in custody.

 The inquest was held as police killings of unarmed suspects in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City have heightened scrutiny of law enforcement nationwide.

 Ramirez family members said they were disappointed by the ruling and intend to file a lawsuit against Morrison and the Billings Police Department alleging excessive use of force, said Julie Ramirez, a sister of Richard Ramirez.

 Billings Police Chief Rich St. John said it was the fifth officer-involved shooting in his eight years as head of the department. Each shooting was ruled to be justified, he said.

 "That tells us we're doing the right thing in the right way," St. John said.

 Police video showed Morrison repeatedly ordered Ramirez and other occupants of the vehicle to raise their hands. Ramirez's actions were largely obscured in the video. But Morrison said Ramirez dropped his left hand to his side — out of the officer's view — and "started to jiggle it up and down" just before he was shot.

 Morrison shot and killed another man in 2013. He was cleared of any wrongdoing in that case.

 Ramirez's family wanted criminal charges against the officer and said Ramirez was a victim of racial profiling.

 Another sister, Renee Ramirez, criticized the inquest as one-sided. She said testimony that her brother was a drug user was irrelevant.

 All but three of the 15 people called to testify during the two-day inquest were from law enforcement. Several police officers spoke at length about their prior dealings with Ramirez and others in his family.

 "I don't care what things my brother did in the past," Renee Ramirez said. "What does that have to do with shooting my brother?"

 Billings Police Detective Brad Tucker, who investigated the case, testified Tuesday that Ramirez might have been trying to stash something when he was shot. A small amount of methamphetamine and a syringe were later found near Ramirez's seat.

 An autopsy determined Ramirez had enough methamphetamine in his bloodstream at the time of the shooting to kill a person not accustomed to the drug, forensic pathologist Tom Bennett testified.

 Twito defended the proceedings as a fair presentation of the facts.

 "The videos speak for themselves," he said.

 Morrison was placed on paid administrative leave immediately after the shooting and has since been assigned to a task force investigating prescription drug crimes, St. John said. ||||| Montana police officer Grant Morrison killed unarmed 38-year-old Richard Ramirez in April last year, when Mr Ramirez – high on methamphetamine at the time – reached for his waistband.

 In the video the police officer can be seen walking away from the scene of the incident towards a patrol car recently arrived at the scene. The car’s dashcam is still running, capturing the events.

 As he reaches the vehicle, officer Morrison suddenly appears to collapse just off the screen prompting other officers nearby to run towards him. One can be heard urgently asking: “Are you hurt?”

 He is comforted by his fellow officers, who tell him: “You’re ok, I got you,” but officer Morrison can be heard sobbing and breathing heavily.

 In a shaking voice, officer Morrison can be heard to say: “I thought he was going to pull a gun,” before breaking down even further and placing his head into his hands and pounding the bonnet of the patrol car.

 “I don’t know what’s going on,” he says as he tries to reassures the officers comforting him.

 Eventually, he noticeably pulls himself together and leaves the view of the dashcam to return home.

 During a coroner’s court testimony on Wednesday officer Morrison, an officer for five years, said: "I knew in that moment, which later was determined to be untrue, but I knew in that moment that he was reaching for a gun”.

 "I couldn't take that risk...I wanted to see my son grow up."

 In another video shown to the court, officer Morrison can be heard asking the suspect to raise his hands six times before he opens fire, shooting into the vehicle containing the suspect three times.

 The video does not show the actions of Ramirez, who was sitting in the back of a car with two others in front, at the time of the shooting, the Mail Online reported.

 Officer Morrison claims that he saw Ramirez drop his left hand to his side – out of the officer’s view – and then “jiggle it up and down”.

 Detective Brett Kruger, who investigated the shooting, testified that two cellophane bags containing a small amount of methamphetamine and a syringe were later found near where Ramirez had been sitting.

 He had two outstanding warrants at the time of the shooting.

 The court later found that officer Morrison, who was cleared of all wrongdoing in another shooting in 2013, was justified in his actions. ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. |||||

– A Montana police officer who shot an unarmed man—and broke down crying afterward—was justified in pulling the trigger, a coroner's jury ruled this week. In a traffic stop last April, Billings police officer Grant Morrison pulled over a car with four people inside and repeatedly told them to raise their hands, the AP reports via Mediaite. When backseat passenger Richard Ramirez didn't raise them, Morrison warned he would shoot. Then he did. "I was getting very scared," Morrison told the jury, the Billings Gazette reports. "He shoved his hand down to his side and started jiggling it up and down." Methamphetamine and a syringe were later discovered near Ramirez's seat, and a toxicology test found a strong dose of meth in his system. Mediate has a police dashcam video of the shooting (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT); another dashcam shows Morrison breaking down afterward. "I thought he was going to pull a gun," says a visibly distraught Morrison, the Independent reports. "I don’t know what’s going on." But Ramirez's mother Betty says she still doesn't see why Morrison shot her 38-year-old son. "He was just a good person, and they didn't have to do that to him," she tells the Gazette. "I'm going to fight it. ... I'm not going to give up." A family friend says they saw the hearing as one-sided. The ruling is only a recommendation, but the Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office says it likely won't seek charges. It wasn't Morrison's first such incident, either: In 2013, he fatally shot a man who ignored his orders and reached for what turned out to be a replica BB gun.


– As Australia mourns two hostages killed in a Sydney cafe yesterday, many are wondering what gunman Man Haron Monis was doing on the streets in the first place. The Iranian-born cleric, who was killed when police commandos stormed the cafe, was on bail for around 50 counts of sexual and indecent assault and for charges of being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife. The 31-year-old mother of two was stabbed repeatedly and set on fire with the use of lighter fluid last April, allegedly by Monis' girlfriend. The crime happened in an apartment stairwell. More: Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the government will look into why the 50-year-old was out on bail and why he did not appear on the country's terrorist watch list, the BBC reports. "How can someone who has had such a long and checkered history not be on the appropriate watch lists, and how can someone like that be entirely at large in the community?" he wondered at a press conference today. "These are questions that we need to look at carefully and calmly and methodically." Just three days before he walked into the cafe with a gun and took 17 people hostage, Monis had failed in an attempt to overturn a conviction for sending "grossly offensive" letters to the families of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, reports the Sydney Morning Herald. The country's High Court rejected his application to hear a fresh constitutional challenge to the charges against him, for which he was sentenced to 300 hours of community service. Monis, who declared himself to be a sheikh and a "spiritual healer," was seen as a "fringe figure" in Sydney's Islamic community, according to a Guardian profile. Shia Muslim leaders had asked police to probe his claims to be a leading cleric and last week, he announced on his website that he had converted to Sunni Islam and pledged allegiance to ISIS. The lawyer who represented Monis in the murder case tells the Australian Broadcasting Company that his client, who came to the country as a refugee in 1996, may have thought he had "nothing to lose," hence "participating in something as desperate and outrageous as this." He says that while in prison, Monis suffered some "very unpleasant events, involving matters of excrement over himself and his cell," and he is certain that the siege was the act of a "one-off random individual," not an organized terrorist group.

Expand this summary.

Almost three days to the minute after he lost a High Court bid to overturn a conviction against him, self-styled sheikh Man Haron Monis took 17 people hostage in the heart of Sydney's legal precinct.

 Shortly before 9.50am last Friday, the court had dealt a blow to Monis' long-running legal battle to overturn his conviction for sending "grossly offensive" letters to the families of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

 At 9.45am on Monday, police were called to an unfolding siege at the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Martin Place, metres from the Law Courts Building in Phillip Street where Chief Justice Robert French and Justice Stephen Gageler had refused an application by Monis to hear a fresh constitutional challenge to the charges against him.

 Monis was dead just under 17 hours later. So too were two hostages who were taken to hospital after an exchange of gunfire at the cafe just after 2am on Tuesday.

 Monis had been consumed by the fight over his conviction for sending the offensive letters.

 Advertisement

 "This pen is my gun, and these words are my bullets," he had said outside a Sydney court after he was charged over the letters.

 "I'll fight with these weapons against oppression to promote peace."

 In August last year, he had reluctantly pleaded guilty to using a postal service to send the "harassing or offensive" letters to the grieving families of the soldiers as well as the family of an Austrade official killed in Indonesia.

 But this was not before he fought the validity of the charges all the way to the High Court, arguing the offence in the Criminal Code infringed the implied freedom of communication on political and governmental matters in the Commonwealth constitution.

 Monis claimed the letters were his own version of a "condolence card" or "flower basket" and he only sought to persuade the families to oppose Australia's military involvement in Afghanistan.

 When the High Court handed down its ruling in February last year, it was split three-three on the issue - and so it was bound to uphold an earlier, unanimous, decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal that the charges against him were constitutionally valid.

 Chief Justice French and Justices Kenneth Hayne and Dyson Heydon would have ruled in Monis' favour but Justices Susan Crennan, Susan Kiefel and Virginia Bell would have dismissed his case.

 When Monis lost that battle, and had to stand trial for the offences, he pleaded guilty to all 12 charges against him. He escaped a prison sentence - the maximum penalty is two years behind bars - and was sentenced instead to 300 hours of community service and placed on a good behaviour bond for the "offensive and deplorable letters".

 His co-accused and girlfriend, Amirah Droudis, pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting him.

 But Monis fought on. On Friday, the 50-year-old's legal team, led by Sydney barrister Guy Reynolds, SC, asked the High Court to hear the constitutional issue again because the court had been split down the middle on the issue.

 "Here, of course, there are special circumstances because of the three-three split," Mr Reynolds told the court shortly after it convened in Sydney at 9.30am.

 Mr Reynolds argued that an even split meant "no principle or precedent" was established in the earlier case brought on Monis' behalf in the High Court.

 "If it was four-three, I would be in the position of having a precedent against me," Mr Reynolds said.

 Chief Justice French and Justice Gageler were not persuaded.

 "In our opinion it suffices to say that, having regard to the history of the matter, we do not think it appropriate to make [the order sought to hear the case]. The application ... will be dismissed," Chief Justice French said.

 Monis heard the result of the case late on Friday, and took a gun into Martin Place on Monday.

 It is an irony that Monis was incensed by a conviction that resulted in a mere 300 hours of community service.

 At the time of the siege, he was on bail in relation to two separate and serious cases that could have seen him imprisoned for decades.

 He was charged in November 2013 with being an accessory before and after the fact to the murder of his ex-wife Noleen Hayson Pal, who was stabbed and set alight in a Werrington apartment block. Droudis has been charged with the murder.

 And this year, Monis was charged by sex crimes squad detectives with more than 40 indecent and sexual assault charges relating to his time spent as a self-proclaimed "spiritual healer". ||||| Monis had conviction for sending offensive letters to relatives of Australian victims of terrorism and troops killed in Afghanistan

 Until his entry into the global media spotlight as the shadowy figure at the centre of the Sydney siege, Man Haron Monis had long been viewed as a fringe figure in Sydney’s Islamic community, his self-radicalisation rooted in grievances against the Australian government and increasing marginalisation among his peers.

 The self-proclaimed spiritual healer had achieved a degree of notoriety as the author of “grossly offensive” letters sent to taunt parents and relatives of Australians killed by extremism in Indonesia as well as troops who lost their lives in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2009.

 Well known to the Australian police, he had been consumed by his conviction for the offence, unsuccessfully challenging the conviction in the high court last year and making several vehement and erratic public statements claiming to be innocent.

 Monis lost another bid to have the matter heard before the high court on Friday.

 He also faced numerous charges relating to his time working as a “spiritual healer” – including 22 counts of aggravated sexual assault and 14 counts of aggravated indecent assault – and had been bailed for allegedly being an accessory to the killing of his former wife.

 When Monis, who was also known as Mohammad Hassan Manteghi, appeared in court in October over the sex assault allegations, police charged him with 40 additional offences. It was alleged that he had advised a 27-year-old woman to visit him at his business in Wentworthville in 2002 after she contacted him through a “Spiritual Consultation” ad in a community newspaper.

 He was charged last year with being an accessory to the murder of his 30-year-old former wife Noleen Hayson Pal, a mother-of-two who was allegedly stabbed to death and set alight in April 2013.

 Iranian-born, Monis sought asylum in Australia in 1996, telling ABC News in 2001 he fled after falling foul of the Iranian regime, which he said had placed his wife and children under house arrest. “I can say they are hostage,” he said at the time, having reportedly given himself the title Sheikh Haron.

 As recently as last week on a website he used both to defend and promote himself, he announced that he had converted from Shia to Sunni Islam and pledged his allegiance to the caliphate declared by the militant group Islamic State. That website was shut down as Monday’s siege developed, and police asked media outlets to refrain from giving him a platform as he held 17 hostages in the Lindt cafe in Martin Place.

 Sydney Shia leaders had apparently urged federal police to probe his claim to be a leading cleric, while he was ignored by the Sunni community. He had no links to the Islamic State terrorist group, and despite his criminal past was not seen as a likely exponent of the group’s ideology.

 One upshot, some would argue, is that he fits bill of a classic lone wolf – a profile that had been much feared by security officials. Monis is believed to have been a self-starter, who had attached himself to the virulent worldview of Isis. His self-radicalisation appeared to be rooted in grievances against the government and fueled by his increasing marginalisation.

 Earlier this month, Monis had posted on his website that Shia muslims were rejectionists – a key message of extremist Sunnis in the Middle East.

 But there were other hints on the web post that Monis had become radicalised: a rambling October letter he penned to the Muslim community rejected the “new religion” of moderate Islam. ‘This pen is my gun and these words are my bullets, I fight by these weapons against oppression to promote peace,’ he wrote.

 An image on the website appears to show Monis wearing the same headband that photographs suggest he donned during the Martin Place siege, reading: “We are ready to sacrifice for you, O Muhammad.”

 Shortly after Tony Abbott’s government was elected in September last year, Monis sent the prime minister a letter inviting him to a live debate in which he said he would prove that “Australia and Australians will be attacked” as a result of the country’s participation in the war in Afghanistan.

 Manny Conditsis, a lawyer who represented Monis at one point, has decribed his former client as an isolated figure who might have felt that he had nothing to lose, “hence participating in something as desperate and outrageous as this”.

 “His ideology is just so strong and so powerful that it clouds his vision for common sense and objectiveness,” Conditsis told ABC news. ||||| Sydney siege: Man behind Martin Place stand-off was Iranian Man Haron Monis, who had violent criminal history

 Updated

 The gunman killed during the siege at the Lindt Chocolate Cafe in Sydney's Martin Place was an Iranian cleric with a violent criminal past.

 Man Haron Monis, who was granted political asylum in Australia in 2001, was on bail for a string of violent offences, including being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife.

 He was also facing more than 50 sexual and indecent assault charges and had a conviction for sending abusive letters to families of deceased Australian soldiers.

 Police negotiated with Monis, via hostages, for 16 hours on Monday before officers stormed the building at 2:00am (AEDT) on Tuesday.

 He entered the cafe about 9:45am (AEDT) on Monday and held 17 staff and customers inside throughout the day.

 Prime Minister Tony Abbott revealed more about Monis' background in his press briefing this morning.

 What we do know is that the perpetrator was well known to State and Commonwealth authorities. He had a long history of violent crime, infatuation with extremism and mental instability. We know that he sent offensive letters to the families of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan and was found guilty of offences related to this. We also know that he posted graphic extremist material online. As the siege unfolded yesterday, he sought to cloak his actions with the symbolism of the ISIL death cult.

 His former lawyer, Manny Conditsis, told the ABC that Monis was an isolated figure who had acted alone.

 Do you know more about this story? Email investigations@abc.net.au.

 "He came to Australia in the late 1990s as I understand it, obtained political asylum in 2001. He fled Iran because he was in fear of his life from the regime at that time," Mr Conditsis told ABC News Breakfast.

 "Monis personally faced charges as a result of writing letters to the families of deceased Australian soldiers.

 "They were dealt with in 2013. Subsequent to that he was charged with accessory before and after the fact in relation to the murder of his former spouse. Eventually he got bail.

 "I appeared for him in December of 2013 when he obtained bail essentially based on a case that was presented by the prosecution at the time. It had significant weaknesses in it. I think that had a significant impact on him getting bail at that time."

 More recently, he was charged with more than 50 allegations of indecent and sexual assault. Police allege the assaults took place in 2002, when Monis was a self-proclaimed "spiritual healer" operating out of premises in Wentworthville.

 It is alleged that Monis placed ads in local newspapers offering "spiritual consultation". He claimed to be an expert in astrology, numerology, meditation and black magic.

 But it was Monis' ongoing legal battle over his conviction for sending offensive letters to the families of dead Australian soldiers between 2007 and 2009 that may have tipped him over the edge.

 The siege followed an unsuccessful, last-ditch attempt in the High Court to have the charges overturned.

 Monis was sentenced to 300 hours of community service and placed on a two-year good behaviour bond for the "offensive and deplorable letters" sent with the help of his girlfriend Amirah Droudis.

 They were sent to the families of Private Luke Worsley and Lance Corporal Jason Marks, who were killed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008.

 He also sent a letter in 2009 to the family of the Austrade official Craig Senger, who was killed in the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta in 2007.

 Monis claimed the letters were his own version of a "flower basket" or "condolence card".

 He challenged the validity of the charges in the High Court, arguing they were political.

 But he lost and at trial, pleaded guilty to all 12 charges against him in August 2013.

 Mr Conditsis represented Monis last year when he was charged with being accessory to the murder of ex-wife Noleen Hayson Pal, who was stabbed and set alight outside a western Sydney unit.

 "Knowing he was on bail for very serious offences, knowing that while he was in custody some terrible things happened to him, I thought he may consider that he's got nothing to lose," he said.

 "Hence participating in something as desperate and outrageous as this."

 He said Monis claimed to have suffered poor treatment while in prison.

 "He was put through let's say some very unpleasant events, involving matters of excrement over himself and his cell," he said.

 Mr Conditsis said the public could be assured the siege was not the work of an organised terrorist group.

 "This was a one-off random individual," he said.

 "It was not a concerted terrorism event or act.

 "It was a damaged-goods individual who did something outrageous."

 Topics: islam, religion-and-beliefs, community-and-society, law-crime-and-justice, sydney-2000

 First posted ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Australian PM Tony Abbott: "We do have to ask ourselves the question - could it have been prevented?"

 Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has questioned why the gunman in the Sydney cafe siege was not on the country's terror watch list.

 He said the government would examine why Man Haron Monis had been on bail.

 Mr Abbott paid tribute to the two hostages who died in Monday's siege, describing them as "good people".

 The two hostages and Monis died as police commandos stormed the cafe in Martin Place early on Tuesday morning, ending the 16-hour siege.

 An investigation has been launched into the police operation.

 Police are also investigating the motives of Monis - an Iranian refugee who faced multiple criminal charges - and how he got a gun.

 At a press conference, Mr Abbott said: "How can someone who has had such a long and chequered history not be on the appropriate watch lists and how can someone like that be entirely at large.

 "These are questions that we need to look at carefully."

 Image copyright EPA/ Rex Features Image caption Sydney lawyer Katrina Dawson (left) and cafe manager Tori Johnson were killed in the siege

 However, he added that it was "possible" that the siege would have taken place even if Monis had been on a watch list.

 "The level of control that would be necessary to prevent people from going about their daily life would be very, very high indeed," he said.

 The victims have been named as cafe manager Tori Johnson, 34 and Sydney lawyer Katrina Dawson, 38.

 In Martin Place, people have been arriving to sign condolence books and leave flowers in their memory.

 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The moment police stormed the cafe

 Analysis: Frank Gardner, BBC Security Correspondent

 From Woolwich to Ottawa and now to Sydney, there is a growing list of individuals carrying out attacks in the name of global jihadism yet apparently unconnected to any organisation or co-ordinated plot.

 Rarely are the perpetrators unknown to the authorities. Monis was a known extremist facing criminal charges. Michael Adebolajo, one of the two Woolwich murderers in 2013, was also a known extremist who had been imprisoned in Kenya.

 So why were these men allowed to wander around cities, free to pick up knives or guns? The answer comes down to priorities. In open democracies, police and intelligence services do not have the manpower and resources to follow every suspect on their lists around the clock. Inevitably they have to prioritise from an ever-changing list.

 A radicalising event such as civilians being killed in a drone strike somewhere in the world can draw more people towards a course of violent action. Often that person may keep their thoughts to themselves and not communicate them in ways that can be tracked.

 In an age of so-called "lone wolf" attacks, prioritising suspects is an area the authorities in many countries are going to need to get better at.

 Four other people, including a police officer, were injured. The officer has been discharged, while the other three were in a stable condition, police said.

 Central Sydney was put in lockdown on Monday morning as the gunman entered the Lindt Chocolat Cafe and seized 17 hostages.

 Five hostages managed to sprint to safety on Monday afternoon. Several more escaped early on Tuesday, as commandos stormed the cafe.

 How the 16-hour Sydney siege unfolded

 1. At 09:45 on Monday local time (22:45 GMT Sunday) police are called to the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Sydney following reports of an armed robbery. It soon emerges a gunman is holding a number of people hostage.

 At on Monday local time (22:45 GMT Sunday) police are called to the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Sydney following reports of an armed robbery. It soon emerges a gunman is holding a number of people hostage. 2. Between 16:00-17:00 , three men, then two women, sprint to safety from the cafe's side door - a fire exit.

 Between , three men, then two women, sprint to safety from the cafe's side door - a fire exit. 3. Just after 02:00 on Tuesday, a loud bang is heard from the cafe and special operations officers advance towards the side door.

 Just after on Tuesday, a loud bang is heard from the cafe and special operations officers advance towards the side door. 4. More hostages escape, running to safety on Elizabeth Street.

 More hostages escape, running to safety on Elizabeth Street. 5. Moments later, commandos storm the cafe via a number of entrances. The remaining hostages escape.

 Moments later, commandos storm the cafe via a number of entrances. The remaining hostages escape. 6. Police officially confirm the end of the siege at 02:45 local time. They later report the deaths of three people, including the gunman.

 At a news conference on Tuesday, NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn would not say whether Monis had shot the two hostages himself.

 Nor would she confirm reports that Mr Johnson was shot when he grappled with Monis. But she said all the hostages had "acted courageously".

 Asked why police stormed the cafe, Commissioner Burn would say only that "shots were heard and an emergency action plan was activated".

 She said it was "extremely important" she did not comment on events in detail while the investigation is under way.

 Image copyright AP Image caption PM Tony Abbott and his wife Margie also presented flowers

 Image copyright AP Image caption Two hostages were killed and four people injured as the siege came to a violent end

 On Tuesday evening, a crime scene perimeter remained up around the cafe, but police said all roads would be re-opened by Wednesday morning.

 Police have promised more officers on the street for the next three weeks.

 At the scene: Wendy Frew, BBC News Online, Australia editor

 At Christmas time in Sydney, people come to Martin Place to see the giant Christmas tree. This year they have come to see a sea of flowers laid in memory of the victims of this week's cafe shooting.

 Hundreds of bouquets have been laid on the pedestrian plaza a block away from where the siege took place.

 Well-wishers like Maureen Sharma and Ruza Fisher have come to sign a condolence book and to lay flowers. The two young office employees who work nearby wanted to pay their respects.

 "I came to work this morning and could not stop crying," said Ms Sharma. "It touched me more than I had expected." Ms Fisher said her stomach was in knots. "I am starting to well up… It was such a waste of lives."

 'Unstable'

 Monis, a self-styled Muslim cleric, sought asylum in Australia in 1996. He had a history of religiously inspired activism, but officials say there is as yet no evidence his actions were linked to international Islamist movements.

 He was convicted of sending offensive letters to the families of deceased Australian soldiers in 2009.

 In 2013, he was charged with being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife, and given bail.

 He also faced more than 40 sexual and indecent assault charges.

 Image copyright EPA Image caption Monis, well known to the Australian police, was facing a raft of criminal charges

 Monis had "vehemently denied" the assault and accessory to murder charges, his former lawyer told the BBC.

 He "believed he was being victimised" for his "lobbying against the government", and had alleged that he was tortured while in custody, Manny Conditsis said.

 According to Australian media, a High Court had dismissed Monis' appeal against his previous convictions on Friday.

 Image copyright AP Image caption The 16-hour siege saw a major police presence deployed in the heart of Sydney

 A church service was held at Sydney's St Mary Cathedral on Tuesday to mourn the victims.

 Archbishop Anthony Fisher said the "heart of our city is broken by the deaths of two innocents", and urged Australians not to be caught up in "violence and its cycle of recrimination".

 The Australian National Imams Council issued a statement saying it was "deeply saddened by the tragic end to the siege with the loss of life.

 "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those killed and to the hostages who suffered the trauma of the siege." |||||


– There are a lot of cats in the United States. Perhaps close to 95 million live with us as pets, reports the Times-Picayune. But does our affection for these feline friends move in just one direction? New research in the journal PLoS One suggests that domesticated cats are more independent than dogs because they have less "secure attachment" to their owners. In this case, attachment "is not simply an affectionate bond," the researchers write, but relates to "the carer being perceived as a focus of safety and security in otherwise threatening environments." Past research has indicated that some cats whose owners leave them alone display signs of separation anxiety, as dogs do. "But the results of our study show that they are in fact much more independent than canine companions," says lead researcher Daniel Mills. "It seems that what we interpret as separation anxiety might actually be signs of frustration." Behavioral scientists at the University of Lincoln in the UK tested this by observing cats in unfamiliar environments with their owners, with strangers, and alone. They were looking for three distinct characteristics of attachment: the amount of contact a cat sought, its level of passive behavior, and its distress when the owner was absent. Cats were, it turns out, more vocal when their owners left them than when strangers did, but they demonstrated no other signs of attachment, hence the possibility that the vocalization was not one of longing; the researchers posit it could indicate frustration or just be a "learned response." "Our findings don’t disagree with the notion that cats develop social preferences or close relationships," says Mills, "but they do show that these relationships do not appear to be typically based on a need for safety and security." (One woman's attempt to rescue her cat from a cliff didn't go so well.)

Expand this summary.

Standing on their own four feet: New research shows why cats are more independent than dogs

 Domestic cats do not generally see their owners as a focus of safety and security in the same way that dogs do, according to new research published today.The study by animal behaviour specialists at the University of Lincoln, UK, shows that while dogs perceive their owners as a safe base, the relationship between people and their feline friends appears to be quite different.While it is increasingly recognised that cats are more social and more capable of shared relationships than traditionally thought, this latest research shows that adult cats appear to be more autonomous – even in their social relationships – and not necessarily dependent on others to provide a sense of protection.The research, published in the scientific journal PLOS ONE, was led by Professor Daniel Mills , Professor of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine at the University of Lincoln’s School of Life Sciences , along with Alice Potter – who studied as a postgraduate at Lincoln and now works with the Companion Animals Science Group at the RSPCA.Professor Mills said: “The domestic cat has recently passed the dog as the most popular companion animal in Europe, with many seeing a cat as an ideal pet for owners who work long hours. Previous research has suggested that some cats show signs of separation anxiety when left alone by their owners, in the same way that dogs do, but the results of our study show that they are in fact much more independent than canine companions. It seems that what we interpret as separation anxiety might actually be signs of frustration.”The Lincoln researchers carefully adapted the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test (SST), which has been widely used to demonstrate that the bond between young children or pet dogs with their primary carer can be categorised as a ‘secure attachment’ – where the carer is seen as a focus of safety and security in potentially threatening (or unfamiliar) environments.The study observed the relationships between a number of cats and their owners, placing the pets in an unfamiliar environment together with their owner, with a stranger and also on their own. In varying scenarios, it assessed three different characteristics of attachment; the amount of contact sought by the cat, the level of passive behaviour, and signs of distress caused by the absence of the owner.“Although our cats were more vocal when the owner rather than the stranger left them with the other individual, we didn’t see any additional evidence to suggest that the bond between a cat and its owner is one of secure attachment. This vocalisation might simply be a sign of frustration or learned response, since no other signs of attachment were reliably seen. In strange situations, attached individuals seek to stay close to their carer, show signs of distress when they are separated and demonstrate pleasure when their attachment figure returns, but these trends weren’t apparent during our research,” said Professor Mills.“For pet dogs, their owners often represent a specific safe haven; however it is clear that domestic cats are much more autonomous when it comes to coping with unusual situations. Our findings don’t disagree with the notion that cats develop social preferences or close relationships, but they do show that these relationships do not appear to be typically based on a need for safety and security. As far as we could tell, the cats of owners who considered them to be highly attached did not differ from the others in this regard.”The results of the study reveal that while cats might prefer to interact with their owner, they do not rely on them for reassurance when in an unfamiliar environment, and the researchers believe this is because of the nature of the species as a largely independent and solitary hunter.The paper is now available to view online: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135109 ||||| The Ainsworth Strange Situation Test (SST) has been widely used to demonstrate that the bond between both children and dogs to their primary carer typically meets the requirements of a secure attachment (i.e. the carer being perceived as a focus of safety and security in otherwise threatening environments), and has been adapted for cats with a similar claim made. However methodological problems in this latter research make the claim that the cat-owner bond is typically a secure attachment, operationally definable by its behaviour in the SST, questionable. We therefore developed an adapted version of the SST with the necessary methodological controls which include a full counterbalance of the procedure. A cross-over design experiment with 20 cat-owner pairs (10 each undertaking one of the two versions of the SST first) and continuous focal sampling was used to record the duration of a range of behavioural states expressed by the cats that might be useful for assessing secure attachment. Since data were not normally distributed, non-parametric analyses were used on those behaviours shown to be reliable across the two versions of the test (which excluded much cat behaviour). Although cats vocalised more when the owner rather the stranger left the cat with the other individual, there was no other evidence consistent with the interpretation of the bond between a cat and its owner meeting the requirements of a secure attachment. These results are consistent with the view that adult cats are typically quite autonomous, even in their social relationships, and not necessarily dependent on others to provide a sense of security and safety. It is concluded that alternative methods need to be developed to characterise the normal psychological features of the cat-owner bond.

 The extent to which cats demonstrate sociality towards humans appears to be influenced by a wide range of factors [ 30 ], [ 31 ]. Kittens are reported to have a sensitive phase of socialisation towards humans between their second and seventh week of life [ 32 ]. During this time exposure to humans, amount of handling, number of handlers and presence of the queen have all been found to influence sociality towards humans [ 32 ], [ 33 ]. A range of human-related factors also influence the development of the social behaviour expressed by cats towards people [ 34 ], [ 35 ]. Given these findings and the tendency of owners to consider pet cats as part of the family [ 36 ], it seems reasonable to examine whether the typical bond shown by pet cats towards their owners also involves a form of secure attachment that provides additional safety and security. Using a modified version of the Ainsworth SST, Edwards et al., [ 7 ] have claimed, on the basis of a preliminary study, that this is indeed the case. They reported that cats only played in the presence of their owner, vocalised more when left alone, engaged in more locomotion/exploration while the owner was present and were more alert in the presence of the stranger [ 7 ]. However their conclusion that their use of a modified SST demonstrates that the cat-owner bond typically meets the requirements of a secure attachment is questionable on several grounds, due to methodological flaws in their study, which might account for the differences observed. Firstly, the experience of the cat within the procedure in relation to the owner and stranger was not equivalent. For example when analysing the cats’ behaviour towards the owners, Edwards et al., [ 7 ] use data from two episodes within the test, neither of which follow an episode of the cat being alone, whereas the assessment of the cats’ behaviour towards the strangers depends on only one episode which follows an episode of isolation. The different conditions applied to the cats in the time preceding the episode when it is alone with the owner and stranger, may therefore explain differences in the cats’ behaviour towards these individuals rather than the relationship the cat has with each of them. Secondly, Edwards et al., [ 7 ] also fail to control for a possible episode-order effect. Episode-order describes the sequence in which the owner and stranger participate in the procedure and this has the potential to affect the cat’s behaviour, as the cat may alter its behaviour in relation to the strange situation over time, regardless of who is present. The use of a counterbalanced procedure in which the sequence is reversed for half of the subjects can control for this potential confound [ 18 ]. Thirdly, Edwards et al., [ 7 ] did not analyse the data from all episodes, but only four of them (episodes 4–7). This meant their data came from 6 minutes of observation of the cat with the owner, 3 minutes with the stranger and 3 minutes when the cat was alone. This again confounds the ability to ascribe differences in behaviour towards the two types of human subject involved in the test to the relationship, rather than to the methodological features of the study. Finally, it is also assumed by Edwards et al., [ 7 ] that the cat behaviour observed is reliable, (i.e. that a given cat would consistently show this type of response in this type of situation); given the large number of variables assessed, spurious findings due to Type I statistical errors are a risk. Therefore the study reported here re-examined the issue of secure attachment by cats to their carers, in a way that addresses these concerns by using a cross over design experiment with an improved and counterbalanced modification of the Ainsworth SST. Our first aim was to assess the robustness of potential measures of cat attachment within the SST; our second aim was to assess whether those behaviours found to be suitably robust and relevant indicate that the cat-owner relationship meets the requirements of a secure attachment as defined within the SST.

 The domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus) has recently passed the dog as the most popular companion animal within Europe [ 1 ], [ 2 ]. Ease of care, ability to live in a small residence and the capacity to cope with being left alone for long periods of time have been reported as reasons for this popularity [ 1 ], [ 3 ], [ 4 ], [ 5 ]. Indeed, some have suggested that cats are ‘ideal’ companions for owners who work long hours [ 5 ]. However, there is evidence to indicate that some cats may show signs of separation distress in the absence of their owner [ 6 ] and it has been suggested that the cat-owner bond may be a form of attachment similar to that which exists between a dog or child and its primary carer [ 7 ]. Bowlby [ 8 ] [ 9 ] described attachment as an enduring psychological bond, that serves to improve an infant’s chances of survival by keeping it close to its mother. In this context the term “attachment” has a precise operational definition relating to the provision of safety and security, and is not simply an affectionate bond; it has several objectively definable characteristics: attached individuals seek to maintain proximity and contact with the attachment figure, attached individuals become distressed when involuntarily separated and show signs of pleasure upon their return, attachment figures act as a safe haven to which the attached individual will return when frightened by the environment, attachment figures act as a secure-base from which the attached individual can move off and engage confidently in activities [ 10 ]. None of these alone is sufficient to demonstrate or infer secure attachment, but many of these features are assessed within the Strange Situation Test (SST) developed by Ainsworth [ 11 ] for this purpose. The procedure involves placing a subject in an unfamiliar room (strange situation–to provoke a sense of insecurity) together with its carer (potential attachment figure) and a stranger (social control to which there should be no attachment) followed by a series of episodes of separation from, and reunions with, their carer and the stranger. The normal healthy response in this context involves a differentiation between the carer and the stranger in the support they provide to the subject in this challenging environment. This can be used to imply the type of attachment that exists between the subject and care. In this way a secure attachment style can be operationally defined; other styles of response are considered problematic [ 11 ]. The test was originally developed to investigate mother–infant attachment, but has been used and adapted for studying attachment between other species and their carers e.g. chimpanzees [ 12 ], dogs [ 13 ],[ 14 ], [ 15 ], [ 16 ], [ 17 ], [ 18 ], [ 19 ], [ 20 ] and hand-reared wolves [ 17 ]. Its application to dogs was inspired by the resemblance of the dog-owner bond to that which exists between a child and parent [ 13 ], [ 14 ] and there is now strong evidence to indicate that the typical dog-human bond also includes the requirements of a secure attachment defined in this way [ 18 ]. The well-developed sociality of dogs may be particularly important in this regard [ 14 ]. Nonetheless both cats and dogs appear to show separation related problems, which it has been suggested might be associated with attachment to owners [ 21 ] and it is increasingly recognised that cats (Felis sylvestris catus) are perhaps more social than traditionally thought even with their own species [ 22 ], [ 23 ], [ 24 ], [ 25 ], [ 26 ], [ 27 ], [ 28 ], [ 29 ]. Co-operative colonies of related females arising as a result of the availability of key resources are well documented [ 24 ], [ 25 ], but even male cats, especially those neutered, are known to be social [ 28 ]. Preferred associates may be identified from affiliative behaviours such as allorubbing and allogrooming [ 22 ] and this type of activity may be used to assess the social bond that exists between the individuals involved [ 26 ]. It is therefore clear that cats have the capacity to form social intraspecific relationships, and this may underpin the form of relationship they form with humans, especially those with whom they share a home.

 In the first instance it was important to establish the reliability of the behaviour that had the potential to be used to assess attachment by cats. The counterbalancing of the procedure and within subjects design of the experiment, meant that it was possible to systematically analyse the data to detect significant differences in the behaviour within subjects in the same circumstances but at different times. This allowed a rigorous assessment of the robustness of each potential measure, using the following process. Comparable measures of behaviour based on either single episodes (e.g. vocalising during A2 versus B6) or combinations of episode (e.g. vocalising in the two episodes A2 and A8 versus B6 and B4) were identified (see S2 File for a full list). Next, in accordance with Jones and Kenward (2003) [ 38 ], the occurrence of a significant interaction between the order in which subjects were tested (test-order) and the condition on a given behaviour was examined first using a Mann-Whitney test. Only if there was no significant interaction could the behaviour be taken forward for further consideration as a potentially useful measure. The next stage of analysis examined if there was a significant test-order effect on the given behaviour. If a significant test-order effect was found then that behaviour could not be used in any analysis of attachment between the two conditions (A versus B). Next, because each social situation was replicated within a condition, the significance of any episode-order effect on the behaviour was examined (i.e. the effect of time within a test). If a significant episode-order effect was found then that behaviour could not be used in any analysis of the behaviour within episodes occurring at a different time but within the same condition. If the behaviour was affected by both test-order effect and episode order then it could not be used as a potential measure to assess attachment. Only behaviour measures that did not meet any of these exclusion criteria were robust enough to assess whether the cats showed signs of attachment in the modified SST.

 Following a pilot study and review of previous research [ 7 ], a list of behaviours was drawn up for recording (See S1 File ). Continuous focal sampling of video recordings of the cat’s behaviour was undertaken using Solomon Coder (Beta 12.07.10) to record the duration of these behaviours [ 37 ] during each episode of each condition. In order to minimise the subsequent risk of error due to multiple statistical testing, some functionally related behavioural categories were grouped. Specifically ‘passive exploration’, ‘active exploration’ and ‘locomotion’ were grouped into ‘exploration/locomotion’ and ‘approaching/orientation to a person’ and ‘following’ were grouped into ‘proximate owner/stranger’. Behavioural measures were then classified a priori according to their putative relationship to one or more of the operationally definable characteristics of attachment, and only these measures considered for statistical analysis ( Table 2 ). Three characteristics of attachment (proximity/contact seeking, secure-base effect and distress due to separation) could be assessed. Firstly, the owner should be a preferred social companion to the stranger as evidenced by the cat seeking proximity and attempting to maintain proximity/contact more with the owner than with the stranger. Secondly, if the owner acts as a secure base, it was predicted that there should be more passive behaviour, exploration and social play in the presence of the owner compared to the presence of the stranger. Thirdly, cats should be more distressed by the absence of the owner than the stranger, and so it was predicted that cats should vocalise more when separated from the owner compared to the stranger, and show greater vigilance and orientation to the door when the owner is absent compared to the when the stranger is absent. No single measure would be sufficient to conclude that the relationship between the cat and its owner is a secure attachment, rather the evidence from all of these tests would need to be considered overall.

 All owner-cat pairs participated in both conditions (A and B) in different rooms set up for the procedure, and were tested within 5 minutes of arrival at the test site. Ten subjects were pseudo-randomly assigned to group 1 (condition A followed by condition B) and the other ten to group 2 (condition B followed by condition A). For all subjects a period of at least two weeks elapsed between participation in the two conditions. Two females of similar height, build and appearance were used as the stranger (one for each condition). Testing was conducted over a seven week period between May and July 2012. To accommodate the schedules of subjects the tests were conducted at a variety of times between 09:30 and 19:00 Monday to Sunday. On average tests on the same subject were conducted within an hour of the same time of day on the two occasions (mean difference 51.75 mins, mode = 0).

 The procedure comprised of two conditions: modified (A) and reversed modified (B) version of the Ainsworth SST both consisting of nine 3 minute episodes in which the cat is either alone or with the owner and/or a stranger in order to assess how it responds to a series of procedures designed to alter the level and form of social support available to it, or trigger seeking out of an attachment figure (see Table 1 for details of the procedures and “Data collection and analysis plan” below for details of the specific predictions made in different circumstances if a cat is securely attached to its owner). Hereafter the convention of a letter followed by a number is used to refer to conditions and episodes as described in Table 1 . Hence, A2 refers to condition A episode 2. The Ainsworth SST was extended from six to nine episodes in order to allow the owner and stranger to take part in an equal number of episodes, separations and reunions with the cat subjects. As with the original Ainsworth procedure the duration of each episode was three minutes. In condition B the episode-order of condition A was reversed. This reversal of episode sequence balanced the order in which the owner and stranger participated in the procedure across the two tests ( Table 1 ).

 Two similar, plain rooms were used for the study ( Fig 1 ), in order to ensure an equivalent strange physical environment in each test. Test rooms were unfamiliar to all cat subjects. Both rooms were equipped with two chairs (for the owner and stranger), three cat toys (two balls and a string and rod toy) and a small area (approx. 80cm by 75cm by 35cm, with a partially occluded entrance) in which cats could hide. Windows in both rooms were covered to avoid any visual distraction from outside. Within both rooms a video camera (Flip Video Ultra HD) mounted on a tripod was set up to record the test period and a web camera connected through a live feed to a monitor located outside the test room was mounted above each doorway. The web camera allowed both the experimenter to follow the procedure and the owners to observe their cat during episodes in which they were not present. The rooms were divided by strips of white tape into four zones: i) region around owner’s chair, ii) region around stranger’s chair, iii) door, iv) play area ( Fig 1 ). In order to control for any effects of spatial location of owner, the owners were pseudo-randomly assigned to one of the two chairs available ( Fig 1 ) in the first test and then allocated the other chair in the repeat test. The test rooms and all equipment were thoroughly cleaned with an enzymatic cleaner (Urine-Off for Cats and Kittens) before and after each test to remove cat related odours, between tests.

 A convenience sample of twenty owner-cat dyads was recruited through personal contact and advertisements in local pet related businesses. All participants lived within 5 miles (8km) of the test area. Owners were all adults, with four males and 16 females agreeing to take part. A broad spectrum of ownership lifestyles were represented, with ten of the owners in full-time employment, 3 in part-time employment, 3 students and 2 unemployed. The cat subjects were 13 males and 7 females whose ages ranged between 1–9 years old (mean age ± SD; 5.05 years ± 3.17). One female cat and all males had been neutered, and no entire female was in season. Two cats were pedigree British Shorthairs and the remaining 18 subjects were Domestic shorthairs (15) and Domestic longhairs (3). All cats had been in their current home for a minimum of ten months. Eleven of the cats lived with at least one other cat (range 1–4) and two lived with a dog in the home. Nineteen of the cats had regular access to the outside. All cats were free from either overt or known on-going medical conditions. All but one owner provided information relating to the experience of the cats of strange situations. Only two had much experience of strange situations away from the current owner, since being taken in by the current owner (having lived away from the owner for a period of time), eight were known to have moved home with the owner. All except one of the cats were used to being transported in a cat carrier.

 No interaction, test-order or episode-order effects were found for the measures ‘exploration/locomotion’ and ‘social play’ (with the owner or stranger) and therefore these parameters were used further to assess attachment. No significant differences were found in the duration of time cats spent expressing exploration/locomotion in the presence of the owner compared to the stranger ( Table 3 ). Likewise there were no significant differences in the duration of time cats spent playing with their owner compared to playing with the stranger. In addition there was no significant difference in the amount cats played with the stranger when the owner was present (A1) and when the owner was absent (A2 or A8) ( Table 3 ). ‘Passive behaviours’ exhibited episode-order effects (A2 vs B6, z = 368.5, p<0.05; A2+A8 vs B6+B4, z = 023.5, p<0.01) but no test order effects. Therefore this parameter was used to assess attachment only in comparisons of the same episode number between conditions. Cats spent significantly more time expressing passive behaviours in the sole presence of the stranger than the owner in one combination of episodes (A4+A6 vs B4+B6, Z = 68.5, N = 18, p≤0.001), but not the other (A2+A8 vs B2+B8). This significant difference in passive behaviours is evident in both of the individual episode comparisons making up this combination i.e. between A4 and B4 after the cat has been left alone for the first time (Z = 2.0, N = 18, p≤0.001) and between A6 and B6 –the first departure in the second half of the test when (Z = 33.5, N = 18, p<0.05).

 ‘Marking’ behaviour exhibited an episode-order effect (A2+A8 vs B6+B4, z = 1107.5, p<0.05; A1 vs B5 [marking owner], z = 263.5, p<0.05; A1 vs B5 [marking stranger], z = 251.0, p<0.01), but no test-order effect and so these data were used in comparisons relating to the same episodes in the two conditions where relevant to the assessment of attachment. There was no significant difference in the amount cats marked the owner versus the stranger in the first episode of test A, but they marked the owner more than the stranger in the first episode of test B. Cats were found to mark the stranger significantly more than the owner when comparing the first separation (A2 vs B2) and first reunion after the cat was alone (A4 vs B4), with no significant difference, when both were present in episode 5 and following the second separation in the next episode(A6 vs B6), but significantly more marking was directed towards the owner than the stranger at the second reunion after the cat had been alone (A8 vs B8) (See Table 3 for statistical results).

 Full results from the assessment of behavioural reliability can be found in the S3 File , but in the following sections we consider further the value of the various behaviours that could potentially contribute to the assessment of different facets of attachment, starting with their robustness as potential psychometric measures. To be suitable, measures of the same situation should show no significant interaction between the order in which subjects were tested (test-order) and the condition. The occurrence of a significant test-order effect for the same situation within a condition does not preclude the use of that measure within a condition, but it does preclude its use for making comparisons between the conditions due to the order effect. Likewise, any evidence of a significant episode-order effect for the same situation within a condition precludes the use of that measure from any analysis of episodes occurring at different times within a condition, but does not preclude its use between comparable situations occurring at the same time in the two conditions. However, if both a test-order effect and an episode order-effect are present for the same measure when used in similar situations then that measure cannot be used to make any reliable inferences from the test.

 Discussion

 The aim of this study was to use a fully counterbalanced version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation procedure to explore the extent to which it can be used to infer that the cat-owner bond constitutes a secure attachment [9]. Overall, the response of the cats indicated that the test environment was generally adequate for invoking the typical scenario desired in the ASST for demonstration of a secure base effect. However the specific results indicate that many aspects of the behaviour of cats in this test are not consistent with the characteristics of attachment, for two main reasons. Firstly, relevant aspects of the behaviour of cats are not reliable enough to be used in an evaluation of attachment (i.e. aspects of the test produce unreliable data). Secondly, even among those measures which are temporally robust, the predictions are not met, except in the case of level of vocalisation if it is a proxy of distress, but this alone is not sufficient to imply secure attachment. The additional controls in the current study compared to the previous study [7], which sought to determine whether the cat-owner relationship constituted an attachment as described by Bowlby [8], [9] explains why we reject this hypothesis. Although, we accept it is possible, if unlikely, that the typical relationship between owners and their cats in Mexico is different to that which generally occurs between owners and their cats in the UK., or that there is a difference in the relationship between owners and cats kept indoors (which formed the population tested by Edwards et al., [7]), and cats with outdoor access (which made up the majority of our population). We do not reject that cats may have social preferences, nor that some cats might form this type of attachment in certain circumstances, nor do we wish to imply that cats do not form some form of affectionate social relationship or bond with their owners (a broader sense use of the term “attachment”), only that the relationship with the primary caregiver is not typically characterised by a preference for that individual based on them providing safety and security to the cat. An alternative explanation for these results might be that the modified SST used here is not an appropriate instrument for measuring attachment, and the finding that the behaviour of cats appears to be very variable (and unreliable across time) may have wider implications for those using behavioural assessments to evaluate cats, such as for rehoming.

 In relation to proximity/contact seeking, many measures were found not to be robust enough to be used to evaluate this aspect of attachment. However, the data for marking (in the form of body rubbing), which is a specific behaviour that inevitably results in proximity, were useable in this regard despite showing an episode order effect. The results show there was a shift in the focus of marking within a test. Earlier in the test (episodes 2 & 4), cats marked the stranger more than the owner in comparable situations but as the test progressed there was no preference (episode 6) and finally (episode 8) there was a preference for the owner. This suggests that marking preference per se is not indicative of attachment towards the individual being marked, although these results can be explained in another way. It has recently been suggested [39] that marking serves an important function in relation to emotional arousal, with unfamiliar but not overtly threatening objects initially being marked to reduce anxious arousal associated with the uncertainty of the situation, and familiar individuals marked to maintain the social relationship. This allows the efficient allocation of limited attentional capacity. This hypothesis builds on previous suggestions that the purpose of marking between cats is to exchange odours so they become familiarised with one another [23], [29], [40] and laboratory cats have been found to make more direct contacts with an unfamiliar person than with a familiar one [41]. These results are consistent with an expansion of the familiarisation hypothesis that includes a social preference for the owner, as described by Mills et al., [39]. Since the stranger is initially unfamiliar and non-threatening, when the cat is left alone with this individual for the first time (episode 2), due to the departure of the owner, it would be expected that the cat will mark the unfamiliar individual with whom it now finds itself. By contrast in the counterbalanced condition (B), the stranger has just left and the cat finds itself with its owner with whom it is already is familiar. Thus we would predict more marking of the stranger than owner in this episode. Episode 4 represents the first reunion with an individual after the cat has been alone and given the increased familiarity of the owner, the same prediction applies. However, as the test proceeds, the stranger is becoming increasingly familiar to the cat, to the point that by episode 6 the difference that existed in episode 2 is less apparent. Thus in episode 8, which follows the second occasion the cat has been left alone, there is now increased marking of the owner, perhaps because although the two may now both be familiar, the owner is a preferred social contact. Thus the evidence from proximity maintenance/ contact seeking by the cat in support of attachment towards its owner is weak.

 The secure-base effect is considered the primary factor in identifying an attachment [10], [42]. However no evidence was found to support the use of owners as a secure-base in the current study. No significant difference was found in the amount of exploration/locomotion in the presence of the owner versus stranger, nor the amount of play with the owner versus stranger. In addition, the absence of the owner did not significantly reduce the time spent playing with the stranger as would be expected if the owner functioned as a secure-base [14]. This might reflect the observation that in cats, unlike humans and dogs, much play is typically associated with solitary predatory type activity, and so may not have a social relevance. Passive behaviours, indicative of relaxation, are suggested as a measure of the secure-base effect in children [10]. However, passive behaviour may not be so easy to interpret in cats [43], [44]. Edwards et al., (2007) [7] found that cats were more inactive in the presence of the stranger in their test, and a similar result was found in the current study. Thus it seems that in the context of SST, passive behaviour by domestic cats, may be associated more with a state of anxiety rather than comfort, as has been found in other studies [43], [44]. However, a difference was only found in half of the comparable episodes, and these were the ones in the middle of the test (episodes 4 and 6). If the owner were acting as a secure base within the strange environment, it would be predicted that the effect of their presence over that of the stranger would be greatest at the first separation (episode 2) but this was not the case, since there was no significant difference in the amount of passive behaviour exhibited by the cat at this time. At best it might be argued that the owner has a small effect on the perceived safety of the environment, and this is not strong enough to impact on the behaviour of the cat when it first enters a strange environment, but perhaps as the cat habituates to the environment, the owner’s may have a small effect over that of the stranger. However, this would also indicate that towards the end of the test the cat was sufficiently habituated to the environment, so as not to need the support of another. An alternative and arguably more parsimonious explanation of the finding would relate to the cat’s independence and habituation to the environment and stranger. The strangeness of the environment inhibits the cat (episode 2), and the return of someone after the cat has been alone (episode 4) has a differential effect depending on the identity of that individual. If it is the stranger, then the situation is still novel, whereas if it is the owner it provides a degree of familiarity. The next occasion when a difference is assessed, is episode 6 when either the stranger or owner leaves after they have both been present. The lack of familiarisation with the stranger at this time, would mean the environment is still strange due to their presence, however, by episode 8 (as indicated by the marking behaviour) the stranger has now become familiar and so there is no difference when the cat is left with the owner compared to the stranger. These results examining a potential secure base effect together with those relating to proximity seeking suggest there is a dynamic between the strangeness of the physical environment and the stranger, and that habituation to them occurs at a different rate, occurring to the environment sooner than the stranger, with familiarisation of the stranger being a function of them being marked.

 The data relating to potential stress when separated are consistent with a preference for interaction with the owner over the stranger, but not with secure attachment. Standing by the door is a particularly robust measure of separation distress in dogs [13], but was found to be inconsistent in cats, as was vigilance behaviour. This suggests either that cats do not show distress in this way, or that the cats are not particularly distressed by the departure of the owner. By contrast, vocalisation was found to be a robust measure, but differences in vocalisation depending on whether the owner or stranger was absent, are not necessarily consistent with the bond with the owner providing a secure base. Although there was a difference in vocalisation when the cat was left with either the owner or stranger after the other had left (episodes 6 versus 8), there was no difference in vocalisation following the return of the owner or stranger after the cat had been alone. This would be consistent with vocalisation occurring in response to frustration at the owner’s departure, perhaps as a result of previous reinforcement of the interaction (as often occurs at feeding [45]), rather than the owner providing comfort in the strange environment. From a neurobiological perspective separation from a secure attachment figure results in engagement of a different affective system (PANIC sensu Panksepp [46] compared to separation from an individual who is associated with physical reinforcements (RAGE sensu Panksepp [46]), although both might result in superficially similar behaviour aimed at reinstating contact. In the case of the cat, vocalisation meets the requirement in both situations and so, this measure alone is not sufficient to infer that the cat is attached to its owner as a source of safety and security.

 The Ainsworth procedure is suggested to be highly suitable for dogs since it reproduces situations that they are likely to encounter in their everyday lives [14], (potential need for support from their carer). In contrast most cats are unlikely to encounter such situations on a regular basis and it might be argued that this impacts negatively on the validity of the test as it is such an artificial situation. However, in this particular instance and given the theoretical underpinnings of the SST, we suggest that the set-up chosen actually increases the validity of our procedure for the following reasons. The vast majority of cats were home based as is common in the UK and so a novel environment is likely to pose a suitably intimidating challenge to induce the expression of secure attachment related behaviours if they existed [11]. In addition, few of the cats in this study, had much experience of strange situations outside the home. A visit to the vet might be the most likely analogous situation encountered, but none were taken to the vet regularly (for example for treatment of a chronic medical condition); none were reported to be experiencing this type of situation on a regular basis. By contrast, largely outdoor cats who travel a lot to new places, might get used to environmental novelty more readily and this could result in a false negative response. In this regard, it is worth noting that the data from two cat subjects were eliminated from the analysis because their behaviour did not show variation within the test; the hiding and behavioural inhibition observed by these cats are consistent with higher stress levels [43],[44] but it is clear that the presence of the owner was not able to ameliorate these effects, which should be the case if they serve as an attachment figure in the original sense of Bowlby [8], as compared to the wider sense used by some authors [47].

 It might be argued that, the behaviours chosen to assess attachment are not biologically relevant given the nature of the cat as a largely independent, solitary hunter. However, this aspect of the cat may be precisely the reason why the relationship with the owner is not characterised by the safety and security features of a classical attachment bond. Even when accounting for a different function in superficially similar behaviour categories between species (such as passiveness), the evidence from the current study refutes the notion that cats normally show attachment to the owner in the way Bowlby defined attachment [8] and has been found in dogs [13] and claimed to occur in cats [7]. Despite this, there is good evidence that some cats can show separation related problems [6] and there are several possible reasons for this. It may be that a sub-population of cats showing clinical signs do become genuinely attached in the way described by Bowlby, but we consider this unlikely if attachment has a strong biological function and in light of some of our unpublished observations. An alternative explanation is that these problems are perhaps more of a response to frustration at owner absence [39]. This hypothesis lays the foundation for further research and the development of more specific intervention protocols as a result.

 Although cats can be social, sociality is likely to exist on a continuum, varying between individuals, but perhaps skewed towards independency. They have been domesticated for a relatively short time in comparison to dogs and have not been selectively bred to live in close contact with people [27], nor is their natural social system highly dependent on the same type of close social bonds [23]. Indeed, within the human-cat relationship the frequency and duration of interactions have been observed to be low in comparison to dogs [35]. These factors are likely to affect the nature of the relationship that typically forms between cat and owner, and make the formation of cat-human attachment unlikely. Nonetheless, some may be capable of forming very strong attachments, but this would not seem to be the norm. However, cats do seem to have a preference for their owner over an unfamiliar individual but the extent to which this is conditioned or the result of an intrinsic psychological tendency to bond remains unclear. |||||


Summarize this article:

UPDATES Who Will Be Captain America?

 EXCLUSIVE: Marvel Studios and director Joe Johnston want to be really sure they’ve found the right actor to star in The First Avenger: Captain America. Marvel has slightly expanded its search — adding actors that I’m told include Chris Evans, who already logged Marvel Comics superhero time as Johnny Storm/Human Torch in two Fantastic Four films. Of the original contenders, two are still in serious contention: Mike Vogel (Cloverfield) and Garrett Hedlund (Tron: Legacy). Hedlund was on Marvel’s original wish list but didn’t test at first. Scheduling was th reason, but I also heard his reps balked when Marvel informed them that the job would include options for 9 future films and a salary of only around $300,000. It’s not going to work out for the other actors who tested: Chace Crawford (CW’s Gossip Girl), John Krasinski (NBC’s The Office), Scott Porter (NBC’s Friday Night Lights), Michael Cassidy (CW’s Privileged) or Patrick Flueger (Brothers). Paramount Pictures will release the film July 22, 2011. Hedlund can be seen in Disney’s new trailer for Tron Legacy, which you can watch here. ||||| This will appear next to all of your comments

 This will NOT appear anywhere on Newser |||||

– Robert De Niro is set to play NFL coach Vince Lombardi, but—in more casting news from a different film—the role of Captain America is still up for grabs. Though a Marvel insider told Fox, "We are bracing ourselves for 'that guy from The Office' to land Captain America," Deadline reports John Krasinski is out of the running, and only two original contenders—Mike Vogel from Cloverfield and Garrett Hedlund from Tron: Legacy—are still under consideration for the superhero role. Meanwhile, ESPN announced De Niro will play the title role in Lombardi, tentatively scheduled for 2012, the AP reports. The film will focus on the Hall of Fame coach transforming the NFL's worst team, the Green Bay Packers, into league champions.