5 members of family found dead in Cavan - NO SPECULATION

mariaalice

Samaris wrote: »

In a situation like that, if my only interactions with the person had been positive and I really had no idea that this person might do something like this, I'd probably say that or else say "no comment". No-one wants to be that guy who always knew there was something fishy about someone because in general, hindsight is being 20:20 and the guy (or girl) wants to be the one that Knew Something.

It's probably not surprising that there's a few others like me who would just admit that they had no idea that something like this could happen, especially with a friend or neighbour and only be able to give their own experience of the person rather than speculation or a nebulous "knew something was wrong".

I don't think it is as simple as that its not a case of know or not knowing ( not talking about this case just in general ) however people often have a sixth sense or an uneasy feeling that something is not quite right because of something the person says or some situation they saw.

eviltwin

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Do you think there is any possibility that the reports of him being a good guy could actually be honest accounts, hence why this crime is so very shocking to those people? Any chance of that at all?

Really what are the odds of every account being the same? Or very similar? They must all be colluding together to control the narrative... We must find where they are gathering for these meetings...?

I think it's completely natural that the perpetrator of this horrible crime has received the lions share of the focus...

Good people die all the time, in many different circumstances... There's not a huge amount to debate about it. It's tragic and sad obviously... But naturally the killer, his actions and his motives are far more open to debate and scrutiny.

You don't have to like it, I don't either... But it's a simple fact of life. It's a normal.

The truth is the kids only received marginally more focus than the mother. I've explained why I think that is... There is no agenda on that IMO. Neither the mother or her sons will receive the same level of focus as the killer...

You've explained yourself that clodagh was quiet and not as involved in the community as the others... Where as the kids were active in sports etc with the father.

So naturally it seems the media had more info to work with early on regarding the kids and their father... (They seemed to get that group picture very quickly after the story broke)

I think you - and others - are trying to read things into this that simply are not there!

In fairness to the neighbours they can only comment on the man they knew so you can understand.

It's the media that people are upset about

It's early days, people are shocked and still trying to come to terms with it. Give it time. When a family member of mine was arrested I was the first to defend him but when the dust settled I could see things that were clues to who he really was.

The town has had a major trauma, people are grieving and trying to come to terms with the unthinkable. Its not at all surprising how they have reacted. There is probably an element of trying to protect his reputation out of respect for the surviving family.

strandroad

Tasden wrote: »

I really wouldn't assume that the community are praising him, more so the media are misrepresenting what members of the community said/the context to try push their own "why did such a good man do such a horrific thing" narrative.

If the community was raging at the murder of an innocent family among them the media would latch onto it too. They read the moods and apply an appropriate narrative from their toolkit. Here it's "brilliant dad mysteriously snapped" because he murdered them in the house so the locals are forgiving, but if he took them to the parish church and murdered them there instead it would be all about "depraved monsters among us".

mariaalice

eviltwin wrote: »

In fairness to the neighbours they can only comment on the man they knew so you can understand.

It's the media that people are upset about

It's early days, people are shocked and still trying to come to terms with it. Give it time. When a family member of mine was arrested I was the first to defend him but when the dust settled I could see things that were clues to who he really was.

The town has had a major trauma, people are grieving and trying to come to terms with the unthinkable. Its not at all surprising how they have reacted. There is probably an element of trying to protect his reputation out of respect for the surviving family.

But is a desire to protect a reputation not contributing to stigmatising mental illness. In other words a community perceive a good name to be worth more that a truthful picture. Don't speak ill of the dead is a strong current in Irish society.

eviltwin

mariaalice wrote: »

But is a desire to protect a reputation not contributing to stigmatising mental illness. In other words a community perceive a good name to be worth more that a truthful picture.

Was he mentally ill though? We don't know that he was.

Grayson

eviltwin wrote: »

Was he mentally ill though? We don't know that he was.

That depends on how you describe it. Do you mean long term? Or cdo you mean temporary insanity. I'd say that there has to be some kind of psychotic break for someone to do something like that although it doesn't necessarily mean that there were long term issues.

However, like everyone else said, we don't know anything so there may be, there may not be.

Tasden

mhge wrote: »

If the community was raging at the murder of an innocent family among them the media would latch onto it too. They read the moods and apply an appropriate narrative from their toolkit. Here it's "brilliant dad mysteriously snapped" because he murdered them in the house so the locals are forgiving, but if he took them to the parish church and murdered them there instead it would be all about "depraved monsters among us".

The community is in mourning for the family, for the people they knew, people they thought were good people. Nobody here knows how each person in the community feels about the tragedy. And we all know the papers will spin things however they want. To assume that the community as a whole have "forgiven" him based on a few articles is very naive. The people are in shock and I think it is very unfair to assume they feel a certain way based on a select choice of quotes without knowing the full context. You also need to remember that people will say one thing to the media (protecting family members, sticking to the facts- how he came across to them, keeping it brief and not speculating) but then they may say differently among the people close to them.

seamus

demfad wrote: »

Womens Aid have highlighted red flags for domestic homicide today in the Irish Examiner and on her.ie

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/womens-aid-highlights-red-flags-for-domestic-homicide-after-cavan-deaths-419019.html

http://www.her.ie/news/womens-aid-director-says-cavan-family-killing/309777

“We must focus on preventing future cases by encouraging women being abused by their partners to speak out.” Margaret Martin, Women's Aid.

Important to share this information on social media and wherever you can. In the aftermath of these terrible murders this information will carry more resonance to someone who needs it.

One of the things I think it's important to point out in this is the use of the word "patriarchy" in the women's aid's statement.

I stiffened initially, because this has become a catch-all blame sexist word, implying some kind of conspiracy amongst men to keep women down.

But them I realised I had interpreted the use wrong, I'm not ashamed to say my bias kicked in before I even read it fully;

“Extreme jealousy, possessiveness, and patriarchal concepts and attitudes are also red flags for domestic homicide,"

i.e. men who espouse "woman's place is in the home"-type attitudes are displaying a red flag for potential domestic violence.

Which somewhat makes a shift - very often the "onus" is placed on the abused person or their peers to identify that something may be wrong. When in fact, the spouse's peers are equally likely to be well-placed to identify that everything may not be good at home.

I deliberately use the word "spouse" there as the behaviours of the abuser are likely similar regardless of the relationship and genders involved.

Zubeneschamali

Grayson wrote: »

I'd say that there has to be some kind of psychotic break for someone to do something like that

I don't think this is true at all. Lots of people who commit multiple murders are found to be sane and fully responsible by the courts.

demfad

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Do you think there is any possibility that the reports of him being a good guy could actually be honest accounts, hence why this crime is so very shocking to those people? Any chance of that at all?

It is possible but so is possession by the devil. You'd need to back it up with a link or more substantiation than just your say so.

My own position is that she and her children were brutally murdered by her husband. I would hold the same opinion of him as I would anyone who killed four people brutally. I wont say it here.

The police have said that there is no evidence at all of mental health illness and they are now focusing on the domestic violence.
The domestic violence angle as explaining the action is interesting.
Patriarcal attitudes of proprietary towards a partner and a sense of male entitlement are ever present attributes of other family annihalators. This is from testimonies from murderers who botched their suicides after killing their families and from survivors of such attacks. Here is a summary of these scholarly studies.
"Understanding Familicide"

This is not concrete deductive evidence that this was the case here, but it does help explain why the police would quickly following these lines of inquiry. Attitudes present in domestic violence would seem to be present in the vast majority of historical cases of family annihilation also.

Further, the fact that 970 women contacted the national domestic violence helpline last year with reports of threats to life of mother and children and family is significant. (many more went unreported obviously) This means that this level of aggression and violence is very present in Irish society. It is not carried out by indescribable monsters hulking in the shadows or 'good men' who go temporarily insane. Rather it seems to be everyday guys, some pillars of society, inflicting these horrors on their partners and children.

Ignorance of this contributes to the default 'good man making a mistake' narrative which many believe with no substantiaon.

mariaalice

seamus wrote: »

One of the things I think it's important to point out in this is the use of the "word" patriarchy in women's aid's statement.

I stiffened initially, because this has become a catch-all blame sexist word, implying some kind of conspiracy amongst men to keep women down.

But them I realised I had interpreted the use wrong, I'm not ashamed to say my bias kicked in before I even read it fully;



i.e. men who espouse "woman's place is in the home"-type attitudes are displaying a red flag for potential domestic violence.

Which somewhat makes a shift - very often the "onus" is placed on the abused person or their peers to identify that something may be wrong. When in fact, the spouse's peers are equally likely to be well-placed to identify that everything may not be good at home.

I deliberately use the word "spouse" there as the behaviours of the abuser are likely similar regardless of the relationship and genders involved.

That is an interesting point because extreme jealousy along with extreme social anxiety to the extent that the person feels, blames their partner for their own issues, feels their partner are making fools of themselves when they talk in public, can feel its 'normal to tell their partner how to behave as they are helping them ect is a metal illness, verses sexism and patriarchal behaviour which is a learned condition and not a metal illness.

seenitall

I am reminded of a case a few years ago when a young man from my area murdered his girlfriend. After the initial hearing, there were many people outside the court waiting for him and cheering him on when he came out. They were shouting stuff like: Chin up, Johnny* etc. Support. It was in the newspapers.

I used to know this guy prior to the murder and he was the most smiley, friendly guy you could meet. Very popular. I can just about understand how a friend would want to support him in his time of need. But I don't understand how all these people came to be there, shouting out these things, without having given a thought to the message that would send to his victim's family: you are a great guy and we are here for you. What's a girl's life between friends ?

Did I read it wrong? Is there something I just don't get about the Irish mentality? Am I being too cynical and callous? Or were they?

*name changed

demfad

seamus wrote: »

i.e. men who espouse "woman's place is in the home"-type attitudes are displaying a red flag for potential domestic violence.

She also included possessiveness and extreme jealousy.

Which somewhat makes a shift - very often the "onus" is placed on the abused person or their peers to identify that something may be wrong. When in fact, the spouse's peers are equally likely to be well-placed to identify that everything may not be good at home.

I believe that that is not always the case. To control the person the abuser will try and cut them off from their peers and family. Or he may try and control the relationship with the family to hide the abuse (by making him look good).

I deliberately use the word "spouse" there as the behaviours of the abuser are likely similar regardless of the relationship and genders involved.

Why so? Domestic violence against women is defined by a man trying to control a woman due to a patriarcal outlook. What is the mirror image of this?

mariaalice wrote: »

That is an interesting point because extreme jealousy along with extreme social anxiety to the extent that the person feels, blames their partner for their own issues, feels their partner are making fools of themselves when they talk in public, can feel its 'normal to tell their partner how to behave as they are helping them ect is a metal illness, verses sexism and patriarchal behaviour which is a learned condition and not a metal illness.

Feeling it's normal to tell a partner how to behave, controlling them to make them behave that way, blaming them etc etc is domestic violence.
To control how a partner behaves in public the abuser must either isolate her socially, or be present with her in public wherever possible to control the behaviour.

Lollipop95

If the Mirror's article is to be believed, Hawe gave himself a far less painful death than the one he gave his wife and children. If true, it speaks volumes to me

eviltwin

He claimed he killed his family because they would not be able to cope without him. Narcissistic or what.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/alan-hawe-left-note-saying-8752611

demfad

eviltwin wrote: »

He claimed he killed his family because they would not be able to cope without him. Narcissistic or what.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/alan-hawe-left-note-saying-8752611

<snip>

tayto lover

eviltwin wrote: »

He claimed he killed his family because they would not be able to cope without him. Narcissistic or what.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/alan-hawe-left-note-saying-8752611

<snip>

seamus

demfad wrote: »

Why so? Domestic violence against women is defined by a man trying to control a woman due to a patriarcal outlook. What is the mirror image of this?

Well it's not really. Domestic violence against women is highest in lesbian relationships, but that can't be due to a patriarchal outlook, right?

Most likely what runs through the vast majority of domestic violence instances is some form of control of one partner over another. To say it's due to "partriarchal" behaviour is to intimate that there is something unique about male-on-female violence in heterosexual relationships.

There is - men are far more likely to murder their partner. But my point was to avoid stating that domestic violence is strictly a man-on-woman issue due to a patriarchal outlook.

My name is URL

demfad wrote: »

I don't believe he is telling the truth.
His motive with that excuse is to control the narrative, make him look like the good guy

Yeah... I don't think anyone would look at that note and conclude that he was a 'good guy' because of it.

eviltwin

One comment from a local that struck me was along the lines of 'they were always together'. It was probably said as a way of showing how devoted the family were to each other but now I'm sure people are wondering if it was something else. I did my training in domestic violence and one of the things we were told is that as a society, we have to pay as much attention to the people who are always doing everything together as we do to the ones who have obvious issues.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

He claimed he killed his family because they would not be able to cope without him. Narcissistic or what.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/alan-hawe-left-note-saying-8752611

What a great guy, sparing them all that trauma. Doing them favours all the way to the grave.

He loved them so much, he didn't want them to suffer is the narrative he was hoping would follow, I'm sure.

Tasden

eviltwin wrote: »

One comment from a local that struck me was along the lines of 'they were always together'. It was probably said as a way of showing how devoted the family were to each other but now I'm sure people are wondering if it was something else. I did my training in domestic violence and one of the things we were told is that as a society, we have to pay as much attention to the people who are always doing everything together as we do to the ones who have obvious issues.

Yeah a lot of the time clear warning signs of abuse can come across as dedication and love, especially to those actually in the situation. It's very sad because a lot of the time it's only after the fact that people realise "that was a huge red flag but I viewed it as proof of their love and care".

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Another gentle reminder not to speculate on someone you personally didn't know.

Thanking you.

bigpink

That Mick the Hack tweet got me thinking
In a time of shock and sadness if they didnt get a offical photo release they went looking and trawling for one?Thats low

seamus

bigpink wrote: »

That Mick the Hack tweet got me thinking
In a time of shock and sadness if they didnt get a offical photo release they went looking and trawling for one?Thats low

You're talking about a grieving family, not a corporate body. The concept of an "official photo release" wouldn't be on the family's agenda and what do you think is lower - searching around social media for a photo or ringing a grieving grandmother and asking for a nice picture for the paper?

bigpink

seamus wrote: »

You're talking about a grieving family, not a corporate body. The concept of an "official photo release" wouldn't be on the family's agenda and what do you think is lower - searching around social media for a photo or ringing a grieving grandmother and asking for a nice picture for the paper?

Both as bad.

beks101

bigpink wrote: »

That Mick the Hack tweet got me thinking
In a time of shock and sadness if they didnt get a offical photo release they went looking and trawling for one?Thats low

This is what all newspapers, TV and radio networks do, from the BBC and Irish Times right down to your tabloids and local papers.

StewartGriffin

bigpink wrote: »

That Mick the Hack tweet got me thinking
In a time of shock and sadness if they didnt get a offical photo release they went looking and trawling for one?Thats low

But you see how they can't win? If they don't get a pic they are ignoring her and she is "the invisible woman," if they do get a pic they are being scummy and insensitive.

donegaLroad

and he was a deputy principal of a school, in charge of all those kids.

Those pupils will never be able to look a teacher the same way again.

IvyTheTerrible

donegaLroad wrote: »

and he was a deputy principal of a school, in charge of all those kids.

Those pupils will never be able to look a teacher the same way again.

That's as ridiculous as the comments earlier that no woman will look at her husband the same way again. And frankly insulting.

steddyeddy

Zevazovo wrote: »

One can only be insulted through the ego. Without the ego insult and offense does not exist.

Or by stupid generalisations.

demfad

seamus wrote: »

Most likely what runs through the vast majority of domestic violence instances is some form of control of one partner over another. To say it's due to "partriarchal" behaviour is to intimate that there is something unique about male-on-female violence in heterosexual relationships.

There is. It is a sense of male entitlement. A guy growing up in 1970's and 1980's Ireland may have learnt during his formative years that it is man's world (becuase Ireland and Irish society was), have developed certain views on women's position in society and in relationships. Later when he is in a relationship he may try and control the relationship to match what he believes. The domestic violence occurs because she is a woman and he expects her to behave as her thinks a woman should (subservient to him). This is why it is called "gender based violence". This explains the 9/1 gender breakdown for domestic violence in my opinion.

There is no mirror image of this. There are no women who grew up in the 80's moulded to believe that it's a woman's world which she will enforce years later. (If you wish to know more you can easily do some quick online research, there are many many scholarly studies explaining it)

StewartGriffin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

#hernamewasclodagh

#wrongwebsite

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

demfad wrote: »

There is. It is a sense of male entitlement. A guy growing up in 1970's and 1980's Ireland may have learnt during his formative years that it is man's world (becuase Ireland and Irish society was), have developed certain views on women's position in society and in relationships. Later when he is in a relationship he may try and control the relationship to match what he believes. The domestic violence occurs because she is a woman and he expects her to behave as her thinks a woman should (subservient to him). This is why it is called "gender based violence". This explains the 9/1 gender breakdown for domestic violence in my opinion.

There is no mirror image of this. There are no women who grew up in the 80's moulded to believe that it's a woman's world which she will enforce years later. (If you wish to know more you can easily do some quick online research, there are many many scholarly studies explaining it)

That's insane. You cannot judge two decades of men on one murderers actions.

Snickers Man

demfad wrote: »

We need to hear more about Clodagh and her children.

Er. No. We don't. At least not yet.

Absolutely the facts of this need to be determined and any light that can be shed on the events that might have contributed to this need to be investigated. But by professionals in crime and investigation. Not by the press.

When they have finished, then the press can report their findings. And then maybe a proper reasoned debate on can be had.

demfad wrote: »

What we are seeing is the perpetrator of the crime glorified by his family, friends etc. and blanket media coverage of this. Not only are they deliberately only focusing on his good points but they are using it to create the default conclusion to these types of cases.

What we are seeing is the perpetuation of outrage largely via social media which almost by definition comes from people less interested in the facts than in establishing their OWN sense of grievance as being the most valid, in contast to the hypocrisy and self interest of those with differing views to their own.

Does ANYONE think that an intrusive press inquiry into "what sort of woman" the deceased was will bring any sort of comfort to the extended families and friends? Or indeed shed any meaningful light on the situation to the general public?

Let's think through how this works.

Paper A, terrified into action by the prospect of being labelled "patriarchal" or "mouth piece of Official Ireland" despatches a journalist to find positive stories and comments about what a wonderful person she was. Not hard to do. Her colleagues, friends, family, neighbours etc will be only too pleased to share anecdotes and testimonials, all of which will be perfectly true.

Paper B, in competition with Paper A and just as terrified about being labelled "Politically Correct", despatches a journalist to find a "different angle" on the story. After all, why buy B if A has got exactly the same take on things? B's reporter finds someone who remembers a tetchy phone call with the husband, or an argument with a parent at school, or a stressed-out episode that caused short or curt behaviour or maybe an example of outright bitchiness or spite (and who do we know can say they NEVER descend to such behaviour?). Again, all based on facts. An angle emerges of a "marriage in trouble" with "tell tale signs" known to all but only spoken about in whispers.

The Blogosphere goes into Hyperdrive with keyboard warriors commenting on the reporting rather than the reports, complaining that "the media" is "creating a default template to describe this sort of case" or is "traducing a decent woman's reputation" or is "showing no respect to the tragic man's grieving family" etc etc

In no time at all, in time honoured fashion, the medium is the message. People on all sides complain about "biased reporting" and "unthinking media", while doing their very best to grind their own axes online.

This is what we need?

My arse it is.


PS None of the above should be construed as "speculation" about any actions that either of the parties may have taken. I know nothing of the people other than what I have read in the press, nor do I want to know any more. The examples I gave are all, I hope, so generic as to be trite; my only purpose was to prove that the most "ordinary" people can be painted in different colours if certain actions are highlighted to the exclusion of others.

ThinkProgress

demfad wrote: »

It is possible but so is possession by the devil. You'd need to back it up with a link or more substantiation than just your say so.

My own position is that she and her children were brutally murdered by her husband. I would hold the same opinion of him as I would anyone who killed four people brutally. I wont say it here.

The police have said that there is no evidence at all of mental health illness and they are now focusing on the domestic violence.

There are no facts to back anything up right now... Just people's opinions!

I have my own theory on what might have happened, but we obviously can't speculate on here.

I will say this much though, if there was an issue with domestic violence, I find it very odd the way the mother-in-law seemed incredibly close to the father. Even after his brutal actions, she is still speaking in glowing terms about him... and has apparently already forgiven him!?

I'm no expert on domestic abuse, but it must surely be quite rare for a mother-in-law to hold an abusive husband in such high esteem? I guess he could be a master manipulator... but if you would expect any one person to spot abuse in that home, it would surely be the mother of his wife. (she also frequently babysat the kids too btw)

We can't obviously rule anything out or in conclusively. But there are signs of something very sudden and unexpected.

The original point I was making, is that there is nothing hinting at why we should doubt the opinion of those that were questioned. Their views on him seem genuine to me... that's not to say they are correct in their assessment. Just that there is no obvious reason available right now for why they might lie about him...

There are examples of people who behave impeccably all the way up to the moment they lose their mind, and do things without warning and completely out of character...

There are people with psychotic or associated tendencies, that have never killed anyone... because they've simply never been put in a situation (yet) that brought it out of them. But a "perfect storm" type scenario of events could change that in a heart beat.

demfad

Snickers Man wrote: »

Er. No. We don't. At least not yet.
Absolutely the facts of this need to be determined and any light that can be shed on the events that might have contributed to this need to be investigated. But by professionals in crime and investigation. Not by the press.

When they have finished, then the press can report their findings. And then maybe a proper reasoned debate on can be had.

Are you suggesting there should be a blanket ban on all media coverage relating to this case?

tayto lover

ThinkProgress wrote: »

There are no facts to back anything up right now... Just people's opinions!

I have my own theory on what might have happened, but we obviously can't speculate on here.

I will say this much though, if there was an issue with domestic violence, I find it very odd the way the mother-in-law seemed incredibly close to the father. Even after his brutal actions, she is still speaking in glowing terms about him... and has apparently already forgiven him!?

I'm no expert on domestic abuse, but it must surely be quite rare for a mother-in-law to hold an abusive husband in such high esteem? I guess he could be a master manipulator... but if you would expect any one person to spot abuse in that home, it would surely be the mother of his wife. (she also frequently babysat the kids too btw)

We can't obviously rule anything out or in conclusively. But there are signs of something very sudden and unexpected.

The original point I was making, is that there is nothing hinting at why we should doubt the opinion of those that were questioned. Their views on him seem genuine to me... that's not to say they are correct in their assessment. Just that there is no obvious reason available right now for why they might lie about him...

There are examples of people who behave impeccably all the way up to the moment they lose their mind, and do things without warning and completely out of character...

There are people with psychotic or associated tendencies, that have never killed anyone... because they've simply never been put in a situation (yet) that brought it out of them. But a "perfect storm" type scenario of events could change that in a heart beat.

I could give loads of reasons for the bit in bold but then i would be speculating. I agree with the rest of your post though.

Amanda.ie

Reading some of the crap on here makes me wonder if people on here ever leave the house or interact with human beings. Take a step back people and get on with yer own lives and stop talking about this incident.

ceadaoin.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I will say this much though, if there was an issue with domestic violence, I find it very odd the way the mother-in-law seemed incredibly close to the father. Even after his brutal actions, she is still speaking in glowing terms about him... and has apparently already forgiven him!?

I'm no expert on domestic abuse, but it must surely be quite rare for a mother-in-law to hold an abusive husband in such high esteem? I guess he could be a master manipulator... but if you would expect any one person to spot abuse in that home, it would surely be the mother of his wife. (she also frequently babysat the kids too btw)

.

It's not that odd. There are several reasons why this could happen. Many women of a certain age in Ireland were raised to defer to men in every way. I've seen it myself in several families how the sons are treated differently and babied well into adulthood. Stuff like them getting the best cut of meat at dinner, sisters expected to cook and clean yet they never have to lift a finger etc. Its insidious. Also, there is a strong element of concern about appearances in the older generation IMO.

Domestic abusers are often very charming and manipulative so it is possible that people close had no idea. Shock and denial are powerful things too.

Of course we don't know if that is the case here but just giving some reasons why it's not unheard of.

ceadaoin.

Amanda.ie wrote: »

Reading some of the crap on here makes me wonder if people on here ever leave the house or interact with human beings. Take a step back people and get on with yer own lives and stop talking about this incident.

Yes let's just brush it all under the carpet. Sure it's the Irish way

Airyfairy12

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Anyone who thinks I'm too easily dismissing their conspiracy theory of deliberate lack of coverage of the victims, ask yourself this question honestly:

Think of the most famous serial killers and murderers in history... Now ask yourself how much you actually know about their victims compared to the perpetrator?

Usually there is always a fascination with the killer, more so than their victims!

You can lament this. You can say how unfair it is... But the fact is it's human nature. It's not deliberate... It's instinctive behaviour!

It doesn't mean people don't care about the victims.

It's simply that the perpetrator of these shocking crimes creates much more morbid fascination than their victims!

These crimes shock and terrify us. We need to find answers and understand why they happen...

And like I said, good people die everyday. Despite the nature of their death, the fact that more good innocent people are dead... It's still nowhere near as shocking to us as the actions of the killer!

It's the manner of their death and the sick mind that did it that grabs our attention, more so than the fact that more good people are gone from this world...

It's just an uncomfortable reality of life!

I think youre missing the point. He was clearly abusive and controlling behind closed doors the few reports regarding his wife only prove that point. No social life, never out without him, its also evident that Clodagh didnt have the support from her family, I read in the paper today her own mother said she forgives Alan for what he did.... He butchered her daughter and grandchildren and in less than a week shes making statements like that to the papers? while he's being glorified as a wonderful pillar of the community, a good family man.... a family he slaughtered with knives and a hatchet. It took 3 days to find a photo of her, no photos of her and her children? or her and Alan together? no family holidays or events? Her parents had no photos of her? what about her school? Every year pupils have class photos taken with their teacher... and they couldnt root out a single picture? you dont find that strange? yet it only took one day to find out what sports he played as child, who he played with, his character, his hobbies and a lovely photo of him standing with his 3 boys and a plea to the public not to judge him harshly, sure didnt he go to church, wasnt he great at the ol'handball....
The suicide murder alone is vile but its the reactions and statements of the people who were closest to the family and the bizarre media coverage that makes this whole thing so frustrating. Its like something out of the wickerman.

demfad

ThinkProgress wrote: »

There are no facts to back anything up right now... Just people's opinions!

There are facts: Brutal mass murder. Zero evidence of mental illness.

I will say this much though, if there was an issue with domestic violence, I find it very odd the way the mother-in-law seemed incredibly close to the father. Even after his brutal actions, she is still speaking in glowing terms about him... and has apparently already forgiven him!?

This is not uncommon. In the Lillis case his daughter at first believed he hadn't murdered her Mother and supported him. Later she disowned him completely.

There have even been cases of domestic homicide in this country where the parents of the murdered women appeared on TV with the murderer asking for any information etc...

People will accept the most comforting solution in such times. That position does not always last the test of time.

Not unusual for in-laws to believe that an abuser is the absolute salt of the earth. This allows him even more power over the person he is controlling.

As has been pointed out, 970 guys were reported as threatening to kill their partner AND children in 2015. Many multiples more hurt and threaten their partners alone. These guys are necessarily good at keeping up appearances.

steddyeddy

demfad wrote: »

There is. It is a sense of male entitlement. A guy growing up in 1970's and 1980's Ireland may have learnt during his formative years that it is man's world (becuase Ireland and Irish society was), have developed certain views on women's position in society and in relationships. Later when he is in a relationship he may try and control the relationship to match what he believes. The domestic violence occurs because she is a woman and he expects her to behave as her thinks a woman should (subservient to him). This is why it is called "gender based violence". This explains the 9/1 gender breakdown for domestic violence in my opinion.

There is no mirror image of this. There are no women who grew up in the 80's moulded to believe that it's a woman's world which she will enforce years later. (If you wish to know more you can easily do some quick online research, there are many many scholarly studies explaining it)

I got a lot of stick for saying this before but coming from house were domestic abuse (physical and verbal) was the norm, I would consider myself a bit of an expert on the issue.

It's not a male/female issue. It's an issue of powerful/less powerful. Gender correlates with power but so does age, social class, position in society ect ect.

tayto lover

demfad wrote: »

There are facts: Brutal mass murder. Zero evidence of mental illness.




This is not uncommon. In the Lillis case his daughter at first believed he hadn't murdered her Mother and supported him. Later she disowned him completely.

There have even been cases of domestic homicide in this country where the parents of the murdered women appeared on TV with the murderer asking for any information etc...

People will accept the most comforting solution in such times. That position does not always last the test of time.

Not unusual for in-laws to believe that an abuser is the absolute salt of the earth. This allows him even more power over the person he is controlling.

As has been pointed out, 970 guys were reported as threatening to kill their partner AND children in 2015. Many multiples more hurt and threaten their partners alone. These guys are necessarily good at keeping up appearances.

I will say this much though, if there was an issue with domestic violence, I find it very odd the way the mother-in-law seemed incredibly close to the father. Even after his brutal actions, she is still speaking in glowing terms about him... and has apparently already forgiven him!?

Also assists the mother in not having to make the crucial decision i.e. allowing Alan to be buried with the family. She could be avoiding controversy and difficult decisions.

I don't think many would be as forgiving without knowing all the facts of the case.

GritBiscuit

demfad wrote: »

People will accept the most comforting solution in such times. That position does not always last the test of time.

Absolutely...denial is generally accepted as a basic stage of grief. Under these horrific circumstances I'd imagine most would need time to disconnect and allow the true scale of the brutal reality sink in.

dd972

A similar case happened in Leeds a few years back, although not widely reported I believe financial pressure is a big contributor towards these kinds of meltdowns, it's all very well being the 'big man' with the wife, kids and 4x4 but what happens when you can't pay for it all?, linked into this is all kinds of nonsense about 'face' and 'failing as a man'.

steddyeddy

Look at cases where death by child abuse happens or other situations where people were close to the abuser/murderer. How many times will someone who was close to the perpetrator support them with or without knowledge of the crime? It's a self preservation issue.

Airyfairy12

dd972 wrote: »

A similar case happened in Leeds a few years back, although not widely reported I believe financial pressure is a big contributor towards these kinds of meltdowns, it's all very well being the 'big man' with the wife, kids and 4x4 but what happens when you can't pay for it all?, linked into this is all kinds of nonsense about 'face' and 'failing as a man'.

You dont know that, thats just speculation and anyway money problems dont justify slaughtering 3 little kids and their mother. Not only did he kill them, its how he did it, he took knives and hatchets to them.

tayto lover

steddyeddy wrote: »

Look at cases where death by child abuse happens or other situations where people were close to the abuser/murderer. How many times will someone who was close to the perpetrator support them with or without knowledge of the crime? It's a self preservation issue.

The granny of the kids was far too quick coming out with the forgiveness line especially when all the facts have yet to be established.