Body of Alan Hawe to be exhumed

political analyst

ceadaoin. wrote: »

According to the Irish times article, his family gave permission to exhume him because of a note he left stating that he wished to be cremated.

Surely, gardaí would have informed Alan Hawe's brothers and their parents of this note before the wake took place, wouldn't they?!

brooke 2

helimachoptor wrote: »

Should never have been buried with them in the first place. What a cowardly disgusting man, may he rot in hell or wherever he ends up

According to one report, he had left a note in which he had expressed a wish to be cremated and to have his ashes scattered in the sea. If this is so, whose idea was it to bury him with the wife and children he had just murdered?

snowflaker

Catholic teaching frowns on cremation

It seems to be a very orchestrated "perfect family picture" being portrayed right up until the end

political analyst

snowflaker wrote: »

Catholic teaching frowns on cremation

It seems to be a very orchestrated "perfect family picture" being portrayed right up until the end

If Alan Hawe's brothers and their parents had insisted right from the start that his remains be cremated then, surely, the priest would have respected that.

I don't think it's frowned on by the CC, I've been to a cremation presided over by a Priest. Didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary.

Tropheus

CC is fine with Cremation. It's scattering ashes on non-consecrated ground that they have the issue with.

livedadream

Candie wrote: »

I don't think it's frowned on by the CC, I've been to a cremation presided over by a Priest. Didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary.

Their fine with the burning you just can't bury the ashes then in a catholic graveyard (consecrated land) it's weird the things you learn chatting to priests

So they'd be okay with you throwing them around a graveyard?

I'll never understand this stuff.

snowflaker

“The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burial be retained; but it does not forbid cremation, unless this is chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

– The Code of Canon Law, 1985, #1176.3


Sorry, its advises against it. 1963, it dropped its outright ban, was that Vatican II? I can't imagine Pious Church goers favouring cremation.

PandaPoo

I'd flush his ashes down the toilet. It will get to the sea eventually

brooke 2

osarusan wrote: »

Yes, I've seen those comments. They also said something terrible was about to be revealed and that would have destroyed his reputation. I don't think the wider public ever found out what that was though - there was all sorts of speculation from gambling to paedophilia.

If that is enough for you to be confident in the term wife-beater, then fair enough. It's not definitive enough for me.

I was under the impression that the 'revelation' had something to do with his job. Wasn't he due to attend a specially convened meeting at the school the morning he killed his family?

brooke 2

political analyst wrote: »

Surely, gardaí would have informed Alan Hawe's brothers and their parents of this note before the wake took place, wouldn't they?!

You would think so! Did someone choose to ignore it?

brooke 2

snowflaker wrote: »

Catholic teaching frowns on cremation

It seems to be a very orchestrated "perfect family picture" being portrayed right up until the end

I must admit, that thought did occur to me also.

livedadream

brooke 2 wrote: »

You would think so! Did someone choose to ignore it?

Not necessarily apparently there were a few notes letters and instructions left.
The family doesn't automatically get access to it all immediately.

brooke 2

political analyst wrote: »

If Alan Hawe's brothers and their parents had insisted right from the start that his remains be cremated then, surely, the priest would have respected that.

Cremations are very much the exception rather than the rule in rural areas.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

mhge wrote: »

This article sheds more light on the circumstances of the burial and exhumation:



http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/clodagh-hawes-mum-sister-fought-10391346

Juicy quotes from an unspecified 'friend' are a bit of a red-top specialty in fairness, I'd take them with a pinch of salt. The statement the Hawes released, with their names on it, flatly contradicts it, and says they gave their permission when asked and the rest of the delay was red-tape related. Which seems perfectly credible. Got the final go ahead from the council at the end of March, exhumation today.

That article also says Liam Hawe was 13 and 15 ffs. Although his age is given variously in a lot of articles, anything between 13 and 15, it's always struck me, because it seems like the kind of thing a kid that age would get annoyed and embarrassed about

brooke 2

livedadream wrote: »

Their fine with the burning you just can't bury the ashes then in a catholic graveyard (consecrated land) it's weird the things you learn chatting to priests

Never heard that. Guess it might depend on the priest to whom you might talk to about it.

Hannibal_Smith

livedadream wrote: »

Their fine with the burning you just can't bury the ashes then in a catholic graveyard (consecrated land) it's weird the things you learn chatting to priests

What? Two of my cremated grandparents are in consecrated ground. As are about 3 other relatives. There are shelves in the graves where the ashes go.

Hannibal_Smith

Candie wrote: »

So they'd be okay with you throwing them around a graveyard?

I'll never understand this stuff.

That's because it's not true

brooke 2

Tropheus wrote: »

CC is fine with Cremation. It's scattering ashes on non-consecrated ground that they have the issue with.

I heard once on Pat Kenny that the CC had an issue with the ashes being scattered in various places. Something to do with the one 'body' being resurrected on the Last Day. Pat's comment on this 'belief' was that if God is omnipotent wouldn't he be able to gather all the scattered ashes together to make them back into the body again.

freshpopcorn

To the best of my knowledge both Clodagh and Alan were religious from articles I read at the time so the local priest probably knew both of them.
In one of the articles I read that somebody posted Clodagh's family said
“She had no idea she was in danger. If she had known she would have acted to prevent it and safeguard the boys and herself.''
“We need to learn to recognise where dangers lie in the home, see how the desire for control can get out of control and act before it is too late.”
I think the family probably thought he was controlling but they probably wrote it off at the time. Lets face it we all know controlling husbands and wives but we say to ourselves they're just the boss or they're make you miserable to live with but we wouldn't imagine them doing that.

When I think about them being buried together I know it wouldn't be something I'd choose but I do know certain people and they'd forgive their family and want to be buried with them.
Does anybody know whats happening to him now? Is he being cremated or being buried somewhere else? Hopefully he'll be buried somewhere else now and he won't be cremated because if he was his ashes could be scattered anywhere.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

brooke 2 wrote: »

Never heard that. Guess it might depend on the priest to whom you might talk to about it.

Historically Catholicism didn't care for cremation; much for the same reasons that Jehovahs don't like blood transfusions, Rastas sometimes make a decision to not cut their hair, quite good few religions forbid tattoos - you're supposed to stay as close as possible to the physical state you were in coming into the world, or not interfere with that state if God makes changes to it (like your hair growing or if you're bleeding to fcuking death in the case of the JWs), so that when Judgement comes and the righteous are resurrected God recognises you, and you're able to literally rise up from the grave.

Catholic hierarchy in fairness to them recognised that the no cremation rule wasn't particularly compatible with the modern world and relaxed it, and then in standard Catholic church style put weird addenda and twists on it so that what started off as a sensible change resembles the usual Third Policeman by way of Fr Ted by way of drug addled logic.

I think there was a kerfuffle earlier this year or last year when they released a memo that they'd discussed it and decided that scattering ashes on unconsecrated ground meant it didn't count and those souls couldn't get into the Kingdom of Heaven. It was quite upsetting to people apparently who'd scattered ashes in good faith.

Anyways, there's been a no cremation policy for 19 times as long as there's been a sometimes cremation maybe we're not totally made up our minds yet policy, so most Catholics would still be not fond of it.

brooke 2

livedadream wrote: »

Their fine with the burning you just can't bury the ashes then in a catholic graveyard (consecrated land) it's weird the things you learn chatting to priests

That seems to be the opposite of what Tropheus was told.

twill

Paisleigh Weak Peace wrote: »

Juicy quotes from an unspecified 'friend' are a bit of a red-top specialty in fairness, I'd take them with a pinch of salt. The statement the Hawes released, with their names on it, flatly contradicts it, and says they gave their permission when asked and the rest of the delay was red-tape related. Which seems perfectly credible. Got the final go ahead from the council at the end of March, exhumation today.

The Coll family has spoken to that newspaper before, so I'd assume the Mirror isn't making this up out of whole cloth.

political analyst

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Does anybody know whats happening to him now? Is he being cremated or being buried somewhere else? Hopefully he'll be buried somewhere else now and he won't be cremated because if he was his ashes could be scattered anywhere.

I doubt that anyone who is not a relative of Alan Hawe would be any the wiser about where his ashes will be scattered - and it has been made clear that his remains will be cremated.

Junkyard Tom

Hopefully the Church will learn lessons from this. I hope the media also reports the names of the victims first and only uses 'The Killer' for the perpetrator of such incidents.

political analyst

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/alan-hawes-family-say-they-did-not-delay-exhumation-of-his-body-35701491.html

Now, in a statement released to Independent.ie, his family say that they have been the subject of threats from anonymous persons since the tragedy.

The Co Kilkenny family also insist that they played no part in the decision about where he was to be buried and claim they exhumed his body when requested to do so.

The statement, issued by solicitor Michael Lannigan, on behalf of the Hawe family confirmed: "This morning the exhumation of Alan Hawe took place on foot of a licence granted by Cavan County Council. The Hawe family had been requested by the Coll family to make that application. The Hawes agreed to same.

"The Hawe family had not previously been involved in the decision as to where Alan was buried."

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Hopefully the Church will learn lessons from this. I hope the media also reports the names of the victims first and only uses 'The Killer' for the perpetrator of such incidents.

I have to say it really got to me how the victims were secondary players to the great chap altogether who killed them in the early reporting of the case. Worst of all was constantly referring to Clodagh not by her name, just as his wife.

The press tried to explain away their lack of mention of her by saying they couldn't get a photo of her, but you don't need a picture to call a victim by her name, not her status in relation to her murderer. It was a slight and self serving explanation.

I understand the priest was a good friend of the killer, it's possible he was in complete shock too, and if nothing else perhaps the Church should think twice about personal friends taking the lead in funeral arrangements where someone has killed someone else.

smelly sock

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/stop-making-excuses-for-alan-hawe-he-killed-three-sons-and-wife-with-hatchet-and-knives-35024458.html

A good article attached about the bastard.

May he rot in hell.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Yes you can bury the ashes in a catholic graveyard. 100% sure on that as a close family member was cremated then buried.

freshpopcorn

I'd go to mass the odd time and I remember their being a shock about people scattering ashes a while ago and priests saying you mightn't get into heaven if you scattered them anywhere. This was always what I thought was the case.
My take on it was always you could be cremated no problem but your ashes had to buried in a graveyard.
My question would mainly be could the family scatter the ashes in the graveyard?

Woodhenge

Candie wrote: »

I have to say it really got to me how the victims were secondary players to the great chap altogether who killed them in the early reporting of the case. Worst of all was constantly referring to Clodagh not by her name, just as his wife.

The press tried to explain away their lack of mention of her by saying they couldn't get a photo of her, but you don't need a picture to call a victim by her name, not her status in relation to her murderer. It was a slight and self serving explanation.

I understand the priest was a good friend of the killer, it's possible he was in complete shock too, and if nothing else perhaps the Church should think twice about personal friends taking the lead in funeral arrangements where someone has killed someone else.

I don't know, that seems to be the normal run of things unless the victim is already well known. If the perpetrator is known they are named first usually.

I have to say, I found the immediate reaction by some feminists to this crime very unseemly and distatefully self serving. Even now some feel this crime falls under their exclusive jurisdiction, therefore the possibility of mental illness has to be firmly denied. That wouldn't fit the narrative that 'men' just feel 'entitled' to kill their wives and children and this mythically perverse patriarchal society covertly agrees with them. What a time to cash in on propaganda and ideology.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Woodhenge wrote: »

I don't know, that seems to be the normal run of things unless the victim is already well known. If the perpetrator is known they are named first usually.

I have to say, I found the immediate reaction by some feminists to this crime very unseemly and distatefully self serving. Even now some feel this crime falls under their exclusive jurisdiction, therefore the possibility of mental illness has to be firmly denied. That wouldn't fit the narrative that 'men' just feel 'entitled' to kill their wives and children and this mythically perverse patriarchal society covertly agrees with them. What a time to cash in on propaganda and ideology.

Oh christ on a bike can we please not

Woodhenge

Paisleigh Weak Peace wrote: »

Oh christ on a bike can we please not

I know, I said the same.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Woodhenge wrote: »

I know, I said the same.

Look up murder suicides in Ireland, look up domestic murders, who carries them out and on who. Do you think it's a whoooole bunch of women murdering men?

Talking about that in relation to this case is not shoe-horning anything in, or taking advantage of anything to further ideology any more than talking about the dangers of drink driving in the aftermath of a drink driving multiple death is.

Using the opportunity to get some petty little jab in at feminism is self-serving and distasteful though.

I'm not getting into it any further, but seriously have a word with yourself lad.

Woodhenge

Woodhenge wrote: »

I don't know, that seems to be the normal run of things unless the victim is already well known. If the perpetrator is known they are named first usually.

I have to say, I found the immediate reaction by some feminists to this crime very unseemly and distatefully self serving. Even now some feel this crime falls under their exclusive jurisdiction, therefore the possibility of mental illness has to be firmly denied. That wouldn't fit the narrative that 'men' just feel 'entitled' to kill their wives and children and this mythically perverse patriarchal society covertly agrees with them. What a time to cash in on propaganda and ideology.

Sweet sufferin' jesus there is nothing that can't be twisted to fit what some people want to believe.

There is nothing particularly feminist in being repulsed by the lionization of a killer, or the aversion to referring to the victims by name. Regardless of gender, etc., etc.

It's about decency, not agenda.

Messengers

Candie wrote: »

Sweet sufferin' jesus there is nothing that can't be twisted to fit what some people want to believe.

There is nothing particularly feminist in being repulsed by the lionization of a killer, or the aversion to referring to the victims by name. Regardless of gender, etc., etc.

It's about decency, not agenda.

In the interest of balance, there were indeed countless pointless articles about him receiving sympathy just because he was a man.

Many women's rights groups also spoke out against the perceived misogyny surrounding the case so it's disingenuous to say there was never a gender issue being discussed from feminist organisations and journalists.

I agree it should be about decency and not gender, or agenda, but given the post you thanked above directly contradicts that sentiment I'm not sure you even agree with that yourself.

IvyTheTerrible

Messengers wrote: »

In the interest of balance, there were indeed countless pointless articles about him receiving sympathy just because he was a man.

Many women's rights groups also spoke out against the perceived misogyny surrounding the case so it's disingenuous to say there was never a gender issue being discussed from feminist organisations and journalists.

I agree it should be about decency and not gender, or agenda, but given the post you thanked above directly contradicts that sentiment I'm not sure you even agree with that yourself.

The articles weren't about him "receiving sympathy just because he was a man". The articles were about the fact that when the news came out, most media outlets jumped to the totally incorrect conclusion that it was the wife that did it, and published articles lauding Hawe as an upstanding pillar of the community.

Stop turning things into a fupping gender issue when it isn't.

El_Duderino 09

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why is it clear that it's a psychotic break? Couldn't it be just as likely that he was a calculating bastard who couldn't stand the thought of losing control of his family and losing his carefully crafted public image?

Being a victim of domestic abuse is a risk factor for being murdered by your abuser. Not because they have a physchotic break but because they are violent, controlling and abusive. It would be rare that a previously non abusive person suddenly snaps and murders their entire family. I don't know why some people seem so keen to paint this horrible murder as one of those instances.

Why would it not be both?

There is some evidence that he was abusive and I'm not discounting that. There is no evidence that he dabbled in murder before this so it's fairly clear that to go from zero murderous experience to entire familial murder suicide, without any kind of psychotic break is highly unlikely.

Domestic violence doesn't preclude any other risk factors such as mental health.

The tendency is to dismiss the mental health in order to remove any obstacle to maximum outrage.

This is a tragedy and there were no winners. Just victims of one kind or another. He was a victim of his own mental health and they were victims of him. I don't feel the need to slag off any of them, even him

Bishopsback

Just heard an interview with Clodagh Hawe's sister on the local radio.
Speaking on the Joe Finnegan radio show, shannonside/northern sound radio.
She says there is no reason for her to believe there was any history or hint of domestic violence in the Hawe relationship.
She and her mother were very close to Clodagh and she feels they would have known of it or Clodagh would have told them of it, but she believes she would never have stayed in the relationship if there was.

Messengers

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

The articles were about the fact that when the news came out, most media outlets jumped to the totally incorrect conclusion that it was the wife that did it

Stop turning things into a fupping gender issue when it isn't.

Really? I'm not sure if even a single newspaper accused the wife of this atrocity?

I'm not turning anything into a gender issue if you read my comment, I even said it shouldn't be about gender. I'm simply refuting the claim that there were never articles MAKING it a gender issue. The Guradian posted a few, and many other papers.

I'm perplexed that me saying it shouldn't be about gender is making it a gender issue.

eviltwin

Bishopsback wrote: »

Just heard an interview with Clodagh Hawe's sister on the local radio.
Speaking on the Joe Finnegan radio show, shannonside/northern sound radio.
She says there is no reason for her to believe there was any history or hint of domestic violence in the Hawe relationship.
She and her mother were very close to Clodagh and she feels they would have known of it or Clodagh would have told them of it, but she believes she would never have stayed in the relationship if there was.

Domestic abuse is a complex thing. Many a person in an abused relationship has never been physically harmed. Emotional abuse and control is a lot harder to spot, a lot harder to admit to.

Bishopsback

eviltwin wrote: »

Domestic abuse is a complex thing. Many a person in an abused relationship has never been physically harmed. Emotional abuse and control is a lot harder to spot, a lot harder to admit to.

I just reported what I heard, I have no clue of the why's of it, but if you feel the need to point to something even those closest to them can't, then carry on.

eviltwin

Bishopsback wrote: »

I just reported what I heard, I have no clue of the why's of it, but if you feel the need to point to something even those closest to them can't, then carry on.

Just because the family didn't see anything doesn't mean nothing was going on. And I think putting a hatchet in your wife's head is very much domestic violence.

Messengers

eviltwin wrote: »

Just because the family didn't see anything doesn't mean nothing was going on. And I think putting a hatchet in your wife's head is very much domestic violence.

I think it's pointless to be speculating given what the family have said.

Though you're right, your language is a bit unnecessary, to be fair.

Bishopsback

eviltwin wrote: »

Just because the family didn't see anything doesn't mean nothing was going on. And I think putting a hatchet in your wife's head is very much domestic violence.

Agreed.
That wasn't my point!

Kidchameleon

Is the only source of the domestic violence claim the victims mother?

political analyst

The snide look on Hawe's face in the photo of him with his sons reminds me of Ernst Kaltenbrunner.

Woodhenge

Paisleigh Weak Peace wrote: »

Look up murder suicides in Ireland, look up domestic murders, who carries them out and on who. Do you think it's a whoooole bunch of women murdering men?

Talking about that in relation to this case is not shoe-horning anything in, or taking advantage of anything to further ideology any more than talking about the dangers of drink driving in the aftermath of a drink driving multiple death is.

Using the opportunity to get some petty little jab in at feminism is self-serving and distasteful though.

I'm not getting into it any further, but seriously have a word with yourself lad.

It's interesting though that people can legitimately get a dig in at the media, the church and even the perpetrators relatives in this thread and no one says getting a jab in on these is "self serving and distasteful". When feminist appropriation of this awful crime is raised however, the response is that criticism of this has no place.

Is it not self serving and distasteful to use the victims as human shields against criticism?

There is no post-mortem test for a psychotic breakdown yet people on this thread that have never met the perpetrator and no doubt have no expertise in this area can categorically say he was of sound mind.

Now we have confirmation from the victim's family that there were no signs or hints of domestic violence yet people still can't fit the facts into the story they want to tell about this event and what it means for society.

I know it's a very unpopular point of view, but this view that gender theorists have an infallible ability to analyse these events is dangerous and ultimately will keep us from learning any practical lessons.

Neyite

political analyst wrote: »

Surely, gardaí would have informed Alan Hawe's brothers and their parents of this note before the wake took place, wouldn't they?!

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the notes were sent off to be analysed forensically, so I took that to mean that they were still sealed and went off to the labs before the family or gardai got to read the contents, and I assumed that when the funerals were being planned the contents were still not known and the family and media were treating this as some sort of psychotic break.

Bishopsback wrote: »

Just heard an interview with Clodagh Hawe's sister on the local radio.
Speaking on the Joe Finnegan radio show, shannonside/northern sound radio.
She says there is no reason for her to believe there was any history or hint of domestic violence in the Hawe relationship.
She and her mother were very close to Clodagh and she feels they would have known of it or Clodagh would have told them of it, but she believes she would never have stayed in the relationship if there was.

My mother and family had no idea that my ex was abusive. They thought he was brilliant. Until he attacked me in her house. And even then, it was one of the first times he physically attacked me. Up till that point, it was all verbal and emotional abuse. And up until that point, I didn't even see it as domestic violence myself, because I didn't have the black eye or broken ribs. Abuse takes many forms, and some of the worst ones never leave a mark.