Baby P witch hunt

You would have to be fairly clever to fool an educational psychologist, who is usually who runs these tests, and who would be very familiar with them. They would know what would be a typical response to a question would be.

They take other info like school reports into account too. Reading age. How they approach a task etc.

My daughter has a score of 56 but there is much more than just the score. 70 or under is considered moderate learning disability. 70 to 90 is mild. So 60 is pretty definitive

Barker was described as 'simple' and went to a school for children with learning disabilities. It would have been obvious from talking to him, that he has a low IQ. He couldn't read or write.

He enjoyed torturing animals and was prosecuted by the RSPCA.He was arrested in the 90s on suspicion of torturing his grandmother. He was later found guilty of raping a two year old.

Yes but the number 60 doesn't come out of nowhere right? Probably it is a test he went through.. Couldn't one fake a low iq... Don't know.

If you have an IQ 60 or below then you wouldn't understand what you are being tested for as you would have a learning disability or in nasty terms be called retarded.

"However her bf Barker had an IQ of 60 and claims to also have been abused yet no one is making excuses for him."

I'm interested in how they conduct these iq tests. If Barker knows low iq is some kind of excuse, is he gonna try hard in that test?

i work with the kind of women whose children end up adopted. Haven’t met one yet who is inherently bad or who didn’t love their children. Have met many though who have experienced horrendous trauma leading to addiction and huge mental health issues.

I adopted 2 neglected/abused children and quite a few people I knew (all women) were mostly concerned about their birth mother. Other mothers in particular can't cope with the idea that a mother could do this to her children.

@Alina3 sounds like Lucy Letby and so many people defending her. Probably because she's a pretty nurse.

There is. Every case is different and the evidence heard by the courts varies from case to case. Whatever you read from some poster isn’t what the court hears. It’s the court that matters. Not social media.

1000%.

Society isn't ready to acknowledge that mothers can be monsters.

When a father kills his child, he is an evil manipulative piece of sh*t.

When a mother does it she must have been suffering greatly with her mental health and could no longer cope and must have snapped and it could have been prevented with more support.

This has never been clearer to me as it was when the media was covering the tragic Lindsay Clancy family annihilation.

This woman wrote in her journal how much she disliked her middle son and how he was a more difficult person than she'd ever known.

She murdered her three children by strangling them with exercise bands and leaving them on the floor in her basement. Sent her husband out on an errand she knew would buy her some time to complete the murders.

Because she was white, attractive, and a nurse, women FELL OVER THEMSELVES to exonerate her, even before further info was known. Women rushed to say 'I am Lindsay, we are all Lindsay' and even change their facebook profile photos to a frame saying this.

Lindsay was framed as a victim, not as a cold blooded killer who ensured her children's father was far enough away he couldn't stop her. She systematically murdered all three of them before jumping through a window at a height that was never going to kill her.

It was utterly, completely nauseating. Three beautiful tiny children dead at the hands of their mum and hordes of women running to align themselves with her and say it could happen to any one of us.

Some research definitely needs to be done on this phenomenon.

Very much so, there are always excuses made for the women. Four children died recently because their mum went shopping and people jumped to her defence.

Connelly was witnessed slapping one of her children across the face and told the GP that Peter must have a condition that meant he bruised easily - paving the way for further abuse.

The idea of a mother harming her child is so abhorrent that we make excuses for their behaviour. However her bf Barker had an IQ of 60 and claims to also have been abused yet no one is making excuses for him.

Yes, society is heavily in denial about the fact that there are mothers who kill their children. This was obvious in social media's response to the deaths of the Philpott children, Asiah Kudi, and Logan Mwangi - people were bending over backwards to make excuses for their mothers.

According to what I've read he was a decent dad. Even though Connelly was 16 when they got married. He worked hard and kept the place clean. He moved out after Connelly had an affair with Barker and Barker moved in.

They then moved to Tottenham and although I believe Peter's dad continued to visit and see Peter he didn't contact anyone about him. He saw Peter a few days before his death and Peter's hands were bandaged and he couldn't sleep but Connelly told him it was nothing to worry about.

As far as I know he wasn't threatened with court and didn't try to take Peter away. He did say that he was planning on suing the council for failing to protect Peter though I don't think he did.

Peter was removed for six weeks because of injuries and put into the care of a family friend. I don't know why he wasn't put into the care of his dad. Peter was returned to Connelly and the police told her just before he died that they'd dropped the charges against her.

This has been answered on the first couple of pages of this thread by a poster from Liverpool who went through various high profile cases.

In short any family member who tried to save the child, including the dad, is threatened with court and in one case was taken to court.

I know from what has happened to me, social workers and healthcare workers pay lip service to equal parental responsibility.

Being treated like TC was as a child would probably have caused her all sorts of cognitive problems. It is often called "developmental trauma" - the child's brain is severely impacted by the environment she/he is growing up in.

There are also conditions like foetal alcohol syndrome, which massively impact decision making.

I have mentioned before that I adopted two children from an abusive/neglectful background. I know a lot of adopters, go on lots of training courses etc. And these two issues - plus attachment disorder - are so debilitating for children from these environments.

This has nothing to do with learning disabilities or autism or adhd. And they are incredibly fixed - you can do your best but often it is impossible to repair the damage.

And i would guess that this would have impacted TC hugely. The book "the boy who was raised as a dog" by Bruce Perry is good for understanding this kind of thing.

Mansplain? Wtf?

No , apologies. The last paragraph was a general comment.

@the7Vabo understanding why someone does something, and (possibly) where things have gone wrong -so we can prevent/change things in the future- , isn't the same as not holding them accountable.

She should have been on trial, she should have been convicted, she should have gone to jail. No one is disputing that.

Giving details of her childhood and her traumas and abuse and neglect , does not take away from that. It does however open a conversation. A conversation that can only help future children and promote /cause change.

Deeming her pure evil and she should be dead doesn't add anything. It isn't constructive and useful in any way.

I remember watching this a while back, I'm not sure where she got this information but I recall that Tracy connelly not only ignored what was happening to baby P at the hands of her boyfriend and his brother but also the horrific abuse that was happening to her toddler daughter. Apologies if it's the wrong video but I think she said the little girl was the youngest in UK history to give evidence (through I'm guessing a social worker) In court.
Regarding Tracy's upbringing and IQ being a factor.. in my opinion it probably is, just like Rose West. Would they have become such monsters if authorities had scooped them away as children and gave them nurturing upbringing.. Maybe.. But maybe not. We'll never know. I do feel that like Rose West every person who hurt that innocent little boy should never see the outside of a prison wall until they die.

There are striking similarities (enough to be pointed out in internal reports) between Tracey Connely's childhood and that of Peter. From neglect and filth to actual abuse. She lived .

It’s 100% clear her mother and father (a sex offender) and other relatives failed Tracey as a child. She had a relative involved in a paedophile ring and her childhood was totally blighted by awful people. She, like others in these extreme circumstances, do not thrive. They have needs by definition. We know dc living without love or nurture can do exactly the same to their own dc. They are culpable but we need to understand that such circumstances can very easily produce criminal behaviours. It’s inevitable SS are very worried about such families. They aren’t decreasing in number.

There is always an outcry when dc are removed from families though. Another issue is where such dc should go. Special schools are full to bursting and secure units ditto. It’s well known we have insufficient places for those below 17 to reside and receive the help they need.