'Tragic Family Situation' - murder of children, apparently by their father.

There's something about today's item on the Daily Mail website that I feel very uneasy about. The maternal grandfather has written an open letter praising his son-in-law, there's a photograph of the grandfather in the park where he used to play with his grandchildren, and a comment from the family that the mother is "recovering well". All that doesn't really make sense to me, though I do understand that people react to bereavement in many different, and often not easily understood, ways, including denial and guilt.

But I've just got this awful feeling that this painting of the killer as a good guy is about him being seen as being "driven" to do what he did, and so far there appears to be only one candidate for that.

It was not his father but his father-in-law. Slight difference.

Thing is, we don't know what happened and why it happened. So insisting that it must have happened a certain way, for a certain reason, and that the he was evil and an abuser without knowing any of the background just because it fits one's preferred narrative is stupid trial-by-internet.

We don't know either way. I don't think it helps anyone, and especially not those left behind, to speculate about the deed or his character.

The only way it could fit the description is if he was in the grip of a psychotic mental illness.

and remember that 'sensitive' is a good catch-all word, often encompassing 'volatile'. i.e. someone who reacts easily and has little self control. What word would I use to describe someone I loved who didn't have much control over his temper?

My feelings of discomfort at passing judgement are still there - but I keep coming back to the fact that he stabbed them - and that act horrifies me, they watched each other die, this is not the act of a gentle man - this was brutal.

The person describing the murderer as gentle and sensitive was the murderer's father, which doesn't rule out him having had a history of abusing his wife and children.

I didn't see the press conference video. But I did feel uncomfortable at the wording when I saw it in my yahoo news feed. I think many things could be presented as a "tragic family situation", suicide, or accidental death for instance, but this is an extremely violent, callous and cruel act and I don't think the wording fits the crime. I'm glad others noticed it too.

I have very little support for media reporting of this, but I watched the policeman who was giving the press conference who used the phrase and I don't believe he had this same agenda. I have nothing but abhorrence for, say, the DM treatment of this with facebook statuses ripped from the mother's facebook account etc. I felt the policeman was just communicating that they didn't expect that there would be anyone else arrested in connection with their enquiries.

I see what you mean now about the difference - having both the murderer and the murdered within one's family.

I suppose if one believes the media are driven by genuine sensitivity for the feelings of people they write about, then it's possible to believe they chose the terms they used because surviving family members experienced something which made the case more worthy of the description "family tragedy" than in other cases. I don't happen to believe the media are driven by sensitivity or care for the feelings of anyone unless doing so will increase their revenues.

When a person does something horrible - a serious assault, a sexual assault on a child, killing someone, an act of terrorism, yes it is natural that the family and friends of the person will struggle to come to terms with what happened. They, too, may find it hard to square up their experience of their loved-one as gentle, sensitive or other positive qualities with the terrible act they committed.

But, in my experience, we don't see the press reporting accounts from families of all perpetrators in the same way. Particularly where the press have chosen to demonise the perpetrator, they frequently will vilify the family as well, at least indirectly. Often they will dig in to the person's history to find "reasons" for why they became evil, often centred on what they report as family "dysfunction." Remember some of the descriptions of the families of the two boys who killed James Bulger?

Basically, if they've decided a person is a "baddie," they'll scratch and scrape for evidence, rumours, statements from "friends," etc., whatever they can find to support their assertion.

However, if they have decided a person isn't really a "baddie," they'll similarly scratch and scrape for anything they can report that can counterbalance the horror of the crime they committed.

The media just aren't that keen for fathers, especially those who don't "fit" the template for "villian" (e.g. immigrant, substance misuser, long-term unemployed, criminal record, etc.) to be lumped into the "baddie" group, particularly the papers that witter on about upholding family values and traditions, etc.

"If a random stranger killed a man and his children, the grandparents would have lost all their grandchildren (presuming they had no others, not that that would make it any easier of course.) If a man kills his children and then himself, the grandparents have still lost all their grandchildren."

Yes, but it is not the same, is it.. the pain and anguish is contained within one wider family unit. I can't imagine what it would be like to be the parent of a killer, full stop, but being a parent of a killer who also robbed me of my grandchildren? I don't think it really matters whether it is one grandchild or all grandchildren.. the child you gave life to took away not only their life but those of the next generation, it is horrifying. Similarly for siblings... your brother is gone, but so are your nieces and nephews at his hand? How do you live with that? You have the shame and stigma of being related to a murderer but also the deep personal loss of those children. It is likely you will have been at weddings, christenings, funerals together... and without inviting this into your life, you have to live with the aftermath?

You see, I get that there can be a narrative around calling things "family situations" in terms of "it's none of our business/keep your beak out" but I think that terming this a tragic family situation reflects the fact that there is a family at the centre of this beyond the nuclear unit of the family who have been destroyed. It is definitely tragic, it is definitely a family situation - I just can't see how the man is in anyway exonerated by this statement.

As for the "formula!, the statement the family gave in this case focused on how "gentle" and "sensitive" the killer was, and it was clear they are looking for "reasons" that "drove him to it". I am not sure that this is anything more than a bewildered distraught family in shock, though. It seems a stretch to say that it is all about how women are portrayed in the media.

Thunks, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If a random stranger killed a man and his children, the grandparents would have lost all their grandchildren (presuming they had no others, not that that would make it any easier of course.) If a man kills his children and then himself, the grandparents have still lost all their grandchildren.

The point has been made many times on this thread, with references to external sources, that the context and pathology of men who kill their children and/or partners then themselves involves an extreme extension of their sense of male entitlement. They often have a documented history of abusive and/or controlling behaviour related to their partner and children, effectively regarding them as something they "own," and killing them is the ultimate expression of their sense that they are entitled to control them.

When strangers or acquaintances kill families, the context and motivation is very different. Even when mothers kill their children then themselves (and as pointed out, murder/suicides perpetrated by women are very rare,) the context is very different.

The other recurring issue is how the media "treats" such stories very differently from stories where the killer isn't the father, unless the father fits a popular stereotype of "undesirable" (e.g. criminal record for offences against people other than his family, immigrant, from a minority ethnic group, long term unemployed, that sort of thing.) The press works out who are the "goodies" and the "baddies," and when a person does something that doesn't fit the stereotype (i.e. father kills his kids,) media reports seem to go overboard with boosting up his positive side while at the same time pointing the finger of blame at the mother, even if she's also been murdered.

And yes edam, in its simplest form, that's what it is, obviously, with all the context stripped away.

It's a triple murder, and a murderer who committed suicide, is what it is.

Isn't the reason for highlighting the family nature of it more to do with the fact that, say, his parents are victims in a way they wouldn't be if he was a stranger e.g. they have lost their grandchildren? I really don't see how it has to do with social perception of male ownership of their partners and children at all.

If it's not a tragic family situation, I don't know what it is.

I was thinking about this thread in the middle of the night (bloody pregnancy bloody insomnia) and I think it's the word 'family' here.

3 children stabbed by random man who then kills himself. "This is obviously a tragic situation" says Police. Yes it is, we agree.

3 children stabbed by their father, who then kills himself. "This is a tragic family situation," says Police. Well it IS tragic and it IS a 'situation' but the word 'family' is so often used in this context to diminish the importance of the event and to discourage outside interest/involvement (it's a family affair, don't interfere, it's 'just' a domestic when a man beats his wife and scares his children) ... so using it here seems very distasteful, and diminishing the fact that a man stabbed three children to death.

I agree with other posters that if it weren't a man related to these children his character would be demonized in the press. As it is, he's almost being excused for these horrific, petrifying murders. And it's definitely to do with social perception of male ownership of their partners and children.

There is a thread in Activism remembering the victims of such killings:
Victims

Also "sensitive" which the BBC ran with as a standalone descriptor. The father in this case was "sensitive". Implying he was merely reacting to things being done to him.

Of course his family will need to have this said about him at this terrible, terrible time for them to try to hold on to the person they knew. And I understand that and feel terribly sorry for them. But we don't hear the BBC repeating anyone's claims that the 9/11 bombers were sensitive although I'm sure their families would say that they were very sensitive to the hurts bestowed on the Arab people by foreign policy through the generations and that's what caused them to do such awful things. Actually we are content to leave their horrific crimes as horrific crimes and not to try to sanitise them - and certainly not in the immediate aftermath.

"The family in this recent case (for whom I do have the utmost sympathy) have been quoted describing the man in the case as gentle." I wonder why all rapists, abusers and family annihilators are described as "gentle and kind" at some point. Wouldn't that ring a bell?
Someone who abuses, rapes and kills innocent people can't have been gentle or kind even before committing the crime, they never were. Nice people don't kill or abuse.

"Family annihilations are so very, very rare that describing them as a tragedy seems fair enough."
It depends where you live, maybe they're rare in UK. In other countries they're a lot more common, especially the poorest ones.

Crescent Moon, I think you are definitely on to something there with how the media and society in general regards perpetrators of violent crimes as evil, but make some exceptions when it comes to those in society who are the most privileged. If someone doesn't neatly fit the profile of "villain," they almost go overboard dredging up explanations, as though they/we are compelled to protect the collective reputations of the privileged.

As Northern and Elephants Remember point out, it can feel like something is "out of kilter" when a man who has murdered his children is described as "gentle" or when a woman who's been abused by her husband still regards him as a "good father."

I think this is part of that collective effort to protect the image of men, so when an individual man does something that's "bad," we try to find an explanation for it (e.g. abused as a child/lost his job/drinking problem/mid life crisis/bullied by his wife/wife unfaithful/etc.) that absolves him from full blame. Alternatively, we play up his "good points" in the hope that that will some how balance up the "bad points," (e.g. gentle man/loved his family/hard working/popular in the community/good father, etc.)

Catsrus, your story is very sobering, but sadly not uncommon. It illustrates the dangers of that callous, throwaway comment we often here of, "if it's that bad, surely she'd just leave him."

The concept of male "ownership" of "their" women and children is deeply embedded in our culture and traditions, even if most people in our "modern times" tend to believe that we've moved far beyond that. I think it tends to come to the fore though in cases like the one in question, like in rape, like in any incident where people suggest at least that either women are responsible for the actions and behaviour of men or that men are entitled to control what their female partner does or doesn't do.

Mrs John, I think we DO actually know alot about what goes on in the heads of men and women who kill their children (and in the case of men, who also kill their partners) and then attempt or succeed in killing themselves. A quick internet search will turn up scores of international studies of both phenomenon.

We could be monitoring women during and after pregnancy for signs of post natal depression and providing the support that's woefully lacking. From my reading of the literature, most women who kill their children have previously shown features or been diagnosed with a mental illness associated with pregnancy.

The attitudes and behaviours of men who kill their children (and often their partners) are very different, but there are still enough common features that could be recognised by family, friends, work colleagues, the community and helping agencies to intervene early on and hopefully prevent loss of life.

I've been watching cases like the one in question for nearly 20 years. As mentioned, there are many common features in the murders. There also seems to be a "blueprint" for how cases are reported by the media. And, every time you get folks insisting, "Who the hell knows what happens in peoples heads?" suggesting that it's something that "just happens" and nothing can be done or needs to be done about it.

Which means, so long as we as a society don't give enough of a damn about these cases, children and women will continue to be tortured and killed (and women in particular will still be expected to carry some of the blame for it.)

NL It is the same when women who are victims of DV describe their partners as good dads. I agree, something is off out of kilter. But quite often those closest don't want to see the truth because it either brings up too many awkward questions on how they view relationships like this or they are trying to make excuses.

Catsrus: Yes, that's the point exactly, we need to get away from the idea that there is any justification for this sort of violence and keep saying loudly that decent people DO NOT BEHAVE LIKE THIS. A man who does this is not an ordinary family man, he's an abusive shitbag and will have been abusing his family for some time.

From a feminist point of view, the rush to point the finger at the actions of the wife is just more rape myths ie the idea that there's something a woman could have done to prevent male violence, with an undercurrent of 'Women! Obey and indulge your male owners or die.' Often in cases of family murder, the woman has been trying to get rid of the man and protect the children from him for some time, but has been continually advised to obey, submit, consider his feelings, suck it up, he's their father, he's your husband even when he's previously put one or more of them in hospital or tried to burn the house down.

It might not be as simple as DV being the marker for this, I had a colleague with an arse of a husband - no-one quite understood why she stayed with him. On a night out after work, (just after that businessman shot his wife, daughter, pets &. Set fire to the house) she got very drunk and told a few of us that whenever something like this came on tv he would say how much he understood why the man had done it and how if he felt he was going to lose everything he might just 'snap' like that. He'd also told her, early on in the marriage, that if she ever left him he'd be so upset he'd kill the things she loved (her cats) and send the bits to her. She says she just took that as an exaggerated statement of how devastated he'd be because it was said in a jokey way by the time she told us she was convinced he would harm the children if she left him.

It put 'staying together for the sake of the children ' into a different perspective for me. In a sober conversation after this she said she no longer was in love with him, but things were not so bad that she felt she could risk leaving, she just muddled along, mostly happy (she said). Women go to extraordinary lengths to protect their children - I asked her didn't she think living with him might damage them emotionally, and she said she'd rather pay for therapy than for their funerals.

I have no way of knowing whether he would have done anything, but the fear of it certainly was very real for her. I would be very hesitant to join in the MN cry of "leave the bastard" for that reason. Whenever I hear of these cases i think of her. Ironically I heard he'd left for a younger thinner version and was playing happy second families - seeing very little of his children with her.

For me as a feminist there is something in the very fabric of patriarchy, still, that means some men perceive wives, and children in particular, as theirs so talking about how these cases are perceived is hugely important. The tabloid view of the 'poor man who snapped' because of her actions needs to be deconstructed to the more likely scenario of the 'controlling bastard' who believed he had the right to do this.