Cavan family annihilation by a "brilliant Dad"

I agree with Hyacinth.

Frankly, I find the vilifying of Clodagh's mother in this thread more repugnant than the "but he was such a nice man" statements from his neighbours. People say a lot of things without thought or reflection when a microphone is shoved in their face, particularly when they haven't had time to process a traumatic event.

The media reporting is another issue altogether and deserves every criticism it's been getting.

or to write about what a nice guy he was without placing this in the proper context of family massacres.

Not sure what you mean about 'placing this in the proper context of family massacres'.

But I disagree. The blame is not entirely with the media. They are reproducing quotes of what people have said. The majority of who have said what a great guy he was etc.

I would like to have seen a bit more of 'I'm appalled' as well as 'I'm shocked'.

It would only be weird if you're missing the point entirely OP. When it comes down to it, the media report this how they choose to and they have the option to refer to the victims how they like. They are not obliged to take any kind of cue from what people who knew the deceased are saying: that is a choice being made entirely by a primarily male controlled media. They, rather than the female secondary victims are the ones with the power and the ones who form opinions.

With this in mind, you not only can criticise the media response without feeling it's relevant that they're reporting it as the family wishes, but you're actually remiss if you don't. Because you're completely ignoring who has the power, and that's why your posts on this matter are remiss. It's hardly just about quotes either tulip: nobody is forcing those who are in charge of what is printed to refer to Clodagh's mother as the MIL, or to write about what a nice guy he was without placing this in the proper context of family massacres. The blame there is entirely with the media, and not remotely with anyone who has been quoted.

Mental illness is no excuse for evil. Millions of people who are mentally ill do not commit brutal murders. Only those who are evil do. Sorry if that's an archaic concept to some.

But what Alan Hawes did was evil; we can speculate on his mental health until the cows come home, but it will still be evil.

And I would give the news reporters a bit of slack. Yes there has been a male-centric narrative ('the mother-in-law' being a case in point) but primarily reporters work on the facts at hand, and the quotes at hand, which they have faithfully quoted in this case. Believe me they will have quoted everything available in this high-profile story.

I disagree Mrsbadger, women who kill their children are treated with just as many excuses. There was a case where a mother killed her two kids and then herself, all the media coverage was overly sympathetic, blaming everybody but her for her actions. Then her family was on television, again, blaming everybody but her and there was no challenge to that. She was the victim. We're a culture that will do anything to excuse and justify the perpetrator especially if they're considered 'respectable'. To hell with the actual victims, they don't count in that mentality. Whether they're male, female, adults, children.... It's the perpetrators that come first. Bizarre and wrong.

I read all about this last week in Ireland. All these interviews with local residents saying what a great man he was and things to the effect that you couldn't blame him for what he did, he must have had problems. I remember feeling angry. If it had been the mother I'm sure people would not have had a good word to say about her.

I also think that the reflexive response to suggest that mental illness may be the cause in cases of extreme male violence is yet another way we try to hide the patterns of male violence in our society

Abso-fucking-lutely.

We should certainly get rid of the bizarre idea that all murders were done by blameless mad people unless we can prove otherwise.

We shouldn't judge either way until we know the facts. Why is it necessary that you make a judgment so quickly after the event. I never presumed he had a mental illness I just said we don't know.

I can understand the point about the media coverage but I can't understand the need for random people to start casting judgments on people like Clodagh's mother.

Of course it's a crime no matter the mental state of the perpetrator.

I also think that the reflexive response to suggest that mental illness may be the cause in cases of extreme male violence is yet another way we try to hide the patterns of male violence in our society.

I think Dozer's approach would be far better.

It's only inevitable if people think themselves entitled to pronounce on the behaviour of victims OP. As this thread illustrates, plenty of us are able to understand why that's not appropriate. And you can absolutely criticise the media response: are you suggesting, for example, that Clodagh's mother asked to be referred to as the MIL? Because if you are, we're going to need some evidence for that.

It would appear we'll have to agree to disagree about the slagging off.

But my point is it is not a crime if the person committing the act was insane at the time of it happening.

I really don't agree with this. The murder of Clodagh and her sons was a horrific crime, regardless of the mental health of the perpetrator.

When people use the insanity defence and get found not guilty by reason of insanity they don't just then get to go free because "oh you were mad and couldn't help it but off you pop now you poor lamb"

Ehh... I never said that happens to people found not guilty by reason of insanity. Nor would I expect it. If people are a danger to others due to mental health problems then they should be kept somewhere like a secure hospital.

But my point is it is not a crime if the person committing the act was insane at the time of it happening.

I don't know if he was mentally healthy - but neither do you

I don't know if he was insane - but neither do you

We don't know.

Given patterns with family annihilators, the starting assumption should be that he was abusive and hid it, and questions asked relating to that (eg family finances, any evidence that clodagh was isolated, availability of local services for abuse victims)

No one has "slagged off" relatives of the victims off his heinous crime. We have expressed shock at their decision to bury the primary victims with their murderer.

I just find it rather dispiriting that when we have a male mass murderer and extensive media reportage centring him, erasing his murdered wife and portraying him as some kind of wonderful and/or tragically flawed human being, we still have several posts slagging off the behaviour of a female victim of his crimes. There are a great many people whose actions need to be on trial long before the woman who lost her daughter and three grandchildren in one of the most horrific ways imaginable.

That's not the point here one. The point is that people don't want to discuss the pattern of male family annihilation and they avoid this by treating each case in isolation and seeking to explain it in isolation. So speculating about mental illness as an explanation as to why this happened and why we shouldn't discuss it further. It is a neat tactic for keeping everyone in denial about these crimes and what we could be doing to prevent them.
If you look at the bigger picture then actually, most family annihilations are reported in exactly this way, going on about what a great dad the man was, minimising the murdered women. These are crimes almost exclusively committed by men, men who fit a particular profile.
In some ways it reminds me of how we discuss rapes. There's always reasons to minimise and excuse men doing truly horrific things to others.

When people use the insanity defence and get found not guilty by reason of insanity they don't just then get to go free because "oh you were mad and couldn't help it but off you pop now you poor lamb". They get assigned to psychiatric hospitals, sometimes for an indeterminate sentence.

Imagine Alan hadn't killed himself after violently murdering his family - do you honestly think that if he was then diagnosed with a mental illness that he shouldn't be punished for his crimes? Seriously?

I watched that film about cardinal law the other week (abuse cases by catholic priests in Boston, can't remember the name of the film.)
One of the saddest things in it was the families who knew their kids had been abused but were keeping quiet under pressure from the church and community. Virtually none of the parents 'took things further' due to this. I struggled watching that because if anyone hurt my child my first instinct would be to find and punish the perp. How strong must that pressure be that that instinct is overridden? Where could those families have turned to in the community for help?

These murders don't happen in isolation. They occur in a deeply patriarchal society, where there is huge denial about DV and big pressure to keep the veneer of normality up.

The media coverage of this case is depressing and disturbing.

It's not 'harshly judging' to be unable to understand the mindset that is violent killers = great dads. RIP.

I'm also not understanding the mindset that it's not a crime if he's mentally unwell...I mean, what is that?

I hate that people think that mental illness is an excuse for murdering your entire family.
Do you think they should get rid of the insanity defence?

*Clodagh was the victim of a hideous crime.

Her 3 sons were the victims of hideous crimes.

They were the primary victims of what happened.*

Yes and the secondary victims are the close family and friends of the people who died. Why would you so harshly judge how they behave and the decisions they make.