That Philpotts' QC Defence to call him a "very good father" is shocking

Flisspaps · 03/04/2013 18:02

I thought that.

Good fathers do not set light to buildings with their children inside, regardless of any supposed intention to 'rescue' them or not.

SongoftheSiren · 03/04/2013 18:04

No. Because he is defending him.

Not saying this man is a very good father. He is the scum of the earth.

But I don't find his defence defending him shocking.

Lovelygoldboots · 03/04/2013 18:12

He seems deficient in empathy. He pretends to care when he clearly doesn't. I do think he is very dangerous.

LineRunner · 03/04/2013 18:15

QC's invariably end up scraping the bottom of the barrel during many trials. It's not such a wonderful occupation.

MissyMooandherBeaverofSteel · 03/04/2013 18:15

why shocking? His defence are hardly going to call him a shit father.

zwischenzug · 03/04/2013 18:18

Even for a defence QC "good father" is a step too far. "caring father" might just be acceptable in a certain context, but "good" is a blatant untruth.

janey68 · 03/04/2013 18:22

I thought the defence QC was quoting witnesses when he said that Philpott was a 'good' parent. Mrs Philpott's defence also quoted the same thing about her.

I am not suggesting that either of them is a good parent. It would be shocking if either of their defence QCs actually believe they are too. But their job is to use evidence as part of the defence case, and if witnesses stated these things under oath then they are doing their job to use that, as I understand it

Moominsarescary · 03/04/2013 18:32

On the news last night someone said what a close family they were and how well looked after, can't remember if it was one of the children's teachers or someone from the church.

I would struggle to say anything nice about those parents after what they did

lolaflores · 03/04/2013 18:36

I hear Hitler liked kids, was a vegetarian, teetotal kind to dogs sort of person. Beyond that he was a monster. Stalin was kind to his old mum. The thing about evil is that it is not instantly recognisable. Just because he wasn't wandering the streets wearing a black cape and twirling his moustache doesn;t mean that calling him a good father counts for anything other than desperate attempt at evening things out.
In the deepest blackest reaches of his soul, the man is not even human. Any one can play a role for a period of time. That is all he was doing

janey68 · 03/04/2013 19:00

Oh absolutely - I don;t think anyone is suggesting for a moment that Philpott and his wife are anything other than scum, and should receive very long prison sentences.

I was just making the point that it isn't that shocking that defence QC do their job - ie: use evidence from witness statements. I am not naive enough to think for a minute that their QCs really do think they are good parents

OnwardBound · 03/04/2013 19:02

He probably was a 'good father' of sorts.

As lola commented, people are rarely so black or white. Villains are not instantly recognisable by their moustache and black cape.

By 'good father' I think the witnesses and QC meant he showed some demonstrable love for his children. He fed them, played games with them, built them a treehouse in the garden, changed a nappy on occasion.

Unfortunately Philpott was also an entirely self absorbed and selfish character who believed he should be able to get whatever it was he wanted.

It was this side of him that came to the fore when he decided to frame his ex partner for arson/attempted murder.

The poor children and their wellbeing never entered his mind at this point. They were less than an afterthought, they were just never a consideration in his diabolical scheme.

I'm not even so sure he is so devastated to have lost them as individuals in their own right iyswim. It is more what they represented to him, his virility, his brood of mini-me's, status as a 'father'.

So not a 'good father' in any deep or meaningful way but perhaps good enough in a practical day-to-day sense?

carabos · 03/04/2013 19:04

He also said that Philpott was "rarely violent" presumably because he just has the one conviction for attempted murder...

phantomnamechanger · 03/04/2013 19:15

how do they define "rarely" violent - as well as serving time for a viscious stabbing, he had a caution for slapping Mairead and dragging her out of the house by the hair - what kind of "good father" does that sort of thing to the mother of his children? What sorts of sexist and bullying behaviour did those children see? Friends and family say he did nothing for/with the DC, the mums did it all. he was neither a good father nor a good partner to any of his women/kids - he is a self serving sex obsessed scum bag. No doubt he was a good actor and capable of some degree of turning on the charm and having the appearance of being a "good" if unconventional family man, when it suited HIS goals.

thursday · 03/04/2013 19:17

i agree it's just, sadly, what defence lawyers are supposed to do. i often wonder how that sits with your conscience, arguing the innocence of someone they believe or know to be guilty. but no one would ever get a fair trial without such lawyers.

HesterShaw · 03/04/2013 19:17

I could never be a defence lawyer. You have to defend people you know are no good.

janey68 · 03/04/2013 19:19

Afaik the witness statements that he was a good father came from his wife and ex!

sybilfaulty · 03/04/2013 19:26

Even really abhorrent people have the right to representation and to a fair trial.

The QC will have presented the evidence of witnesses in as favourable way as possible. In some respects he may have been "good" / adequate. Sadly not in the ones which mattered most on the night.

The "rarely violent" may have just meant he wasn't being arrested every weekend for fighting in pubs / abusing his partners. It is all sadly a term of art.

lolaflores · 04/04/2013 07:18

I see your point. There are some hopeless cases that even the motions must be gone through with. Hope the judge could see the barrister crossing their fingers and shaking their head very slowly and rolling the eyes with it.
Philpott and co. got a very fair trial given the animosity out there and the judge taking her time to hand down a sentence that is based on reasoning rather than reaction. I am sure she is trying hard not to be influenced by the public reaction and her own instinctive reaction to this person. I am sure no one remains neutral meeting this man either before or after his crime, though knowing someone who lives in a fully modernised house doesn't wash for 12 weeks is flabbergasting and says alot about them and none of it nice. 12 weeks....what the fuck

Bossybritches22 · 04/04/2013 07:27

I think the judge is taking her time over sentencing for the wife rather than the clearly manipulative evil husband.

I hope she gets some leniency for the appalling level of emotional abuse that reduced her to being able to stand by & collude with such madness.

Thank god the gf found it in her to get out & start a better life.

AThingInYourLife · 04/04/2013 07:40

My favourite was when he said that Philpott's conviction for attempted murder was something that happened "ages ago" that had "never been repeated".

Um, except for when he killed six children to frame the most recent woman to flee from him

Bossybritches22 · 04/04/2013 08:09

Yes the only reason it hadn't been repeated was that all around him were terrified of his temper & cowtowed to his dictatorship!

CelticPromise · 04/04/2013 08:17

I'm a defence lawyer, not in any way as experienced as a QC. Sometimes you have to scrape the barrel. There is no eye rolling. You do the best you can, sometimes with nothing to work with! Your private opinion of the client is irrelevant.

I've never represented anyone who has done anything so abhorrent, but I used to work with a guy who had defended child killers. It's necessary that they have a decent defence lawyer because that's how the system works.

seeker · 04/04/2013 08:22

Everybody has a right to be represented in a court of law. That's how the system works.

Nancy66 · 04/04/2013 08:44

In this sort of environment anybody who didn't batter or sexually abuse their kids would probably be considered a 'good' father.

never mind that the children had no pyjamas, that they didn't wash, that they often went to bed hungry, that their parents were having gang bangs and taking drugs while they were in the house....

hey, they didn't beat or fuck their own kids - ergo they're good parents.

That will be the logic at play here

sybilfaulty · 04/04/2013 08:53

I find the pyjama thing a bit meaningless. If my DD2 falls asleep on the sofa, I put her into bed as she is rather than wake her. Similarly if DS wants to wear just a vest, then that goes too.

I would rather save my ire for all the other instances of neglect that befell those poor kids.

As a lawyer you do just state the facts. Your personal opinion is irrelevant and not what the court is interested in. The judge will have her own opinion as well but won't let that colour her sentence. From what I've read so far, she seems quite measured in her approach.