I'd like to discuss the John Hogan case, but I dont want it to descend into a 'lynch' thread

[VVVQV]

It aint gonna happen, is it?

I can't open the link.

But nothing I read about this case convinced me that the guy had a mental illness.

Obviously he snapped. But the child had kept him awake half the night and he was stressed out.

He didn't have a history of mental illness and he had anger as a motivating factor. Just because it was out of character doesn't mean that he 'wasn't himself' when he did it. It just means that he was out of control.

And actually, these are two very similar cases.

Except in the case of Hogan, you could argue that he does have a family history of mental illness. And he probably isn't as clever as the banker.

I see where you are coming from bobbysmum07 but they are IMO two very different cases. Cleverness doesn't have very much to do with it really. Mental illness is no respecter of class/wealth/intelligence.

Hang on, will try and repost the link:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183053.stm

look, it's possible that malice motivated his actions and mental illness facilitated them - that he is partially blameworthy and partially innocent but the extent of the former is impossible to measure isn't it?

it's possible that the whole mental illness line is an expediency - made up by Hogan and his defence lawyer(s), his family history is convenient for this and his subsequent suicide attempts could have been contrived (perhaps he asked for help within a very short time of overdosing, thereby avoiding ever being in any real danger)

it's possible that he has some very minor traits of mental illness and or emotional instability (personality disorder?) that have been magnified for the purposes - to such a mild degree that he is as responsible for his actions as anyone. that he was not psychotic but simply has little impulse control in a way that is distinct from mental illness proper

I'm inclined to go with my first possibility here, a potential dollop of 'malice aforethought' but that his psychosis means incapacity to actually murder in the legal sense

he is/was a very ill person, and I am not going to judge him or anyone else and sincerely hope i would not be judged by people reading newspaper reports about me, written by tabloid hacks

bobbysmum07 - I think if you read proper reports about the city banker case you would see it somewhat differently.

I dont think Natasha Hogan was to blame at all, and I dont really care if she shacked up with another guy within weeks of, or even before this happened.

Unfortunately, it is difficult not to consider that had their marriage been a happy one, little Liam would still be alive . Such a shame, poor boy.

Germaine Greer wrote a very good piece about this in the Guardian yesterday - here

(Apols if it has already been linked to, haven't read whole thread)

"If he had thrown Natasha out of the window instead of Liam, we would not now be hearing the callers to Radio 5 Live demanding the death penalty."

"She was accused of choosing the wrong place to tell her husband she wanted a divorce. Because she chose a "make or break" holiday to tell her husband that it was "break" after all, she was judged to "lack emotional intelligence". Evidently, she was supposed to supply the emotional intelligence for both of them."

"If Natasha lacked emotional intelligence, Hogan was an emotional imbecile."

"The person who was tried in the court in Chania was not John Hogan but Natasha Steel. She had not only to relive the traumatic events of August 2006, but to witness her ex-husband being handled with kid gloves, stroked and reassured, and finally taken away for further cosseting. There was no prosecution worth the name. No one asked him or his handlers the hard questions. Small wonder that on the steps of the courthouse Natasha could only weep as though her heart would break."

It had been ww - but i couldnt get the link to work so thank you

just read GG's very bad article about this. Peppered with assumptions and inaccuaracies, so like GG generally. A luvvie of the soft intelligensia. She has nooo idea what happened, or what was going through the minds of those involved.

There ARE many inconsistencies in the published accounts of this case, but GG appears to elevate herself to Court psychiatrist/psychologist, judge, prosecutor etc. Shameless tosh she probably wrote whilst bored. IMVHO.

You do know all that stuff then, do you, Pan?

No, not all of it. But I do know massive generalisations when I see them, with respect.

British courts are alot more savvy these days when it comes to sentencing practice on murders between the genders, that GG so erroneously chooses to implicate ( and wrongly) in her opus.

and the comment about radio audience reaction re death penalty for killing of boy or girl is risible.

no, of course I don't know the detail, but niether does GG.

Perhaps she had drunk one or two glasses of S. Australian vino prior to putting finger to keyboard.

"No, not all of it."

By implication, more of it than GG does?

Please. No such scraggy implication intended.

I mean "no, I don't know all of the detail"..as GG doesn't.

but then Ithought that was pretty clear from my qualifications in my post anyways...

So do you agree with the verdict?

Me peresoanlly??

I have no basis t oagree or disagree, WW. I don't know enough about it. I wasn't there and have nooo idea about his "madness" or 'psychosis' that GG likes to (again erroneously) refer to.

All I'm commenting on is her arrogance in her article, that's all, in judging over matters she is ill equipped to do so.

" peresoanlly"... this is a new word as yet to be included in the OED.

I think her "judgement" was mostly to do with the (mis)representation of Mrs Hogan in court and in the media, Pan.

If the trial had been held in the UK the outcome might have been different.

Well..that's part of her bollocks article n'est-ce pas? She wasn't on trial. He was. GG makes massive assumptiond behind the reasons for the decision of the court, in her common style that says 'this is final, as I have said it is'.

I "grew up" with GG as a feminist, but in recent years she has become her own icon, which is always a bad thing.

I agree that some articles about Natasha Hogan have been somewhat biased. You can see what the journos are hinting at and I dont like it.

I think that there is a very blurry line now between investigative journalism, and playing amateur detective.

And if the trial had been in the UK, would that have made any diff to what could and couldn't have been reported?

"British courts are alot more savvy these days when it comes to sentencing practice on murders between the genders"

Oh yes? You have figures for that, do you?

Like the way they're now so savvy about the effects of domestic violence on children that they are still granting sole contact to fathers with a history of dv?

I'm very sceptical about claims that courts are more savvy. I'm sure some of them are and I'm sure that there are enlightened judges, lawyers etc. But systematically, I think we've got a long way to go.

No, Idon't have the stats, but attitudes are difficult to quantify. Attiudes have changed in the decades that I have been involved in the system. We have specialist DV courts, and greater use of bail restrictions, rfestraining orders etc, police prosecute even if the agggrieved doesn't want to proceed for whatever reason. There is a societal movement towards not accepting DV, a bit like drink/drive in the 1980's.

yes a long way to go, but the landscape looks A LOT better than it did 25 years ago.

What goes with that is the treatment of women who kill/maim violent partners - courts DO give creedance to years of the defendants own abuse, massively more than they used to.