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

[Northernlurker]

There is a horrible case in the news today. A father and three children disappeared from the home. Today the children were found stabbed and the father appears to thrown himself off a nearby quarry edge.
The police have confirmed they aren't looking for anyone else and one officer commented ''It appears to be a tragic family situation.' Now I have a problem with that description.

What's tragic about this is that three children have been robbed of their lives. It appears that the person who should love and cherish them has planned their removal from the home and then killed them. This isn't an accident. There is nothing inevitable about this crime. It occurred as a result of one person's actions and choices and it's not a 'family situation' at all. It seems to me that describing it as such detracts from the true violence of the situation. The police describe it as a muder investigation. Why not leave it at that? Why the need to soften it?

the point is, plumpdog is that women's rage is deemed worthy of comment and there's a well-known phrase to use in such circumstances. It's ironic because there isn't an equivalent phrase for men's rage hence my sister's comment. Partly because of the point the OP is making - men's rage is hidden, made normal, or made into a "tragic family situation". It's the very fact of it being normalised that is a concern here. As with domestic violence which was always treated as a "family situation" meaning not something anyone outside the family should have a view on. I don't agree with that. I don't think anyone agrees with that any more.

No we don't know the intimate details of this family or any of the families that this happens to but in the majority of cases, the father is the perpetrator and the result is horrific violence. Whatever the "cause" (sometimes there is mention of financial trouble, sometimes there is mention of the wife having wanted a divorce) the facts are horrific violence by a man (usually) against the children. I think actually we should discuss this - and not hide it behind the veil of "domestic violence" or "we don't know what really happened". This is how abusers get away with their abuse.

Of course sometimes women do this too - and we should talk about that as well. But women don't get this "tragic family situation" rubbish. They are villified for what they have done.

I'm so sorry you lost your Mum, Elephants

Very sorry to hear about your mum, ElephantsCanRemember.

OP, you are quite right about the use of the word "tragic", to make it sounds inevitable is just wrong and it removes the thought, even, that this could have been prevented by someone just being normal and NOT killing their children. If a family got a rare disease and died, it would be tragic. Car crashes are tragic. A man taking his children away from their home and stabbing them to death is murder.

SQ, Elephants, etc. I agree with you 100% in past cases, but I just don't feel able to publicly comment on this particular case out of respect for the family.

TBH, if the police said 'the children were murdered in cold blood by their father' can you imagine the distress that would cause the remaining family? And the just cause they'd have to sue the police for causing distress before the facts were known? Particularly as the investigation has only just begun and no one has yet been able to establish the physical facts of what happened, let alone the father's state of mind leading up to the murders. That's what the investigation is for.

And 'tragic family situation' could mean anything - a bereavement, a diagnosis of a fatal/life-changing illness. It's other people (namely the press) choosing to interpret that as the mother being somehow responsible by having a midlife crisis.

We do not know anything yet.

Thankyou Juggling but I really wasn't posting for sympathy. It is only now as an adult I can look back at the newspaper articles and realise what a crock of shit they were. I know the statistic for women killed by their partners, I believe my mum should be included in that statistic, and many others like her. Sadly they aren't, it would make for even more horrific reading if they were.
This thread has interested me because I knew at the time that the papers had focused on the wrong bit but I couldn't work out why.

Sorry about your mum Elephants. That must have been hard.

Dahlen, a friend of a friend was in just that situation about 5 years ago. I "knew" the mother through a current affairs discussion board and had been vaguely aware of comments suggesting her husband was violent and controlling in the period leading to their break up, but many people post things like that.

Then, her ex killed their two eldest children (I think 4 and 8) then himself, while she was staying with a friend and their youngest. Her family never talked to the press, but for months there were interviews with members of his family, neighbours, so-called "friends of the family who wish to remain anonymous," all blaming her for having an affair and driving him over the edge. I can understand on one level his family not wanting to believe he could do something so ghastly for no reason and blaming his ex-partner, whom they didn't like in the first place. But, the papers sought these "versions" out, and paid well for them.

I knew the back story from the mutual friend. The couple had split about six months before and she had asked for a divorce. Both were seeing other people. However, while she was reported as "having an affair," no mention was made of his new partner at all.

(Actually, I just googled the case and found dozens of reports from the time of the incident and the coroner's inquest a couple years later. I hadn't realised just how awful the lionising of the father/murderer and demonising of the mother was. I think this was because she wasn't killed and had the temerity to stay in the relationship with her new partner and have another child. :( )

(((Elephants Remember)))

I don't really agree Dahlen about us not really knowing anything yet.

I think it's reasonable for us to draw the most obvious conclusions from the evidence presented. And I think it's reasonable to discuss issues surrounding what has happened, and especially the way it has been reported in the media, and what the police statements have said.

If we waited until after the investigation then the discussion would probably never happen. When the newspapers wait till after the investigation before commenting then maybe we will too.

However, yes, every sympathy to any family or friends who might be reading

Yes absolutely sympathy to any family or friends involved or in a similar situation. But I think it is right to have a discussion about the sort of terminology used by the police and the press. It has far reaching consequences.

I also thought the terminology was bizarre. It seems to imply they were all responsible in some way.

Puff It does doesn't it? It is a horrible way of phrasing what has happened.

I agree it's right to have a discussion about the sort of terminology used the press as well, but not by using a case where the facts are not yet established.

But I will agree to disagree, as despite arguing against most of you on this because I feel it will be inordinately distressing to the family, I'm actually in complete agreement with everything you're saying.

I do understand where you are coming from. However, I think the family are likely to feel distress because of what happened, whether papers report what happened, or how they report it.

And, I guess the point that concerns me is that from what folks are saying here about the current case, the press are already suggesting that the "mother's affair" was in part responsible for the deaths. That is exactly what happened with the friend of a friend mentioned above. I can't tell you how distressing this "spin" by the papers was for her parents and family.

So if the press are referring to the "mother's affair" (and I haven't seen that they have, but perhaps I haven't searched deeply enough) then that's not acceptable.
WRT to police referring to a "tragic family situation", the fact that someone is quoted by a journalist as having said this doesn't necassarily mean that (s)he actually used those words. A "quote" could be drawn from an affirmative or non-commital response to a question using those words - and it's not unheard of for this to happen where interviewees are reticent and don't provide the "quotes" that journalists want for a story.
I think it's fairly well established that ethics and social responsibility are not the foremost concerns of much of the mainstream UK printed press.
drjohnsonscat - I agree that DV and its causes should be discussed. I think that WRT to the phrase "family situation", the issue of the ways in which law enforcers and the system have historically treated DV and current press reporting standards and limitations (both in terms of accuracy and nuance and legally) are two very different issues.
I also think that press responsiblity should be discussed. But I don't think it's helpful to draw inferences about the facts of a real and current case to try and do this. Obviously it's distasteful, etc., but also, if the aim is to discuss DV or press reporting seriously, then perhaps a discussion that leads to unsupported speculation about the facts of a single case that hasn't yet been investigated isn't of much benefit to anyone.

The way this was reported on News at One was good I thought - obviously they've been taking notes ...

What, you mean they've been reading us? :)

Could be Kritiq, what do you think ? - anyway absolutely no mention of the mother of the children - hopefully giving her the little peace they can offer.

Haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with the OP. 'Tragic family situation' does tend to minimise the horror. I totally agree.

Plump as a journalist I can assure you that a reporter would have accurately reported the exact phrase that was used. Journalists don't make up quotes.

I know that the practice that I've desrcibed above WRT to journalists manufacturing quotes happens fairly often, MamaMary. If in your working life you haven't notice this happening then perhaps that's pleasant for you.

drjohnsonscat - I understood your post about your sister to mean that she was pointing out the irony / inherent bias in the phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". Not sure why absurd or fucking stupid .

Erm, I understood drjohnsonscat's post to mean that her sister was reading into these cases that there was a woman somehow indirectly responsible for someone else's violent acts.
I think that would have been apparent from my posts.
drjohnsonscat has since sort of implied that that wasn't what was meant in the posts.

I do think it's acceptable to discuss this because it is a common social problem which could be prevented at least some of the time. By speaking out against domestic violence, by doing more to protect women and children against it, by making, for instance any report or incidence of abuse in a relationship justification for preventing unsupervised access to children by the abuser when the relationship has ended.

WHat is also needed is a lot more people to speak out against this bullshit that violence is acceptable when a partner has had sex with other people. IT'S NOT. Decent people do not commit murder, or assault, or criminal damage if a partner has sex with someone else. You might be hurt and angry, drink too much, cry a lot etc etc, but you don't kill your children. People who react with violence to the end of a relationship are scum and being cheated on is no more than they deserved; they would have been horrible partners anyway.

Is it common?

I don't buy the idea that anyone really believes it is a man's right to kill his children or feels he is not culpable. I think a lot of people want to put as much distance between themselves and this sort of event as possible so will search for a reason this was predictable/preventable. And trashy tabloids want to sell papers so will report on anything they can remotely tie to the incident.

On the Daily Mail site, the policeman talking about the murder doesn't sound for one second as though he is not taking it seriously as a murder. While there is something to be said for critiquing the treatment of this in the media, I really think that the turn of phrase given by the policeman has been blown out of all proportion.