5 members of family found dead in Cavan - NO SPECULATION

Mortpourvelo

demfad wrote: »

https://granta.com/he-had-his-reasons/

Jesus that Granta article is hard reading.

sbsquarepants

Neyite wrote: »

Did it need a male authority figure? Or was it just a continuation of the assumption that this poor family had no autonomy themselves to make their decisions. It makes perfect sense that the murderer's best buddy, the priest, assumed that they needed male authority in their lives. Birds of a feather and all that.

I suppose you have to keep an open mind and say maybe the priest felt he was doing right, preaching forgiveness and compassion and all that bollox.

Regardless, even if he was, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and it was clearly terrible, insensitive and downright harmful advice from any practical or sensible point of view, and hardly the first time the church and it's minions have stuck their oar in and manipulated vulnerable people to suit their own agenda.

tayto lover

political analyst wrote: »

What evidence is there to indicate that Hawe was abusive towards his wife and their children before he killed them?

If he had been abusive to them then, surely, his wife would have had ample opportunity over the years and months preceding this horrific crime to get the children and herself out of harm's way.

Most parents who have deliberately killed their children are men but there is a significant minority of women who have done so.

There may actually have been none.
However there was plenty of evidence in the killing to suggest that he was an evil bastard.
He'd be out of that grave in double quick time if they were my relatives.
I keep thinking of the terror in their last few minutes alive.

Mortpourvelo

tayto lover wrote: »

There may actually have been none.
However there was plenty of evidence in the killing to suggest that he was an evil bastard.
He'd be out of that grave in double quick time if they were my relatives.
I keep thinking of the terror in their last few minutes alive.

Agreed. One evil f****r and no mistake.

sadie06

The 'what would you do' ads are very misleading, as they ignore the elephant in the room :the housing crisis.

It's a fact that all refuges are full to breaking point and the rental market is out of reach for so many. Yes, some women have families to turn to, but many don't. It's not as simple as being rescued/leaving. What do they do then?

There is so much to learn from the family's brave outspokeness on how they ended up at the point of a murderer being buried with his victims. At the very least, if the priest is a personal friend of the perpetrator he should step back and concelebrate only, leaving engagement with the family to somebody else. This should become standard practice.

It should also become standard practice that a longer period of time is given to families to make this decision.

In the case of Clodagh's family, I think they should be helped in any way possible to reverse their much regretted decision, even if there is no precedent. The very least they deserve is to be able to visit the grave in peace.

The use of the phrase 'male authority figure' is very unfortunate given the circumstances. Those women need no more male authority in their lives ever again.

Mortpourvelo

sadie06 wrote: »

The 'what would you do' ads are very misleading, as they ignore the elephant on the room :the housing crisis.

It's a fact that all refuges are full to breaking point and the rental market is out of reach for so many. Yes, some women have families to turn to, but many don't. It's not as simple as being rescued/leaving. What do they do then?

There is so much to learn from the family's brave outspokeness on how they ended up at the point of a murderer being buried with his victims. At the very least, if the priest is a personal friend of the perpetrator he should step back and concelebrate only, leaving engagement with the family to somebody else. This should become standard practice.

It should also become standard practice that a longer period of time is given to families to make this decision.

In the case of Clodagh's family, I think they should be helped in any way possible to reverse their much regretted decision, even if there is no precedent. The very least they deserve is to be able to visit the grave in peace.

The use of the phrase 'male authority figure' is very unfortunate given the circumstances. Those women need no more male authority in their lives ever again.

+1

nice_guy80

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Jesus that Granta article is hard reading.

yeah.
heavy going

osarusan

demfad wrote: »

Her immediate family revealed it here yesterday:

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/clodagh-boys-never-stood-chance-9367017

Sorry but where in that article does it say he was abusive?

In fact, it seems to speculate that Clodagh had no idea she was in danger, otherwise she'd have got out of there.

It does mention that he was 'about to fall off his pedestal, and now we know why' but I don't think we, the wider public, do know why.

Zubeneschamali

osarusan wrote: »

It does mention that he was 'about to fall off his pedestal, and now we know why' but I don't think we, the wider public, do know why.

Early on, the Sun reported that Hawe's notes referred to "pressure at work". But he was a school vice principal - teachers simply do not get fired for anything short of an actual crime.

I would suspect it might have been financial - if he dipped into school funds when short, and was about to get fired after an audit, that could be the shame he could not face.

nice_guy80

Schools wouldn't have large amounts of money on deposit that are easily accessible.
The same goes for cash.

Mortpourvelo

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Schools wouldn't have large amounts of money on deposit that are easily accessible.
The same goes for cash.

I think I'd rather do a 6 month stretch for theft than kill my wife and kids before hanging myself.

demfad

osarusan wrote: »

Sorry but where in that article does it say he was abusive?

In fact, it seems to speculate that Clodagh had no idea she was in danger, otherwise she'd have got out of there.

It does mention that he was 'about to fall off his pedestal, and now we know why' but I don't think we, the wider public, do know why.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/clodagh-boys-never-stood-chance-9367017

Mother and daughter hope by speaking out, it will help other families living with silent, secretive abuse within the home to look for the dangers and find help before it is too late.

“In time we will work to highlight domestic violence, especially the silent type where there are no obvious warning signs, just like Clodagh’s situation.

tanko

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Schools wouldn't have large amounts of money on deposit that are easily accessible.
The same goes for cash.

Really???
There's a court case going on in Cavan at the moment where a school principal of a national school admitted defrauding school funds of more than €77,000 over a sixteen month period.
He cancelled the schools meal programme saying that a department of social protection grant had been stopped. However, the money had not been stopped and he took it.
He also spent €66,000 on a school credit card, including money on lavish weekend breaks and expensive golf equipment.
He's being treated very leniently by the courts also.

Zubeneschamali

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Schools wouldn't have large amounts of money on deposit that are easily accessible.
The same goes for cash.

Not easily accessible, no, but if you are the vice-principal, pillar of the community, trusted by all (including the patron of the school), who knows?

osarusan

demfad wrote: »

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/clodagh-boys-never-stood-chance-9367017

I genuinely don't think that answers the question though.

volchitsa

osarusan wrote: »

Sorry but where in that article does it say he was abusive?

In fact, it seems to speculate that Clodagh had no idea she was in danger, otherwise she'd have got out of there.

It does mention that he was 'about to fall off his pedestal, and now we know why' but I don't think we, the wider public, do know why.

There are several mentions, direct and indirect, of "controlling" behaviour, I think that is a given in this case. Whether there was physical abuse is harder to discern - the fact that she didn't ever imagine he would deliberately murder all of them doesn't mean he didn't have a very heavy hand on the kids, and wasn't above threatening her at times too (I'm not saying he did, I'm saying it's a "traditional father" profile I've come across IRL - the involved dad who'd never do stuff like come in drunk and beat kids randomly, but who can be quite scary when knowingly crossed by those he feels should obey him unquestioningly.

osarusan

volchitsa wrote: »

There are several mentions, direct and indirect, of "controlling" behaviour, I think that is a given in this case. Whether there was physical abuse is harder to discern - the fact that she didn't ever imagine he would deliberately murder all of them doesn't mean he didn't have a very heavy hand on the kids, and wasn't above threatening her at times too (I'm not saying he did, I'm saying it's a "traditional father" profile I've come across IRL - the involved dad who'd never do stuff like come in drunk and beat kids randomly, but who can be quite scary when knowingly crossed by those he feels should obey him unquestioningly.

I have seen one direct mention of him being a controlling and manipulative man, from a link provided earlier.

I think that to a great extent we simply don't know what was going on, and while I absolutely agree that 'he must have been mentally ill' is a cheap, lazy attempt to understand, I also think that the 'he must have been a bastard all along' is kind of lazy also.


I think both are a somewhat similar jump to conclusions, at least based on what I have (and haven't) seen.

political analyst

osarusan wrote: »

I have seen one direct mention of him being a controlling and manipulative man, from a link provided earlier.

I think that to a great extent we simply don't know what was going on, and while I absolutely agree that 'he must have been mentally ill' is a cheap, lazy attempt to understand, I also think that the 'he must have been a bastard all along' is kind of lazy also.


I think both are a somewhat similar jump to conclusions, at least based on what I have (and haven't) seen.

Is it a cheap and lazy attempt to understand if a woman kills her children (which has happened in a significant minority of cases)?

osarusan

political analyst wrote: »

Is it a cheap and lazy attempt to understand if a woman kills her children (which has happened in a significant minority of cases)?

Take your bullsh!t agenda somewhere else please.

political analyst

osarusan wrote: »

Take your bullsh!t agenda somewhere else please.

I don't have an agenda. I'm highlighting the issue of double-standards. A man who commits "family annihilation", as it's called in the US, is often referred to as evil but a woman who does it is referred to as mentally ill.

volchitsa

Well I've seen several such mentions by various family members, not just one, though some were more implied than explicitly said.

I presume we're all agreed that there are only a limited number of possible explanations though. So unless you have other suggestions that haven't been discussed here, I think that the ones for which there is any evidence at all are likelier than those, such as mental illness, for which there is zero evidence.
In fact I think "people can just flip and murder their wife and children for no particular reason" can be completely ruled out in this case (evidence of planning etc).

Tigger

political analyst wrote: »

Is it a cheap and lazy attempt to understand if a woman kills her children (which has happened in a significant minority of cases)?

political analyst wrote: »

I don't have an agenda. I'm highlighting the issue of double-standards. A man who commits "family annihilation", as it's called in the US, is often referred to as evil but a woman who does it is referred to as mentally ill.

citation needed

political analyst

Tigger wrote: »

citation needed

Look at how cases of mothers who killed their children have been reported over their years.

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/nothing-has-changed-since-sharon-grace-tragedy-27517286.html

Here's a Scottish case - she died at a secure hospital after being sentenced.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577687/Mother-jailed-stabbing-three-children-death-stop-estranged-husband-taking-custody-dead-psychiatric-hospital.html

political analyst

volchitsa wrote: »

Well I've seen several such mentions by various family members, not just one, though some were more implied than explicitly said.

I presume we're all agreed that there are only a limited number of possible explanations though. So unless you have other suggestions that haven't been discussed here, I think that the ones for which there is any evidence at all are likelier than those, such as mental illness, for which there is zero evidence.
In fact I think "people can just flip and murder their wife and children for no particular reason" can be completely ruled out in this case (evidence of planning etc).

There's zero evidence that mental illness wasn't involved.

volchitsa

political analyst wrote: »

I don't have an agenda. I'm highlighting the issue of double-standards. A man who commits "family annihilation", as it's called in the US, is often referred to as evil but a woman who does it is referred to as mentally ill.

Clearly you do, because a man or a woman who shows signs of mental illness and who kills their family is, logically, referred to as being mentally ill. A man or woman who, never having shown any signs of mental illness, methodically plans and carried out the cold blooded murder of their partner and children for no discernible reason is not mentally ill and is likely very evil.

Now I'm trying to remember any cases where a woman did that - which in itself is exceedingly rare - and was not called evil. There was a woman in Texas, iirc, who killed her daughters. I saw lots of comments about her. Then there was the woman who killed her disabled children in London - she'd had severe depression, and moreover her actions show a (possibly misguided, though not without some foundation, according to her husband's testimony) worry about how her disabled children could manage without her.

So no, unless you have some cases in mind - and preferably in Ireland - that genuinely resemble this incident, and where the overall view was that the woman was ill when there was no such evidence, it looks from here like you just have an agenda.

Mortpourvelo

Read this though,

"The Coroner Dr. Sean Nixon said the couple were loving parents who thought they were bringing their children to a better place in heaven."

He killed his wife and kids! There was no joint decision here!!

Mortpourvelo

political analyst wrote: »

There's zero evidence that mental illness wasn't involved.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

volchitsa

political analyst wrote: »

There's zero evidence that mental illness wasn't involved.

Actually that's just not true, there's a lot of evidence, although proving a negative is always going to be problematic!

So assuming something in the face of a complete absence of any evidence for, and significant absence against is offensive to people who actually do suffer from mental illness and who are never going to suddenly murder those around them.
It increases the already heavy stigma of mental illness, and may also make these murders more likely in future, because people are going to be looking for the wrong clues as to who is likely to do this.

political analyst

volchitsa wrote: »

Clearly you do, because a man or a woman who shows signs of mental illness and who kills their family is, logically, referred to as being mentally ill. A man or woman who, never having shown any signs of mental illness, methodically plans and carried out the cold blooded murder of their partner and children for no discernible reason is not mentally ill and is likely very evil.

Now I'm trying to remember any cases where a woman did that - which in itself is exceedingly rare - and was not called evil. There was a woman in Texas, iirc, who killed her daughters. I saw lots of comments about her. Then there was the woman who killed her disabled children in London - she'd had severe depression, and moreover her actions show a (possibly misguided, though not without some foundation, according to her husband's testimony) worry about how her disabled children could manage without her.

So no, unless you have some cases in mind - and preferably in Ireland - that genuinely resemble this incident, and where the overall view was that the woman was ill when there was no such evidence, it looks from here like you just have an agenda.

They don't completely resemble this horror but they concern the killing of children by one of their parents. Therefore, they are relevant. I'm aware of a man who was from locality in which the Hawe family lived and who killed his two daughters and himself in America a few years ago.

volchitsa

political analyst wrote: »

They don't completely resemble this horror but they concern the killing of children by one of their parents. Therefore, they are relevant. I'm aware of a man who was from locality in which the Hawe family lived and who killed his two daughters and himself in America a few years ago.

And? Was he "a pillar of the community", with no record of mental health issues?
I'm not sure what your point is?