Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
5 members of family found dead in Cavan - NO SPECULATION
Options
Comments
-
was there domestic violence in the Hawes or jsut speculation after the fact.
I've not read one comment that proved domestic violence only speculation. Can you advise us on this?
Yet this is now taken as fact and used as a stick to beat Hawe with furthering damaging his admittedly tarnished reputation
Ah God love him. He beat his wife to death with a hatchet. If that's not domestic violence what is it.
Eta: clodaghs mum and sister did an interview where they said they wanted to raise awareness of domestic violence. That says it all really.0 -
HellSquirrel wrote:Also, where the hell is all the gender war bull**** coming from? The difference between the two cases, beyond that no-one in here knows that much about the London case, is that one was apparently a case of mental illness and the other appears to be a case of domestic violence.
Almost every thread on Boards turns into a man vs woman on. People with serious serious chips on their shoulders.0 -
plenty of sympathy and "poor pet" comments over the irish woman in london who killed herself and her son , yet the Hawe fellow in cavan who did similar was vilified and his reputation kicked from pillar to post. that's equality folks.
of course no mention of the other (remaining ) victim - who is also irish - oisins father.,
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fathers-tribute-to-his-best-buddy-after-death-of-mum-and-boy-in-london-435730.html
seems like an after thought among the "poor girl, don't judge her" commentary...which is sickening
Oisin's father could have taken care of oisin but that wasn't to be.
She chose to deny her son his life and his father a chance to see his child grow up. That is disgusting and no amount of "lovely girl" nostalgia can change this
btw I think her and hawe are both selfish *****
In the immediate aftermath of the Hawe murder-suicide, the reporting was extremely sympathetic. Read back over the thread if you don't believe me, lots of people were outraged by the "good family man who snapped" narrative. By the way, are you suggesting that that his reputation was wrongfully ruined? The reporting on this latest tragic case seems wrongfully sympathetic to the perpetrator, but so was the Hawe case. Why try to make everything into a gender war? People tried to do the same with the Maynooth assault.0 -
was there domestic violence in the Hawes or jsut speculation after the fact.
I've not read one comment that proved domestic violence only speculation. Can you advise us on this?
Yet this is now taken as fact and used as a stick to beat Hawe with furthering damaging his admittedly tarnished reputation
I don't quite know where to begin with this. Straight up and with no sarcasm,you might do well to start this thread from the beginning and read through it to see how the conversation developed because it paralleled the media in many areas. You'd also see why of -all- the cases to try make a misandry case out of it, this might not be the right one.
I was actually arguing on the side of mental illness. Like many people, there was something in me that rebelled at the idea of a perfectly normally wired person suddenly murdering his wife and children. Surely you'd -have- to have something wrong with you there! Others were talking about what sort of mental illness you'd need and I seem to recall it sprouted another thread about whether mentally ill people were dangerous, which caused a certain amount of aggravation.
The media talked about how great a father Alan Hawe was, how utterly unexpected this was, how much he loved and protected his family, etc. At the same time, a few people (not me, I was on what certainly appears to be the incorrect side!) were talking about domestic violence and after there was a brief rumour that he was mentally ill, it was cleared up that there was no evidence for such.
At that point, the converstion turned much more towards domestic violence, how Clodagh's personality had become much more withdrawn, a bit about how difficult it was to get a photo of her and whether the priest had strong-armed burying them together, over-riding whether it was right to bury the man that killed them with the family.
And then Clodagh's mother and sister indicated that actually, there had been something very wrong there and leaned far more towards domestic violence than mental illness;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3989316/Family-murdered-Clodagh-Hawe-voice.html
and started fund-raising against domestic violence
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/clodagh-hawe-s-family-seeks-to-raise-funds-for-domestic-abuse-victims-1.2892399
Therefore, the conversation became about domestic violence and about how whether people were too ready to "blame" mental illness rather than abusive controlling practices.
Do you see how this developed naturally? Mostly, people were sympathetic towards Alan Hawe and were willing to give him the benefit of internal pain. It actually took quite a bit of arguing and Mrs. Hawe's family talking to make some of us admit that we'd been too kind to Hawe at the cost of his family's memories.
Now, I don't know anything about the other case you're talking about, this London case. To kill your own child (and yourself) is such a large and terrible thing that I think it is quite natural to want there to be an explanation of despair rather than evil. Mostly, people don't seem to be giving opinions at all about that case, because this thread is about a very specific case of what appears to be domestic violence.
This is really not about misandry and you do a grave disservice to the families involved when you suggest that a person we know little to nothing about must be treated the same as Hawe is spoken about several months after the case and when there's a lot more information out there. If anything, that you -want- to find female-lead cases and, regardless of any information about the specific case, make it to be exactly like this one for the same of some misandry agenda (and it is, sorry, but that's exactly how it's coming over) is just plain wrong.
Also, this case is mixed up specifically with Irish society and Irish outlooks to suicide, to the family structure, to domestic violence, so a London case is really putting a carrot into the apple barrel and claiming it has to be a fruit because it's in a fruit barrel.
Edit: I note from the post above now that she was Irish, which makes it a bit more relatable, but there's still a strong element of carrot until proven apple here. Maybe she had been abusing her child. But we don't know that, same as we didn't know that with Hawe at the start, when Hawe was being treated with sympathy as a victim. I don't know about you, but even though I was wrong in the Hawe case (and I'm quite willing to say I was), but I'm still going to find it very hard to jump to "evil" as a first answer without any further information. Male or female. Because not everything is about a gender war.0 -
Nobody who kills their kid should be treated with sympathy, from what I've read that poor kid in this latest case left this world very violently, the terror he felt in those last few moments of life doesn't bear thinking about.
I've sympathy for him and his father not the person who killed him.0 -
Advertisement
-
HellSquirrel wrote: »Wait, so people were sympathetic to Hawe and tried to assume the kindest possibly explanation for his actions and if people don't do the same for this woman, than it's a case of misandry?
No, the feminist Twitterati went absolutely ballistic over the potential sympathy for Hawes, so I am suggesting that if they don't do the same in this case (where the Twitterati is already ascribing sympathy to this woman so unfortunately I seem to be being proven right), then it's an example of a serious double standard.Also, where the hell is all the gender war bull**** coming from? The difference between the two cases, beyond that no-one in here knows that much about the London case, is that one was apparently a case of mental illness and the other appears to be a case of domestic violence.
That's exactly the point. They are both cases of domestic violence, unless one murder was somehow un-violent - bit of a contradiction in terms there. How exactly is the murdering of one's child not a case of domestic violence, regardless of why it was done?
And finally, what evidence do you have that the London case involved mental illness where the Hawes case did not?0 -
As well as vilification, there was still TONS of sympathy and positive tributes to Hawe at the start. Seriously, before making a beeline for the gender war, "That's equality, folks" stuff, it's best to ensure all the facts are accounted for.plenty of sympathy and "poor pet" comments over the irish woman in london who killed herself and her son , yet the Hawe fellow in cavan who did similar was vilified and his reputation kicked from pillar to post. that's equality folks.
of course no mention of the other (remaining ) victim - who is also irish - oisins father.,
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fathers-tribute-to-his-best-buddy-after-death-of-mum-and-boy-in-london-435730.html
By the way, I still don't believe Hawe was of sound mind. And I haven't seen any solid evidence that he was abusive in the run-up to the horror. But plenty of those who are adamant he was not unwell and was just an abusive bully are men. So, once again, something which gets blamed on feminism alone has much more complicated roots.
Clodagh Hawe was not mentioned much in the beginning either and attention was drawn to this after a while - it was deemed misogyny, which I think is nonsense, just like calling the coverage of the London case misandry.
By the way, Alan Hawe's reputation was kinda ruined anyway by the act he committed, but this is the problem: the act itself and the individual case itself gets pushed aside for gender war tedium.0 -
But plenty of those who are adamant he was not unwell and was just an abusive bully are men. So, once again, something which gets blamed on feminism alone has much more complicated roots.
Nobody is blaming feminism for the gender divide. Feminism is being called out on its two-faced response to it.Clodagh Hawe was not mentioned much in the beginning either and attention was drawn to this after a while - it was deemed misogyny, which I think is nonsense, just like calling the coverage of the London case misandry.
Again, it's not the coverage itself which is being deemed misandry, it's the fact that the same people who were outraged at the suggestion that Hawes was anything other than a gobsh!te are not similarly outraged that mother in this case would be regarded as anything other than a gobsh!te. That's the double standard - not the actual coverage, but the reaction to it.By the way, Alan Hawe's reputation was kinda ruined anyway by the act he committed, but this is the problem: the act itself and the individual case itself gets pushed aside for gender war tedium.
And so it should be. And so, equally, should the mother in this case. Murdering your family, regardless of the circumstances, is a monstrous act and nothing more. Mental ill health, while tragic, does not either excuse or de-villify a murderer.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »No, the feminist Twitterati went absolutely ballistic over the potential sympathy for Hawes, so I am suggesting that if they don't do the same in this case (where the Twitterati is already ascribing sympathy to this woman so unfortunately I seem to be being proven right), then it's an example of a serious double standard.
Do you really want to be the male equivelant of the "feminist twitterati", whatever that is? I didn't see any of it, but I'm entirely willing to believe that nutters exist. But if you're supporting your own words and actions that they did it first...congrats, you're the male equivelant to the "feminist twitterati", throwing out accusations for an agenda without any bothering about whether it's fair or not or whether you're doing a group of people (this woman, the child and their family) a grave injustice by attempting to force the outcome to what you feel it should be.And finally, what evidence do you have that the London case involved mental illness where the Hawes case did not?
Been given, there was evidence of medication prescriptions at the home. Which proves nothing in itself, but it gives a pause for consideration while more facts become known. Most people aren't so quick off the bat to condemn, bar perhaps the "-ist twitterati".
So, because someone said something on Twitter that you don't agree with, you will condemn outright and insist that any case involving a woman killing her child and herself is the same to a case with definite evidence towards long-term domestic abuse.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Again, it's not the coverage itself which is being deemed misandry, it's the fact that the same people who were outraged at the suggestion that Hawes was anything other than a gobsh!te are not similarly outraged that mother in this case would be regarded as anything other than a gobsh!te. That's the double standard - not the actual coverage, but the reaction to it.
Do you not even get how unreasonable you're being?And so it should be. And so, equally, should the mother in this case. Murdering your family, regardless of the circumstances, is a monstrous act and nothing more. Mental ill health, while tragic, does not either excuse or de-villify a murderer.
Right, your first actual point. So it doesn't matter whether or not she was mentally ill, it is the act that makes her evil. Now, that's an arguable thing and that argument went around at the start of the thread. But generally the consensus ended up that mentally ill deserves some benefit of the doubt if the person wasn't in their right mind. Your mileage might vary.
Still, I suggest taking two steps back and looking at your own approach to this for the moment and see if you figure out if you're being completely unreasonable or not. I personally think you are.
And on top of the rest of it, go and have a look at the name of this thread. Just because people aren't talking about a different case in a thread devoted to this case, despite all your giving out about it, doesn't mean that everyone's deliberately ignoring it because they're misandrist and mean. It's probably because this thread is about this specific case.0 -
Will there be a campaign to stop them being buried together?0
-
Advertisement
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »If the people who attacked any focus on Alan Haws' mental health and stated (correctly) that it was a cut and dry case of domestic violence do not do the same for this new case, it will become immensely relevant. And based on the headlines as well as user comments under reports on the new London case, unfortunately I can already predict which way this will go. :mad:
All of the evidence including the brutality of the murder, and previous family annihilations pointed towards domestic violence. If you can display how this fillicide is 'cut and dry' domestic violence then please do.
All of the assertions of domestic violence in the Hawe case were backed up by substantiation.0 -
By the way, Alan Hawe's reputation was kinda ruined anyway by the act he committed, but this is the problem: the act itself and the individual case itself gets pushed aside for gender war tedium.
It wasn't ruined by his act, that was the problem. He was portrayed as a good man who snapped. He was immediately described as a great teacher by his Union, a pillar of the community and a sporting great as a youngster. He was buried with full honour and the media played along all the way deducing that a man of such character MUST have been mentally ill.
His reputation is not so good now largely because family members have come out and declared him an evil abusive man.0 -
All of the evidence including the brutality of the murder, and previous family annihilations pointed towards domestic violence. If you can display how this fillicide is 'cut and dry' domestic violence then please do.
All of the assertions of domestic violence in the Hawe case were backed up by substantiation.
Any violent act towards family members or partners, which by definition includes any deliberate act leading to the death or serious injury of somebody other than one's self, is by definition 'domestic violence'. That's the point I'm making here.0 -
HellSquirrel wrote: »Do you really want to be the male equivelant of the "feminist twitterati", whatever that is? I didn't see any of it, but I'm entirely willing to believe that nutters exist. But if you're supporting your own words and actions that they did it first...congrats, you're the male equivelant to the "feminist twitterati", throwing out accusations for an agenda without any bothering about whether it's fair or not or whether you're doing a group of people (this woman, the child and their family) a grave injustice by attempting to force the outcome to what you feel it should be.
All I am demanding here is a gender-blind response to cases like these. As far as I'm concerned, nobody who kills a family member deliberately, regardless of their motivations, should be afforded any sympathy whatsoever.
And before anyone calls me ignorant, I have dealt with and been exposed to severe mental illness through people who are very close to me. I still do not believe that anything justifies or nullifies the inherent evil in deliberately ending the life of another human being without their consent.Been given, there was evidence of medication prescriptions at the home. Which proves nothing in itself, but it gives a pause for consideration while more facts become known. Most people aren't so quick off the bat to condemn, bar perhaps the "-ist twitterati".
What difference does this make? The woman is still a murderer - provided, of course, that it can be proven that she was the one who actually did it, which to be fair is not considered fact until the official coroner's report on the case.So, because someone said something on Twitter that you don't agree with, you will condemn outright and insist that any case involving a woman killing her child and herself is the same to a case with definite evidence towards long-term domestic abuse.
Do you not even get how unreasonable you're being?
No, whether there was long term abuse or not (which has not been confirmed in this new case) is irrelevant to the fact that the act of taking a life is in and of itself a horrific act of violence and abuse. It certainly makes one case more horrific than the other, but again at the end of the day both are still murders.Right, your first actual point. So it doesn't matter whether or not she was mentally ill, it is the act that makes her evil. Now, that's an arguable thing and that argument went around at the start of the thread. But generally the consensus ended up that mentally ill deserves some benefit of the doubt if the person wasn't in their right mind. Your mileage might vary.
My point is that in my opinion, mothers who commit these crimes are more often presumed to have some sort of mental health related excuse than fathers who do so. My position is that only in the most extreme and rare cases of mental illness (detachment from reality akin to schizophrenia, for instance) should mental illness be considered a legitimate mitigating factor in a case of murder or violence / abuse towards others. In my opinion, and especially when an alleged criminal is female, there is far too much leniency afforded to literally any and all types of 'mental illness', even those which do not affect a person's ability to judge right from wrong.Still, I suggest taking two steps back and looking at your own approach to this for the moment and see if you figure out if you're being completely unreasonable or not. I personally think you are.
You are welcome to that opinion. My opinion is that literally nothing justifies taking the life of another person. I have a lot of sympathy for victims of suicide. I have come closer than I would ever talk about online to that particular horrific aspect to mental illness. My sympathy ends when somebody is arrogant enough to believe that they have the right to take others with them, dependent or not. I would actually be perhaps more understanding than many for victims of either suicide or attempted suicide due to my own experiences and those of people close to me, but once that extends to the harming or killing of third parties, in my opinion, an automatic switch from sympathy to vilification is mandated. You do not have the right to take anybody - anybody else with you if you come to that horrible - and in my view, often understandable - decision to leave this world of your own accord.And on top of the rest of it, go and have a look at the name of this thread. Just because people aren't talking about a different case in a thread devoted to this case, despite all your giving out about it, doesn't mean that everyone's deliberately ignoring it because they're misandrist and mean. It's probably because this thread is about this specific case.
I'm not referring to this thread in my arguments, I'm referring to the internet as a whole, as are others.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Any violent act towards family members or partners, which by definition includes any deliberate act leading to the death or serious injury of somebody other than one's self, is by definition 'domestic violence'. That's the point I'm making here.
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violenceWe define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
In 70% of cases of family annihilation there was a history of domestic violence as defined above.
The circumstances around the Hawe case put it clearly in that 70% category for reasons explained many times in this thread.
Please don't twist the deaths of these innocent people to suit your own personal unrelated agenda.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »My point is that in my opinion, mothers who commit these crimes are more often presumed to have some sort of mental health related excuse than fathers who do so.
Can you provide ANY substantiation for this outlandish claim?0 -
I don't know how much credibility this source has, but it indicates that an inquest could be held in the coming weeks, depending on whether the Garda investigation is complete otherwise. (I can't find any other sources.)
On the one hand, the acceptance of the domestic violence theory as if it were definitively established feels uncomfortable, as we're effectively playing a game of Chinese whispers. On the other hand, it needs to be talked about, and I do believe Clodagh Hawes' family has new information about what happened. I hope the coroner will see the wider importance of making the inquest as transparent as possible.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »All I am demanding here is a gender-blind response to cases like these.
This is a really strange thread to pick to argue this point, when it's about a male killer who got enormous media sympathy after he butchered his family.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »This is a really strange thread to pick to argue this point, when it's about a male killer who got enormous media sympathy after he butchered his family.
And he shouldn't have. And the Twitterati was right to call the media out on that.
What I'm suggesting is that if a similar outcry does not occur in this new case, that will be evidence of double standards.
EDIT: Just to make this abundantly clear, I am not suggesting that Hawes should not have been villified for his monstrous actions, I am suggesting the opposite - that every parent who murders their child (or indeed any other family member) should be villified unless and until severe mental illness, specifically impairing one's ability to tell right from wrong, has been established.
As I said over the page, depression and related illnesses are things I have an immense amount of experience of both in myself and those close to me, and I therefore have an immense amount of sympathy for suicide and suicidal ideation. In my view, that sympathy ends utterly when such thoughts extend beyond one's own person and ensnare innocent bystanders. Nobody has the right to take the life of another person, and even when one is severely depressed, one can tell the difference between right and wrong in this manner.
To put this even more plainly: Suicide is something I will always have sympathy for. Murder-suicide is something I will never have a shred of sympathy for.
If anyone finds this unreasonable, I'd be interested to know why.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »And he shouldn't have. And the Twitterati was right to call the media out on that.
What I'm suggesting is that if a similar outcry does not occur in this new case, that will be evidence of double standards.
We still don't know the details of the UK case. Manner of death is important, Hawe killed his family with an axe and knives. He also killed multiple people so it already has a greater emotional impact. Let's see what the circumstances were in this recent case and then you may see attitudes change.0 -
Advertisement
-
We still don't know the details of the UK case. Manner of death is important, Hawe killed his family with an axe and knives. He also killed multiple people so it already has a greater emotional impact. Let's see what the circumstances were in this recent case and then you may see attitudes change.
I still don't understand why this matters - at the end of the day, an innocent child has been killed. In my opinion, anybody who would do that is a monster, unless their mental health issues specifically include a disconnect from reality, such as a schizophrenic episode.0 -
was there domestic violence in the Hawes or jsut speculation after the fact.
I've not read one comment that proved domestic violence only speculation. Can you advise us on this?
Yet this is now taken as fact and used as a stick to beat Hawe with furthering damaging his admittedly tarnished reputation
Tarnished reputation ?
He is a multiple murderer, even worse his own wife and children.
It is a bit rich for you to talk about using a stick to beat anything belonging that man when he used and axe and knives to take his wife and children's last breaths from their bodies.
I can guess which side you would have taken within the GAA club as to whether they would carry his coffin.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »If anyone finds this unreasonable, I'd be interested to know why.
Not me, I spent a whole lot of this very thread arguing the same thing.
Which is why you yelling at everyone here about an unrelated case in the UK is quite odd.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Not me, I spent a whole lot of this very thread arguing the same thing.
Which is why you yelling at everyone here about an unrelated case in the UK is quite odd.
There have been at least one case since, the one where the son was tasered by the guards - did Hatrick Patrick have anything to say about that case or is it just this one that gets him worked up - for some unknown reason surely unrelated to the fact that the killer is a woman of course? :rolleyes:0 -
Just been reading this squabbling, back and forth, trying to prove who is standing on the higher moral ground. Spare a thought for the two families who are heartbroken this Christmas. No matter what anybody says on here, it's not going to help them but I suspect that reading some of this stuff would be nothing short of agonising for them.0
-
Really? If it were me who had lost a child or a grandchild in such an awful way, I don't think I'd care much about people discussing it on a message board. I think my mind would be too busy with other stuff to even notice.0
-
There have been at least one case since, the one where the son was tasered by the guards - did Hatrick Patrick have anything to say about that case or is it just this one that gets him worked up - for some unknown reason surely unrelated to the fact that the killer is a woman of course? :rolleyes:
I've already explicitly stated that my beef is related to an empathy double standard depending on the gender of the alleged killer, so to present this as some kind of gotcha is really quite bizarre. My position is simply that the gender of the alleged killer should not, by itself, prejudice whether they are initially treated with sympathy or disdain by the media and the general public - in my view, all killers should be regarded with disdain until it's proven that there were truly exceptional circumstances involved.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I've already explicitly stated that my beef is related to an empathy double standard depending on the gender of the alleged killer, so to present this as some kind of gotcha is really quite bizarre. My position is simply that the gender of the alleged killer should not, by itself, prejudice whether they are initially treated with sympathy or disdain by the media and the general public - in my view, all killers should be regarded with disdain until it's proven that there were truly exceptional circumstances involved.
But nobody is suggesting that the gender of the killer should prejudice how they are treated.
Many people have said that nobody should assume that mental health issues are behind a killing unless there is evidence that this is the case.
In the Hawe case, there was no such evidence, and in fact gradually there were more and more indications of pre-existing domestic abuse of some sort. It is the basest speculation to assume that this case, where one of the things we do know is that she had been depressed, is comparable to the Hawe case.
You're entitled to think that mental health issues don't excuse killing someone else. It's what I think myself - except in cases where the killer is completely delusional, and I don't think that's been said here. Nevertheless, the fact of the woman having mental health problems makes this killing different again from the Hawe case.
It's not a simplistic Yes/No scenario. There are at least three possible scenarios, going from completely irresponsible because delusional (and the Cuddihy case - oddly according to your theory, a male killer - was found not guilty, via partly responsible because still partly aware of reality, up to completely responsible - like the Hawe case.
We don't yet know where this woman's actions sit on this scale. Because we don't have the information.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
But you know nothing of my experiences of loss, so unless you happen to know differently about this particular family, your guess is as good as mine. At best.Johnnyjump wrote: »Well it's not you.
(And I'm pretty confident that they won't be in the least bit interested in what posters on boards.ie were saying.)0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement