Body of Alan Hawe to be exhumed

Dial Hard

kunst nugget wrote: »

Does an expert become an 'expert' when you disagree with what they're saying?

You'd have to ask Volchsita that.

Intothesea

Stuckforcash wrote: »

I'm not really interested in sides and point scoring in the face of such a tragic event.

I don't think any or many are, even though strong disagreement may make it look that way.

kunst nugget

Dial Hard wrote: »

I think it's probably as sound an opinion as that of a doctor who never treated or even met the man and was diagnosing after the fact based on actions that almost anyone would find it impossible to comprehend.

Considering his research has been in suicide, homicide and violence, I'd wager it might be easier for him to comprehend it than me, you or your standard GP.

Dial Hard wrote: »

You seem determined to treat Kennedy's diagnosis as absolutely infallible. I think it's perfectly understandable to question its validity. We can agree to disagree but you do seem to want to shout down anyone who doesn't take it as gospel.

I wouldn't treat his diagnosis as infallible but considering he specialises in forensic psychiatry, he would have experience in this area that the GP and counsellor simply wouldn't.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Murdering your wife and children is reprehensible behaviour. People discussing that situation is not. It's perfectly understandable that people are trying to make sense of this. If one of my brothers murdered his family I know fine well that the neighbours goldfish would be talking about it. Which is exactly why I wouldn't be on the internet reading other people's opinions on the matter.

People are not simply 'trying to make sense of it'. Some posters are coming up with all kinds of conjecture, spreading rumours they admit they've only heard second hand, publicly hoping that he 'burns in hell' etc. It's like some kind of pitchfork wielding, medieval mob who've just made up their mind, in complete absence of the full facts, and don't want to hear anything contrary.

Stuckforcash

Dial Hard wrote: »

I think it's probably as sound an opinion as that of a doctor who never treated or even met the man and was diagnosing after the fact based on actions that almost anyone would find it impossible to comprehend.

You seem determined to treat Kennedy's diagnosis as absolutely infallible. I think it's perfectly understandable to question its validity. We can agree to disagree but you do seem to want to shout down anyone who doesn't take it as gospel.

Not infallible, but certainly more likely than a GP, that isn't a psychiatrist, saying they didn't notice anything.

Mental illess often goes unnoticed or is disguised. That's not evidence of anything.

I hate to quote personal experience as evidence of anything, but I've had panic attacks in work and no one would ever have noticed. People kill themselves and no one ever suspected they were suffering.

Too many people think mental issues should have outward symptoms.

volchitsa

kunst nugget wrote: »

Does an expert become an 'expert' when you disagree with what they're saying?

No, it's when they don't follow the basic rules of the domain they are supposed to be an expert in.

Like diagnosing someone you've never met from third party observations, especially when those third parties had reached completely different conclusions.

Would their notes even be reliable, if they were that incompetent?

To me it looks obvious that the professor has decided on the basis of Hawe's actions that he must have been psychotic, and has interpreted the dossier to make it fit his belief. That isn't professional. Hence the inverted commas.

Intothesea

Anyway, I hope overall that the narcissistic cause of this tragedy is generally adopted as the key element producing the result.

I think when people respond with compassion and sympathy, it gives the next could-be family annihilator a perfect out, as it were. Doubtless Alan Hawe was one such bad egg once upon a time.

Stuckforcash

volchitsa wrote: »

No, it's when they don't follow the basic rules of the domain they are supposed to be an expert in.

Like diagnosing someone you've never met from third party observations, especially when those third parties had reached completely different conclusions.

Would their notes even be reliable, if they were that incompetent?

To me it looks obvious that the professor has decided on the basis of Hawe's actions that he must have been psychotic, and has interpreted the dossier to make it fit his belief. That isn't professional. Hence the inverted commas.

Who came to different conclusions?

volchitsa

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Not infallible, but certainly more likely than a GP, that isn't a psychiatrist, saying they didn't notice anything.

Mental illess often goes unnoticed or is disguised. That's not evidence of anything.

I hate to quote personal experience as evidence of anything, but I've had panic attacks in work and no one would ever have noticed. People kill themselves and no one ever suspected they were suffering.

Too many people think mental issues should have outward symptoms.

You don't plan a panic attack though. Hawe planned these killings. That's not a breakdown of mental faculties, that's a deliberate decision by someone who was in control of themselves.

volchitsa

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Who came to different conclusions?

The GP and the therapist - the people whose notes supposedly supplied the evidence for the psychiatrist's differing conclusion. Which is a bit odd, to say the least. Unless the GP and the therapist are incompetent, or the psychiatrist is reinterpreting the notes using the benefit of hindsight.

And all without ever meeting the "patient", which I'm told is a big no-no in psychiatry.

He didn't even meet the surviving family, did he?
Did he meet anyone who knew the man?

kunst nugget

volchitsa wrote: »

No, it's when they don't follow the basic rules of the domain they are supposed to be an expert in.

Okay, what are the basic rules for a forensic psychiatrist in an inquest?

bobsman

volchitsa wrote: »

The GP and the therapist - the people whose notes supposedly supplied the evidence for the psychiatrist's differing conclusion. Which is a bit odd, to say the least. Unless the GP and the therapist are incompetent, or the psychiatrist is reinterpreting the notes using the benefit of hindsight.

And all without ever meeting the "patient", which I'm told is a big no-no in psychiatry.

He didn't even meet the surviving family, did he?
Did he meet anyone who knew the man?

How the hell can one make a diagnosis without ever meeting the person??

I have been through the mental health service and I know that they try to ensure the same Psychiatrist meets the same patient at all times as a "relationship" of sorts is formed.

kunst nugget

volchitsa wrote: »

The GP and the therapist - the people whose notes supposedly supplied the evidence for the psychiatrist's differing conclusion. Which is a bit odd, to say the least. Unless the GP and the therapist are incompetent, or the psychiatrist is reinterpreting the notes using the benefit of hindsight.

And all without ever meeting the "patient", which I'm told is a big no-no in psychiatry.

He didn't even meet the surviving family, did he?
Did he meet anyone who knew the man?

You're talking about it in terms of general psychiatry

There are important differences between general and forensic psychiatry. In forensic psychiatry the psychiatrist serves a third party rather than the patient; both the patient and the psychiatrist must understand this to avoid misrepresenting the doctor's role to the patient and to enable the doctor to adequately serve the law. Psychiatric opinions that are useful for treatment may not be useful in determining whether a person can be considered responsible or competent. In forensic work the psychiatrist's role is not that of a therapist; it is that of an evaluator and an opinion giver but not a decision maker.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7058947

Stuckforcash

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't plan a panic attack though. Hawe planned these killings. That's not a breakdown of mental faculties, that's a deliberate decision by someone who was in control of themselves.

My point was that you'd be amazed how well you can hide something even in distress.


Planning isn't evidence of anything.

He doesn't have to be hollering gibberish in the streets to be mentally ill. He suffered from depression in his 20s and all his cousillor said was that he never indicated he would harm anyone. So there's history and he was receiving treatment again.

If the recent revelation is true, coupled his depressive state and a bad personality it could be how we ended up here unfortunately.

volchitsa

kunst nugget wrote: »

Okay, what are the basic rules for a forensic psychiatrist in an inquest?

LOL. Forensic psychiatry is not diagnosing dead people, contrary to what you appear to believe. It's about diagnosing whether criminals are fit to stand trial, or fit to be imprisoned after conviction and the like.

Forensic psychiatry is a sub-speciality of psychiatry and is related to criminology.[1] It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process and provide treatment like medications and psychotherapy to criminals.

volchitsa

Stuckforcash wrote: »

My point was that you'd be amazed how well you can hide something even in distress.


Planning isn't evidence of anything.

He doesn't have to be hollering gibberish in the streets to be mentally ill. He suffered from depression in his 20s and all his cousillor said was that he never indicated he would harm anyone. So there's history and he was receiving treatment again.

If the recent revelation is true, coupled his depressive state and a bad personality it could be how we ended up here unfortunately.

Actually yes it is, very much so.

It's evidence that whatever mental distress he was in (and obviously since he killed himself he was in deep mental distress, but that isn't the issue here) he still showed structured organized thinking, and was therefore well aware of what he was doing and the result that would come of it.

Basically, he wasn't in the grip of any delusions about aliens taking over the world or anything,he was killing them because he wanted them dead.

bobsman

Very true Kunst but so frustrating for Clodagh's family. To them it appears a sweeping diagnosis based on notes, etc.

I remember my initial diagnosis was bi-polar. This diagnosis was based on GP notes and a locum Psychiatrist who did not meet me.

When I saw the "usual" Psychiatrist who had met with me in the past, he said I was definitely not bi-polar. He said there is absolutely no way a Medical Professional can make a diagnossi without having spent time with the patient, liased with Counsellers, GP, etc.

Having said that, that is the opinion of one Mental Health Expert.

Stuckforcash

volchitsa wrote: »

The GP and the therapist - the people whose notes supposedly supplied the evidence for the psychiatrist's differing conclusion. Which is a bit odd, to say the least. Unless the GP and the therapist are incompetent, or the psychiatrist is reinterpreting the notes using the benefit of hindsight.

And all without ever meeting the "patient", which I'm told is a big no-no in psychiatry.

He didn't even meet the surviving family, did he?
Did he meet anyone who knew the man?

They didn't have any conclusions. They provided evidence, the GP said he had a fungal infection and they never talked about his metal state. His therapist said he was anxious and depressed but never indicated he would kill himself or his family.

You frame it as though they were disagreeing with Professor Kennedy.

Intothesea

I think the forensic head involved is keeping his educated speculations firmly aimed on one particular moment: the moment of carrying out the killings (and speculating backward from there, as you say, Volchitsa). Also, in Ireland, even the family of the murdering party has to be respected and no shadow can be cast on them as being the progenitors of this obviously wildly abnormal loon, and particularly when everyone is dead anyway.

kunst nugget

volchitsa wrote: »

LOL. Forensic psychiatry is not diagnosing dead people, contrary to what you appear to believe. It's about diagnosing whether criminals are fit to stand trial, or fit to be imprisoned after conviction and the like.

I know what it is so less of the LOL. The fact of the matter is that his role as a forensic psychiatrist was to give his opinion on the state of mind of Alan Hawe based on the evidence before - just as it would be if he was assessing someone's competency to stand trial - he is not there to treat the person.

He can't go back and time and talk to Alan Hawe himself so he has to work with the evidence presented.

Stuckforcash

volchitsa wrote: »

Basically, he wasn't in the grip of any delusions about aliens taking over the world or anything,he was killing them because he wanted them dead.

Is that really what mental illness is to you?

volchitsa

kunst nugget wrote: »

I know what it is so less of the LOL. The fact of the matter is that his role as a forensic psychiatrist was to give his opinion on the state of mind of Alan Hawe based on the evidence before - just as it would be if he was assessing someone's competency to stand trial - he is not there to treat the person.

He can't go back and time and talk to Alan Hawe himself so he has to work with the evidence presented.

And he can't give a diagnosis based on someone else's notes without ever meeting the person.

I genuinely think this psychiatrist has gone way beyond their professional boundaries, like the Sally Clark case in England, where the doctor, an eminent professor, misused statistics to "prove" she had killed her children when it was completely untrue.

Riskymove

volchitsa wrote: »

Basically, he wasn't in the grip of any delusions about aliens taking over the world or anything,he was killing them because he wanted them dead.

I think thats too simplistic...

I think that whatever issues he had made him believe that his family were better off dead than dealing with his demise

we see that in a lot of cases...we saw it in relation a couple of cases this year where a parent illed a child and then themselves.....what form of issue that is or if its mental illness or not I'll leave to experts...

volchitsa

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Is that really what mental illness is to you?

No, because I'm not saying he didn't have any mental illness, I'm saying any mental issues he may have had do not explain his actions.

He was not in the grip of psychotic delusions, so being depressed or whatever is not relevant to the murders he committed.

Just like a robber who ties up and beats a little old lady in her home shouldn't be allowed to explain that by the fact that his parents beat him as a child. Or that he's depressed. Even if both are true.

Anita Blow

Stuckforcash wrote: »

They didn't have any conclusions. They provided evidence, the GP said he had a fungal infection and they never talked about his metal state. His therapist said he was anxious and depressed but never indicated he would kill himself or his family.

You frame it as though they were disagreeing with Professor Kennedy.

I think the difficulty is that if the GP never heard of (and therefore never recorded) any mental health difficulties, and their notes were the source of the forensic psychiatrist's conclusion then some don't understand how the psychiatrist could make a diagnosis of psychosis. This is particularly more important because a psychiatrist cannot make a retrospective diagnosis without having met and assessed the patient themselves. Obviously this isn't possible when the patient is deceased, but what it means is that the diagnosis is much less certain than if they were alive. The forensic psych will admit this themselves, which is why we must accept their expert opinion but also weigh it up against other factors in the case.

The degree of planning (and what seems long-term planning) and the fact that he suggested psychosis himself suggests that at least this wasn't a psychotic episode. Psychotic delusions are held with 100% certainty so the person suffering them, by definition, cannot question whether they are real or not.

Obviously this is all just speculation and none of us can really know what state of mind he was in. It seems likely he did have depression/anxiety considering he was being seen for it. Depression is significantly under-diagnosed by GPs as it can often present with somatic symptoms (like his foot scrubbing) which is potentially what the forensic psych was referring to when he was speaking on the benefit of hindsight. Depression, even severe depression, does not lead to family annihilation though so there's more to this case that is worth investigating.

volchitsa

Anita Blow wrote: »

Depression, even severe depression, does not lead to family annihilation though so there's more to this case that is worth investigating.

Yes, exactly - to all of that post and particularly to the bit I've quoted.

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

No, that's not what people are objecting to, it's the idea that anyone, no matter how expert, can diagnose with any certainty a mental illness in hindsight and without ever meeting the person, when the people who dealt with him at the time saw nothing untoward.

Whatever happened to not diagnosing a person without a proper consultation? I though that was the ABC of psychiatry?

Whereas in this case, the "expert" is obviously using the fact of Hawe's actions to justify a postmortem diagnosis.
IMO that's dishonest and unprofessional.

That’s not what YOU are objecting to. There are other posters on the thread dismissing mental health as a mitigating factor at all as “bull****” and others referring to their own experience of mental health as I said “I have friends with depression...” as if depression is as serious as it can get.

Anita Blow

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Is that really what mental illness is to you?

In fairness to Volchitsa he didn't just pull that example out of his ass. It's a textbook example of a psychotic delusion. An absurd belief held with 100% certainty.

kunst nugget

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, exactly - to all of that post and particularly to the bit I've quoted.

I doubt anyone would disagree with that statement tbh.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

That’s not what YOU are objecting to. There are other posters on the thread dismissing mental health as a mitigating factor at all as “bull****” and others referring to their own experience of mental health as I said “I have friends with depression...” as if depression is as serious as it can get.

I want to be quite clear about this : IMO mental health is not a mitigating factor in family annihilation, or indeed in murder in general, unless it involves major psychotic delusions or some other way in which the killer is totally unable to understand what's he is doing.

I don't think many people have said mental illness doesn't really exist or anything of that sort - but mental illness as a mitigating factor for slitting a six year old's throat, yes that is BS of the highest order.

Would you be so ready to assume that mental illness is a mitigating factor in the head-chopping that ISIS likes to carry out?