Body of Alan Hawe to be exhumed

......... wrote:

I'm not reading 20 pages to find out, you're the one obsessed by it not me.

Oh I thought you were responding to someone actually saying mental illness would be an excuse when nobody has actually said your. It seems to be the first thing a lot of people think. That's fascinating that people discount the idea of mental illness because they do the want to excuse the behaviour. It's classic case of putting the cart before the horse. It precludes a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry because if so what weird explanation/excuse misunderstanding

......... wrote:

Tell us then why so many people think his mental health at the time is important ? and why is there so much discussion about it ? Or better perhaps try asking those that care what his mental health was at the time and why ? Because I don't care what it was, so obsess somewhere else.

No need to be snippy. You said posters made the claim that it mental illness would be an excuse when nobody actually did make that claim.

......... wrote:

NOTHING EXCUSES WHAT HE DID.

Again answering the question nobody asked.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh I thought you were responding to someone actually saying mental illness would be an excuse when nobody has actually said your. It seems to be the first thing a lot of people think. That's fascinating that people discount the idea of mental illness because they do the want to excuse the behaviour. It's classic case of putting the cart before the horse. It precludes a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry because if so what weird explanation/excuse misunderstanding

No need to be snippy. You said posters made the claim that it mental illness would be an excuse when nobody actually did make that claim.

Again answering the question nobody asked.

I made it clear I was responding to the speculation about his mental health here and elsewhere.

Again, no one needs your special permission or to be asked a specific question to post this.

So here it is again for you.

NOTHING excuses what Hawe did.

. . . . . .

......... wrote:

NOTHING excuses what Hawe did.

Yeah I just find it fascinating that anyone would need to keep telling themselves something so obvious, completely unprompted

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I just find it fascinating that anyone would need to keep telling themselves something so obvious, completely unprompted

I'll explain it again for you, whatever your particular obsession or problem is . . .

Nothing excuses what he DID and anyone can post this without your permission or question. Tough.

......... wrote:

Nothing excuses what he DID and anyone can post this without your permission or question. Tough.

Again completely unprompted you feel the need to make this point about nothing excusing the behaviour. Very strange. Why do you keep mentioning permission? Is that something that has come up in this discussion?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Again completely unprompted you feel the need to make this point about nothing excusing the behaviour. Very strange. Why do you keep mentioning permission? Is that something that has come up in this discussion?

I'm not quite sure why you object so much people posting without your permission or prompting, or what your angle, agenda or spin is, but the more you object to it being posted, the more I think it should be. So in case you don't want to hear it again . . .Nothing excuses his behaviour, no matter how you hate to hear it stated.

......... wrote:

I'm not quite sure why you object so much to anyone simply posting that nothing excuses his behaviour with your permission, or what your angle, agenda or spin is, but the more you object to it being posted the more I think it should be. So in case you don't want to hear it again . . .Nothing excuses his behaviour, no matter how you hate to hear it.

I haven't objected to you saying it. I know nothing excuses the behaviour. Everyone knows it, nobody has opposed the idea. I'm fascinated that anyone would feel compelled to keep saying it over and over, completely unprompted and in opposition to nobody.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I haven't objected to you saying it. I know nothing excuses the behaviour. Everyone knows it, nobody has opposed the idea. I'm fascinated that anyone would feel compelled to keep saying it over and over, completely unprompted and in opposition to nobody.

I'm intrigued why you think someone needs to be prompted to post something or be asked a question to post it, or somehow needs your permission and justification. You clearly have a serious problem with it being posted, which prompts me to post it again for you . . .Nothing excuses what he did . . .I don't care what nerve that touches in you.

Bishopsback

......... wrote: »

I'm intrigued why you think someone needs to be prompted to post something or be asked a question to post it, or somehow needs your permission and justification. You clearly have a serious problem with it being posted, which prompts me to post it again for you . . .Nothing excuses what he did . . .I don't care what nerve that touches in you.

And nothing will change it either.
For all the reactions and the name calling and the why's and wherefores we can't turn back the clock.
I'm sure while we who look on would say and think how terrible it was/is, if Hawe had somehow survived and been alive to face the consequences of his actions we would be hearing of his mental state at the time, it would probably be used by his defence as a mitigation for his actions, while we as people might say and think there are no excuses, the law doesent look at it that way, it allows for mitigation under certain certified mental diagnosis.
We will never know now how this could have happened, even the experts now can at best theorise based on letters and actions.
But that can all be a ploy and we will never know the factual truth, just well judged theories and all sorts of common opinions.

......... wrote:

I'm intrigued why you think someone needs to be prompted to post something or be asked a question to post it, or somehow needs your permission and justification. You clearly have a serious problem with it being posted, which prompts me to post it again for you . . .Nothing excuses what he did . . .

You seem to have a persecution complex about this.

Me: Nobody said mental health would excuse anything.
...: No, nothing would excuse his behaviour no matter how much you don't want to hear it.
Me: yeah, obviously nothing would excuse the behaviour. Nobody said it would.

Holding steadfast to a position in opposition to absolutely nobody. Martyr for nothing it would seem.

It would be more useful to look for the actual cause than to preclude causes for the mistaken idea that identifying a causal factor such as mental illness, would excuse he behaviour.

If he had mental health issues then none of his family, his wife's family, his teaching colleagues, his GAA colleagues, his close friends etc etc seemed to notice it.
I'm not buying that excuse at all. He was a cold blooded murderer who prepared for a bloody end to his lovely kids and wife's lives. A control freak who schemed and prepared with his hatchet and knives to end the lives of the closest people to him in a horrific way yet wrote letters and left notes to make sure the people he conned did not see the mess he left.
For anyone to try and excuse his actions by saying he had mental issues is just wrong whoever and wherever they may be.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You seem to have a persecution complex about this.

Me: Nobody said mental health would excuse anything.
...: No, nothing would excuse his behaviour no matter how much you don't want to hear it.
Me: yeah, obviously nothing would excuse the behaviour. Nobody said it would.

Holding steadfast to a position in opposition to absolutely nobody. Martyr for nothing it would seem.

It would be more useful to look for the actual cause than to preclude causes for the mistaken idea that identifying a causal factor such as mental illness, would excuse he behaviour.

The actual cause was Alan Hawe. Nothing else 'caused' it.

No matter how much you object to it being stated, nothing excuses his behaviour or was 'the cause of it' other than Alan Hawe.

tayto lover wrote: »

If he had mental health issues then none of his family, his wife's family, his teaching colleagues, his GAA colleagues, his close friends etc etc seemed to notice it.
I'm not buying that excuse at all. He was a cold blooded murderer who prepared for a bloody end to his lovely kids and wife's lives. A control freak who schemed and prepared with his hatchet and knives to end the lives of the closest people to him in a horrific way yet wrote letters and left notes to make sure the people he conned did not see the mess he left.
For anyone to try and excuse his actions by saying he had mental issues is just wrong whoever and wherever they may be.

Who is excusing it?

Pointing to the factors that may or may not have contributed to this heinous act is not excusing them. It is trying to work out why an outwardly law abiding and upstanding individual brutally and callously butchered his family. That is a legitimate conversation and a worthwhile one. The impulse to say 'oh he was just a monster' masks the reality of this crime and serves no other purpose than satiating individuals' rage and righteousness.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Who is excusing it?

Pointing to the factors that may or may not have contributed to this heinous act is not excusing them. It is trying to work out why an outwardly law abiding and upstanding individual brutally and callously butchered his family. That is a legitimate conversation and a worthwhile one. The impulse to say 'oh he was just a monster' masks the reality of this crime and serves no other purpose than satiating individuals' rage and righteousness.

There are plenty of people trying to find excuses for his behaviour. I have friends who live in that area. Perhaps the clue is in your comment about him being "an outwardly law abiding and upstanding individual" He conned people.

tayto lover wrote: »

There are plenty of people trying to find excuses for his behaviour. I have friends who live in that area. Perhaps the clue is in your comment about him being "an outwardly law abiding and upstanding individual" He conned people.

Who? Given that there are 'plenty' it ought not be a challenge to provide some examples.

Yes he conned people and trying to work out why and how he did so, and so effectively that even the victims' family were taken in by it, seems to me to be not only beneficial but essential if we are to try and work towards a society where such acts are ever less common.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Who? Given that there are 'plenty' it ought not be a challenge to provide some examples.

Yes he conned people and trying to work out why and how he did so, and so effectively that even the victims' family were taken in by it, seems to me to be not only beneficial but essential if we are to try and work towards a society where such acts are ever less common.

I won't name names here.
He had friends who obviously feel rotten now that they were conned by a cold-blooded killer. They had him up there as a pillar of society, a great family man and a brilliant father.
See how that worked out for them. They must be so embarrassed to have been taken in.

tayto lover wrote: »

I won't name names here.

Thought so.

tayto lover wrote: »

He had friends who obviously feel rotten now that they were conned by a cold-blooded killer. They had him up there as a pillar of society, a great family man and a brilliant father.
See how that worked out for them. They must be so embarrassed to have been taken in.

Do you apply the same smug sense of judgement to the victims' and their family?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Thought so.

Maybe read the charter.
"Thought so is so out-dated".

Do you apply the same smug sense of judgement to the victims' and their family?

The children were the victims. They saw him as their father which he was so they would not be in a position to judge. His wife is a different matter and i'd say she really feared him. Didn't he even drive to Galway to inspect who she was rooming with. I'd say she was in complete fear of that monster.

tayto lover wrote: »

The children were the victims. They saw him as their father which he was so they would not be in a position to judge. His wife is a different matter and i'd say she really feared him. Didn't he even drive to Galway to inspect who she was rooming with. I'd say she was in complete fear of that monster.

Apologies. Let me restate it in another way, given that you claimed repeatedly that people were trying to excuse his behaviour, and doubled down by claiming that there were plenty, I find your failure to point to even one example, either here in this thread or elsewhere to be highly questionable.

His children and his wife were, as far as we now understand, undoubtedly in fear of him. I don't question the horrendous actions of this 'man' leading up to his ultimate act of violence and treachery. Restating them has no impact on my premise that to understand (as much as one can) how this happened is a worthwhile and essential exercise. This includes the idea that he may have been in some way mentally ill.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Apologies. Let me restate it in another way, given that you claimed repeatedly that people were trying to excuse his behaviour, and doubled down by claiming that there were plenty, I find your failure to point to even one example, either here in this thread or elsewhere to be highly questionable.

His children and his wife were, as far as we now understand, undoubtedly in fear of him. I don't question the horrendous actions of this 'man' leading up to his ultimate act of violence and treachery. Restating them has no impact on my premise that to understand (as much as one can) how this happened is a worthwhile and essential exercise. This includes the idea that he may have been in some way mentally ill.

Again there are loads of mentally ill people who don't butcher their families.
Also if you doubt that there are people who put Hawe up there as a pillar of society then there are plenty of links in the early pages of this thread and in the newspapers of the time. They are easy to find.

tayto lover wrote: »

Again there are loads of mentally ill people who don't butcher their families.

I want to preface the following by making clear that I don't, no more than you I presume, know whether this 'man' was mentally ill or not. With that out of the way, the point you make is a canard. It is the equivalent of me saying 'my Grandfather smoked 40 a day and died of old age at 89' and there are plenty of people like him out there. While a true statement, it obscures the real facts around the issue. Accordingly I utterly disregard it.

tayto lover wrote: »

Also if you doubt that there are people who put Hawe up there as a pillar of society then there are plenty of links in the early pages of this thread and in the newspapers of the time. They are easy to find.

I do not doubt it. I have not suggested I did. I believe it is a factually correct statement to make that this 'man' was a pillar of the community. I don't accept that acknowledging this is an effort to excuse his actions. Whatsmore I believe acknowledging this aspect of this unspeakable situation is vital to our understanding of what went wrong. What he did was monstrous and there is no excuse for it, this is all the more reason for us to fulsomely examine his character and societal position.

freshpopcorn

I know husbands and wives who'd you call control freaks.(More wives than husbands to be honest) However, you never expect them to do anything violent or dangerous. Most people just say if that's what works for them leave them alone.
Even you see posts over in personal issues and people are concerned about friends and people just say keep your nose out of it and it's none of your business.

Well the facts suggest he was a murdering butcher. Whatever the cause, jealousy, deflated ego, she was going to leave him ?? whatever we don't know. He coldly planned and calculated for his family's demise. Yet he didn't want anyone to see his handy work. Ego again??

There is nothing to suggest he had a mental illness. Nothing at all.

tayto lover wrote: »

Well the facts suggest he was a murdering butcher. Whatever the cause, jealousy, deflated ego, she was going to leave him ?? whatever we don't know. He coldly planned and calculated for his family's demise. Yet he didn't want anyone to see his handy work. Ego again??

There is nothing to suggest he had a mental illness. Nothing at all.

'Well the facts suggest' followed by a list of total conjecture and suppositions...;)

You don't get to criticise others for exploring the idea that he suffered from a mental illness while blithely throwing about, apropos nothing, random suggestions.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

'Well the facts suggest' followed by a list of total conjecture and suppositions...;)

You don't get to criticise others for exploring the idea that he suffered from a mental illness while blithely throwing about, apropos nothing, random suggestions.

t may not suit you but you know he was a murderer. The bodies of his kids prove that. Nothing random about that. Nothing at all.
What supports your argument?

tayto lover wrote: »

t may not suit you but you know he was a murderer. The bodies of his kids prove that. Nothing random about that. Nothing at all.
What supports your argument?

When did I suggest directly or even otherwise that he wasn't a vicious, cold-blooded murderer?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

When did I suggest directly or even otherwise that he wasn't a vicious, cold-blooded murderer?

Apologies. I meant to say people not you.
People looking for reasons to suggest otherwise i.e mental illness to me is an effort to diminish this man's guilt.

freshpopcorn

If he just killed himself and planned it in great detail would people accept he had a mental health illness?

tayto lover wrote: »

Apologies. I meant to say people not you.
People looking for reasons to suggest otherwise i.e mental illness to me is an effort to diminish this man's guilt.

I understand fully, truly I do. Can you understand that some of us want to explain and not excuse what caused this, what lead to it? For us simply saying Alan Hawe was a singular monster will not cut it.