Stuckforcash wrote: » His doctor treated him for only physical ailments and said he never disclosed his thoughts. His counsellor said he came to him because of anxiety, which is guess what, a mental illness. It's clear from your posts that you don't read articles correctly and have a limited understanding of mental illness.
volchitsa wrote: » So anyone whose partner suffers from anxiety needs to worry about being murdered in their bed, is that it?
Stuckforcash wrote: » What an moronic post. I said he was receiving counselling for anxiety when another poster concluded that his counsellor stated he had no mental issues. I've no interest in this type of cynical nonsense.
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.
Professor Harry Kennedy is consultant forensic psychiatrist and executive clinical director at the National Forensic Mental Health Service, Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Ireland. He is also Clinical Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Trinity College Dublin. He studied medicine at University College Dublin before training in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry in the UK at Hammersmith Hospital and Maudsley /Institute of Psychiatry, London. He established early prison in-reach services in Pentonville, Holloway, Cloverhill and Mountjoy prisons. His research includes work on the epidemiology of suicide, homicide and violence; prison psychiatric morbidity; international human rights law and mental disabilities.
kunst nugget wrote: » There's nothing dishonest or unprofessional in what he did. He's a forensic psychiatrist with expertise in this area. He was asked to review the case and give his opinion which is what he did.
PeterParker957 wrote: » Why must anyone who disagrees with a post immediately go to "you know nothing of the subject" ? You could be addressing anyone here with any kind of knowledge on the relevant subjects but no, they disagree with you and so much be thick.
Stuckforcash wrote: » Jesus christ. He said Hawe had no history of mental illness, yet he was receiving treatment for one. I pointed this out and you and your ilk accuse me of saying all people with anxiety are murderers and that it excuses Alan Hawes actions. Read my posts. It's not disagreeing with me that makes me think you're thick.
Intothesea wrote: » Hypochondria and paranoia/anxiety are some common presenting complaints of narcissists facing egotistical destruction, and can be seen as symptoms of how precariously and abnormally the narcissistic personality is constructed. This can be researched online. There's nothing to say demfad doesn't understand mental illness, I think there's plenty to say that s/he doesn't see it as being a key cause of the action.
demfad wrote: » Only one expert came to that conclusion. His doctor and counsellor came to a completely different conclusion.
bobsman wrote: » Where is the watching porn and masturbating at school coming from?? Is that just another rumour??
Stuckforcash wrote: » The expert says that he had a severe depressive illness with elements of psychosis. The letter he left was, if any of the papers are to be believed, disjointed, rambling and and even references fears that he may have psychosis himself. I think mental illness plays a huge part here and so do the experts that examined the case closely. Not sure why it's still being debated really. It's possible to have bad character traits coupled with mental illness. Acknowledging mental illness as a factor doesn't necessarily redeem him from the action. Also the "if only they knew" line has being trotted about as evidence that he was a domestic abuser even though the counsellor clearly states that Hawe said that in relation to the anxiety issues he was there to work through. I'm not saying there wasn't abuse, but that's not evidence of it.
PeterParker957 wrote: » Prof. Kennedy may well be right, I wouldn't disagree with an expert especially one of his calibre. However, this should not preclude debate about Hawe, his crimes and the wider circumstances. You can suffer from a mental illness and not kill your entire family, for no other reason than you are a ****!
Stuckforcash wrote: » I said he was receiving counselling for anxiety when another poster concluded that his counsellor stated he had no mental issues.
Shurimgreat wrote: » And again its a big jump to go from being mentally ill to coolly planning a number of murders. I will concede, like everyone else, I don't know his mindset in the months or weeks leading up to the day of his rampage. He could have been a raving lunatic, he could have been perfectly sane. His actions however point to someone relatively sane, capable of logical thinking, fearful of a loss of reputation and position in the community. It seems he worked hard to become a pillar of the community and this meant everything to him. His reputation as a family man was also crucial to him. It seemed to be fundamental to his being. Without family and his reputation he was nothing. That seemed to be the way he was thinking. The mental health aspect was minimal imo. There is no evidence he was hearing voices for example. No evidence he was not functioning properly. Or that he was imagining things. The evidence was he was about to be exposed, suffer a loss of reputation and his reputation as a family man and pillar of society. This happens to many people but they don't choose to kill their entire family.
Stuckforcash wrote: » He said he didn't have mental issues. You just acknowledged he did.
Neyite wrote: » It's possible he was all of those things - the domestic abuser, sane in every sense of the word, and still someone who had some mild emerging MH issues. And when all of those things combine it could add up to family annihilation in some cases. He may not have been logical, but he did know what he was going to do/ had done was heinous. He may have had MH concerns, but that doesn't fully explain what he did, nor does it exonerate him at whatsoever. We could argue that all killers have some sort of MH issue, some are truly delusional when committing their crimes, others are simply very sane and yet still, not normal by ordinary standards. The legal test for an insanity defence I think is whether or not the accused was able to distinguish right from wrong at the time. From the notes it appears that AH did know right from wrong. He just decided that he was justified in doing what he did.
Stuckforcash wrote: » His doctor treated him for only physical ailments and said he never disclosed his thoughts.
Stuckforcash wrote: » So you disagree that he had a mental illness. But you agree that he had a mental illness. Ok...
Dial Hard wrote: » And Professor Kennedy never treated him at all.
Intothesea wrote: » Is this supposed to prove something? I think it's fairly normal for people to look at a range of potential issues when considering a happenstance like this. Mental illness would be the first place most people would go, considering how unusual this act is. It's likely other unexpected-for-the-territory details would make someone move into a more cynical viewpoint. For my money, both sides of the argument are correct, but in different ways and places.
Stuckforcash wrote: » So you think he lied?
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.
Dial Hard wrote: » Nope, I think Volchsita has hit the nail on the head:
Intothesea wrote: » Stuckforcash, I generally took demfad to be rubbishing mental illness as a cause of the action as an irrelevance, but in any case, s/he is comparing apparent causes and dropping the losing side, which is what we're all busy doing on this thread
Stuckforcash wrote: » But you think the GP that treated him for a fungal infection that acknowledged they never spoke about his feelings is somehow more indicative of his sound mental state?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
