Anita Blow wrote: » 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.
Stuckforcash wrote: » He said he didn't have mental issues. .....
Stuckforcash wrote: » The expert says that he had a severe depressive illness with elements of psychosis.
demfad wrote: » Only one expert came to that conclusion. His doctor and counsellor came to a completely different conclusion. An expert in domestic violence would see it differently also. No doubt an expert in family annihilation would have seen this as a text book case. A man has a sense of 'family ownership' and massive ego about his 'masculinity' as reflected by his 'pillar of society' and 'family man' status. When this all-precious image is about to be shatterred he decides to check out and take his belongings with him.
Alan Hawe’s counsellor David McConnell said he had seen him over 10 sessions, the final one on the same day his GP was visited by him for the last time - June 21st, 2016.Mr McConnell said nothing Alan Hawe disclosed to him during the sessions suggested he was about to harm himself or anyone else.
Stuckforcash wrote: » So you think he lied?
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.
demfad wrote: » Can you please link to where I said that? Thanks.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/alan-hawe-had-depressive-symptoms-for-almost-a-decade-inquest-told-1.3332363 But please, quote where I stated that Hawe did not have any mental issues, which is what you have repeated several times here. Go ahead.
Stuckforcash wrote: » His belief that his world was falling apart and as a result he needed to kill his family could be seen as a psychotic delusion. It's being argued that he wouldn't be able to perform a murder like this while suffering from delusions. That's not true.
volchitsa wrote: » 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.
GLaDOS wrote: » Is the porn stuff being reported anywhere other than the sun?
demfad wrote: » Can you provide any evidence that shows that depression or mental illness makes you more likely to harm someone? AFAIK People with mental illness are far more likely to be harmed by other people than to harm someone. But you've said youre informed about mental illness and thus implied you're not prejudiced against the mentally ill. Please fill us in.
tayto lover wrote: » It is quite possible he could have been mistaken or even fooled too.
Conclusions: Our research suggests that family annihilators should be seen as a distinct category of murderer, of which there are specific subcategories. What seems to link each of the subcategories that we have identified is masculinity and the need to exert power and control in situations when the annihilator feels that his masculinity has, in some way, been threatened. For these men, the family role of the father was fundamental to their masculine identities and, prior to the murders, the family had, to some extent, ceased to perform its masculinity-affirming functions for them. Murder, or more bluntly, family annihilation, thus emerges in this sense as a resource to perform masculinity, when other resources have failed, are seen as being inadequate, or do not deliver the desired outcomes. In this way the annihilation makes public what had often been a private reality – a reality masked to family, friends and neighbours who often thought that this man had been a ‘doting’ and ‘loving’ father and ‘dutiful’ husband. Sadly, we suggest that this is a trend which seems to be increasing. However, our observations are a weak basis on which to consider what can be done to reduce the incidence of family annihilation. After all, children will be – and still should be – given access to estranged fathers, the vast majority of whom would never dream of attacking or killing their children. Marriages and relationships will continue to dissolve. What, therefore, can be done? Clearly, this is a simple question to ask, but a much more difficult one to answer. However, the beginnings of such an answer must relate to gender and a recognition that it is, in the main, men who use violence and will take the lives of their children in this way.
Stuckforcash wrote: » The vast majority of people in general don't harm others, mental issues or not. These cases are extremely rare but when an event like this occurs there is almost always a history of mental illness, it's a link worth investigating. Not shoving under the carpet and concluding that he did this just because he was evil. You can look into a mental health aspect without excusing the action. The jury's reccomendation, after hearing all evidence, to raise awareness for mental health in the work place is to be dismissed as lies an unprofessionalism too I suppose? Anyway I hope some answers come out of all of this that help prevent this from happening again.
demfad wrote: » Remember he was asked to give an assessment. His assessment was 'more likely than not' so would be hardly admissable even in a court as credible evidence. It is a hypothesis. An expert in family annihilation would look for a controlling type, a patriarcal figure, a marriage break up, a fall from grace and make his/her conclusions with far more certainty. An expert in domestic violence could similarly identify the patterns and testimonies of control and manipulation and conclude likewise. Again a look at the conclusions of the British study bears this out The role of 'Father' was fundamental to Hawe's masculine identity: a small reminder "Alan was steeped in the noble traditions of family". The family ceased to perform this function for him. So he exerted the last piece of control he thought he had over them: to take their lives. As the expert analysis quoted suggests: the public who thought him a loving father etc. were publicly confronted with the private reality of Hawe's world. Our society almost let Hawe get away with this: Anyone who questioned the good man who cracked story was attacked. Remember the church put out a 13 priest and bishop show of strenght for his mass in Kilkenny. This is the society that creates men like Alan Hawe. A society that was truly equal and intolerant of domestic violence and misogyny would be a cold place for someone like him. He may have been anxious about his upcoming fall from Grace. But he held his beliefs about his family long before that and what drove him to murder them was his view that it was his deep belief in his 'view' of father that it was right to do so.
demfad wrote: » There have been studies. So the British one in this post. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105620275&postcount=944 Mental illness is the principle factor in only 5% of cases. Marriage breakup in 2 in every 3. A patriarcal, 'family owenrship' worldview was the prevalent common attribute of the killers.
jobbridge4life wrote: » That is a fairly serious accusation to make against the Director of the Central Mental Hospital who was carrying out his duties, and did so at the request of the Cororner.
Stuckforcash wrote: » And a history of mental illness? That just implies there was an episode of mental illness at the time of the crime.
Stuckforcash wrote: » I remember a mother jumped off Wexford bridge with her two kids years ago also. Was seen a huge tragedy with tributes left right for the mother. Sympathy isn't exclusive to male murderers.
demfad wrote: » I never said it was. I did and do maintain that those showing sympathy for Alan Hawe may have to look at their worldview.
demfad wrote: » Why don't you have a read yourself and let us know?
Dial Hard wrote: » Irish Times reporting that he had accessed porn and was "obsessed" with people finding out about it. Absolutely nothing about him doing it at work, though.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/suicide-note-shows-catalogue-of-issues-troubled-hawe-1.3334479
Stuckforcash wrote: » I genuinely haven't seen a single person show sympathy for him.
bobsman wrote: » I think (just my opinion) that it is the way he murdered Clodagh and the boys. If it was a more "humane" killing (whatever that is!). It is the savagery which people struggle with.
iamwhoiam wrote: » In my opinion people are struggling with the planning aspect of it too .The closed curtains , the weapons ready , the path cleared of furniture , the eldest first , the financial affairs sorted , the written notes etc .It wasnt an impulsive action that followed a snapping of a mind and people will struggle with that and find it abhorrent .
kfallon wrote: » No set of circumstances can absolve or justify a man person from killing his own wife & children, especially as it was premeditated!
professore wrote: » Do you agree with my corrected statement? He had been attending a psychiatrist, so he knew that there was something badly wrong with him. There must be some doubt around the murder/suicide theory if they are exhuming him.
professore wrote: » There must be some doubt around the murder/suicide theory if they are exhuming him.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
