It does remind me of the Baby P incident and it's shocking lessons haven't been learned.

Mistakes happen and people slip through the net. It would be naive to think anyone and everyone can be caught. But the fact that numerous trips to the hospital with such shocking injuries were overlooked is baffling.

I doubt it is, but maybe all the health visitors etc were taken in by the novelty of it all...:shrug:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, babies are slippery little buggers and quite often things happen. When my son was 18 months old I was running downstairs with him on my hip, tripped over my own feet and.put my arms out to catch myself...dropping my son. I took him to hospital and.after a bit of.observation he was discharged. A week later he was in the bath and I noticed a lump on his shoulder. It turned out he broke his collar bone in the fall but as childrens bones are so pliable at that age it wasnt picked up till it started to heal....after the fall he was a bit stiff and I kept adking him to do "so big" to move it which obviously with a broken collar bone was probavky painful but he did it. What im trying to say iss accidents happen and medical professionals are not infallible so to place blame is a tough one other than at the door of the man who ultimately took this little girls life, whatever the circumstances, this child has lost her life and her future..getting hung up on his sexuality is pointless. He has taken the life of a child and should pay the price with a hefty prison sentance

This is incredibly sad, poor little thing must have been in so much pain.

The guy is scum and I hope he get's what he deserves.

Oh that’s alright then. He just killed the child in the heat of the moment. Poor man, how he must have suffered. Perhaps he should be given another child as it may not have been premeditated. God forbid.

She didn't say that fgs. The point is when a baby is killed like this by shaking, its usually a heat of the moment angry reaction to the baby crying etc, where a parent/nanny whatever just loses it, he's still a **** though

Not what she said.
She was clearly counter pointing what you said about the possibility of it being premeditated. No excuses. Just the fact that crimes like this are normally not pre-planned.

HE had hurt the child before and referred to her as ‘satan’ and the ‘devil’ so not exactly spur of the moment.

Not exactly damning evidence that his crimes were entirely pre planned.

That still doesn't make what you said about DRs post right. You pretty much implied because she thought that it wasn't pre meditated that she had sympathy for a man who killed a baby, that's quite low imo

Her point wasn't as an excuse or to lessen the actions of this man. The point is that a lot of people seem to think that this would have been avoided "with better checks", as though there "must" have been some sign that he would do this if the people doing the checks were "better at their jobs" or "had tougher criteria". But that's rarely the case. People who pass every check going with flying colours, and seem like normal and completely non-violent people, can "turn" and commit horrible crimes.

You seem to think that there's "something that can be changed" (not allowing gay people to adopt at all, probably) that would stop things like this happening when in reality, it could be the person you least expect who commits a crime like this, and there is no such thing as a foolproof system of checks.

It may not be exactly have been pre-planned but demonstrated a worrying pattern of behaviour. If the poor child had not died it would likely have happened again.

Pre-meditated or not most people do not commit such a crime. There must have been signs of violence in his behaviour at some point in his past that was probably ignored or excuses made for him.

But there's also a first time for everything so not necessarily so.

Brillo you keep making definitive statements when you actually have no idea what you're talking about. There "must have been" signs? No. There might have been, there might not. He might have been cruel to animals or other kids when he was younger without anyone ever knowing about it. Or he might be predisposed to turn cruel and violent when under strain but have lived a relatively sheltered / stress free life and not even have known this about himself, let alone anyone else knowing.

You see the world in huge sweeping strokes and have very little understanding of psychological intricacies... But you like to talk like you alone can see the obvious truth. I just don't understand why you think you know better than the people who are closest to him or the professionals who assessed him. His family didn't see it, people trained to look into people and spot these things didn't see it...but Brillo off TiBB would have definitely spotted it? It's nonsense.

It may have been being responsible for caring for a baby brought it out in him and nothing up to that point had done. Any parent will know that babies can be really tough work sometimes especially if you are tired on top of everything, most people will walk away and have a few deep breathes if they feel under pressure with a baby who won't stop crying and some people don't and they snap unfortunately (I'm not making excuses for this guy btw)

Exactly. It's not that literally any person can crack under that sort of pressure... But some people have that part of them that will snap under extreme pressure and sleep deprivation, and have simply never experienced that level of strain before. There's no way for anyone to know that that side of them exists until that situation arises. And again... If people don't even know it about themselves, it's ludicrous to think that any vetting procedure is going to somehow discover it.

If he was such a nice guy he would have given the child back after the first incident which happened long before they officially adopted the child.

But no, he said nothing ignoring his own obvious anger issues...scum.

No one is saying he's a nice guy or making excuses for him ffs.

Who said he's a nice guy?

Stop picking stupid holes fgs..we all know what i mean.

So if he really really did care that much about the child then why didnt he hand the child back after the first, 2nd or even 3rd instance of abuse?


Simple really, he cared more about himself than the child he was trying to adopt.

Nobody's picking. You're arguing a point that NOBODY made.

Who said he cared that much?

His husband on day 2 of the trial.