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.

His husband day 2 of the trial.

His husband did on day 2 of the tial, hence why i didnt quote anyone....and im being accused if being thick fgs.

Yes but it sounds like you're trying to make a counter-point to something someone has said on here. Who on here has agreed with those statements made by his husband?

Oh right, the way you put it into your post made it seem like you were asking us all why we thought he was a nice guy, who are you asking then? Pretty sure the husband isn't a member here

I would have quoted.....are we now going to spend another page arguing about me? Cause im a bit fed up with it to be honest.

Not really asking anyone, just making a point really regarding this one off thing...which is rubbish as it wasnt a one of thing

I don't think it's simple at all... Like others have already mentioned, this isn't just a case of one thing causing another, it's much much more complicated than that.

That's why it pays to put your post into a context and not stick it at the end of an ongoing discussion where it appears to be a response to that discussion.

In response to what you actually said, it doesn't have to be one incident for his husband to have seen him as a nice guy beforehand.

His anger issues clearly aren't "issues" if he's noticing them and getting help for them immediately after one instance.

You're simplifying psychological problems.

..this is all just so incredibly heart-breaking, the pain that Elsie must have endured...:sad:...


..there appeared to bee a whole catalogue of injuries and hospital visits/fractured bones, had injuries happening almost monthly while she was in the care of Matthew Scully-Hicks..and yet the adoption wasn't halted...?...no enquiries were made into the constant hospital visits and 'accidents'..?...also her persistent vomiting after head injury and no CT scan was done at the hospital and again, the adoption process not looked at, at all..?...it's all incredibly wrong...and I hope this is a start of some serious reviews and possible changes...

I don't understand how professionals keep missing stuff like this. They pretty much stalked us for months and months, dropping in unannounced, accusing us of all sorts, making me cry at one stage by telling me my illness meant I was an unfity parent, and that was all just as Gavins other son accidentally kneed Skye in the head when she was a few months old. We took her to hospital immediately to get checked even though 111 said it wouldn't likely be serious if she didn't have a noticeable dent or anything and cried straight away...but we got her checked anyway. We were reported to SS because of the nature of the accident and they chased us for months and months. Yet cases like this...don't get that? When there have been multiple suspicious injuries? Just makes no sense to me.

This is my main issue as well and is what ive been trying to get across...fancy a job proof reading my posts prior to posting?

Think about it for a minute, maybe just maybe, the SS or whoever does these checks, are also intimidated by the current PC and fearful of being labelled as homophobic, consciously or unconsciously, if they are considered to be too thorough in their assessment. It is entirely possible in my opinion.

Thank you... Marsh too, because I had to hold back on my reply because I'd probably get an infraction.

I doubt it.

There's a new Oracle in town

I doubt it.

Well I wouldn't say it was entirely impossible that this may happen at times. I do think its pretty unlikely though.

Just don't understand how I was stalked for one mistake (which was an accident caused by a child, not even myself!) where there was not even any serious injury and we only went to hospital as I was a bit of a neurotic first ti me mother... where so many others seem to not be investigated for multiple dodgy accidents.

Probably comes down to individual health nurses personalities as well I suppose

Health visitors are entirely useless. Either they upset good parents, or they miss bad ones. We have had 3 in total over the years and only one of them was half decent and actually helpful. The others were just awful judgey people who had no actual kids of their own...which I genuinely do think should be a requirement of doing a job like that. You simply cannot do it if you think kids are all textbook. Doesn't work like that and your advice is garbage.

The one I had after I had Luke drove me crazy she kept getting his name wrong, everytime she posted out a letter she had a different name on it :fist: I'd swear she did it on purpose too to annoy me

Omg, did she ever need to write your name down? I bet that was a challenge for her. :laugh:

My name isn't actually a challenge in Ireland considering it's an Irish name :nono:

:hehe:

He has been found guilty sentencing tomorrow

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=spartanntp

Hope he gets battered senseless in prison,he better be going to prison with a lengthy sentence.

Children do have accidents but I am mystified as to why the broken leg didn't flag social workers to look more closely at this couple. It's not that easy to break a leg and particularly a toddler who should be supervised. Better to be looking more vigilantly at the couple than for a worse outcome. Poor little girl.

I don't understand this case at all, did he just go along with the adoption to please his partner or did he have a rosy idealised view of parenthood

Yeah it's odd, he seemed to be the main carer for the child as well. I feel sorry for the biological parents aswell, probably thinking they were giving their child a better chance at life :(

the opinion of the court is that he was intentional in his abuse, not just losing his rag :umm2: