[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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)

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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

I doubt it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I doubt it.

There's a new Oracle in town

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

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.