Roscop, ""Do you think ANY reason at all is a good enough reason to absolve him of responsibility of that crime?" "

Nothing I've seen suggests a good enough reason to absolve him of responsibility for that crime. I am willing to accept that there may have been contributing factors but I don't consider that an absolution.

I think there is great wrong in not separating a desire to address the factors that make family breakdown far worst than it needs to be and the choices the adults make along the way.

Unless you are privy to information about that case not in the public domain then it's unlikely that any of us know enough to judge what went before. Our guesses will be coloured by our own views and experiences.

Nothing that the Family Law system or CSA could have done is enough to absolve someone of a choice to kill their child. I do think there should be a thorough analysis of the role of government in the lead up events such as that one, reducing pressure points would I believe stop some of these events but that does not absolve the perpetrator nor would it stop all.

I suspect that the Australian of the Year award was politically motivated rather than based on long service to the community. I also think the attacks on Rose if without evidence of your suspicions quite unfair and not helpful to what I think your are trying to highlight.

I've not heard much of Rose Batty speaking, the little I have heard followed the normal mantras but did at least include a statement against all violence.

R0bert

Roscop

I have gone back to read reports on the death of Luke Batty, particularly why the coroner’s report was not released.

Victoria's coroner did not release an official report into Luke Batty’s death because The Commissioner for Children and Young People, Bernie Geary
said the report would undermine the state's child protection service. Rosie Batty challenged Bernie Geary, and asked for the report to be released. However lawyers acting on the commission's behalf sought to stop it being released publicly on the grounds it would be contrary to public interest. The application to suppress the information was backed by the Department of Human Services (DHS), responsible for the child protection sector. Rachel Doyle SC, acting on behalf of Rosie Batty, said the department's argument assumed child protection workers would put their "self-interest and fear" above the public interest. "Where there is secrecy, there is real potential to undermine public confidence in those services…If there's secrecy around this report... people will be less understanding, less confident in the system."

Coroner Gray acknowledged there were "clearly, strongly competing public interest" in the issues raised. But he said "protecting the integrity" of the Commission for Children and Young People "outweighs public disclosure of the report".

Clearly Rosie Batty wanted the coroner to release the report but unfortunately she does not have the power to make this happen

Sarah

Your post is good for others to read and its good that you are doing your own research on the case, but you are not telling me anything that I didn't already know.

It goes without saying that Rosie Batty does not have the power to make the Coroner release the report. So I don’t know why you bother to tell people that.

However if Rosie Batty is/was really genuine in wanting the Coroner’s report released and if she thinks secrecy in respect to these matters is such a bad thing and she did not just come in on the back of the child protection organisation objections to the report being released thinking that that organisation was going to win the day anyway, she now has the voice and stage for a whole year at least, to say things about that loudly and persistently. She is going around the country addressing audiences, had the cover story in last months AWW and according to what I’ve read is working on book deals.

Rosie Batty does not deserve respect simply by virtue of being Australian of the Year. As others have said she could simply be a politically motivated pawn and no one deserves respect for playing that role. She could also have a personal agenda.

Her opinions about domestic violence should not be given much credibility. Being a victim of domestic violence does not make you an expert on how to deal with it as a social problem. In order to be able to contribute you have to come to the table with no underlying agenda. In my opinion Rosie Batty has an underlying agenda. She is driven by the need to suppress her own guilt. She obviously was not responsible for the death of her son but it is quite likely that she caused her son to suffer a great deal just by maintaining the relationship she had with her partner. This is what she feels guilty about and rightly so. She knows that she could have left that relationship much earlier but did not because of her own emotional dependence on that relationship. Her dependence caused her son to live in fear and for that she must take full responsibility.

She thinks she has covered her guilt up but each time she speaks it emerges unconsciously as if it is a cry for help. She needs help to deal with the stress of suppressed guilt and the strain of having to maintain a facade in a very public role. She is not a hero or role model for other women – quite the opposite. Had she dealt with her guilt and taken responsibility for it she would be free to approach the wider social problem with an open mind but she is driven.

Her situation is not unique and so many of the women who offer solutions to the domestic violence problem carry the same burden of guilt. Their responses to domestic violence discussions are attempts to cover the guilt they feel for what they have done to their children.

Phanto,

"She knows that she could have left that relationship much earlier but did not because of her own emotional dependence on that relationship."

I think you might be wrong in what you say there. My understanding is that Rosie Batty had ended her relationship with Anderson a long time before the murder of the boy. I understand that at one stage Batty was in a live-in relationship with another bloke and therefore Anderson's son would have been living in the presence of another man (family law allows that irrespective of the fathers feelings towards it). I would say Anderson would have been full of resentment over that. Exactly how long that other relationship lasted I don't know.

According to the chronology given in the AWW some six months before the murder a court ordered that Anderson was to have supervised access to his child. For a father you can't get anything much more humiliating that. Some two months later "Child protection closes the file on Luke Batty, satisfied he is not in danger". Two months after that Rosie Batty takes off for the UK with her son...purportedly on a 5 week holiday...which reminds me of another mother who took her four daughters from their homeland purportedly on a holiday. The Australian Embassy in Rome gave the mother assistance to leave Italy. It took court action to get the children returned to their father who spent 100,000 euros(~140,000AUD) seeking justice. There was good coverage of that case in the media.

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20417-abducting-mother-of-four-italian-girls-part-of-previous-scam

(Phanto, wait till you get down to the allegations of tit groping and fingers up the twat bit...this is a ripper of case.)

R0bert

I agree. Being sent manic in no way absolves a person of his or her crime. Anderson should have found a better way to deal with his emotional trauma.

Thanks Sarah for clarifying those facts for us.

Phanto, unless you are a qualified psychologist who has actually treated Rosie and her ex-husband, then you have no idea of their thoughts or motivations.
Like many ignorant people, you blame the victim for the violence perpetrated against them.

If Rosie does benefit financially after the tragic murder of her only child, I say good luck to her, and she deserves some joy in her life. Like many victims, she could have curled up and died herself, but she didn't.

Those who aren't happy with her Australian of The Year award should complain to all those who nominated her and voted for her, and not conduct the witch-hunt on Rosie that is currently happening on this forum.