An interesting insight into a very sad case.

It raises two very obvious issues. What alternatives to murder did Geoff Hunt have? What were the underlying causes of these violent crimes?

The obvious alternative to murder in this and many other cases, where the partners can't get along, is separation. Some people just can't be lived with (e.g. those with violent tendencies, many substance abusers) and according to some reports Kim Hunt became very difficult to live with after her brain injury.

It is obvious that brain injury and depression were major underlying contributors to what happened, though they do not justify the murders. Kim's behaviour (almost certainly an effect of her brain injury) according to the coroner was instrumental in provoking the killings and over time had contributed to Geoff's depression.

So where does all this fit within Malcolm Turnbull's thesis that ""all violence against women begins with disrespecting women". It doesn't fit.

A truly horrific crime in that 3 young children were murdered, and that can never be justified, no matter how dysfunctional the adults lives were. There are many people in the community dealing with just as bad, or worse, family issues who don't deal with it all by murdering their children.

Both Mr. and Mrs Hunt were presumed to be mentally ill, although Mrs. Hunt had a brain injury, which is often much harder to deal with for all concerned.

Obviously, Mr Hunt needed more help for both his mental illness, and his family situation. This sort of thing will keep happening unless these families receive more help in the home. People with these sorts of brain injuries that make them extremely difficult to live with need appropriate places to be cared for outside of the family home, with regular visits and access to their family.

However, as much as I feel sorry for the situation Mr Hunt found himself in, I still can't ever understand nor forgive the murder of his own children. That act is not an act of euthanasia, it is an act of domestic violence in the extreme. The kids didn't deserve that.

Tragic. Only a totally insensitive person would lay blame anywhere in this case. But the children .....they could have had worthwhile lives.

We don't know that the children could have had worthwhile lives. We don't know how badly they have been damaged. Mr. Hunt didn't know either. They may have been resilient enough to have had worthwhile lives. Mr. Hunt had no right to kill them.

What is necessary is to follow up on cases of brain damage resulting in personality changes and deal with its effects. That would be the actions of a nanny state, and sometimes a nanny state is for the best.

This is an utterly tragic case, with Geoff’s depression and Kim’s brain damage contributing to a ghastly outcome. I agree with Suse, proper professional care for both or each of them could have prevented this awful outcome.

But … the article misrepresents the coroner’s comments in a way that diminishes Geoff’s responsibility for killing his family. According to the linked article, the coroner did not talk of Geoff’’s “eccentric delusion”, as Peter’s article claims, but his “egocentric delusion”. The coroner said that “his distorted logic led him to conclude that the children and his wife would not cope without him. It was the result of an egocentric delusion that his wife and children would be better off dying than living without him."

However unbearable Geoff’s life had become, and however much sympathy he deserves, the fact remains that this was indeed an “egocentric delusion” that led him to kill his children and his wife as well as himself

Interesting enough in Hindu culture many wives are burnt alive after their husbands die as supposedly their lives are not worth living.

Bren, feminism & the PC thought police did this. The only way to protect the innocent father & children from the terrorist who tortured them was to lock her up in a secure facility. But protecting children from maternal abuse & men from female DV is not PC.

Suseonline, Mothers do this all the time. Call it what it is a victim of domestic terrorism suffering from "battered partner syndrome" protecting his children from a terrorist in the only way he was allowed to.

ttbn, too true.

david f, the nanny state has been failing for half a century & will never work. Maybe a "Return to Order" is in order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNubASFUr1s

Rhian, have you ever been a DV victim? it is called "battered spouse syndrome" for a reason.

My plan involved killing the abuser of my children first, while they were in school, then myself so that my children could be adopted by my married, childless sister. it was the only option available to protect my children from their torturer, they still suffer from her abuse to this very day.

Runner,

Never missing a opportunity to backhand the opposition, the Hindu practice of Sati was outlawed by Queen Victoria in 1861 and more recently by the Indian Government. Apart from a few recorded exceptions it just doesn't happen anymore.

Groups like Heaven's Gate, The Order of the Solar Temple, the Jews of Masada, The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God and The People’s Temple at Jonestown demonstrate that religious belief is a common factor behind ritual mass suicide.

It also convinces some to strap bombs to themselves.

"Suseonline, Mothers do this all the time. Call it what it is a victim of domestic terrorism suffering from "battered partner syndrome" protecting his children from a terrorist in the only way he was allowed to."

What are you on about Imacentristmoderate? You are certainly no moderate.

Hunt was never 'allowed to' kill his children. There is no suggestion his brain damaged wife was a terrorist, she was just sick. If he went to his GP or the police and said he felt like doing something violent to a disabled woman if he wasn't given more help or time out, they would have done something for him.

Instead, he chose to murder a defenseless disabled woman and his children. A coward of the highest degree.

Someone who states on this forum that he had planned to kill someone else should not be allowed to post on this forum....

Wobbles

u r obviously very naïve if you think the burning of wives in India/Pakistan still does not happen. You really think a Hindu Government follows the rule of law in the outback regions. Next you will be telling me that Hindu men are not sexist.

Suseonline, "There is settled science, proving his brain damaged wife was a domestic, feminazi terrorist, she was very sick & deliberately NOT treated. If he went to his GP or the police and said he felt like doing something to protect his children if he wasn't given more help or time out, they would have done nothing for him.

Instead, he chose to protect his children from a violent woman. A brave man of the highest degree.

Someone who states on this forum that he had planned to kill someone else should not be allowed to post on this forum...." thank you for proving my point

1, i did not say he was allowed to kill his children, i stated the bleeding obvious "he was allowed or given NO other option or choice for protecting his children" a well documented scientifically proven fact. the Matriarchal nanny state gave him no other choice.

2, it does not matter what her excuses for her abominable behaviour were, what matters is YOUR matriarchal nanny state refused to protect an innocent man & his children from a domestic terrorist.

3, We know from both Rotherham & this case that police & GPs are not allowed to protect children from either islamic or feminist terrorism because that is not politically correct.

4, instead he courageously saved his children from a lifetime of verbal, emotional, financial abuse & psychological torture. he should be posthumously given a medal.

5, "Someone who states on this forum that he had planned to kill someone else should not be allowed to post on this forum...." here we see an admission of guilt from the real murderer. A man is not even allowed to talk about his problems under any circumstances, in any forum or any setting, public, private, whatever. Thank you again Suse, for proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was given no other choice.

hmmm, no body has the courage to answer openly or honestly? i must be right then?

Imacentristmoderate

Don’t assume that silence means you’re right. I suspect people have given up trying to engage with you because there’s no point.

You don’t provide evidence or arguments to support your claims, you just use hyperbole and abuse. You call a mentally handicapped woman a “feminazi terrorist”, praise the “courage” of a man who murdered his children, and claim to have contemplated murder yourself. You make statements that are inherently devoid of meaning, such as

“there is settled science, proving his brain damaged wife was a domestic, feminazi terrorist”

And

“he was allowed or given NO other option or choice for protecting his children" a well documented scientifically proven fact”.

Of course, you can provide no evidence pointing to these “scientifically proven” facts, because there isn’t any. Not can there be, because these are not the kind of questions science addresses.

runner,
Sati is so rare among India's 1.252 billion population that when it happens it is big news, the last reference that I can find is in 2008.

Perhaps you have some more up to date news?

Rhian, 1, the evidence i spoke of had already been provided by the article & commenters on the article like yourself & Suseonline. All i had to do was point out your mistaken interpretations of the evidence already provided.

2, regarding your accusation of emotional commenting on my part. i use a debating tactic called mirroring, which involves mimicking the behaviour of my opponents until they realize the foolishness of their own behaviour.

Is Mise, the practice of Sati goes back almost 1,400 years to the invasion of India by Muslims when Hindu women began committing suicide after their husbands were killed to avoid being gang banged to death.

Imacentristostmoderate

1. Still no evidence
2. Who are you mirroring? No-one on this thread except you has resorted to name-calling and insult, except perhaps Suse’s reference to Geoff Hunt as a “coward”. The only “mirroring” you have done is to take ordinary standards of decency and ethics and turned them on their head. So a child-murderer and wife-killer is “innocent” and a courageous hero, his disabled wife a “feminazi terrorist”, and murdering his children was “protecting” them

"Is Mise, the practice of Sati goes back almost 1,400 years to the invasion of India by Muslims when Hindu women began committing suicide after their husbands were killed to avoid being gang banged to death"

Where did you get that,imacentristmoderate?

"A description of sati appears in the Greek 1st-century BC historian Diodorus Siculus's account of the war fought in Iran.... Among the fallen was one Ceteus, the commander of Eumenes' Indian soldiers. Diodorus writes that Ceteus had been followed on campaign by his two wives, at his funeral the two wives competed for the honour of joining their husband on the pyre. After the older wife was found to be pregnant, Eumenes' generals ruled in favour of the younger. She was led to the pyre crowned in garlands to the hymns of her kinsfolk. The whole army then marched three times around the pyre before it was lit."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)#Earliest_records

besides which runner was talking about the present day.

Rhian, 1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

gee, only 763,000 links to the evidence that you already knew existed

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?ei=gQAmVvyAPOXCmQWFxI3QDQ&ved=0CAUQqS4oAw#q=battered+partner+syndrome

2, every thread i have ever seen on the net involves feminazis being extremely emotional & indecent towards men. i used no derogatory or insulting words at all, just plain simple honesty.

Is Mise, from Hindus, the British did try hard to stamp it out but it began creeping back after independence.

Of course battered person syndrome exists, but how does that constitute “scientific proof” that Mrs Hunt was a “feminazi terrorist”? Or that it is a “scientifically proven fact” that Mr Hunt “was given NO other option or choice for protecting his children”? These are the claim you have made, and they are meaningless.

Where exactly on THIS thread have “feminazis” been “extremely emotional & indecent towards men”? It is you who have used the words “nazi”, “torture”, “terrorist”, “matriarchal nanny state”, and discussed your own plan to murder your children’s mother.

"Is Mise, from Hindus, the British did try hard to stamp it out but it began creeping back after independence."

Just how does that sentence fit into the discussion?

Rhian, i repeat the evidence of her dreadful behaviour was already supplied by the article, you chose to provide excuses for her behaviour & NO excuses for his behaviour, i just proved your hypocrisy to you.

Where have you been for the last half century misandry is every where, it's purpose is to create poverty & abuse children, a job misandry has done very well.

Is Mise, Where did you get that,imacentristmoderate? from Hindus.

the British did try hard to stamp it (sati) out but it began creeping back after independence, now does it fit?

Imacentristmoderate

It’s you who lays the blame entirely with one of the parties. I didn’t. Nor did Suse or any other poster here. Read my first post. I said that that both Geoff and Kim’s behaviour was affected by their mental problems:

“Geoff’s depression and Kim’s brain damage contribut[ed] to a ghastly outcome”

@imacentristmoderate, I think you mean that he felt that he had no choice. He could have taken the kids and run, but his conscience didn't allow him to do so. Under the circumstances, the Family Court would rule in his favour.

The case is very sad. We are told that all DV is caused by sexist men with out-dated views. Real cases, such as this, are far more complex.