Poirot, are we the only ones here who see Anderson's actions for what they were...a violent vicious murder?

I'm sorry for the few couples that feel the need to fight it out in court after they break up, but blaming the courts for 'making' men feel their children's mother is taking them off him, and so somehow that makes it 'excusable' that they then kill their own kids?
Really?

If those few men that do this sort of DV murder were really that upset with the court's decisions (which were actually found to be horribly correct in the end) then why aren't they going after the police, lawyers, judges etc, rather than easy targets like ex-partners and kids?
Because they are violent cowards....

Poirot,

"What does it take for a man to savagely beat an innocent physically weaker person to death like that?"

Why are you asking RObert that question? Wouldn't you get the best answer to your question by asking one of the biological mothers convicted of filicide? After all the greater aggregated experience in killing one's own child/ren lies with biological mothers not biological fathers and you can't get a much more "innocent" and "physically weaker person" than a new born or toddler (if you don't know what they are I can send you some links to pictures) so maybe you should try and get in touch with someone like Kathleen Folbigg or Keli Lane. One of them should be able to tell you what it takes. Let us know what the answer is.

I mean, what does it take!

Really Roscop?
Is that the best you can do?

None of us were trying to let a child murderer off the hook with wild theories like you did re your hero Anderson, so we have no need to discuss any other awful child murders.

Trying to sleaze your way out of a difficult corner are you?

Yes, Roscop,

We were discussing Anderson's savagery.

I can't put it any better than Suse:

"None of us were trying to let a child murderer off the hook with wild theories like you did re your hero Anderson, so we have no need to discuss any other awful child murders."

Suseonline & Poirot,

Your position is that murder has no excuse. You would put to rout any defence lawyer's or journalist's attempt at minimising an offence with the, "They made him/her do it..." rationalisation.

It follows that the sentencing for any offence should never be affected by any excuse or rationalisation, no "But s/he had a troubled past, was 'mental' at the time etc".

Many might agree with you, but I wonder if that is your intent. Or whether you would flex your rule depending on who is in the dock and who is the victim?

otb,

'... Or whether you would flex your rule depending on who is in the dock and who is the victim?"

We're discussing Anderson - in response to Roscop attempting to blame the person who didn't beat her son to death.

"At the coronial inquest into Luke's death, Ms Batty accused authorities of not doing enough to protect her son. She broke down repeatedly while giving evidence earlier this week.

Senior Constable Paul Topham told the inquest on Thursday he had "a large number" of conversations with Ms Batty in the year before Anderson killed Luke and was aware Anderson consistently failed to turn up to court hearings about their son.

Senior Constable Topham said he believed Anderson was highly intelligent and knew how to work the system.

He arrested Anderson in January 2013 and a video recording of Anderson's police interview with him was played to the court, in which Anderson appeared aggressive and refused to answer questions.

"You've got nothing... I wish to leave," Anderson can be seen saying to Senior Constable Topham.

Senior Constable Topham said he considered Anderson violent and dangerous and wrote at the time that Anderson was "nuts".

"Anderson was probably one of the ones that worried me more than the other guys," Senior Constable Topham said.'

"The first time I arrested him he became extremely aggressive and I took my OC spray out.

"He was in control of the situation... he was smart enough to shut it down before it got to the next level."

Anderson was never diagnosed with mental illness and Senior Constable Topham told the inquest he saw no signs of mental instability.

"Without a question in my mind, as we say, he was 100 per cent bad... not mad.

"His demeanour... he had no regards for authority whatsoever... whatever we did for this guy, he didn't care.

"He knew what he was doing.""

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-23/luke-batty-inquest-father-was-100-per-cent-bad/5835800