No OTB, that is not my intent.

We are only discussing Luke Batty's murder here, and Roscop's opinion that Rosie Batty and the family court system are to blame for his death, and not his murderous father.
Mind you, I would be hard pressed to find any 'excuse' in a court for any child murder at all....

Poirot,

I am aware of all of that.

Would you mind answering my questions? What about this,

<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.>

Suseonline\Poirot

"..wild theories..". Plural hey! What wild theories are we talking about?

Roscop,

Here's a smattering....

"The legal process for obtaining an AVO is so carefully crafted it works a treat for a woman wanting to separate a father from his child/ren. It worked especially well for Rosie Batty…it worked especially well for the Canberra mother who was killed with an axe by the man who was father of her child born days before…and it worked especially well for the Maryborough mother shot a Maccas on the Gold Coast."

Roscop, even in light of Anderson's extreme actions, you've been ever so busy elaborating on this and another thread of your "wild theory" that Batty is primarily responsible for her ex-partner beating his child to death.

You haven't got a good word to say about this mother - have you?

And you even go to the trouble of embroidering your diatribes with passages like this:

"....Apparently, she didn't do any good in Sydney bloke-wise (obviously the good single blokes there are more discerning lol)..."

Roscop's overriding view on this thread appears to be that any woman genuinely seeking to protect herself and/or her children through the system - is a "deservedly" sitting duck for a violent partner.

otb,

"Your position is that murder has no excuse..."

We're discussing Anderson at this particular juncture - don't try and divert by sprinkling nebulous and invented views and ascribing them to me.

On one or two occasions the basher lobby has come up with the plea that Ms Batty hadn't produced evidence for her frequent complaints to the police of Anderson assaulting her.

By law, a citizen who witnesses an offence is entitled (even required) to inform the police. It's not required that the informant prove it though s/he should co-operate when questioned further. If the informant is a victim of ABH there will always be evidence (that's how the offence is defined). Police have long been alleged to dismiss information about domestic violence as "only a domestic", but this is changing.

In the event, Anderson bashed the child to death because he was at large owing to a deficiency in the law which hopefully will be remedied - provided the current pressure on domestic violence doesn't get sidetracked by psychobabble from rival gender warriors

Poirot/otb

//"Your position is that murder has no excuse..."

We're discussing Anderson at this particular juncture - don't try and divert by sprinkling nebulous and invented views and ascribing them to me.//

Poirot is that because you don't want to be quoted in future and you want to be able to be/remain selective in you denouncements of filicide perpetrators based on gender?