Roscop,

"I would say more material to Luke Batty's death is the fact that Rosie Batty had been successful in obtaining a court order restricting Anderson to a humiliating presence at his sons weekend sporting events and little to no contact with his son over a seven week period including school holidays ...."

Considering what this man did to his son, it appears that any restrictions on him were more than justified.

"....restricting Anderson to a humiliating presence at his sons weekend sporting events and little to no contact with his son over a seven week period including school holidays..."

How vicious does a man and his actions have to be before people like you cease to roll out excuses for his behaviour?

This animal beats his son to death - his actions - his choice...and you're blaming his wife for attempting protect their son from his savagery.

Sheesh!

There was what is suspected to be a murder-suicide on the Gold Coast yesterday. Another tragedy.

That's another aspect of Intimate Partner Homicide that not really been touched on in this thread (or most of OLO's online discussions).

The material is somewhat dated now but I found an interesting paper on research into murder suicide in Australia at http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi082.pdf

The killing on Karina Lock also on the Gold Coast was another murder suicide.

I'd like to find some more current material on that, between 1 July 1989 until 30 June 1996 6.5% of all homicides recorded in Australia were murder suicides mostly involving family.

R0bert

Poirot,

Are you saying the restrictions and long period of no contact with his son had nothing to do with the state of Anderson's emotions and mind at the time he murdered his son? I suppose from your point of view a man should be able to handle any amount of emotional abuse involving the relationship that is the most him important to him in his whole life and still keep his mind.

"... it appears that any restrictions on him were more than justified." Yes, the same ol argument that Suseonline attempted to employ.
Justified in what sense?...that the restrictions unsettled the father to such an extent they drove him to murder their son and commit "suicide by cop"?

Roscop, while I agree with what I think the broader point you are making is I do get very cautious about applying it to individual situations without really strong evidence. I've not seen anything that leaves me convinced that we know which part drove which in that particular case.

Was a fragile person driven round the twist by manipulation of systems put in place to protect people or were those protections insufficient to protect against someone already dangerous.

There are some very deep flaws in the system which I believe add strongly to some of the worst outcomes by pushing people and keeping on pushing them. There are also some dangerous creatures who need to be kept away from children, former partners etc.

Unless there are some very strong reasons to believe one over the other I think real caution needs to be shown in choosing either.

We do know that in the end of it an innocent child was killed, regardless of how it got to that point that's still a horrible tragedy.

R0bert

Roscop,

"Are you saying the restrictions and long period of no contact with his son had nothing to do with the state of Anderson's emotions and mind at the time he murdered his son?...."

You said it...he murdered his son - savagely.

Stop making excuses for him. If he was mad at his wife and his "emotions" were in a "state" - then why did he decide to take it out on the innocent party - viciously.

"....I suppose from your point of view a man should be able to handle any amount of emotional abuse involving the relationship that is the most him important to him in his whole life and still keep his mind."

You're a lost cause...now (according to you) a woman protecting her child is guilty of "emotional abuse".

You say that openly and in the full knowledge that the man she was protecting her child from eventually committed the most heinous crime towards that child.

I've already mentioned the men I know who were separated from their children...2 of them under restriction for a time. They didn't beat their children to death.

"..... the restrictions unsettled the father to such an extent they drove him to murder their son and commit "suicide by cop"?"

Nice try...excuses, excuses....NOTHING mitigates the premeditated decision by Anderson to savagely, and without mercy, beat his son to death.

No matter how much you seem to be intent in putting that case forward.

In fact, it's more than a little warped that you should keep up that spiel.

RObert,(and Roscop)

"Roscop, while I agree with what I think the broader point you are making is I do get very cautious about applying it to individual situations without really strong evidence. I've not seen anything that leaves me convinced that we know which part drove which in that particular case.

Was a fragile person driven round the twist by manipulation of systems put in place to protect people or were those protections insufficient to protect against someone already dangerous."

Let's put up another scenario - one in which Anderson was not killed and in which he now faces court.

How do you think he'd go using this defence?:

"I was emotionally abused. I was pushed by my wife and the system so much, and being such a fragile person, I was practically forced to make the decision to target my son and viciously beat him to death."

How do you think that defence would go before the courts or with the "men" and "women" out there in suburbia? They'd shake their heads in sheer incredulity after what he did..as I am at the two of you attempting to mitigate Anderson's particularly heinous actions.