Child murder case shocks NZ court

Let me tell you something... A person capable of kicking a three year old's head in after jumping on her tiny body and putting her in a dryer going full blast is not going to have an attack of conscience from sitting in a cell. Monsters like that are incapable of remorse or genuine regret because if they were capable of it, they wouldn't have done something so heinous in the first place. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the bullshit that every criminal can be rehabilitated. I think some people are pure, unmitigated evil and deserve every twisted horror that befalls them.

Oh I never mentioned anything about them being rehabilitated Zyn. They may be monsters for doing what they did, but theyre not sociopaths either. They WILL feel remorse for what they did, but it will be too late for any of it to be of merit. I believe that punishments should be on the "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" level. This way people will really think twice about what they do.
 
I would be quite fond of this as punishment:

Swung rapidly on an outdoor rotary clothes line; that never stops .....


Would love to spout some pointless swearing, but that's just unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
Justice can never be served in cases such as these. At least in dying the poor little things suffering was ended.
 
Here's the story currently dominating news headlines in the UK at the moment.

When the infant known in court only as Baby P was brought home from hospital days after his birth in March 2006, it was as a bubbly, blue-eyed boy with the first signs of curly blond hair. He was, according to those who came into contact with him, a lively child with a ready smile.

After 17 months enduring abuse of an almost unimaginable cruelty, the boy had been reduced to a nervous wreck, his hair shaved to the scalp and his body covered in bruises and scabs. Physical injuries included eight broken ribs, a broken back and the missing top of a finger, while the emotional damage was almost incalculable. Despite it all, Baby P was said to have still attempted a smile.

The jury was told that details of the intervening months, leading to the baby’s death last August, would “fill [them] with revulsion”. But even this could not prepare jurors — one of whom could not hold back tears — for one of the worst cases of sadistic brutality and sordid child neglect to come before a British court.

Baby P’s life in a council flat in Haringey, North London, began with gradual and growing neglect at the hands of his mother, who would leave him unattended for hours in his cot. The overweight woman, who had never had a full-time job and spent hours trawling the internet for pornography, split from the boy’s natural father when he was 3 months old after affairs with two men.

When the second lover moved in, Baby P’s suffering increased dramatically. The court heard that while his mother gossiped with friends in online chat rooms, her boyfriend took to beating the boy, swinging him around by the neck or legs and pinching him.

The Times has been told that the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, forced Baby P to follow commands like a dog. At the click of a finger he would have to sit with his head bent between his legs; 20 minutes later a second click would be the signal that he could sit upright again.

A second man, Jason Owen, also subjected the boy to similar abuse. Owen, who stayed at the house for five weeks with his 15-year-old girlfriend, was found guilty with the boyfriend of causing or allowing the death of a child. The mother admitted her guilt at an earlier hearing.

Police were told that the boyfriend, a 32-year-old collector of Nazi memorabilia, wanted to “toughen him up”. Other routines included placing the baby on a stool and spinning it around until he fell off.

The authorities had first voiced concerns about possible abuse by October 2006, when a GP noticed marks on the boy. But his mother, in the first of many episodes of deception and false reassurances, insisted she had found that his skin “bruised easily”.

Two months later the GP sent the pair to the Whittington Hospital, North London, after inspecting a head injury. Insisting that her child was “a head-banger” fond of “rough and tumble play”, the mother claimed that fingermarks were merely the result of when he was caught after being lovingly held and thrown into the air.

Social services were informed and visited the flat, which was found to be dirty, untidy and smelling of urine. They learnt that it was shared with the boy’s grandmother and three dogs, including a rottweiler, but remained unaware that it also harboured a violent boyfriend. They decided to let the child stay with a family friend while police inquiries continued.

A month later, in January 2007, with no decision made on any charge against either woman, the boy was allowed back home. As he grew too old for milk and jars of baby food, Baby P scavenged bits of broken biscuits from older children and was even seen eating dirt in the garden. Detectives found that after the boyfriend moved in there was not one piece of the boy’s clothing that was not spattered with blood.

The court heard that the mother, 27, had been taught at a boarding school where she gained GCSEs including English and IT. She had sought treatment for postnatal depression in the past. But, from the outset, she had appeared more devoted to her dogs, a German shepherd called Lady and a Staffordshire bull terrier called Lucky.

Sources involved in the case said that when officers went into the house they found dead mice and chicks lying around — food for a snake that the boyfriend kept in his bedroom. The man was also said to enjoy torturing animals and would skin frogs alive before breaking their legs.

Social workers tried to keep the family together, assuaged by the mother’s excuses. They were rehoused and allocated a social worker and health visitor. Yet the violence worsened, with A&E attendances for black eyes, swellings and bruises, “scalp rash” and “ear discharge”. One episode resulted in the mother’s rearrest.

Maria Ward, the case worker, said that she visited the house four days before Baby P’s death for a prearranged meeting. She found the boy in his pushchair, his bruises covered up with chocolate. “He had eaten a chocolate biscuit and there was chocolate over his face,” she told the court. “He had chocolate on his hands and face.” She said that she asked the mother to wipe his face before they went out and the mother started cleaning him. Miss Ward noted that the boy had an infected scalp, which was covered in white cream, and an ear infection.

But she added: “He appeared well. He smiled when I spoke to him.” The case worker said that she had been content to leave the boy with his mother because she appeared to be co-operative and properly supported.

Days later — and 48 hours before his death — Baby P was taken to St Ann’s Hospital amid further concerns for his wellbeing. During an examination by Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, a paediatrician, his mother and her friend supported the child. Despite Baby P’s repeated cries of pain, the consultant missed both his broken back and ribs.

The next day his mother was called to the social services office. She was told by police that she would not be prosecuted after consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service.

On the very same evening, back at the family home, Baby P received a fatal blow to his mouth, knocking a tooth out. After 17 months of agony, the tiny child finally succumbed. The next day he was found dead in his cot.

A total of 28 experts - social workers, doctors and police officers - saw him during the period he was known to be at risk. And yet time and again he was returned to the torture chamber that was his home.

2006
March 1: Baby P born.
March 22: First home visit by health visitor Yvonne Douglas. P has oral thrush.
March 24: Family GP Jerome Ikwueke sees P for oral thrush.
April 7: Weighed at baby clinic by Yvonne Douglas.
April 13: Six-week examination by Dr Ikwueke.
May 2: GP visit for diarrhoea and vomiting.
May 4: Mother attends health clinic with P, seen by Yvonne Douglas.
May 22: First vaccinations for meningitis and diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus at GP clinic.
May 28: P vomiting after feeds, mother calls out-of-hours emergency service.
June 4: GP visit for pain, diarrhoea and vomiting.
June 9: P's mother seen for depression by mental health worker Karolina Jamry.
June 19: GP visit, second immunisations.
August 11: P's mother seen by Jamry over problems in her marriage.
September 15: Home visit by Douglas.
September 19: Seen by GP for nappy rash.
October 13: Seen by GP for bruising to head and chest. Mother claims accidental fall down stairs.
November 17: GP visit for upper respiratory tract infection and thrush.
December 11: Admitted to Whittington hospital in Archway, north London. Bruising to forehead and nose, sternum and right shoulder/breast.
December 12: P examined and referred to child abuse investigation team, seen by Detective Constable Angela Slade.
December 13: P examined on ward by consultant paediatrician Heather Mackinnon.
December 14: P examined on ward by Mackinnon.
December 15: P discharged into care of Angela Godfrey. Police investigation begins.
December 18: Social worker Agnes White visits mother at home.
December 19: P's mother and grandmother arrested and interviewed at Hornsey police station in north London.
December 21: P's leg x-rayed at hospital.
December 22: Mother attends child protection conference with Haringey social workers and Mackinnon.
December 24: Emergency duty team visits Godfrey's home to check on P.
December 27: Social worker White visits P at Godfrey home. Returns later unannounced.
December 29: White returns for check on P's contact with mother.

2007
January 9: Godfrey takes P to health clinic for thrush on buttocks, seen by Douglas.
January 12: P's leg x-rayed again at hospital.
January 16: White makes second check on P's contact with mother.
January 17: P's leg x-rayed again at hospital.
January 19: Mother seen by Jamry.
January 25: GP visit for nappy rash.
January 26: Repeat visit by White to check on P's contact with mother. On same day, mother seen by Jamry.
February 2: P's third set of vaccinations. Maria Ward allocated as social worker.
February 8: Preliminary assessment of mother by unspecified official Caroline Sussex.
February 18: P and mother move to new address in Haringey.
February 22: Ward's first home visit.
February 27: Ward attends case conference at Haringey.
March 2: Ward and health visitor Paulette Thomas visit mother at home.
March 5: Ward questions mother after school nurse sees her slap a child.
March 6: Unannounced visit by Ward.
March 8: Visit by Ward.
March 14: Visit by family support service worker Marie Lockhart.
March 16: Haringey child protection conference with mother, attended by Ward and Lockhart.
March 20: Mother and P videoed at parenting class.
March 22: Ward visit.
March 23: One-year check at health clinic.
March 29: Haringey case conference.
April 9: P seen by GP with bruising to face. Mother claims pushed into fireplace by another child. P admitted to North Middlesex hospital for bruising and swelling to head.
April 10: P referred to child development clinic by social worker who sees him "headbanging".
April 11: Discharged from North Middlesex.
April 12: Child protection meeting at North Middlesex.
April 24: Ward home visit.
May 3: Mother and P attend parenting class.
May 9: Planned home visit by health visitor Thomas.
May 16: Family support visit by Lockhart.
May 18: GP visit for hives (allergic reaction).
May 21: Ward visit.
June 1: Ward unannounced visit, reports mother to police over bruises to P. P taken to North Middlesex for check-up.
June 5: Mother interviewed under caution at Hornsey police station.
June 6: P seen by Thomas at health clinic.
June 7: More immunisations at GP surgery. Child protection meeting at North Middlesex.
June 8: Police take photos of P and seize toy from home.
June 12: Registered childminder Anne Walker takes P for day care for 10 days.
June 15: Lockhart visits home.
June 19: Ward visits childminder.
June 20: Case conference at Haringey.
June 21: Mother and P attend parenting class.
July 5: Mother and P attend parenting class.
July 9: Mother takes P to North Middlesex with ear infection.
July 11: Ward visit.
July 18: P seen at health clinic for scalp and ear infection.
July 19: Mother and P attend parenting class and attend North Middlesex with previous infection.
July 26: GP visit for headlice and blood in ear.
July 30: Case conference at Haringey. Ward home visit. Mother feeling stressed.
August 1: P seen at St Ann's hospital, Tottenham, by locum paediatrician Sabah al-Zayyat.
August 2: Mother told that police to take no further action over assault allegations.

August 3 2007
11.36am: 999 call.
11.40am: Ambulance arrives.
11.43am: Ambulance leaves.
11.49am: Ambulance arrives at hospital.
12.10pm: P pronounced dead. Police called.
1.30pm: Body maps completed.
1.45pm: Mother arrested.



There is more information, but if anyone would like more information they can look it up or I can post it, this post is already rather long.
 
Oh yeah, apologies if this has already been brought up in another thread or something, I just thought I'd bring it up here anyway.
 
Let me tell you something... A person capable of kicking a three year old's head in after jumping on her tiny body and putting her in a dryer going full blast is not going to have an attack of conscience from sitting in a cell. Monsters like that are incapable of remorse or genuine regret because if they were capable of it, they wouldn't have done something so heinous in the first place. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the bullshit that every criminal can be rehabilitated. I think some people are pure, unmitigated evil and deserve every twisted horror that befalls them.


In the case of normal humans (that excludes sociopaths and humans with psycholigical problems, which I don't think these have as it would have been mentioned in the article), they DO feel remorse and regret eventually. I'd guess they did this because of child abuse they had when they were little, and had to take revenge on something.
 
In the case of normal humans (that excludes sociopaths and humans with psycholigical problems, which I don't think these have as it would have been mentioned in the article), they DO feel remorse and regret eventually. I'd guess they did this because of child abuse they had when they were little, and had to take revenge on something.

Well forgive me, but there are some things regret doesn't fix. I'm aware of the psychology of abuse, but even if that is the case, it doesn't excuse it and it doesn't justify it. People capable of something so brutal and showing such a lack of humanity aren't normal human beings. That's kind of the whole point.
 
The best revenge for abuse you've received as a child is to break the cycle and be the better person, not a product of your treatment. Some men and women, not sociopaths (though I wouldn't be shocked if this turned out to be the lot of them), when coming into a relationship where the partner has children from a prior relationship, will not and cannot connect to them. Simply because its not in our make-up to do so. A new male tiger or wolf will take over a territory or pack and kill the cubs of the previous male. Why? Because they're not his and he doesn't care. A new female will not help nuture or feed the offspring of a previous female (in some cases, not all) because she has no connection to them. They're not hers.

Everyones heard of the 'wicked stepmother/father'. This could be it. The person may not be a sociopath but they could just naturally not care about the child. It doesn't mean its right, it doesn't mean its justified. Just because someone abused a child doesn't mean they were abused themselves. They could just be that sick, naturally.

Like Zyn said, something thats capable of this type of horrific crime against a child (or anyone for that matter) isn't human and they do deserve every single horror that is laid upon them by whomever has the privilage to hand it out.
 
dam, kind of glad i ate before i read this, dont think i can eat after reading this. i really cant believe what human can do when their mind doesnt follow the logic. how can 2 adults abuse a 3 year old for months? there must be something wrong with those people. these kinds of story made me wanna be a better parent in the future.
 
I'd guess they did this because of child abuse they had when they were little, and had to take revenge on something.


What the fuck is with always playing Devil's Advocate? Don't guess. No one feels bad for these fucking degenerates.
 
Along with the feeling of disgust and urge to break stuff, one thing comes to mind.
A human being that feeds on his brother is not a man anymore, he is a mad dog and should be dealt the same fate.
 
A total of 28 experts - social workers, doctors and police officers - saw him during the period he was known to be at risk. And yet time and again he was returned to the torture chamber that was his home.

... Baby had a broken back, numerous bruises, cracked ribs, had skull damage, scabs everywhere and an ear infection. Yet they thought he would be ok in a home with 3 dogs, a snake, and dead mice and chicks along with all of his obvious physical ailments. These people should all be fired.
 
... Baby had a broken back, numerous bruises, cracked ribs, had skull damage, scabs everywhere and an ear infection. Yet they thought he would be ok in a home with 3 dogs, a snake, and dead mice and chicks along with all of his obvious physical ailments. These people should all be fired.

Mire.. I agree. .but more so.. they should be held accountable!! These are not oversights, they disregard the responsibilities they hold as health care professionals. RRRRRRRAWWR.. god I could rip my hair out ; ;
 
America and Canada have some of the most strict child protection laws in the world, if I'm not mistaken. Ultimately, though, these laws and rules we go by do the best to rehabilitate not only the child but the parents and family that it lives with so that they can be returned to a healthy, stable and happy home.

That being said, all of the healthcare and social workers involved in this no doubt had a boss or a bosses boss telling them to get the kid back home. I can't speak for New Zealand's child protection laws, as I know nothing about them but I wouldn't exactly place immediate blame on all 28 people. That doctor, though, that examined him before he died is a moron. A child is screaming any time you touch their back, crying and etc. you need to fucking look at it. You can tell when a child is faking and since I've seen an adult with a broken back, I know for sure a child's pain threshold would not be able to withstand a teeth-gritting, grin-and-bear-it type attitude. If anyone, a childs first defense within a medical setting is their pediatrician. Motherfucker should have said something and done more, and doubtless he will live with this regret for the rest of his life.

I certainly hope he does.
 
... Baby had a broken back, numerous bruises, cracked ribs, had skull damage, scabs everywhere and an ear infection. Yet they thought he would be ok in a home with 3 dogs, a snake, and dead mice and chicks along with all of his obvious physical ailments. These people should all be fired.

try charged with manslaughter. Apparentally Social Services all over the world are as shitty as the US's
 
Yes, unfortunately the Doctor's excuse (female, in case you were wondering), was "The baby was cranky so I couldn't examine it properly." And yes PBP, you get moronic Social Services and Public Services all over the world. For all the good people out there, there are just as many capable of the negligence you see here. And just today we've heard the "apology" for the lack of action taken. I'd lol if I could.
 
There's a reason why the baby was "cranky"... and what kind of Dr. just gets fed up and hands the baby over?
 
Its not playing devil's advocate to try and find an underlying reason for an action. No where was I trying to justify what they did, and no where was I trying to defend their actions. I simply stated that perhaps they did what they did because they were abused as children, and that they weren't sociopaths and thus might eventually regret what they did with a life sentence in jail (which is what I at least hope they got).
 
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.

Trying to find a reason as to why they would have done this is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

If it was an accidental death (like during horseplay) then yea, I could see them feeling remorse. But to put the child in such pain over and over, there's something just not right in their heads.
 
Trying to find a reason as to why they would have done this is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

If it was an accidental death (like during horseplay) then yea, I could see them feeling remorse. But to put the child in such pain over and over, there's something just not right in their heads.

Just because a death ISN'T accidental doesn't mean you can't feel remorse.

And I suppose I am the devil's advocate. But apparently others are incapable of seeing past their own opinions and feelings.
 
Back
Top