Mick Philpott

[Joe]

Here's an example, IMO, of a couple of psychopaths putting on a show of emotion for the public and cameras. This was last year after a fire at their house that killed 6 of their children. Recently, both have been convicted of setting the fire themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxq6Zvr8mPY

You can read a background to the story here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/mick-philpott-violent-control-freak

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9967228/Derby-fire-Mick-Philpott-guilty-of-killing-his-children-tried-to-murder-previous-girlfriend.html

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

Honestly, what does the Guardian need to call a spade a spade?

They have all this:

Women to Philpott were slaves and sexual chattels, to be used for sex and to prove his virility by having his children.

When they challenged him, or failed to live up to his expectations, he attacked, on one occasion lashing out when a girlfriend produced a boy instead of a girl.

For more than 35 years Philpott vented his anger on a string of often damaged, vulnerable girlfriends, many of whom he met when they were in their early teens.

While the women went out to work, their money and benefits were paid into Philpott's account.

Hill, who was 17 at the time, was in bed when he attacked her, knifing her more than a dozen times, before turning on her mother, Shirley, a nurse.

when Philpott met Heather Kehoe at a fishing lake in Rainworth, Nottinghamshire, where he was a regular. Kehoe was 14, and Philpott was 37 at the time,

While Mairead did the cooking, he would sleep with Willis in the caravan outside each night.

and all they can come up with to describe him is 'violent control freak'???

 

[ajseph 21]

Even after watching the video you can see the absence of genuine tears from philpott. And law enforcement knew of his violent history with women so you're correct Mrs Tigersoap they need to call it what it is, And the fact that he lived on state benefits from his children with no investigation into his life really makes it seem like these governments endorse these psychos! Which they do.

 

[ashu]

From the YouTube clip, its hard to connect what he is saying to his fake emotions.

Also quite revealing is the secret recordings as published on the Guardian (_http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2013/apr/02/secret-recordings-philpotts-conversations-audio)

 

[panca kanga]

The unwillingness of the UK Guardian to call a spade a spade, noticed by Mrs Tigersoap, was just as apparent on the BBC.

Yesterday I saw an interview with Ann Widdicome, a UK former minister. She several times pointedly stated that Philpot was not stupid but clever. Also in the short interview she called him him wicked and evil, controlling and manipulative. She skated right up to the word "psychopath" yet never used it. The way she repeated herself, particularly after emphasising Philpot's cleverness, suggested to me that she had been told there were words she could not use. She appeared to be trying quite hard to employ other vocabulary to make the same point.

I thought I had found the interview: _www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22018006
but the part where she became particularly vehement about Philpot's character was in the 2nd part of the TV interview and did not make it into the online clip.

 

[seek10]

Here's an example, IMO, of a couple of psychopaths putting on a show of emotion for the public and cameras. This was last year after a fire at their house that killed 6 of their children. Recently, both have been convicted of setting the fire themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxq6Zvr8mPY

It is interesting how Philpott tried to lure police with praises to divert attention away from him. Glad police didn't fall for it. of course that is a job for them and I guess no interference from top.

 

[Voyageur]

Here's an example, IMO, of a couple of psychopaths putting on a show of emotion for the public and cameras. This was last year after a fire at their house that killed 6 of their children. Recently, both have been convicted of setting the fire themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxq6Zvr8mPY

It is interesting how Philpott tried to lure police with praises to divert attention away from him. Glad police didn't fall for it. of course that is a job for them and I guess no interference from top.

Yes he used many diversions - praises/acknowledgements/requests, to the police, to the sympathetic public (from around the world), to the press. To add in the issue about donating his child's organs - sick.

. Each spoke of his possessiveness, his control, his abuse, and how they would do anything to keep peace with him.
."I come across as too strong, too powerful. I have always been a happy-go-lucky guy," he said.
...

A frighting man.

 

[Gertrudes]

Boy, was that ever an empty display of grief. It was like watching a puppet.

 

[Atuya]

Shocking and revolting come to mind.

I agree that the media failed miserably to connect this openly with psychopathy or even pathology. Perhaps too many women would call their lawyers or the police describing their abusive partner in precisely those terms? He was also mentioned as an ex-soldier, so obviously associations were kept to a minimum.

On the other hand, the media could have used Philpott as a 'classic' example of a psychopath, classic in the sense that almost everyone might agree that this character is mad, not to mention dangerous. So perhaps it is better that the horrific, exaggerated facts of this case speak for themselves and the general public is left to read between the lines and learn that it is a subtle predator that works over time?

My question, is it better that the MSM mention psychopathy but only in the context of one-off aberrations, or not address the topic at all?

from a related article on the case (_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9967246/Derby-fire-police-defend-controversial-use-of-bugging.html), the Guardian did a nice job of 'highlight[ing] why [the police] have the power.'

The decision on covert surveillance goes through the Chief Constable's office and the office of the Surveillance Commissioner, before being scrutinised by the trial judge.

Assistant Chief Constable of Derby Poilce Steve Cotterill said: "The decision is never taken lightly and it is not a tactic we deploy regularly. We have to ask ourselves whether it is proportional, whether it is legal and whether it is necessary.

"But there are times where we have to deploy it and this case highlights why we have the power."

He said the force is "very, very tightly controlled" on its use of covert recording, with annual inspections taking place, but said "in the last nine years we have had "very, very favourable reports".

I get the feeling they could have easily prosecuted Philpott without the surveillance data, but this is a case too good to pass up the opportuity...'everyone' can agree that surveillance was necessary to put away a monster like Philpott.

 

[SovereignDove]

Boy, was that ever an empty display of grief. It was like watching a puppet.

These were my sentiments exactly. He comes across as a bad actor. The disparity between his words and his emotions stands out, and is a good example of a psychopath, as others have stated on this thread.

Those unfortunate children!

From the Guardian article:

- Became fixated with keeping money raised in donations to help pay for the children's funerals, seeing it as a way to "get rich quick"

Were they attempting to make money off this fire in some way besides the donations for the funerals (and his desire for revenge)? Insurance on the home?

Shocking and revolting come to mind.

I agree that the media failed miserably to connect this openly with psychopathy or even pathology. Perhaps too many women would call their lawyers or the police describing their abusive partner in precisely those terms? He was also mentioned as an ex-soldier, so obviously associations were kept to a minimum.

On the other hand, the media could have used Philpott as a 'classic' example of a psychopath, classic in the sense that almost everyone might agree that this character is mad, not to mention dangerous. So perhaps it is better that the horrific, exaggerated facts of this case speak for themselves and the general public is left to read between the lines and learn that it is a subtle predator that works over time?

My question, is it better that the MSM mention psychopathy but only in the context of one-off aberrations, or not address the topic at all?

from a related article on the case (_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9967246/Derby-fire-police-defend-controversial-use-of-bugging.html), the Guardian did a nice job of 'highlight[ing] why [the police] have the power.'

The decision on covert surveillance goes through the Chief Constable's office and the office of the Surveillance Commissioner, before being scrutinised by the trial judge.

Assistant Chief Constable of Derby Poilce Steve Cotterill said: "The decision is never taken lightly and it is not a tactic we deploy regularly. We have to ask ourselves whether it is proportional, whether it is legal and whether it is necessary.

"But there are times where we have to deploy it and this case highlights why we have the power."

He said the force is "very, very tightly controlled" on its use of covert recording, with annual inspections taking place, but said "in the last nine years we have had "very, very favourable reports".

I get the feeling they could have easily prosecuted Philpott without the surveillance data, but this is a case too good to pass up the opportuity...'everyone' can agree that surveillance was necessary to put away a monster like Philpott.

It could be used to justify surveillance, I can agree with you on that.