Aberdeen Rape and Murder - Ballingry scumbag

[Scary Bear]

Have I missed the thread on this horrible c**t?

Attacked and raped a woman in Aberdeen. Went away to get some petrol, came back and burned her alive. This is towards the Peter Tobin scale of evil. Got 24 years but he’s the kind of person I’d prefer never got out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65495249

 

I would ask the question, but I’m hoping the answer is no.

I’ll go with, has anyone on P&B ever had as ridiculous facial hair as this murderous rapist?

Thoughts on this case?

Edited May 31, 2023 by Scary Bear

[velo army]

It's obviously awful. It's also going to have massive appeal too for the same reason that people watch true crime docs. It's Penny Dreadful stuff.

One good thing to come out of this though is it'll do for that tache style what WW2 did for the Hitler tache.

[ICTChris]

His minimum sentence had a couple of years shaved off cause of his age, new sentencing guidelines.

I read about this at the time, a really horrific crime. He saw her smoking outside a bar he was drinking in and stalked her when she left, a really terrifying thing. Also, his autism diagnosis was brought up in mitigation, if I was autistic I’d be raging when people like this bring it up. 

[highlandmac]

9 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

Have I missed the thread on this horrible c**t?

Attacked and raped a woman in Aberdeen. Went away to get some petrol, came back and burned her alive. This is towards the Peter Tobin scale of evil. Got 24 years but he’s the kind of person I’d prefer never got out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65495249

 

I would ask the question, but I’m hoping the answer is no.

I’ll go with, has anyone on P&B ever had as ridiculous facial hair as this murderous rapist?

Thoughts on this case?

Don't think it was 24 years,think it was life with a 24 year minimum tariff which should hopefully mean he won't be out in 24

[Boo Khaki]

I am autistic, and I'm not offended or angered in any way because I can see why that might well be relevant. Autism doesn't manifest in the same way in every individual, and some autistic people will struggle with aspects of life that others just breeze through perfectly comfortably. His diagnosis does not, in any way, excuse or diminish what he did, but in criminal cases it can be relevant in the same way that 'learning difficulties' often are, i.e. they may well believe he has a diminished understanding of the concept of societal equity, right to life, consequences and impact of his actions, and so on. It's a stereotype, a bit of a tired cliche, and understandably angers Autism campaigners when it comes up, but some autistic people absolutely do exhibit a total lack of empathy, compassion, and ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes, even to the extent they don't actually perceive other people as autonomous human beings. Again, that doesn't mitigate what he did (IMO), but on the other hand normal, healthy people don't go around raping people and setting them on fire. When this sort of thing does happen there are invariably assessments of the perpetrators psychological state and background, so I can see why his diagnosis, more specifically how it affects his outward perception, might be relevant along with co-morbid personality disorders, possible psychoses etc.

Of course, it's also entirely possible that it's just his legal team trying anything they can and does not actually have any relevance to the case whatsoever, but I see no reason to get angry about that either because that's just what legal reps are obliged to do, so if anything it's a commentary on that aspect of the judicial system and not Autism itself.

[19QOS19]

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

...but I see no reason to get angry about that either because that's just what legal reps are obliged to do, so if anything it's a commentary on that aspect of the judicial system and not Autism itself.

I think the reason to be angry is that for the simpletons/regular lazy people among our society (of which there are clearly millions) highlighting his mental illness in connection to a rape will make folk think "Autistic folk are rapists!". 

Obviously educated folk will know that not to be the case but it's incredible the number of folk who think psychopaths and 'schizophrenics' are one in the same (though the tv and film industry are as much to blame for that than anyone else). 

[Soapy FFC]

1 hour ago, 19QOS19 said:

I think the reason to be angry is that for the simpletons/regular lazy people among our society (of which there are clearly millions) highlighting his mental illness in connection to a rape will make folk think "Autistic folk are rapists!". 

Obviously educated folk will know that not to be the case but it's incredible the number of folk who think psychopaths and 'schizophrenics' are one in the same (though the tv and film industry are as much to blame for that than anyone else). 

I read that and thought of this story from a few years ago.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/vigilante-mob-attacks-home-of-paediatrician-710864.html

 

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, 19QOS19 said:

I think the reason to be angry is that for the simpletons/regular lazy people among our society (of which there are clearly millions) highlighting his mental illness in connection to a rape will make folk think "Autistic folk are rapists!". 

Obviously educated folk will know that not to be the case but it's incredible the number of folk who think psychopaths and 'schizophrenics' are one in the same (though the tv and film industry are as much to blame for that than anyone else). 

That's possibly true, but regardless, it has no bearing on the fact that any individual undergoing trial is entitled to have all relevant facts and circumstances presented in their defence. I'd direct any anger at the ignorance of morons who draw that conclusion rather than the fact some facts that may, or may not be pertinent, have been brought up in the court. Reporting it is possibly irresponsible, but then public trials are a matter of public record and public interest, and judges do have the ability to restrict certain things from being reported by the press.

Don't mean to have a go, but Autism is not a 'mental illness', even though in this particular case I'd be surprised if he doesn't also have all sorts of diagnosable personality disorders. Even then, I've always been of the opinion that it's not appropriate to label those as 'illnesses' either, even though they obviously have a significant part to play in an individuals thoughts and behaviours, since they are more akin to 'character flaws' rather than something which can be treated with pharmaceuticals and can be expected to resolve over time. 

It's an interesting conversation, I think, because as much as people are rightly sceptical of folk who would fit the criterion for psychopathy, narcissism, and so on, it's not the case that all people with psychopathy are inherently dangerous, potentially a risk to offend etc. I don't consider them to be 'ill' in the way that someone suffering from a delusional psychosis associated with mood disorder is for example, or someone in the grip of a depression. I certainly wouldn't describe someone with an avoidant-type PD as 'ill'. I think because they are diagnosed by the same people and treated by the same people PD's are just understandably lumped in with mental illnesses, but they are not the same thing even though the material consequences for someone with the PD might be that they display similar behaviours and experience similar phenomenon to someone who does actually have a condition that may only be temporary and can be resolved with medication.

[19QOS19]

13 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

That's possibly true, but regardless, it has no bearing on the fact that any individual undergoing trial is entitled to have all relevant facts and circumstances presented in their defence. I'd direct any anger at the ignorance of morons who draw that conclusion rather than the fact some facts that may, or may not be pertinent, have been brought up in the court. Reporting it is possibly irresponsible, but then public trials are a matter of public record and public interest, and judges do have the ability to restrict certain things from being reported by the press.

Don't mean to have a go, but Autism is not a 'mental illness', even though in this particular case I'd be surprised if he doesn't also have all sorts of diagnosable personality disorders. Even then, I've always been of the opinion that it's not appropriate to label those as 'illnesses' either, even though they obviously have a significant part to play in an individuals thoughts and behaviours, since they are more akin to 'character flaws' rather than something which can be treated with pharmaceuticals and can be expected to resolve over time. 

It's an interesting conversation, I think, because as much as people are rightly sceptical of folk who would fit the criterion for psychopathy, narcissism, and so on, it's not the case that all people with psychopathy are inherently dangerous, potentially a risk to offend etc. I don't consider them to be 'ill' in the way that someone suffering from a delusional psychosis associated with mood disorder is for example, or someone in the grip of a depression. I certainly wouldn't describe someone with an avoidant-type PD as 'ill'. I think because they are diagnosed by the same people and treated by the same people PD's are just understandably lumped in with mental illnesses, but they are not the same thing even though the material consequences for someone with the PD might be that they display similar behaviours and experience similar phenomenon to someone who does actually have a condition that may only be temporary and can be resolved with medication.

I don't disagree with your first paragraph, I can just see why that part with Autism would anger some people for the reason I've said. "Irresponsible" is a good word like you've highlighted. 

Yeah I know it's not a mental illness, that was poor on my part there. I was too busy thinking about my point at the end. Apologies. 

And your illness point is valid as well. It never really sat well with me on my course either tbh (mental health nursing. Failed the final exam though ) but they kind of drilled that in to us that it was an illness: "they can get better". I suppose folk with extreme psychosis can be better after the right treatment but can they ever be 'better' like we get better after a bad cold? Similarly we were discouraged from calling it 'medication' and rather 'medicine'. Because meditation is something you're on for life whereas medicine is taken for a wee while to make you feel 'better' - but again, I can't imagine people with bi-polar or schizophrenia are ever going to be off their 'medicine'. 

Anyway, going down a bit of a rabbit hole here but any discussion about mental health can only be a good thing I suppose. 

[Boo Khaki]

3 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

Anyway, going down a bit of a rabbit hole here but any discussion about mental health can only be a good thing I suppose. 

Yeah, apologies for the derail.

I just think it's an interesting discussion to have, when people like Bennett are invariably portrayed in the media and discussed by the public as 'mentally ill', when they quite often are not mentally ill at all. That, if anything, promotes general stigmatisation and misunderstanding of mental illness. You can be completely 'off your rocker' disturbed, a danger to the public, commit offences such as his, and yet not be suffering from any diagnosable mental illness. I also think PD's are often just discarded as 'mental illnesses' by the layman because it's convenient. Personally, I think this is because there is a reluctance to accept that human beings who commit these sorts of offences can be a product of their environment, because that implies it's a sociological issue with collective responsibility, and it's much easier and less uncomfortable to just dismiss these people out of hand as 'sick' or 'ill' rather than accept that no, some people are not 'evil' or born that way. That infuriates me when people insist that child-killers and so on are 'pure evil'. The act, perhaps, but the people themselves, no. There is no such thing as 'evil' in the sense of it being a malignant force that can compel someone to act in a certain way, and again, that to me is just a crutch used by the stupid and ignorant to avoid confronting an uncomfortable truth.

I had a similar discussion with a family member decades back, after I realised that they had no idea that 'mental disability' (as it was formerly called) and 'mental illness' were not one and the same thing. It's staggering the level of generalised ignorance there still is about this sort of thing. I don't think it's helped by the media using the term 'sick' to describe Bennett's ilk, because that does actually imply they are ill, ergo, mentally ill, when that's not necessarily the case.

[101]

It's 24 years before he can be considered for parole, even if he does get out he can be put back inside for any offence without trial. Exactly what he deserves he is clearly a very dangerous person.

Edited June 1, 2023 by 101
Clarity

[Derry Alli]

14 minutes ago, 101 said:

he is clearly a very dangerous person.

I could have told you that from the 'tasche alone.

Harrowing story and me and a few in work always wondered why the tent was pitched and little reported after then just sort of forgot. Shank the cunt.

[Alert Mongoose]

11 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I am autistic, and I'm not offended or angered in any way because I can see why that might well be relevant. Autism doesn't manifest in the same way in every individual, and some autistic people will struggle with aspects of life that others just breeze through perfectly comfortably. His diagnosis does not, in any way, excuse or diminish what he did, but in criminal cases it can be relevant in the same way that 'learning difficulties' often are, i.e. they may well believe he has a diminished understanding of the concept of societal equity, right to life, consequences and impact of his actions, and so on. It's a stereotype, a bit of a tired cliche, and understandably angers Autism campaigners when it comes up, but some autistic people absolutely do exhibit a total lack of empathy, compassion, and ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes, even to the extent they don't actually perceive other people as autonomous human beings. Again, that doesn't mitigate what he did (IMO), but on the other hand normal, healthy people don't go around raping people and setting them on fire. When this sort of thing does happen there are invariably assessments of the perpetrators psychological state and background, so I can see why his diagnosis, more specifically how it affects his outward perception, might be relevant along with co-morbid personality disorders, possible psychoses etc.

Of course, it's also entirely possible that it's just his legal team trying anything they can and does not actually have any relevance to the case whatsoever, but I see no reason to get angry about that either because that's just what legal reps are obliged to do, so if anything it's a commentary on that aspect of the judicial system and not Autism itself.

Good post. This goes back to my confusion over the diminished responsibility diagnosis. In what world can a 'sane' person commit this type of crime? I just can't get my head round that.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Alert Mongoose

[Boo Khaki]

13 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Good post. This goes back to my confusion over the diminished responsibility diagnosis. In what world can a 'sane' person commit this type of crime? I just can't get my head round that.

Well I think the fundamental question is always did/does the individual have the capacity to understand and comprehend the consequences of their actions at the time the events took place?

It's clear Bennett is considered perfectly sane, otherwise he would not have been tried on that basis. I can only imagine that the defence team bringing his autism into it is/was not an attempt to argue that he didn't have capacity because it had already been established pre-trial that he did/does. I don't know what his background is, but it is possible the Autism is somewhat relevant with regard to his childhood background, schooling, educational attainment, career history, and so on, so from that perspective it may be that they believed it is a factor in him becoming the sort of person disturbed enough to do this sort of thing.

I haven't followed the case, just read about the sentencing, so I'm wondering if there's been any mention of him being involved in Incel-type culture or similar, because it seems that Autistic men are particularly vulnerable when it comes to being drawn into that sort of thing, and I think that's in part because Autism can be an enormously isolating condition. I'm in no way attempting to make excuses for him, only that as someone who does not believe in 'evil' and such, I'm inclined to look for more tangible explanations for why someone might become the sort of person who can commit these sorts of offences.

I think you can be perfectly 'sane' and able to stand trial and be held to account for your actions, but still be somewhat lacking in being able to fully comprehend the consequences of your criminal acts. Even if Bennett is a psychopath, or suffers from a total inability to empathise, he can still be held to account because he fundamentally understands what is wrong and criminal, and has to make a conscious choice to carry out these acts. It's different with people who are psychotic or delusional because they honestly do not have that ability to rationalise so can not be considered 'sane', but an inability to empathise or lack of compassion doesn't rob you of your ability to understand that you are 1. committing an offence, and 2. still have free will and have to actively choose to do whatever it is you are going to do.

The only justification I can see for arguing that his Autism is a mitigating factor (if that is indeed what he team were claiming) is if they believe the consequences of his autistic condition have been a major factor in him becoming what he is, i.e. it's deprived him of adequate education, support, care, counselling, guidance, opportunity, and so on, and/or been a factor in him being sucked into some sort of underground hate-culture. 

[Alert Mongoose]

3 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Well I think the fundamental question is always did/does the individual have the capacity to understand and comprehend the consequences of their actions at the time the events took place?

It's clear Bennett is considered perfectly sane, otherwise he would not have been tried on that basis. I can only imagine that the defence team bringing his autism into it is/was not an attempt to argue that he didn't have capacity because it had already been established pre-trial that he did/does. I don't know what his background is, but it is possible the Autism is somewhat relevant with regard to his childhood background, schooling, educational attainment, career history, and so on, so from that perspective it may be that they believed it is a factor in him becoming the sort of person disturbed enough to do this sort of thing.

I haven't followed the case, just read about the sentencing, so I'm wondering if there's been any mention of him being involved in Incel-type culture or similar, because it seems that Autistic men are particularly vulnerable when it comes to being drawn into that sort of thing, and I think that's in part because Autism can be an enormously isolating condition. I'm in no way attempting to make excuses for him, only that as someone who does not believe in 'evil' and such, I'm inclined to look for more tangible explanations for why someone might become the sort of person who can commit these sorts of offences.

I think you can be perfectly 'sane' and able to stand trial and be held to account for your actions, but still be somewhat lacking in being able to fully comprehend the consequences of your criminal acts. Even if Bennett is a psychopath, or suffers from a total inability to empathise, he can still be held to account because he fundamentally understands what is wrong and criminal, and has to make a conscious choice to carry out these acts. It's different with people who are psychotic or delusional because they honestly do not have that ability to rationalise so can not be considered 'sane', but an inability to empathise or lack of compassion doesn't rob you of your ability to understand that you are 1. committing an offence, and 2. still have free will and have to actively choose to do whatever it is you are going to do.

The only justification I can see for arguing that his Autism is a mitigating factor (if that is indeed what he team were claiming) is if they believe the consequences of his autistic condition have been a major factor in him becoming what he is, i.e. it's deprived him of adequate education, support, care, counselling, guidance, opportunity, and so on, and/or been a factor in him being sucked into some sort of underground hate-culture. 

I get all that side of the legal distinction. I just can't get my head round someone understanding the implications of doing something and actually doing it? How can such a person still be considered sane?

[Boo Khaki]

That ability to rationalise. 

Knowing and understanding the concept of right from wrong doesn't mandate that you actually give a flying f**k about the consequences of doing 'wrong'.

Again, entirely possible he's a psychopath, but psychopathy in itself doesn't mean someone is 'insane', because plenty of psychopaths devote the drive and ruthlessness it provides them with into perfectly legal and worthwhile endeavours.

Read something the other day by a psychiatrist who is himself a psychopath. He argues that all that makes him different from murderous psychopaths is that he grew up with a loving, caring family that instilled in him a strong sense of right and wrong, so he never developed any urge to harm or hurt other people even though he doesn't give  a shit about their lives. Instead, he developed an obsession with psychiatry and medicine, so devotes all his energy into pursuing that instead of killing or hurting people. He still has the exact same condition as some of the world's most infamous criminals, yet they are dismissed as 'mad', while he treats genuinely 'mad' people because they value his sanity!

[bobbykdy]

21 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

Have I missed the thread on this horrible c**t?

Attacked and raped a woman in Aberdeen. Went away to get some petrol, came back and burned her alive. This is towards the Peter Tobin scale of evil. Got 24 years but he’s the kind of person I’d prefer never got out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-65495249

 

I would ask the question, but I’m hoping the answer is no.

I’ll go with, has anyone on P&B ever had as ridiculous facial hair as this murderous rapist?

Thoughts on this case?

Had apparently just moved to Fife weeks before the attack, sure I read he grew up in Brechin.

[Scary Bear]

1 hour ago, bobbykdy said:

Had apparently just moved to Fife weeks before the attack, sure I read he grew up in Brechin.

In which case, I would like to publicly apologise to the good people of Ballingry. From The reports I assumed he was originally from Ballingry.

What was he doing in Aberdeen? Did he just go up there to commit that crime?

Edited June 1, 2023 by Scary Bear

[bobbykdy]

Article I read seemed to suggest he was bullied at school for being "weird" was also described the same way by the folk from Ballingry who had seen him around.

[tam the bud]

I read there was a witness who heard the woman crying out for help but did nothing about it. Now you may not want to get involved, but surely you at least phone the police instead of walking away.