There are five murders which took place

in this city between 1979 and 1983 which are called "The Family" murders. Only one person has ever been convicted of any of those murders and he is now dead. 

He died in prison last year and, if he knew anything, it went to the grave with him. That person knew he was dying. How likely is it that, if he knew any more about the others involved, he would have said nothing at all? He is described as having been a "psychopath" and "completely lacking in empathy". 

The murders happened at a time when a great deal more was going on in the community.  One of the victims was the son of a well known news reader on commercial television and, perhaps because of that, his case received even more than the usual attention. 

What marks the five cases out however is something much more disturbing, as disturbing as the murders themselves. It is the secrecy which surrounded them and still surrounds them now. Order after order was made to suppress evidence. Evidence was suppressed even during the trial. The prosecution achieved a guilty verdict even when there was evidence not put before the court. 

Yes, it is likely the evidence would not have resulted in a "not guilty" verdict. That was not the reason to suppress the evidence. The reason given was that it might harm the case of others the police were pursuing in relation to the murders. At one point a doctor was brought before the courts as a potential killer. He was released again because the evidence simply was not there. The charges were dropped even before the trial took place. 

We have been left with a situation where the suppression orders may still be protecting people who should have been required to face court. The siblings of those murdered are making one last appeal to have the suppression orders lifted - as their parents had tried before them. They say they, and perhaps the public at large, have the right to know who the suspects are. It is said most of the suspects are likely now dead. Those that are alive are likely very elderly.

One of the victims lived not far from where we living at the time. I did not know him. Brother Cat had "seen him around" but not had anything to do with him. I remember that it still hit us hard. Our parents were, rightly, very worried.  Many other parents were as well. Were their sons safe?

Two more things happened which I still wonder about. The first is that one of the local boys disappeared for some days. Nobody knew where he was. The media made a great deal of it. We knew the neighbours of this boy and thus learned more than most people from two sensible and concerned adults. All they could tell us was that the boy had appeared again. He was severely traumatised and quite unable to tell anyone what had happened to him. His injuries were very similar to those of the victims. His family moved out very suddenly, out of a home which had been theirs for more than twenty years. The father left work abruptly. Nobody knew where they had gone. The only other thing we ever learned, again from the concerned neighbours, was that several years later the boy committed suicide.  He had never been able to speak about what happened to him. Was it another death related to those murders? 

So yes, it is tempting to wonder who was being protected by those suppression orders and why they are still protected. There may be nothing in it. Those named as suspects who are deceased cannot defend themselves. The question of "right to know" has been firmly brought to the front again. If there are murderers still alive I wonder if they are worried by the latest moves or if they know they are still very firmly protected for reasons we know nothing about.

Some day care centres are closing

at a time the government is claiming the sector needs to grow. Why? I suspect there are many reasons and those reasons may be more complicated than the media is suggestion.  

I was interested in what a father had to say to me yesterday. His partner has been visiting day care centres with the idea of sending their child to one so that the mother can return to work.   

"Mummy" is  a teacher. I have not met her. The parents are not married and they do not live together. (Yes, it is one of those complicated modern arrangements.) The father is actively involved in the child's life but there are things he feels he cannot do. He would not attempt to dictate whether a return to work for the mother was a good thing.

The mother knows what to look for if her child is going to be cared for by strangers. Finding those things is proving very, very difficult. I am not surprised.

Childcare, good childcare, is not something it should be possible to make a profit from if you charge the sort of prices parents can afford. It costs a great deal to build a safe environment, fill it with the best toys and equipment and staff it with well trained staff at an acceptable child-staff ratio. There will always be things which are not "right" but a parent will accept if they feel that strong urge to return to work.  I say "strong urge" rather than "compulsion" because it is still possible to be a "stay-at-home" parent. What it may mean is that you will not have all the material goods you are looking for and the house you want to buy may not be possible.

Recently I heard someone in authority say something which went like, "Yes, I do know "people are struggling". I will be told "you don't understand" and "we don't have a choice" and "everything is so much more expensive now". Perhaps those things are true but what is more important - the house or the child, your job or the child?" 

The statement brought me up with a bit of a jolt and I thought, "Yes, where are the children in all this? They are being treated rather like a commodity people feel they must have rather than human beings who are wanted. Is this why some people choose to have pets they try to humanise rather than children? 

Recently I was interested to discover that, in Sweden, it is illegal to leave dogs and cats alone all day. Dogs must be allowed out and walked within a six hour period. Cats must be actually checked on at least twice a day. Putting food and water out for them is not enough. It led me to wonder what would happen if a similar law applied to children. What would happen if you could not leave your child in the care of others for more than six hours? I suspect child-care options would change dramatically. Would it be a good thing?