This bird who killed her kids

The father of two young girls murdered by their sex worker mother claimed he warned social services about the “evil” killer who was jailed for life yesterday.

Louise Porton will serve a minimum 32-year prison sentence for murdering her two daughters because they “got in the way” of her sex life.

The 23-year-old suffocated three-year-old Lexi Draper and strangled 16-month-old Scarlett Vaughan in Rugby, Warwickshire in January and February last year.

In a victim statement, read out at Birmingham Crown Court by the prosecution, Chris Draper, the children’s father suggested he contacted social services about Porton before his daughters were killed.

“Maybe if social services had listened to me, my girls would still be alive today,” he said. Birmingham Children’s Trust did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr Draper said he was “broken” and no punishment would ever be enough.

“I sit and think, day and night, and I can’t understand why my two little girls were taken away because Louise wanted to sleep around.”

Mr Draper, who was in court for sentencing, said: “I hate Louise.”

In an other report it’s said that he never actually met the younger of the two children. Leading to the interesting question, well, where were you matey?

42 thoughts on “This bird who killed her kids”

  1. I don’t know why this is a crime any more – she could quite legally have aborted them before they were born.

    On a more serious note, Why she didn’t get the death sentence for her crime? I despair

  2. where were you matey?

    His ex might be a hateful slag, but surely she’d have preferred to hand the kids off to him rather than kill them?

    Unless of course he’d not shown the slightest interest in taking care of them…

    @Witchie – yep, this one would be a no-brainer for the noose

  3. “…Mr Draper, who was in court for sentencing, said: “I hate Louise.”…”

    His sentencing, I suppose? For a ‘hate crime’. I hope they throw the book at him…

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    “In a victim statement, read out at Birmingham Crown Court by the prosecution, Chris Draper, the children’s father suggested he contacted social services about Porton before his daughters were killed.”

    The victims were those poor girls.

    The judge judge should sentence on the facts not an how good someone is at playing the the victim-hood card. As as in this case they’re generally bollocks:

    IIRC this idea of “victim” statements is another hangover from Blair that needs a stake through the heart. I’ll bet deep down every judge’s heart sinks when they get to the point of having to listen to these statements.

    And as for “suggested” he either did or he didn’t.

    On a more serious note, Why she didn’t get the death sentence for her crime? I despair

    There are times when I seriously question my opposition to the death penalty, this being one of them

  5. This was a sick crime. It is a horrific crime that happened. People should take care of their family.

    I find abortion a tough subject, and it could cause trouble between Trump and Boris. .

    I think Donald Trump and Boris will hate each other. In the Presidential election, Trump said people who have abortions should be locked up. Well Boris paid for his mistress to have an abortion.
    Does that end the special relationship, or is it only the women who should be locked up?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/nov/14/uk.conservatives

  6. If Draper is the father of the younger why is she called Scarlett Vaughan? I suppose a Mr Vaughan flitted through her short life at some stage?

  7. MC
    In less enlightened countries it is not unusual for women to dump the losers brats along with the loser and make a fresh start, but in our advanced society children have a cash value so the woman holds on to them tightly whether she likes them or not.

  8. The thought of my children dying makes me feel sick. I can’t even imagine how someone could kill their own.

    Death penalty is too good for her. Rest of life in solitary confinement. No books or TV. The only human contact when a guard pushes her gruel for breakfast, lunch and dinner under the door.

  9. Greta – The Donald and Boris are both metropolitan liberals who support legal abortion.

    Trump’s (muddled) comments about punishing women who procure illegal abortions, as with so much reaction to the Golden Don, revealed more about his critics than himself.

    The truth is that nobody gets away with anything. Hell is real, whether we think of it in a psychological or a religious sense, and the things we do have to be paid for. Criminal punishment is kindness – the alternative is people being punished in ways untempered by the rules and limits of a functioning court system.

    Abortion and infanticide also manifest Hell on Earth. I mean that literally, though it’s also true metaphorically. The destruction of a helpless child by the person she loves and trusts implicitly, the conversion of a mother’s womb into an execution chamber, these are the reestablishment of Auschwitz on a personal scale.

    “How could the civilised, cultured Germans fall into Naziism?” we muse, as we kill a city’s worth of healthy unborn babies every year and then dump their tiny broken bodies into the incinerator, and call it “healthcare”.

    How indeed?

  10. This medical ethics article argues it is ethical, and should be permissible, for a parent to terminate (“after-birth abortion”) a happy and healthy child if bringing the child up is something they find burdensome. They do not fix an upper age but suggest the threshold should be assessed by psychologists based on whether the child is capable of making and executing independent plans. So if you believe these medical and ethical experts, the younger child would have been fair game provided a painless procedure was performed by a certifiee professional, rather than the mum doing an amateur job at it. Possibly the older one too.

    https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.full

    I think I’ve read a different piece on infanticide that posits a couple of years old as the upper age limit, but can’t find it now.

    Don’t think this stuff is likely to become law – for healthy kids at least – due to constitutional protections or human rights legislation. But interesting how far off people are from being on the same page over such a basic issue as the right to life.

  11. MBE – the slippery slope is a figment of the fervid imaginations of bigoted reactionaries though.

    I’m too young to have been around when the serpentine David Steel introduced legal abortion to the United Kingdom, but wasn’t the argument something like “there’s a small number of backstreet abortions going on anyway, let’s regulate that”?

    Re: infanticide, I too find it difficult to envisage it becoming legal. But I also never imagined we’d see little boys being encouraged to have their genitals cut off, or “drag kids”, or the police and social services covering up the mass sexual abuse of children because diversity.

    This is the problem of evil: it’s much more imaginative than you or I.

  12. MyBurningEars
    Reminds me of a standup joke: “My mother wanted an abortion but the doctors told her fifth grade was too late.” – Emo Philips.

  13. The Other Bloke in Italy

    Steve, yarp. I am old enough to remember the legalisation of both abortion and the arrival of the Pill within a short time of one another.

    I clearly recall that, almost immediately, there were articles in the New Statesman and New Society from feminists complaining that they should not have to use contraception, but should receive abortion on demand.

    And now, here we are.

  14. @Steve

    Infanticide is legal in plenty of countries, under medical supervision and with some conditions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

    The interesting that about the JME paper is how it combines the logic of pro-choice abortion, whereby if a human being is not a “person”, merely a “potential person”, then the mother can terminate for non-medical reasons since she has a right to avoid the burden, with the logic of infant euthanasia, whereby the right to life of the young child is not absolute either. I don’t think that any Western society is likely to buy into “euthanasia of the young and happy but burdensome” but I think that’s mostly out of squeamishness (children are cute – in a way the elderly and disabled are not, so those two groups ought to be on the look-out) rather than it being logically inconsistent with other positions that society generally accepts.

    @Lud

    Yes I also read Singer in the 90s. While he’s clearly been very influential in philosophy circles, I suspect his influence in law is always going to be limited (and hence his actual influence on medical practice, though certainly many medical ethicists were attracted to the clarity of his reasoning) by his emphasis on an interests-based approach rather than a rights-based one. His ideas therefore don’t fit very well into a human rights framework. I’ve also found it interesting how when he talks about his work he emphasises he has in mind, for example, very seriously disabled infants when he talks about justifiable infanticide, yet if you read his work itself then it tends to keep very general, and clearly someone could apply the same ideas to only a moderately disabled infant if they just so happen to weigh the factors up differently to Singer. Despite his emphasis on rationalism in ethics, the works I read did not offer any form of objective calculus, so a different subjective weighting or changing social mores about how the value of life is eroded by pain or disability could produce results rather more radical than Singer claims in interviews to have intended.

  15. @MBE – well at least the Groningen Protocol at least demands “The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering.”

    That JME paper OTH is totally fucking deranged.

    The biggest threat to us isn’t Muzzas or Russkies, but the societally suicidal tendencies of Western liberals. And people say Islam is a death cult…

    I’m an agnostic, but I’d cheerfully go back to bell, book, candle and the fucking pope rather than any further down the antihuman route of the secular “rationalists”, some of whom even have the fucking cheek to claim they are humanists.

  16. Surreptitious Evil

    Did the judge smirk as he sent Porton Down?

    That’s actually a good use for the scum. I’m not sure we are doing anything there quite horrid enough but she could spend the rest of her life being very ill.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    I’m an agnostic, but I’d cheerfully go back to bell, book, candle and the fucking pope rather than any further down the antihuman route of the secular “rationalists”, some of whom even have the fucking cheek to claim they are humanists.

    +1

    Invariably its leftists who will even countenance those thoughts and everyone else are Nazis for questioning their motives.

    I recently read an article that argued that authoritarians and sociopaths are always attracted to the ideology they think will give them the most. Given the left’s desire for more State control you can see why they like the left.

  18. I recently read an article that argued that authoritarians and sociopaths are always attracted to the ideology they think will give them the most

    David Thompson of David Thompson’s blog asks an astute question: “what came first – the obnoxious politics or the obnoxious personality?”

    Much (most?) of leftism is just the political wing of antisocial personality disorders. It was always thus:

    One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. – George Orwell

  19. @MC

    But is the paper truly “totally deranged”? It’s certainly uncomfortable yet its argument seems “rational” to me (not the same as being “right” – my issue with it is less the logic than the premises). Also, while I can’t imagine current Western societies adopting “infanticide on demand” – saved only, perhaps, by our squeamishness – I think it’s conceivable we could have ended up with a “modern” civilisation that was comfortable with the practice, if Christianity hadn’t largely supplanted the classical mores of the Graeco-Roman world.

    Human ethical codes seem very malleable depending on the situation and culture they were brought up in. There are certainly times and places when people would have found it convenient (cutting down the mouths to feed during a medieval famine, for example, or eliminating inheritance disputes when a widow with young children remarries). This lady’s intention of re-energising her sex life might have stretched the limits of social acceptability, but the early Romans believed a paterfamilias should have the right to kill even adult children for any reason, so who knows? To be fair the later Romans, even prior to the adoption of Christianity, restricted that power, but there’s not a million miles of difference between vitae necisque potestas applied to an disreputably-behaved son and the honour killings that plague much of the world today.

  20. ‘lady’, Mr Ears?

    Mr Steve, I’ve long thought the enemy not merely of good but of freedom (which on the whole I tend to think is the same thing) is the lust to power, the urge to dominate and to control.

    It’s distasteful to cast one’s opponents as deranged merely for the fact of disagreement. OTOH, I find increasingly I focus on their character traits when I discover they want to push me around.

    I think it was Diderot who said we’ll never be free until the last priest has been strangled with the entrails of the last king (he may have had it the other way around).

    Well, to that I’d add that we’ll never be free until we understand whence this urge to boss people around and how can it be, um, cured.

    And btw, I don’t see the urge to boss people around as evolution in action. The urge to succeed, yes. But it’s not the same thing.

  21. @Steve “‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker,”
    Isn’t the potato a quaker – he’s certainly obnoxious and authoritarian.

  22. Mr Lud: I see it as a psychological affliction, an illness or maldevelopmental disorder. The lust, obsessional desire to control other people and the rage when those other people decline to do as they are instructed.

    Just as with the violently insanely permanently enraged Begbie-type characters, I wonder how they have got to that state, and how they have managed to stay alive for so long *remaining* in that state, and how society in general allows them to persist. With harmless afflictions you just ignore them and humanely give them a safe place to drool, but with those actively harmful to society society should take self-preservation measures.

  23. moqifen: There are birthright Quakers, and there are convincement Quakers. Our Mr Spud is what we call a legover Quaker.

  24. While obnoxiousness isn’t explicitly against the Quaker ethos (we have no ‘creed’) – though it would make you a difficult fit – authoritarianism certainly is.

  25. When giving birth in Britain moved from being done at home or in little, local nursing homes to being done in big maternity hospitals, the number of deaths soon after birth fell but the number of surviving infants who were handicapped, physically or mentally, rose.

    People at the time interpreted this as happening in part because otherwise the handicapped children would have been allowed to die, or even “encouraged” to die, had they not been under the gaze of strangers in the maternity wards.

    Or so I have been told, and it seems entirely plausible to me. In other words quite recently our countrywomen and countrymen would often (how often?) have infanticided hopeless cases. To be fair, that must have been the norm throughout almost the whole of human history, I’d think.

  26. Bloke in North Dorset

    @dearieme.

    Its a difficult one. We now have the resources, medicies and technology to help a lot of these tragic cases lead what could be termed meaningful lives, for some definition of meaningful.

    I’ve mentioned before the young man we take sailing. He needs constant help but has some independence in a motorised wheelchair and can sail an adapted boat. He’ll never be productive but seeing him enjoying doing these things is heartwarming.

    We had a young girl arrive a couple of weeks ago. I wasn’t directly involved but she had two carers and a physio to help get her in to the boat and comfortable. She couldn’t easily communicate but after she’d been around Portland Harbour (these boats are sailed by able bodied sailors) her carers said she enjoyed it.

    Downs syndrome would have been a death sentence many years ago, or they would have been kept locked away out of sight. Who can deny they aren’t happy people who just need a bit of care, again they are unlikely to be productive.

    And throw in to the mix Prof David Runciman calling for 6-year-old to be giving the vote. I suppose if your child votes the wrong way you have a permanent solution.

  27. Edward – If only bossing people around was the limit of their ambition!

    The #woke Left wants you to be humiliated, they want you to be impoverished, they want you replaced, and they think it’s funny.

    Simply bossing people around is so last year and basically, you’re a fucking white male (even if you aren’t, Saj Javid and other traitors to the rainbow alliance are honourary kulaks) who needs to be given the Ludovico treatment while they destroy everything that makes your society worth living in.

    moqifen – I dunno if Orwell was saying anything particular about Quakers, or just pointing out that Socialists tend to come from, ahem, niche elements of society.

  28. “@dearieme.
    It’s a difficult one. ”

    Indeed it is; but it’s best – I think – to approach the problem without erroneous assumptions about how things were in the recent past. It’s also a good idea to follow Bastiat – to consider the seen and the unseen. You can see some poor wretch getting joy from life, but you see no sign of the other children the parents might have had if their lives had not become dominated by looking after their poor mite.

  29. BiND: And Runciman justifies giving the adult right to vote to primary school children by saying that it would then result in votes going the way he wants them to.

    If society in general wants 6-year-olds to be full legal adutls, with all that that entails – being locked up in adult prisons, being shot at as adult soldiers, losing all and every right and protection of being a child – then go ahead and make 6-year-olds adults. But the fact remains that the adult right to vote is an *ADULT* right to vote. Giving that *ADULT* right to some subset of non-adults requires an application of some person’s prejudices as to which non-adults should get that adult right. As a liberal I oppose such proposals because it is highly illiberal.

  30. “Well, to that I’d add that we’ll never be free until we understand whence this urge to boss people around and how can it be, um, cured.”

    My feeling is the Left comprises of people with two types of character defects – the people who have a lust for power and the people who are attracted to someone else being in control of things, because they feel not in control of their own existence. My feeling is that there are not many of the former, but there are plenty (and growing) of the latter, as people increasingly do not have to transition from childhood to adulthood in any meaningful way, and this spend their entire lives as psychological children, always seeking a parental figure to ‘take control’ of the lives, which they do not feel capable of doing.

    So the few true psychos who live for controlling others are attracted to socialism as it provides the perfect cover – you can argue for them to have more power over everyone else at the same time as being seem as the ‘good guys’. They end up being the ones at the top of the socialist party tree, the ones who will end up wielding power, because thats what they really are seeking. The rest are just voting fodder, the useful idiots seeking a comfort blanket for themselves, and inadvertently handing the levers of power to the nutters.

  31. Bloke in North Dorset

    Jgh,

    That’s always been my position on reducing the voting age to 16, but 6 is ludicrous.

    Having said that, I really like his podcast. Although he was only just recovering from Trump and Brexit derangement syndrome and then got triggered by Boris , he does have some humility and his excellent cohost Prof Helen Thompson is the grown up in the room. What I like is that they and their well informed guest guests are prepared to think aloud.

  32. Bloke in North Dorset

    @dearieme,

    Fair point, but my heart still goes out to the parents. 50 years or so ago we didn’t have the drugs or support systems in place, now we do parents have a dreadful decision to make. I’m just glad I never had to make it.

  33. I’m not sure why people are assuming that it was the father’s fault that he had never seen the younger child: it’s extremely common for women to deny access by moving far away, or always having some excuse why the child isn’t available – the child is sick, or doing its homework, or at a friends, or the mother has something planned. Of course, the law never enforces the father’s rights, and when the father finally realises what’s happening and gives up he’s suddenly damned as a ‘deadbeat dad’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *