Being capable of hurting a child is not equal to being capable of murdering the child. Did he ever come close to murdering one of his other kids? Has any of his other kids ever gone missing, where it turned out that he was responsible?
I know the argument is going to be that his temper got out of hand, or he didn't intend to hurt him so badly and yada, yada, but... I can't understand the basis for two ex-wives saying he is capable of murdering, or even hurting a child severely, if he's never done it before.
Is there any record anywhere of one of his kids having to seek medical attention because of him hurting them severely enough that it could have caused death??
It sounds to me like one of his kids beat him so severely at one time that HE needed medical attention. And I don't care about hearing the justifications of it, but the records, IIRC, shows that HE didn't hurt his son, his son hurt HIM, enough to render him unconscious. Doesn't sound too much to me like HE is the one with murderous tendencies. JMO.
I agree completely. If anything, I would think it would be more likely with his first child when he was young and reckless, like most of us were at that age, than it would be with his fifth child when he is older and supposedly more settled (I know not all people are even past retirement, so I am making an assumption there).