Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

Germanshepherdsmum

I will make one comment about Glorianny’s last post she has no idea what a KC is. There is no such thing as a junior KC. No KC is inexperienced. A junior barrister is one who has not yet become a KC, but some juniors are extremely experienced and choose not to take silk.

Oh sorry did I use the wrong legal term GSM I apologise
But perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my post. Why are legal aid cases quite frequently lost? Why do solicitor's organisations fear that the criminal justice system is in danger of failing completely if there isn't reform? And why do rich people pay fortunes for representation. if not because they want to win?

Casdon

She knew she was pregnant, the court transcript shows that she asked her mother weeks before the birth what a (mixed race, Nationality mentioned) baby would look like.

I think that shows that she was conscious of the possibility. It doesn't mean that she acknowledged the fact of her pregnancy. Cryptic pregnancies are concealed for many little understood psychological reasons, one of them being the woman's (or in this case girl's) inability to accept the pregnancy.

I will make one comment about Glorianny’s last post she has no idea what a KC is. There is no such thing as a junior KC. No KC is inexperienced. A junior barrister is one who has not yet become a KC, but some juniors are extremely experienced and choose not to take silk.

I’ve read what her brother said too. Her mother and brother, who were the only people who were present when this happened appear to have given detailed accounts of what happened from their perspective, and her mother can be heard speaking to Paris at the time she made the call to emergency services. It’s all reported in detail in the Hereford Times if anybody wants to read it. Distressing though it is, it lays some of the myths about the evidence.

I'm no longer sure what it is that you're seeking Glorianny. Mayo had a fair trial and was found guilty. You don't agree with that on several points, despite not having been in court and lisgened to any of the evidence and having zero credentials to dispute their judgment. The only thing left for you to do is to lodge a formal appeal for a retrial and act as Mayo's advocate. Good luck with that.

7. Anyone who knows anything about 14 year old girls knows this is a load of tosh. But had she deliberately planned and executed the whole thing surely she would have made better provision for the disposal of the body

This is true - as she asked her brother to dispose of the body perhaps she wanted/needed to be found out. That was hardly consistent with trying to keep little Stanley's birth and horrific death a secret.

NanaDana

For this sentence to be proven to be other than correct, the following unfounded assumptions would all have to be proven to apply:
1. The Judge got it wrong
2. The Defence King's Counsel Barrister was not good enough.
3. The Jury got it wrong.
4. The crime was not "Murder"
5. Expert witnesses who provided evidence as regards mental health implications got it wrong.
6. The Pathologists exaggerated both the extent of the infant's injuries, and the manner in which they were inflicted.
7. The Crown Prosecution statement that : "The prosecution built a case based on medical evidence which proved that Paris Mayo’s actions were deliberate, she chose to hide her pregnancy, give birth alone and kill her baby, then hide his body despite accepting that she had a family who would have supported her" is not accurate.
All of the above assumptions have been made and repeatedly argued on this thread, and all are purely speculative, are based on zero evidence, and have been made by people who did not attend the trial, and did not have the benefit of being exposed to ALL the evidence relating to this crime. Fortunately, those who were responsible for delivering justice in this tragic case, did so by presenting the facts. The verdict which the Jury then arrived at was based on those facts, not on some speculative, diversionary argument which frequently quoted irrelevant side-issues in a fruitless attempt to muddy the waters. Sad though it is, I feel that when all the circumstances are taken into account, this was a fair outcome. Should the defendant's representatives feel otherwise, they have the right to appeal.

1. The judge obviously did not believe in cryptic pregnancies although there is a lot of evidence to show they happen. He also chose to believe a 14 year old girl who had been subjected to traumatic events, and who had sex so someone liked her, was capable of planning and executing a crime., rather than that she was reacting to events she had no control over.
2. Junior KCs always represent Legal aid cases their budget is limited. They are not incompetent but inexperienced (why do you think the rich pay millions for experienced counsels?)
3. The Jury were presented with evidence which was emotionally disturbing and saw a 19 year old woman in court, not a 15 year old child. Perhaps that affected them.
4. The crime was infanticide. No one was present at the time she gave birth. Post partum mental health is not well supported or recognised in the UK health system.
5. That is covered by 4 except to add. Women who suffered post partum mental health problems often have suffered traumatic events in their earlier lives, as this girl had.
6. Pathologists have been known to draw conclusions about how babies died which are later proved false.
7. Anyone who knows anything about 14 year old girls knows this is a load of tosh. But had she deliberately planned and executed the whole thing surely she would have made better provision for the disposal of the body.

Incidentally. There are 15 year olds who have killed in much worse ways and have received the same sentence.

Germanshepherdsmum

Indeed NanaDana. I couldn’t agree more.
The judge wasn’t very impressed with the prosecution’s expert Calli. He clearly preferred the evidence of the defence’s expert.

True.

She knew she was pregnant, the court transcript shows that she asked her mother weeks before the birth what a (mixed race, Nationality mentioned) baby would look like.

Germanshepherdsmum

Read the judgement again. The judge considered in sentencing the pregnancy denial and the stress and anxiety of giving birth alone, but the jury decided that this did not satisfy the test of mental disturbance for a partial defence of infanticide to succeed. They were privy to far more information than is contained in the judgement.

There is absolutely no point in my responding further with you on this because you consider that you know better than the experts and the jury. Go discuss it with a psychiatrist, not a lawyer.

I did read that GSM I noticed that he blamed a 14 year old child for deliberately concealing her pregnancy. In fact cryptic pregnancy is more common than generally believed, unfortunately the legal profession remains committed to the belief that a woman always knows when she is pregnant. As the judge's summing up shows.
theconversation.com/how-women-can-go-the-full-nine-months-without-knowing-theyre-pregnant-58620
Nor were the jury experts on post partum mental health.
Well of course you won't respond. Your belief that the legal system is always just is being questioned.

Indeed NanaDana. I couldn’t agree more.
The judge wasn’t very impressed with the prosecution’s expert Calli. He clearly preferred the evidence of the defence’s expert.

It was not a unanimous verdict; it was a majority verdict so at least one juror disagreed.

I am so glad that I was not on the jury for this tragic case.

Iam64

And then GSM it would need to be discussed with a psychiatrist who had examined and assessed this young woman. Otherwise, we are back into reaching conclusions not based on the evidence

5. Expert witnesses who provided evidence as regards mental health implications got it wrong

The two psychiatrists disagreed.

For this sentence to be proven to be other than correct, the following unfounded assumptions would all have to be proven to apply:
1. The Judge got it wrong
2. The Defence King's Counsel Barrister was not good enough.
3. The Jury got it wrong.
4. The crime was not "Murder"
5. Expert witnesses who provided evidence as regards mental health implications got it wrong.
6. The Pathologists exaggerated both the extent of the infant's injuries, and the manner in which they were inflicted.
7. The Crown Prosecution statement that : "The prosecution built a case based on medical evidence which proved that Paris Mayo’s actions were deliberate, she chose to hide her pregnancy, give birth alone and kill her baby, then hide his body despite accepting that she had a family who would have supported her" is not accurate.
All of the above assumptions have been made and repeatedly argued on this thread, and all are purely speculative, are based on zero evidence, and have been made by people who did not attend the trial, and did not have the benefit of being exposed to ALL the evidence relating to this crime. Fortunately, those who were responsible for delivering justice in this tragic case, did so by presenting the facts. The verdict which the Jury then arrived at was based on those facts, not on some speculative, diversionary argument which frequently quoted irrelevant side-issues in a fruitless attempt to muddy the waters. Sad though it is, I feel that when all the circumstances are taken into account, this was a fair outcome. Should the defendant's representatives feel otherwise, they have the right to appeal.

And then GSM it would need to be discussed with a psychiatrist who had examined and assessed this young woman. Otherwise, we are back into reaching conclusions not based on the evidence

Read the judgement again. The judge considered in sentencing the pregnancy denial and the stress and anxiety of giving birth alone, but the jury decided that this did not satisfy the test of mental disturbance for a partial defence of infanticide to succeed. They were privy to far more information than is contained in the judgement.

There is absolutely no point in my responding further with you on this because you consider that you know better than the experts and the jury. Go discuss it with a psychiatrist, not a lawyer.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Glorianny*, the statutory definition of infanticide requires the woman’s mind to be disturbed as a result of having recently given birth. The expert evidence, gathered over a considerable period as you have seen, showed that that was not the case. The jury would have seen the prosecution’s expert cross examined by defence counsel and vice versa. They were given the opportunity to find her guilty of infanticide, murder, or of course not guilty of either. What they heard convinced them that this was a case of murder, not infanticide. We have not heard what they did.

I defy anyone to have absolute knowledge of any woman's mind immediately after child birth, or indeed the condition of her body soon after childbirth, unless they were actually present. No one can know. After my first child was born I had to be wrapped in blankets and given hot tea because of uncontrollable shivering, the first sign that my body might be going into shock. I was attended by trained medical staff who dealt with it. Afterwards I looked fine. Nothing wrong with me to observers later.
No one was with this girl when she gave birth. They cannot say what her state of mind was at the time.
There were allegations that she preplanned the whole thing. I doubt if any women can preplan events immediately after she has given birth. That's the whole point of the infanticide act. A woman is not considered to be guilty or able to commit murder because of the effects of childbirth and of lactation.
The act actually says
she by any wilful act or omission caused its death, but that at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child
No one was there no one can tell what her state of mind was at the time, they can only presume.

We are all lay persons, but as such I cannot understand how the expert witness came to that conclusion, quite honestly.
The other expert witness disagreed.

Glorianny, the statutory definition of infanticide requires the woman’s mind to be disturbed as a result of having recently given birth. The expert evidence, gathered over a considerable period as you have seen, showed that that was not the case. The jury would have seen the prosecution’s expert cross examined by defence counsel and vice versa. They were given the opportunity to find her guilty of infanticide, murder, or of course not guilty of either. What they heard convinced them that this was a case of murder, not infanticide. We have not heard what they did.

Glorianny

Smileless2012

The legal process has been explained more than once by GSM Glorianny.

The jury would have had the evidence presented to them and it would not have been described as battering or suffocation unless that had been the case.

The legal case sets a precedent. No other child has been convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment in an adult facility. Had she been tried at 15 the result might have been very different.
As for GSM she was I believe a solicitor involved in business and not criminal law. But of course like many in that estate she has to believe in the process. Unfortunately it is just as much a belief as any other and the process does fail abysmally sometimes.
No one has yet explained to me how a child can be convicted of murder but adult women can kill babies and not be charged. That isn't justice.

It isn't a question of heart ruling head for me.
It is looking at the facts of the case as well as questioning her state of mind before, during and after pregnancy and the sentencing compared to other cases that I find somewhat disturbing.
There may be several posters on GN who have experience of the CJS too in various capacities.

Smileless2012

The legal process has been explained more than once by GSM Glorianny.

The jury would have had the evidence presented to them and it would not have been described as battering or suffocation unless that had been the case.

The legal case sets a precedent. No other child has been convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment in an adult facility. Had she been tried at 15 the result might have been very different.
As for GSM she was I believe a solicitor involved in business and not criminal law. But of course like many in that estate she has to believe in the process. Unfortunately it is just as much a belief as any other and the process does fail abysmally sometimes.
No one has yet explained to me how a child can be convicted of murder but adult women can kill babies and not be charged. That isn't justice.

The legal process has been explained more than once by GSM Glorianny.

The jury would have had the evidence presented to them and it would not have been described as battering or suffocation unless that had been the case.

maddyone

Yes you do Glorianny, you absolutely do need to hear the evidence and you didn’t. Also you appear to have forgotten that GSM said that those cases that didn’t go to trial would have been because the women pleaded guilty.

Usually a guilty plea is taken on the advice of counsel. The question of why she didn't plead guilty to infanticide is debatable. I would imagine one of the factors is the statement she made about the baby falling and damaging its head. Or her counsel may well have imagined she would have a manslaughter conviction like the other two infanticide cases that went to jury. As has been said we don't know all the facts.

We do know that women have not been convicted of murder who have killed babies but a child has. That isn't justice.
This case took 4 years to come to court. The jury saw a 19 year old woman not a 15 year old child.

I do think the graphic descriptions of the baby's injuries which in many other cases have never been made public, only described as "battering" or "suffocation" may have led people to think more badly of this girl. Some of the babies in infanticide cases are not newly born but can be up to a year old.