Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

Arguing about the experience and skills of King’s Counsel seems frankly nonsense to me. My lengthy experience of the criminal and family courts tells me anyone achieving kc status is ok, I’d be delighted to have their advice or representation.

I’m with gsm on this tragic case. The jury, the judge, heard evidence about the death of this helpless infant, his mother and her extended family. We know little about any of that.

King's Counsel (KC) are barristers or solicitor advocates who have been recognised for excellence in advocacy. They're often seen as leaders in their area of law and generally take on more complex cases that require a higher level of legal expertise.

The above from Google.

Luckygirl3

*Paris Mayo could have asked for help at any point*

I think we need to seriously consider where and how she might have asked for help. Not all children live in cosy families where they can chat to Mum and Dad about their situation. Not all children feel confident to talk to adults at school. It is very sad that she did not feel able to reach out for help, but she should not be condemned for that. I wonder what any of us would have done at 15 if we had found ourselves pregnant? .... and in her family circumstances.

Her family circumstances were difficult, her parents separated but her mother moved back to care for her father who was ill and needed a lot of help; he died shortly after the baby was born.
Paris may not have been neglected as many children are, but perhaps sidelined and not feeling able to burden her parents with even more problems.

Wyllow3

"You weren’t there to hear all the evidence and are not in a position to express a valid opinion on the outcome of the trial, much as you think you are"

Neither were you, GSM.

The difference is though that Germanshepherdsmum isn’t offering a personal opinion about the outcome, she has stated what the process is, and has shown the detail of the verdict. That has a lot more credence than suggesting the defence KC was of poor quality, or that the clinical evidence of the crush injury was flawed with no evidence to support those assertions.

I also find it odd that some are referring to this girl as a child.I don’t class 15 year olds as children - they’re young teens.

young teens is not a legal definition.

www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/youth-crime#:~:text=Children%20between%2010%20and%2017,if%20they%20commit%20a%20crime.

young teens is not a legal definition

Murder is.

And?
Did I dispute that?

Sentences vary.

tickingbird

^young teens is not a legal definition^

Murder is.

The murderers of Jamie Bulger were released age 18.

It's the psyche evaluation I have ? about not in anyway about due process followed.
In such a complex evaluation there will be substantial disagreements between different psychiatrists. The prosecution is in a position on whom they get to testify.

Therefore I remain questioning the decision re murder v infanticide, and the appropriateness of the sentence.

Defence psychiatrist offered a different opinion
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-65922302

Equally valid IMO as I do not think overall they had anything like adequate evidence of the teen's state of mind and social circumstances prior to the event.

I do also have some reservations about how attitudes to how women can act under the most extreme of circumstances may have of recent times hardened from "ill", to "Evil",

There were 7 women on the jury and 5 men though.

Wyllow3, the link you give was part way through the trial. The judge mentioned the expert evidence in his comments.
I find it impossible not to feel compassion for this desperate 15 year old but, the jury rejected infanticide and convicted on murder.
The helpless infant died a truly awful death.

The helpless infant died a truly awful death

Poor little soul, he did.
I don't know what drove her to do this.

I just know that Jamie Bulger's killers, who tortured and very deliberately made sure he had a truly awful death seem to have got away lightly in comparison.

I realise that.

The child did indeed, Iam64.

Dreadful.

Nevertheless decisions were made on the basis of choices as regards very seriously psychiatric views

by medical lay-people faced with horrifying evidence as regards the injuries.

My "reading" is of a choice between "ill" and evil" and feelings naturally run very high on matters such as this.

This sort evidence is not a matter of "Fact", it can only ever be of "opinion" particularly because of a lack of information as to her long term state of mind before the event and the lack of in depth information of family circumstances.

I suspect the appeal will be made on the re-arguing of these issues.

Therefore I remain questioning the decision re murder v infanticide, and the appropriateness of the sentence.

This has been covered several times already on this thread but, for clarity, I'll explain it again. The judge had to give the jury 3 options to consider: a not guilty verdict, guilty of infanticide (which would mean that he could hand down a lighter sentence) or guilty of murder. The jury deliberated for over 8 hours and, having taken into consideration all of the evidence given to them, they decided that Mayo was guilty of murder. The verdict was theirs and theirs alone and unless you want to dispense with our judicial system of trial by jury, you'll have to come to terms with the fact that they were the ones with full visibility of all the facts and it was on those facts that they based their verdict.
The judge is given parameters of sentencing for each crime, based on the verdict given to him. He cannot just give an arbitrary sentence; every crime has a recommended sentence and he is legally obliged to follow those sentencing guidelines. The judge followed the law and if you read the sentencing notes provided by GSM earlier, you will see that he explains all of this in quite simple terms. Please read them.

Obviously there may be circumstances that we know nothing about but I can't imagine anything worse than being a 15 year old girl giving birth on her own. I would find it hard to be certain that she was in her right mind at the end of it.

Beetle juice, thanks for setting it our clearly, again. GSM and others have posted similarly accurate summaries.
Deedaa, the evidence led the jury to conclude that legally she is responsible. We may all want to believe she wasn’t in her right mind but we didn’t hear the evidence

Deedaa

Obviously there may be circumstances that we know nothing about but I can't imagine anything worse than being a 15 year old girl giving birth on her own. I would find it hard to be certain that she was in her right mind at the end of it.

This.

What a dreadful experience and, of course, nothing excuses the murder of the baby.

But I still question whether the charges were correct and if she was sentenced as a child, which she was at the time of the offence.

"you'll have to come to terms with the fact that they were the ones with full visibility of all the facts and it was on those facts that they based their verdict. "

Beetlejuice I dont disagree with anything you say or has been said about due process, but I feel you have not addressed my point

that

People keep on using the word facts and I agree that there were many verifiable facts but this is not an aspect of the trial I can be certain that the jury was au fait and adequately equipped to deal with -

decisions based on opposing complex psychiatric evaluations.

We are Gransnetters. We weren’t in the court and therefore we don’t know all the facts (as in other cases where Gransnetters often presume their opinion is a fact.) However the judge knows both the facts and the law. Judges do direct juries but juries can choose to ignore the directive I believe. GSM will be along soon to put me right if I’m wrong.
Anyway I read about this case recently. It’s a terribly sad case. The girl is now nineteen it appears (didn’t it take a long time to get to court? I assume that’s because of the Covid backlog of cases.) The girl told no one she was pregnant. She was living in difficult circumstances at home. We don’t know why she told no one, maybe the court knows, but we don’t. She appears to have decided to give birth and dispose of the baby, who lived an hour or two apparently. She stamped on his head apparently and stuffed cotton wool balls into his mouth, about six I think was said. Two were pushed far down into his windpipe. Poor little soul, he must have suffered. It does seem to have been premeditated. The judge must have thought so and also the jury. Twelve years seems a long time but in all probability she will only serve six. I hope she gets some sort of help so that she can be rehabilitated. She does deserve some sort of punishment though in order for her to realise that what she did was wrong.

Twelve years seems a long time but in all probability she will only serve six

The sentencing rules have chanhpged recently so a sentence of 12 years mean 12 years, I believe.

Beetlejuice

I find it astonishing that so many people are able to criticise the judge and jury for reaching the verdict they did. They weren't there. They didn't have to sit for 6 weeks and listen to the harrowing evidence given by police, pathologists, psychologists, doctors and other witnesses. And yet they're apparently in the position of knowing that this was some kind of miscarriage of justice and the sentence given was just plain wrong.
Quite impressive really.

I agree Beetlejuice.
Absolutely agree.

I don't actually feel "critical" towards them. Or arrogant that I'm "right".

I feel uneasy about the result - and that is different.

I don't "know", I doubt, for the reasons I outlined above.

You’re right Callistemon, she must serve a minimum term of twelve years. I hadn’t read the judgement, nor the whole thread, but I have now. So she’ll serve twelve years before she’s eligible for parole. It’s s long time, especially for a nineteen year old. Hopefully she’ll be able to turn her life around because if she is released in twelve years she’ll still be a young woman.

This case is horrendous but it seems to me that a sentence that ensures the girl got the right help would have been more humane. It feels like there's something very wrong here.

The murderers of Jamie Bulger were released age 18.
I’ve no idea why you,Callistemon keep bringing Venables and Thompson into this. They were children when they abducted that poor toddler. They were originally sentenced to much longer but this was later challenged I believe. Venables is in prison still, as far as I’m aware, as he was recalled.

As for young teen not being a legal definition - it doesn’t need to be. We’re on gransnet not a court of law. I call a 15 yr old a young teen. Plus in the transcript I read this girl wasn’t described as a child.