Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

To that it would need a "psychiatric" sentence because that kind of treatment is not available in an ordinary women's prison.

It doesn't matter a jot what I think or you think, tickingbird, what matters is the legal definition of child.
That is what I was pointing out.

Children who commit murder are usually entitled to anonymity unless it is thought to be in the public interest for them to be named.
Often they are given a new identity after their sentence is complete.

She wasn’t mentally ill Daisy, the judge made that clear. There’s no indication that, at 19, she needs help.

It's a really sad case, she was 14 when she became pregnant. As GSM pointed out she did have good legal representation but I am still a little surprised they found her guilty of murder, but then again, I've only read snippets of what was said in court. I think it's quite a natural response to feel sorry for the young woman (as well as the baby), I certainly do and I struggle to see what 12 years in jail will do for her, she would seem to be a rather damaged girl and I think jail will only damage her further.

Callistemon21

It doesn't matter a jot what I think or you think, tickingbird, what matters is the legal definition of child.
That is what I was pointing out.

Children who commit murder are usually entitled to anonymity unless it is thought to be in the public interest for them to be named.
Often they are given a new identity after their sentence is complete.

Only you know why you have decided to discuss the James Bulger case; it has no bearing on this one. This thread is discussing whether this girl has been dealt with too harshly, not whether she should have been given anonymity.

There maybe should be a case as to whether she should have been sentenced as a 15 yr old and not as a 19 yr old. I don’t know whether it would have made a difference. However, the killer of Rikki Neves, was sentenced as an adult although he committed the crime when he was 11. The fact that he wasn’t charged until he was in his forties didn’t seem to matter. He was dealt with as an adult. He was a child when he killed Rikki.

This article adequately explains my point of view.

It covers a hardening attitude to women who experience some kind of post partum psychosis as I think its entirely possible that that came into play and was ignored.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/women-kill-newborns-murder-infanticide-paris-mayo-courts

In lay terms - no-one would do such a thing and could possibly be in their right mind. I disagree with the judge and am in no doubt he influenced the jury.

She was sentenced as a 15 year old tickingbird. People always have to be dealt with on the basis of the age they were when they committed the crime if that was under 18. That was also the case with the killer of Rikki Neeves, who was sentenced to life with a minimum of 15 years because of his age when the murder was committed. He was not sentenced on the basis that he was an adult.

tickingbird it was me who first mentioned the case of James Bulger yesterday, not Callistemon.

I did so saying I didn't know the details of the case and didn't want too, and was wondering if she would have to serve the full sentence because his killers were released on license to keep them out of an adult prison.

I thought it was relevant to this particular discussion which is why I mentioned it. You are of course free to disagree but we're all free to post what we believe to be relevant.

Wyllow, do you claim to know better than the two experts who provided reports on her mental state, taking a very long time to be satisfied that she was ‘in her right mind’, hence the long delay before the hearing? Do you understand what post partum psychosis actually is and when the symptoms (hallucinations) start? You have no idea what the judge said in his summing up but he would have carefully explained the difference between infanticide and murder. Judges must not influence juries - that gives grounds for appeal.

Thank you GSM your post @ 8.53 has answered the query I had yesterday.

Yes, I thought that was the case GSM.
I thought adults who committed crimes as children are sentenced according to the age that they were when the crime was committed.
It clearly says this girl was not suffering from any mental disorder when she committed this crime Wyllow. Unfortunately she appeared to decide to get rid of the baby and killing it seemed to her to be the solution. She was aware that she could have had it adopted or had an abortion earlier on but she apparently ignored her pregnancy until she could ignore it no longer.
It’s a very sad case. She’s being punished correctly according to the law but of course to us mothers and grandmothers, it seems to be an inordinately long time. I hope she finds some help in prison although I’m not terribly optimistic.
I wonder if she feels remorse for what she did? Her attitude in court would have influenced the jury. If she showed no remorse that would have certainly influenced them.

We are all fully entitled to our
opinions - no matter what experts think .

Apologies and thank you GSM and Smileless.

However, can you tell me GSM, why is there such disparity in the sentencing? Venables and Thompson (well Thompson) didn’t have to serve a minimum but Rikki’s killer will and Paris (as a 15 yr old) will serve a minimum of 12?

Sorry for all the questions but I’m confused. Venables and Thompson set out that day to abduct and kill a child for fun - they are the worst of the three cases I believe but, also, they are the youngest.

Wyllow3

This article adequately explains my point of view.

It covers a hardening attitude to women who experience some kind of post partum psychosis as I think its entirely possible that that came into play and was ignored.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/women-kill-newborns-murder-infanticide-paris-mayo-courts

In lay terms - no-one would do such a thing and could possibly be in their right mind. I disagree with the judge and am in no doubt he influenced the jury.

I also read this article and found it quite disturbing and depressing. Although Paris Mayo had a very experienced KC, it's a very sad fact that many people who find themselves in court don't have particularly good defence representation if they need legal aid. The service is very underfunded with a chronic shortage of staff. A good friend is an experienced defence solicitor who works pt for the service and she says it is appalling! They are not paid according to the amount of work required to prepare the case but by the number of pages they have to read, big chunks of the pages are always the same and don't necessarily represent the complexity of the case. She was involved in two murder cases last year and was paid significantly more for one of the cases despite it actually being relatively an open and shut case, whilst her hourly rate of pay for the other much more complex case was derisory. she continues to do this work because she believes poor people should be properly represented! Unsurprisingly, like many govt funded public services, it is on it's knees.

It is so very wrong to drag up past murders of small children! to use names to enhance what you then say.

try sticking to the current topic.
it would be a good idea if people read up on the case before posting too.

Unbelievable! Ignore the experts! We know better even though we weren’t there.

Yes, just that. I'm aware some posters don't like what I say but there will have to be "Agree to disagree"

And the "Experts" did disagree on this one. Psychiatry is an inexact science and they were evaluating an event years afterwards. The CPS can "choose" their expert.

Yes I do know what post partum psychosis and it can develop within hours after birth. I see it only as part not the whole of the picture, and not surprising given the circs before - I don't think she was "in her right mind" throughout.

And the judge did acknowledge this (quoting from article I posted)

"Mayo testified to a difficult family life: an “emotionally cruel” father who made her feel “patronised and belittled” and “worthless”, so she sought attention by having sex at age 13. Unable to confront the reality that she might be pregnant, she never took a pregnancy test, she claimed, and she “would try to make excuses to myself to what I thought was wrong”.

In delivering his verdict, Mr Justice Garnham acknowledged her appalling situation but still sentenced this “rather pathetic (in the true sense of that word) 15-year-old girl” to custody for homicide.

("Just that" referred to Esmay's post)

That’s right foxie. My son is a barrister and he told me he was not interested in becoming a criminal barrister because it’s not paid well at all, and because much of it, although certainly not all, is not challenging enough. He may have been thinking about the earlier cases he would have had to deal with in that respect, because some criminal cases are very challenging. He works in employment law and commercial law which are certainly challenging. But the difference is the pay. Criminal barristers are really paid very poorly by the state but that doesn’t mean we should assume that they are poor barristers. KC are extremely good barristers whichever specialty they are in and this girl was represented by a KC barrister. She had the best representation but she was judged to be guilty as charged and no barrister could have achieved a different result.

I'm aware some posters don't like what I say but there will have to be "Agree to disagree"

In the same way that you will have to "Agree to Disagree" with the 7 women & 5 men who sat as jurors and had to watch and listen to 6 weeks of unbelievable cruelty before being asked to delivertheir verdict. For you to sit at home now, having had only a snapshot of what they had to experience and then have the arrogance to suggest that they reached their verdict, not by the wealth of evidence put before them but by undue influence by the judge, shows unbelievable arrogance.

Of course he sentenced her for homicide Wyllow, because that was the verdict of the jury (not the judge). And the experts weren’t evaluating her mental state years afterwards - if you read the judgement you will see that they evaluated her condition over a very long period, one reason why the case took so long to come to trial. You are obviously intent on weaving your own fairy story about this girl regardless of the facts and the expert evidence which were heard by the jury over a period of several weeks.

I couldn’t put it better Beetlejuice. The phrase ‘couch expert’ springs to mind.

Beetlejuice I have always believed that in online disagreements that it is right and proper to attack a POV: however to go on to make personal attacks is inappropriate and uncalled for.

People who know me as a poster will know that I do not do this:

and I hope for the same courtesy from all or we end on one of those threads that just denigrate each other and fizzle out into personal attack and counter attack.

Not everyone wants to know the upsetting details of the case lemsip and everyone's entitled to introduce whatever they feel may be pertinent to a particular discussion.

But I struggle to see a point of view in your posts herevWyllow - it’s imaginings and whatifery.