Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.