Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

You think whatever you like, but Glorianny I know you would argue blue was yellow.
Nobody is saying that there will not be an appeal in this case. If there is then no doubt all this ground will be gone over again. It’s probably unlikely that there will be additional evidence, but you never know. In the meantime, you have to accept that you don’t know any more than anybody else, apart from the girl herself, her family, and the judge and jurors - and that your opinion isn’t more valid than anybody else’s either.

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.

I was just about to make this point too when I read this post. KC is neither junior nor inexperienced. She was lucky to be defended by a KC. She may not have been. Nonetheless many barristers who are not KC are certainly very experienced but still called junior because that is the correct term for them as I understand it. There can be several juniors and a KC on some cases.

I said I would not be engaging further with you Glorianny. I merely made a comment, not addressed to you, on a particular inaccuracy. I don’t wish to engage in your fanciful arguments. Geddit?

Correct maddy.

In the meantime, you have to accept that you don’t know any more than anybody else, apart from the girl herself, her family, and the judge and jurors - and that your opinion isn’t more valid than anybody else’s either.

We don't, know, but that is all everyone's posts are on here, opinion based on what we do know from reports.

What I do know is that the verdict was not unanimous.

What I do know is that the verdict was not unanimous.

It didn't have to be. A majority verdict is all that was called for. If the judge had wanted a unanimous verdict, he'd have asked for one, but he didn't. And if a majority of jurors had decided that a verdict of infanticide was more appropriate, they'd have given that as their decision. But they didn't do that either. So here we are. Majority verdict for murder. Motion carried. Sentenced.

I looked it up. In a Crown Court the following applies

They will be told what the permissible majority is and this will depend on the number of jurors left on the jury:

12 jurors - the majority verdict can be 11-1 or 10-2.

11 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 10-1.

10 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 9-1.

9 jurors - no majority verdict is permitted (so a majority direction could not be given to a jury of 9, or the jury would be instructed that a majority verdict would no longer be permitted once their number reduced to 9).

Thanks Casdon. There were 12 jurors on the Mayo trial. 5 men, 7 women.

Beetlejuice

^What I do know is that the verdict was not unanimous.^

It didn't have to be. A majority verdict is all that was called for. If the judge had wanted a unanimous verdict, he'd have asked for one, but he didn't. And if a majority of jurors had decided that a verdict of infanticide was more appropriate, they'd have given that as their decision. But they didn't do that either. So here we are. Majority verdict for murder. Motion carried. Sentenced.

Well we all know that!!

🤔