Fifteen year old girl who killed her newborn baby

That’s something I hadn’t considered maddy, the issue of brain development to adult. But, would we then not prosecute youngsters who in a fit of uncontrolled anger attacked and killed someone

Ism64 a very balanced post, and I think correct. I’m sure it must have been horrible for the jury but they decided on a verdict of murder after hearing all the details. It must have been very distressing foe everyone concerned.
I do wonder if it’s actually easier for a fifteen year old to kill her baby. As a fifteen year old is not fully mature, I wonder if they are still essentially an egocentric child mentality and therefore still unable to regard the baby as a tiny little person who needs nurture. Maybe they’re still only able to see their own needs. I don’t know, I’m musing and wondering.

Callistemon, we don’t know but the jury will have heard from her as well as others involved. That doesn’t make the case any less disturbing. On average one child each week is killed in the uk. Most commonly the child is killed by a parent or step parent

I do know what dreadful things people are capable of but still find this case disturbing.

What was going through her mind and why was she so scared to tell her parents, or her boyfriend or a teacher?

I believe it’s difficult for most of us to believe mothers can deliberately hurt, maim, torture their baby. It’s difficult to comprehend, even for the police, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, the multiple professional involved when a baby is killed or seriously injured.
I understand the concerns about the sentence after a conviction of murder in this case. We may struggle to accept it but she was convicted of murder, not infanticide, after a lengthy trial. The verdict was a majority, not surprising in these circumstances, but a clear guilty finding. It’s likely the jurors will be excused future duty. I’m sure they agonised before reaching the verdict, we can only begin to imagine the distress they experienced.

Germanshepherdsmum

I would never support a mother who deliberately killed her child in any circumstances. The fact that seven of the Mayo jurors were women shows that I’m not alone.

Perhaps all other charges of infanticide rather than murder and the subsequent sentences should be reviewed, then?

I would never support a mother who deliberately killed her child in any circumstances. The fact that seven of the Mayo jurors were women shows that I’m not alone.

I would never support anyone who did this this and think they should face the consequences of their actions and get the help they so obviously need.

The consequences do seem to vary considerably, however.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have never said ‘the law always gets it right’. That’s pure fabrication. Of course there are successful appeals, Believe me, I have never had the fear you ascribe to me - another fabrication, trying to find justification for my views. The problem is that women especially have difficulty in putting their emotions to one side and cannot believe that another woman (of any age) could whilst of sound mind kill their baby and put it in a rubbish bag. They can and they do. Women tend to imagine all sorts of reasons why this cannot be so, the experts were wrong, the juries were wrong. They cannot face the fact that some members of their sex are pretty evil. However the majority of the Mayo jury were women and they had heard all the evidence, unlike anyone here. My passion for the law remains unchanged.

Paris Mayo was not a woman when she killed her child she was a child.
And I think there are just as many women who would condemn any female killing a child ast here are women who would support such people..

There was also an expert called by the defence and both would have been examined and cross examined. If the judge felt that any part of Harding’s testimony should be ignored or treated with caution by the jury he would have given directions accordingly before they retired.
Harding’s manner, rather than his ability, was commented on. I can’t share your unease with the content of a report which neither of us has read.

Germanshepherdsmum

It makes a very great difference. Including hearing the experts examined and cross examined of course.

As a result of detailed medical evidence compiled in preparation for a trial, the CPS has today accepted a plea to a charge of infanticide, and the defendant will be sentenced on Friday 14 July
9 May 2023

The decision to charge her with infanticide, not murder as originally decided by the CPS, was based on two medical reports which were in agreement.

I'm afraid that I still feel uneasy about Dr Harding's assessment, as was the judge.

The judge also used his sentencing remarks to criticise a prosecution expert witness, describing forensic psychiatrist Dr Duncan Harding's "inflexibility of thinking" while giving evidence as "unhelpful".

"He had told the police that you ought to be prosecuted, a surprising opinion for an expert called to give evidence on a defendant's mental state to express," Mr justice Garnham said.

It was apparent he had a "clear and unshakeable view on your culpability from the time of his very first meeting with you."

It makes a very great difference. Including hearing the experts examined and cross examined of course.

There’s nothing like hearing all the evidence, which in cases like these is too distressing and graphic to print in newspapers,

Yes, I do know that.

The sentence was 12 years Callistemon - 14 before mitigating factors were taken into account.
The jury were satisfied that the balance of Mayo’s mind was disturbed and therefore refused to find her guilty of infanticide, but convicted her of murder. Murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment/detention at HM pleasure. A minimum term which must be served before parole is almost always stipulated, based on sentencing guidelines, as happened in Mayo. The judge criticised certain elements of what the prosecution’s expert said but remember the judge was sentencing, guilt had been decided by the jury based on what they had seen and we have not.

Barron has a very low IQ, unlike Mayo, and was found to have had a psychiatric disorder, unlike Mayo, hence the charge of infanticide which is frequently punished with a non-custodial sentence nowadays.

The two cases may seem similar but apart from each involving the killing of a baby by its mother they are not. You may well have been one of the jury members who decided that Mayo was guilty of murder if you had sat through the case. There’s nothing like hearing all the evidence, which in cases like these is too distressing and graphic to print in newspapers, and witnessing the demeanour of the defendant (remorse or no remorse?) to focus the mind,

Medical, sorry.

Germanshepherdsmum

And different circumstances Callistemon.

Where did the circumstances differ so much that one, a child, was sentenced to 14 years and the other, a woman of 34, did not receive a custodial sentence?

The decision about charges relied on medial evidence.
In the Mayo case, the medical evidence differed and even the judge was inclined to disagree with the views of the psychiatrist for the prosecution.

And different circumstances Callistemon.

I have never said ‘the law always gets it right’. That’s pure fabrication. Of course there are successful appeals, Believe me, I have never had the fear you ascribe to me - another fabrication, trying to find justification for my views. The problem is that women especially have difficulty in putting their emotions to one side and cannot believe that another woman (of any age) could whilst of sound mind kill their baby and put it in a rubbish bag. They can and they do. Women tend to imagine all sorts of reasons why this cannot be so, the experts were wrong, the juries were wrong. They cannot face the fact that some members of their sex are pretty evil. However the majority of the Mayo jury were women and they had heard all the evidence, unlike anyone here. My passion for the law remains unchanged.

Anniebach

No way does the law always get it right.

You can say that again.

Anytime who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded

Glorianny

I think the post mortem results on the babies were significant as well.
The 15 year old was accused of deliberately injuring her baby.
The 34 year old was given the benefit of the doubt, her baby had injuries from the fall but also some which may have happened before he was thrown.
GSM your assertions that the law always gets it right flies in the face of the many cases where people have been found not guilty much later. But I can understand that you fear that the thing you have always believed in is neither as just nor as reasonable as you thought.

No-one is doubting what happened as the pathologists' reports will have made clear.

However, it is the consequent decisions of the CPS, the psychiatric assessments and the subsequent different charges in such similar cases which I find questionable.

Different courts
Different juries, of course.

No way does the law always get it right.

I think the post mortem results on the babies were significant as well.
The 15 year old was accused of deliberately injuring her baby.
The 34 year old was given the benefit of the doubt, her baby had injuries from the fall but also some which may have happened before he was thrown.
GSM your assertions that the law always gets it right flies in the face of the many cases where people have been found not guilty much later. But I can understand that you fear that the thing you have always believed in is neither as just nor as reasonable as you thought.

Grandtante said that Mayo’s solicitor should ‘have had the sense’ to make up a defence.

Germanshepherdsmum

She was represented by King’s Counsel. And expert reports were obtained as regards her mental state at the time. Lawyers don’t fabricate defences as you are suggesting should have been done. I posted the judgment at the time, why not read it?

I didnt say it was fabricated.

I said that the two forensic psychiatrists disagreed in their opinion as to her state of mind.

If you read the two judgments and contrast them I hope you will understand Callistemon. The essential difference between infanticide (Barron) and murder (Mayo) is the defendant’s mental state at the time the crime was committed. The two cases were very different in this vital respect.