Teenager guilty of murder.

@Iwasafool
Brutally killing the baby might just indicate that she was that cruel and sadistic because the brutality of the attack would also indicate that wouldn't it? If she hadn’t been diagnosed with pregnancy denial, that might be possible. However, she was diagnosed with pregnancy denial so your speculation is not consistent with the psychiatric examination of her.

It is surprising that the expert is criticised for his conclusions based on watching video but people on here are so confident of their non professional diagnosis when they haven't even seen or heard her, just the bits reported.

Our opinions largely reflect that of the other expert who did a full review of Mayo’s medical records and formal assessment of her. Which is the gold standard for psychiatric assessment versus watching body cam footage and diagnosing based off that.

We havent diagnosed her with pregnancy denial. The only thing that has been suggested is that she might have the psychotic subtype of pregnancy denial given how she fits the profile and appears to have suffered delusions and perhaps even hallucinated blood coming out the baby’s mouth. That’s not the sort of detail that would be published for the public though.

Women who kill their newborns are deeply unwell, so why are they being tried for murder?
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/women-kill-newborns-murder-infanticide-paris-mayo-courts

The writer of the Guardian article seems not to have realised that the Tunstill murder conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal 2018 and changed to Infanticide.
https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/docs/default-source/article_files/013_nlj_7824_specialist_crime-brennan-milne.pdf?sfvrsn=21a00d0e_3

Apparently, as reported this Guardian article, the same judge from Paris Mayo’s trial, Mr Justice Garnham, also sentenced a 38 year old woman, who had given birth by a roadside and then killed her newborn child by abandoning it in woods , to life imprisonment for murder (instead of Infanticide) in 2021.

Here are details of that from the BBC at the time (read in full to see all her gruelling and stressful circumstances while pregnant):

“Mr Justice Garnham told her she had "denied the pregnancy to yourself, pretending it was not happening".

"Abandoning your baby was a truly dreadful thing to do," he said.

"This was an act of desperation of a vulnerable woman" who was suffering

"acute stress and anxiety" at the time of the birth, the judge said.

"I accept you acted in a way that was wholly out of character and you would not have done what you did but for the extreme nature of your personal circumstances," he added.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-59509306

Back to the June 30 Guardian article, I am sure this is true ( my bold):
Milne points to the structural shifts that negatively affect the outcomes for these women, such as massive cuts to legal aid so that defence teams, with medical experts and criminal barristers, are paid from ever-shrinking budgets and have less time to prepare their defence. The lack of financial support for legal teams makes it much harder to present complex cases to a jury.

The Guardian is taking comments on this.

Agree @Iwasafool

After 900 posts, I'd only be repeating myself to write a lengthy post but I'd echo your last comment.

To me, it seems that nobody is advocating for 15 year olds who stab to be let go, despite also being young, ill-supported and vulnerable, sometimes involved in gangs. You can't just let people walk free after killing someone because things weren't perfect in their life.

Punishment is one component of justice.

The purpose of a prison sentence is punishment for a crime. I'm surprised if people don't know that. A man was sentenced to 40 years today for killing his wife and kids, would anyone say what purpose does that serve, his family are dead he isn't going to kill them again. I don't think anyone would suggest such a thing so why is it different?

I'm a mum, I was a pregnant teenager with my first, I've had my moments when I've felt like shaking them or throwing them in the cot, I didn't but I still understand someone being at the end of their tether over something but torturing a baby for 2 hours? No there is no understanding that from me.

None of that proves it should have been infanticide. Brutally killing the baby might just indicate that she was that cruel and sadistic because the brutality of the attack would also indicate that wouldn't it?

It is surprising that the expert is criticised for his conclusions based on watching video but people on here are so confident of their non professional diagnosis when they haven't even seen or heard her, just the bits reported.

The jailing of Paris Mayo (Teenager Paris Mayo sentenced to at least 12 years for murder of newborn son, 26 June) should bring us up short. What on earth are we doing when current penal policy suggests that this is an appropriate sentence for a child offender who killed her newborn child but who, in the judge's words, was
"*vulnerable" and «ill-supported at home"?
^What purpose does such a lengthy
minimum sentence serve^?
Prof Rod Morgan
*Former chief inspector of probation; ex-
chairman, Youth Justice Board^
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/02/no-sense-in-locking-up-a-vulnerable-teen

I had quoted and linked a scientific paper earlier in the thread that summarises psychotic pregnancy denial facts at the beginning and this was one of them.

“In instances of neonaticide, non-psychotic denial of pregnancy is most likely to result in passive death; the woman may become acutely confused and disorientated at the time of delivery, or panic after the birth and the infant may die from maternal negligence, through exposure. Psychotic denial is more likely to be associated with active killing, by means such as suffocation or strangulation.
Denied pregnancies have a statistically significant worse outcome compared with a normal group; at least some of these poor outcomes are potentially avoidable.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3128877/

The rest of the paper is very informative too
“Denial of pregnancy is more common than may be thought. A German study8suggested that the incidence of denial of pregnancy at 20+ weeks' gestation was 1 in 475 (0.21%). This is higher than that of rhesus haemolytic disease (1 in 1000) or uterine rupture (1 in 1500).8 This incidence was collaborated by an Austrian study indicating a rate of 1 in 400 pregnancies (0.25%) and an American study suggesting a frequency of 1 in 516 births (0.19%).9
A series of 27 Austrian women10 with denial of pregnancy indicated that in 11 cases, denial continued until delivery; in nine cases it resolved at 27–36 weeks, while in seven cases, it resolved between 21–26 weeks gestation. Other work suggests that the incidence of denial of pregnancy that continues until labour is approximately 1 in 2455 to 1 in 2500,2,5,8 which is equivalent to the observed frequency of eclampsia11 (1 in 2500), or three times more common than triplet births (1 in 7225).8”

”There is also an increased incidence of precipitous or unassisted delivery (one study of 74 neonatal deaths revealed 18 cases that involved giving birth into toilets.1 The majority of these involved denial of pregnancy). “

The “brutality of the conduct” supports a verdict of infanticide more than a verdict of murder

General comment not specifically about Mayo, but I don’t understand what you said there. There are lots of brutal, violent, shocking murders, including of babies and young children sadly. Hate, rage, revenge, sadism - no end of reasons that aren’t psychosis.

I have mentioned this to you before, but the method of the neonaticide is actually yet another way Mayo fits the profile of psychosis. We know she was diagnosed with pregnancy denial. The psychotic subtype of pregnancy denial is associated with a high risk of neonaticide via violent methods.

The “brutality of the conduct” supports a verdict of infanticide more than a verdict of murder. So, yes it is surprising the jury would go off piste and that does raise questions as to just how well were they instructed.

Especially since a woman much older than Mayo also committed neonaticide in a similar fashion and was convicted of infanticide contemporaneously.

As has been repeatedly stated, infanticide was left to the jury as an alternative verdict to murder. Having heard all the evidence they chose to convict of murder. Given the brutality of the conduct which took place over some time, I am not sure why anyone finds that surprising.

I do think this case would have gone very differently if it had been a 15 year old standing in the dock, and no publicity.

And without possible jury lack of knowledge of the conjunction of Pregnancy Denial + Neonaticide standing in the way.

• like the lack of knowledge of jury members in rape trials, mentioned in the Parliamentary article about bias I posted last night: lack of knowledge that rape by someone known to the victim is rape, that the victim’s underwear as shown to them by the prosecution barrister does not mean the victim was consenting etc etc

9 months of a 15 year old denying pregnancy, followed by 47 hours of labour, sleeplessness, and silently endured pain, does not mean there was a 48th hour of consciousness to come out of a dissociative state and get help at night from parents who have been clueless hitherto, one abusive, and who are upstairs dealing with the abusive but loved one being on dialysis and about to die within a short time.

'It is a shame Paris Mayo was not given anonymity as a child.'

I do think this case would have gone very differently if it had been a 15 year old standing in the dock, and no publicity.

Not that it's ok at all.

More that I'm surprised that with all the known circumstances, murder was chosen rather than infanticide.

As we know, in many other cases where people are killed the killer gets a shorter sentence.

This case has many indicators which suggest infanticide:
Killed pretty much at birth
15 yr old
Secrecy
Lack of support
Etc.

I don't think awareness of what's happening during the last hour of labour classes as premeditation. All I was thinking was 'dear god make it stop'. I couldn't have premeditated a nice cup of tea let alone anything else.

I'm really sorry some of you went through shit at 15, and I'm impressed that you pulled through so successfully.
It's not a reason to deny the extreme experiences of other 15yr olds that aren't coping though.

Infanticide as a charge exists for situations like this one. I'm really surprised it wasn't used, and hope over time the reasons for that become clearer.

This Is interesting for anyone interested to read about the court system more generally. There are no easy answers given.

Unintentional bias in court.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0512/POST-PN-0512.pdf

Reading one if the paragraphs here,

An analysis of 44 US- based studies revealed that negative pre-trial publicity significantly affects jurors’ decisions about the culpability of the defendant

It is a shame Paris Mayo was not given anonymity as a child.

This is interesting too:

Neuroscience and the jury system: How can they best coexist?

https://hawkpartners.com/trial-consulting/neuroscience-and-the-jury-system-how-can-they-best-coexist/

Or at least it is if you pay attention to, you know, the actual facts. Plenty on here not too keen on doing that.

i think people - including perhaps the jury - would be more willing to absolve her of full responsibility had it not been for the brutal method of killing and the prolonged course of conduct. Really tough to get past that.

Also, there definitely are people who think 'she was 15, scared and need help not jail, poor girl, it's the parents fault for not being supportive'.

I had a baby at 16 and ended up with horrific depression, regretted everything, was in an abusive relationship. I still didn't kill my child.

Also, there definitely are people who think 'she was 15, scared and need help not jail, poor girl, it's the parents fault for not being supportive'.

As in, it's understandable to do this if youre scared (even without pregnancy denial or psychosis). It may not have been you, but this isn't an opinion that's hard to find, it's been on here and everywhere else

@Faybian from what I understand, pregnancy denial does not make you inculpable for homicide, unless you had psychosis. That's why all this talk about family this and that is irrelevant (and also, does not align with what mayo said) imo

“83 % sure” heh heh
it doesn’t work like that. The law has specified that a 10 to 2 verdict is sufficient for a finding of guilt. If you think that should be changed, by all means campaign for that. But as the law stands she is as guilty as if the verdict were unanimous.

One expert witness was ‘biased’ and thought she’d acted deliberately, the other (Dr Sandford, quoted above) ‘told the court that it was also possible that she was "deliberately and deceitfully lying".’

I agree @Faybian

Faybian · Today 11:50

Absolutely what you say.

I personally do doubt that the jury understood the double nature of her Pregnancy Denial and that it can lead to neonaticide.

“When a woman in denial of pregnancy is seen, she requires emergency psychiatric management to avert the possibility of neonatal killing”

www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx

Appearing as an expert witness for the defence, forensic psychiatrist Dr John Sandford told Worcester Crown Court that Paris Mayo had "taken out the bad bits, the bits that are hard to live with - that she extinguished the life of her baby."

He said that, in his opinion, Paris Mayo was in denial and at no time did she recognise that she was pregnant.

"As a 15-year-old girl giving birth, she went into a state of shock, of panic and distress, with very high anxiety and emotional trauma," Dr Sandford said.

"Such events could lead to a disturbance of the balance of her mind."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-65922302

The party must establish the facts to prove and support the case for it to succeed. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ would be an example of a very high standard of proof - the court has to be convinced that there is ‘no doubt’ that something is true.

The higher the stakes are, the higher the standard of proof will be. The highest stakes arise in criminal cases, where the conviction can mean imprisonment.

and

The Crown Court expresses that it requires the jury to be ‘satisfied so that you are sure’ of the defendant’s guilt. This is described unofficially as the 99% test, whilst unofficially a 51% test is described as ‘on a balance of probabilities’
https://www.bljsolicitors.co.uk/blog/understanding-the-standard-of-proof-in-criminal-cases/

I do not see how anyone could be sure in this case.

This verdict was only 83% ‘sure of guilt’ anyway.

No one, not one single person I think, is suggesting that if she killed her baby while in her right mind because it was inconvenient that she should be absolved of that. What we are suggesting is that she was not in her right mind. Pregnancy denial is a well known mental illness. No amount of rational argument or obvious signs of pregnancy can persuade a woman experiencing pregnancy denial that she is pregnant. Asking people for help does not occur because the person is unable to believe they are pregant. None of it is rational. For those who reach full term while still in denial the shock of the birth is extreme and can lead to neonaticide because the women cannot accept that she has given birth so has to remove the evidence. This is what worries me, if she was experiencing pregnancy denial then all the questions about how she 'must have known' are immaterial and irrelevant. Either she was experiencing the mental health delusion of full blown pregnancy denial or she wasn't. There are multiple research papers on pregnancy denial. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx