Teenager guilty of murder.

AgathaSpencerGregson · Today 22:43
They are not permitted to speculate about disorders which there is no evidence about even if they are aware of them

This ^is* a condition recognised in medical research.

I take it you have not read the article posted by Faybian either.

When the jury was told by the judge that they could consider a verdict of Infanticide, they were not being told neonaticide is only speculation.

But the jury needed to know all about what is involved in neonaticide and under what conditions it occurs before they could know if the evidence they had been shown corresponded with that.

If the judge told the jury they could choose Infanticide, he was de facto effectively telling them there is a disorder which can be experienced through pregnancy and giving birth, which can tragically end in neonaticide.

I personally doubt though that this jury were really told the details of what this looks like.

An uninformed jury, who have to base their verdict solely on their perceptions of the evidence with only their own limited knowledge of what lies behind the evidence to go on, plus one or two words , are not able to give a just verdict imo.

If I knew this jury had had all the facts about Pregnancy Denial being a real phenomenon, and what that is like in practice, and that it can lead to neonaticide, and that neonaticide is the often violent killing of a baby - and this jury still gave a verdict of murder - then that would be more reassuring than what seems imo to have happened.

The point about the jury not speculating on disorders for which there is no evidence is in response to the complaint that the jury were ignorant of the disorder. It doesn’t matter if they were. They have to decide the case on the evidence before them.
I know you struggle with these sorts of points, but you can grasp that, surely?

I’m not sure what views you think I ought to be changing. The argument I am putting forward here is that the conclusion of a jury which has heard all the evidence is likely to be more reliable than the conclusions of people who haven’t but are displeased by the verdict. That’s a view based on professional experience but also a firm belief in justice and fair trials. If those beliefs seem offensive or perverse to you then I am not sure your opinion of me is one I need to care about.

It was all incorrect. The post you responded to was regarding pregnancy denial and whether the jury understood what that is. The evidence states Mayo suffered from pregnancy denial.

You then respond to that by claiming that the jury isn’t required to speculate on disorders for which there is no evidence. That’s not an answer. That’s stating that there was no evidence that Mayo had pregnancy denial, which is incorrect.

How strange. I read all sorts of articles on all sorts of things. Sometimes my views are changed, sometimes they’re more firmly entrenched by what I read but my knowledge has usually increased. Total incuriosity like yours isn’t something I’d want in an employee or student, partner or friend, parent or child.

Funny how you can read the evidence that states how she killed her baby and repeat it so accurately, but when it comes to other written evidence regarding the case you dismiss any discussion of it by calling it invention and speculation by women desperate to disagree with an infallible jury.

Nothing I said there is incorrect. The poster was complaining that the jury was ignorant of these matters. That’s a silly complaint for the reasons I gave.

Yes, why are you getting your knickers in a twist saying that pregnancy denial is “extraneous speculation” and that the jury cannot “speculate about disorders which there is no evidence about” when even a cursory reading of the posts on this thread and a few links to Dr Sanford’s expert evidence and the Judge’s sentencing remarks would inform you that Mayo had pregnancy denial?

But it doesn’t matter what I think, does it? I wasn’t on the jury and didn’t hear the evidence. I’m sure there’s lots of interesting articles on various psychiatric illnesses we can post at each other. They won’t change the fact that we didn’t hear the evidence and it’s on the evidence that the issues have to be decided.

I don’t think @Faybian was posting the article for the jury to read. I think they posted the article for you to consider, just to flex your mind the teensiest bit, maybe.

So why are we getting our knickers in a twist then?

It’s not speculation because the psychiatrist for the defence stated she had pregnancy denial and the judge referenced that she had pregnancy denial in his remarks.

The statements by both have been posted numerous times in this thread.
Mayo had pregnancy denial.

The jury is required to decide the case on the basis of the evidence. They are not permitted to speculate about disorders which there is no evidence about even if they are aware of them. If you think about it I am sure you will appreciate that it’s really important that the jury decides based on the evidence, not extraneous speculation.

@Faybian . Today 21:14
This is an interesting article about pregnancy denial and how it can lead to neonaticide. It is something that is well known and documented and is a form of psychosis. The trouble is most people dont know about this sort of thing (like AgathaSpencerGregson for example) and the 'expert witness' for the prosecution appears to have been very intrumental in persuading the jury against believing something that should have been obvious to an expert in the field, that is that she was mentally disturbed when she killed her baby. www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx

Thank you for that. I would bet anything that no one in that jury had the least knowledge of Pregnancy Denial or it’s effects. It is a potentially devastating condition as in this case.

How interesting that women who are living through PD often present to a doctor with abdominal pains, but it is still not realised that they are pregnant, just as happened with Paris Mayo. She fits the profile in so many ways.

Anyone following this case would want to read this article, which also has a bibliography for anyone looking for other related articles.

*Grammarnut+ · Today 21:48
She concealed her pregnancy and killed her child. All irrational behaviour typical of a teenager. But she still wilfully killed another human being when there were several other options

I presume from you saying this that you have not read the article about Pregnancy Denial posted by Faybian yet. If you have time, it is worth reading and sheds a lot of light on cases like this.

I think if you did you might see the facts you just mentioned, “ She concealed her pregnancy and killed her child” from an unexpected perspective.

This is definitely something imo which very few people know about.

Some explanations about pregnancy denial here if anyone's interested. Video is about the case of the 19 year old in the US who did similar.

I watch this psychologist's videos sometimes, and was actually surprised by his opinion, even though I agree.

You are referring to the fact that the starting point for the tariff for an under 18 convicted of murder is 12 years. The judge in mayo’s case in fact started at 9 (so he was more lenient). After taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors as required by sentencing guidelines he ended up at 12.

I genuinely don’t understand the urge so many seem to feel to invent exculpatory theories and details for this person. It seems rather mad to me. The result might not have been what you expected or would have preferred; are you so incapable of understanding that the people who heard all the evidence might have a better clue than you do? Why this desperation to find reasons to excuse someone who has done something so cruel and brutal?

She was able to call her expert witness and cross examine the crown’s expert. If your theory as to psychosis had any foundation she had ample opportunity to put it forward. I have to repeat my questions; what do you think has gone wrong here? What procedural errors were made? What else should have happened?

”this crime” is murder. That’s what she was convicted of. Women do rarely commit murder; but this girl did.

I agree. One must beware of assuming all women are innocent. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances, I do not know. But she killed her child. She was not, afaiks, raped (I know she was underage and technically that is rape, but that is another point). She concealed her pregnancy and killed her child. All irrational behaviour typical of a teenager. But she still wilfully killed another human being when there were several other options.

If stressed enough, female mammals often do kill newborn offspring, especially after first pregnancies.

That's one of the reasons this crime has traditionally been treated as different from murder. Women very rarely commit murder, but there are these postpartum cases involving severe distress outside the bounds of normal mental functioning.

There’s no nuance for some people, this is reminding me of the dogmatic anti-abortion types, so certain, so binary, such a total lack of… empathy? Humanity? A lack of something, anyway.

This is an interesting article about pregnancy denial and how it can lead to neonaticide. It is something that is well known and documented and is a form of psychosis. The trouble is most people dont know about this sort of thing (like AgathaSpencerGregson for example) and the 'expert witness' for the prosecution appears to have been very intrumental in persuading the jury against believing something that should have been obvious to an expert in the field, that is that she was mentally disturbed when she killed her baby. www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx

AgathaSpencerGregson · Today 18:58

Gothambutnotahamster · Today 18:20

With that summary, how on earth could be give her 12 years @ScrollingLeaves ? Awful!

.Because he was obliged to follow the law and sentencing guidelines. Unsurprisingly, they suggest that people who crush newborn babies’ skulls then choke them with cotton wool should go to prison for quite a while.
shocking I know.

Re: “Shocking I know”

I am not sure why you are being sarcastic here?

For exactly this same crime of “crushing a new born baby’s skull then choking him with cotton wool” the jury could, according to the judge himself, according to the legal system reinforced only a few years ago by the Appeal court , have given a verdict of Infanticide.

An ‘expert’ witness with a very questionable approach may have had a particular influence on the jury. A girl who was 15 at the time of the crime was seen by the jury when she was a young woman.

The girl could still have had a sentence but one that put her in an institution that got her mental help, and further education.

Re The sentence of 12 years following the sentencing guidelines, after the jury gave their verdict of murder, I thought someone somewhere said it could have been less - 9?

Because he was obliged to follow the law and sentencing guidelines. Unsurprisingly, they suggest that people who crush newborn babies’ skulls then choke them with cotton wool should go to prison for quite a while.
shocking I know.