Paris Mayo convicted of murder (TW)

[Whitakers]

NB v distressing content

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/23/teenager-guilty-baby-herefordshire-hide-pregnancy-paris-mayo

The jury was asked to consider an alternative verdict of infanticide but found her guilty of murder. I’m surprised by this- surprised she wasn’t just charged with infanticide in the first place, to be honest. It’s a terrible case.

Odd that her own defence haven't suggested Post Partum Psychosis then?

Or did they but couldn't make it stick?

Yes well since a child is now going down for murder, good luck getting infanticide for any adult.

She murdered her baby. Even if she did t want it. There are other ways to give them up.

She has to go to prison. There’s no choice. Murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

it is awful and she was only a child and must have been desperate but she smashed his skull in and pushed cotton balls down his throat.

reading it I was thinking if I was on the jury I’d have gone for the infanticide verdict knowing there would be a certain prison sentence from murder but we don’t know the evidence the jury heard which made them reach the verdict they did.

You are just making it up .you have decided she was psychotic even though there was no evidence of this and it wasn't used as a defence
And please stop with the links I spent over 20 years working with people who were suffering from psychosis and had delusional beliefs so I don't need Wikipedia links to.explain it to me.

I don't understand why people are being sympathetic to her.

Why do you keep claiming this? No jury is bound by the verdict of another. Each case is decided on its own facts. Why are you so committed to spreading this fiction??

Plenty of children have been convicted of murder .

It’s my opinion it was overlooked due to misconceptions that new mothers only develop psychosis a few weeks after birth. Too many people and even MH professionals like midwives, MH nurses have no idea that psychosis can emerge at any time during the pregnancy and childbirth too. Too many are only familiar with psychosis that includes hallucinations. They don’t really think about delusions and so if the behaviour is homicidal without hallucinations, it’s presumed the mother is completely sane.

I think it’s probably time to stop giving this the oxygen of attention. Just mad.

And presumably that will be down to the psychiatric evidence

Because she's female.

Cases are also affected by precedent. Most of English law isn’t statutory but due to the precedents set by prior cases.

Yep.

Do you not think the examining psychiatrists are better placed to make this determination than you?

Juries do not set precedent. They don’t decide questions of law. They decide questions of fact relating to the individual case.
I genuinely don’t know how to explain this more clearly to you. Can anyone else help here?

Juries don’t make law. Juries make decisions on facts. If there has been legal misdirection, she’ll be able to appeal - her legal team will be on it.

Excuse me? The psychiatrist I listed was one of two examining psychiatrists. The problem is that the jury gave more weight to a psychiatrist who never examined her but watched bodycam footage.

@AllOfThemWitches yes. If she was male there would be no words harsh enough on here. Mumsnet is bizarre.

You are in no place to assess the evidence or the jury’s determination of it.

there is an appeal process which can be gone through if it’s believed there was a miscarriage of justice.

Your opinion is of zero relevance and has no value.

Yes, juries do make law. Case law is a thing as we have a common law system:

https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/case-law/what-is-case-law/
“Case law is the law created by the courts. Although most laws are enacted by Parliament in the form of legislation, in a common law system such as ours the courts can also develop the law. By deciding a disputed point of law a senior court (known as a court of record) can change or clarify the law, thereby setting a precedent which other courts are bound to follow or apply in later cases.”

She could have left that baby outside a fire station, or in a public place and called the Police - but instead chose to end its life.

There are no excuses for that. The verdict is the right one.

Well, if you want to have that opinion, then surely your comments should be addressed to everyone? That they are in no place to assess the evidence or the jury’s determination as correct. And that their opinions, as well as yours, are also of zero relevance and have no value.

Why even comment on this thread then?

Yep it can be incredibly hypocritical
At the end of the day a baby wss brutally murdered
And some posters seem keener to.excuse the mother than have any sympathy for the baby

You’re hilarious

i know all about precedent but jury decisions are questions on fact and in any event first instance decisions do not create precedent law

you are ignorant of medical and legal issues and are now just embarrassing yourself.