AIBU to wonder why Rikki Neave's mother got a 7 year sentence?

[DigestiveBiscuit345]

I have just been listening to the podcasts about the murder of Rikki Neave.
The mother was found not guilty of murder but was sentenced to 7 years for child cruelty.
I usually find I am shocked that sentences for many crimes seem shorter than I would expect.
However, in this case it seemed like the mother was inadequate with diabolical parenting skills rather than intentionally systematically sadistic. For this reason, I am genuinely shocked she got a 7 year sentence for child cruelty.
Many families with social services interventions have children removed if they can't parent effectively but you don't hear about them getting lengthy prison sentences as in this case do you?
I feel genuinely surprised at the length of this sentence.

I think you need to remember that was at a time innocent people were routinely being fitted up on fabricated evidence by corrupt police desperate for a result. I don't think the sentence would have been the same today. They couldn't prove she killed him which was what they wanted, so they went for the next best thing with the implication her crap parenting was why he was abducted and murdered.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-60218021 there are lots of news articles around that describe what she did to that poor little boy. The fact other abusers get less time or no time in prison does not mean she got a harsh sentence. It means other child abusers are often treated with too much leniency.

The police have no role in sentencing. Its down to the courts. The police would have gone to CPS with the evidence and then CPS would have made the decision to charge.

Do any of her other children feature on these podcasts by any chance? Thought not. Her daughters are very clear in their opinion of how she treated them. Washing your 6 year old son's mouth with fairy liquid is a bit more than "diabolical parenting skills"

I've never heard of this before but God, it's horrible.

I agree that putting fairy liquid in his mouth was a horrific thing to do. However, washing a child's mouth out with soap was deemed to be an appropriate punishment as recently as the 1960s and 1970s. I don't agree with doing this disgusting thing to a child but many people did, not that long ago.

Rikki Neave's stepfather who lived with them was even more abusive towards the kids than the mother was.

The police didn't even charge him though. Fucking misogyny at its best.

But back to your question, I think the 7 year sentence was appropriate.

Yes, it is deeply troubling the stepfather was not charged even though guilty of horrific violence towards Rikki and his sisters.

One of her daughters is on the podcast, seeking justice for her brother. I think the programme is a bit manipulative towards the listeners - or just does not want to muddy the waters on the facts of the events around Rikki's murder by dwelling in great deal on the mother's conduct beforehand. It is only in the last episode that you get the full picture of her abusive behaviour and how she prioritised her relationships with her foul partners over her children. Much of this evidence comes from her babysitter, who is clear that she was evil and abusive, but not a murderer. She deserved her sentence for neglect. But she did not deserve to stand trial for murdering her son. The police were clearly incompetent and hell bent on making a case against her rather than looking at all the evidence from witnesses around the estate and making sense of the forensic evidence. The fact that one of the experts kept the evidence, and said he had been waiting for 20 years for someone to reinvestigate, indicates that the police and CPS knew that their case was mainly based on prejudice against the mother's character and conduct as a mother, and not on concrete evidence of her being the murderer.

So overall, I think YABU. The case is shocking for many reasons, but her 7 year sentence for neglect is not and should not be shocking. The reason it feels shocking is that others get away with awful and disgusting behaviour towards children and get much lighter sentences - the many men you read about who sexually abuse babies and toddlers for example who receive light sentences and lots of understanding from judges.

Based on potentially fabricated evidence, yes.

Also, I totally agree that the step father was equally culpable and should have served an equal sentence for child neglect and then some more for all the abuse he meted out.

Yes, I agree. It's as if crimes by men are minimised and crimes women commit get severely punished.

There is a really good follow up programme asking why the fathers are never blamed - it's always the mothers when usually it's the men who are most violent.

Ruth Neave had to intervene when her husband was beating the shit out of Rikki.

She was a crap mum who came from a crap family. No one ever tried to break the cycle of abuse.

She was also sending her children to collect her drugs for her.That’s not inadequate parenting.He and his siblings stood absolutely no chance of having a normal happy upbringing.His whole short life seemed miserable

She had Rikki buy and sell drugs. She dangled him over a bridge by his feet. The list was endless
She was beyond cruel.

His sisters who are now adults are still in therapy. She is a monster.

One of the sisters did an interview on you tube and the horrors they endured as kids were sickening.

Her sentence isn’t shocking at all because for category 1A child cruelty the starting point was 6yr sentence with a range of 4-8yrs. This year it’s been increased to 14yrs. So she’s lucky she did this back in the 90s.

It was more than washing out his mouth with fairy liquid:
“used Rikki as a drug runner and 'punch bag'”
”left Neave screaming after locking him out of the house in his pyjamas.”
”held her son upside down on a bridge as he screamed.”
“She had also grabbed the child around his throat, pushed him against a wall and lifted him up 'to the point his feet were about a foot above the ground'”
”she had kept him away from school because she had 'knocked him black and blue'.”
“If Rikki annoyed his mother, she would 'hit him so hard that she would knock him to the floor,”
“Neave often locked Rikki's sisters naked in their bedrooms, and she was said to have spent up to half of the money she received in benefits on drugs.”

It’s no wonder she was a suspect:
”ten days before Rikki's death, Neave told Cambridgeshire social services that she would kill her son if he was not taken into care.”

Of course it's no wonder she was a suspect. Most child victims of murder are killed by a parent, and she was obviously a really bad one. However, the evidence against her clearly didn't stack up as she was acquitted; and the police ignored some pretty obvious forensic and witness evidence that pointed to a completely different timeline and a completely different suspect. However, rather than reinvestigate Rikki's murder at the time of her acquittal and look for the actual murderer, the police seemed content that she was imprisoned for the neglect.

I think the only thing to wonder about is that her partner didn’t get an equal sentence. I think all child abusers should get MUCH longer sentences than only 7 years. Rikki got a 6 year sentence of pain, fear, and torture - and it would have been much longer if he hadn’t had his sad little life cut short violently. There is no sentence too long for betraying the innate trust a child puts in you as their mother.

It wasn’t simply neglect. She was physically abusive. Amoung other things she routinely strangled Nikki as punishment.

But even if she wasn’t physically abusive, I don’t have a problem with a 7 year sentence for serious neglect. While I’d much prefer that we have a good enough social services to proactively remove children in situations where they are being seriously neglected I don’t think the lack of that service removes the criminal responsibility of a parent who treats their children like that. It is abhorrent and it’s right for society to make that clear with significant custodial sentences.

On the day of his murder, Rikki walked to school on his own. His mother was so off her head she didn’t report him missing until 6.30pm. Firstly, he was only 7 walking to school on his own and secondly she only reported him til late, hence why they even thought it was her in the first place.

Poor kid never had a chance. She’s a horrid woman and any publicly she gets, she doesn’t deserve any sympathy.

She’s a horrid woman and any publicly she gets, she doesn’t deserve any sympathy.

Agree completely. And she’s now denying she ever abused Rikki too. Awful woman.

I felt it was a long sentence but interviews with locals and neighbours stitched her up a bit - they seemed to revel in listing her wrongdoings but if she got 7 years there were a few thousand more inc her husband who should have got 2-3 years but none were even prosecuted.

She a terrible and abusive mother but the police were totally negligent in ,investigating Rikki,s murder they were adamant Ruth had killed him and didn't even search for any other possibilities.

She deserved every single day of that sentence. The look in that little boys eyes in his school photo - he looks haunted.

That isn't what happened. They charged her with both offences at the same time, and she pleaded guilty to the cruelty charges at the beginning of the trial. So at that point the prosecution didn't know that she'd be acquitted on the murder charge.