Mother suspected of killing her three children

[ElenorRigby]

Link
hope the witch rots in hell

poor poor children
RIP sweethearts

Fair point. I think they're probably temporarily insane too. It can't see how you can kill your own children unless you're not

agree with sgb, put down the pitchforks, we don't know anything.

There's all sorts of stuff being reported about them. Apparently she wanted to home school them and he was not in agreement with this.

It's all speculation at present other than he's not a suspect and was in Aberdeen at the time. The post-mortem results have not been released (pity the poor coroner who has to carry that out!) and she's still sedated.

Yes, what expat said (sorry to sound like a nodding dog here).

We can't assume that women do these sort of things for 'better' (not best choice of word there I admit) reasons. Or that they 'must' be mentally ill.

Sounds odd, but I always feel sorry for the landlords, too, in these cases. Having a property on your hands like there where something so incredibly sad happened .

I guess they hire one of those crime scene cleaner companies like that show on Virgin and then claim it on their insurance.

As that block of flats has a lot of foreign students, it will probably just be let out again without anyone being aware.

I don't think that's odd at all. I heard a fellow resident being interviewed and just thought how awful it must be for everyone that lives in that building. Such a fucking tragedy.

SGB - I did wonder that but I guess we may never know.

Some things mean you MUST be mad. EG - If I believe I'm Elvis Presley, sincerly, then I must be mad. I am not seeing reality in the way everyone else sees it.

To decide to kill your perfectly healthy small children is something so off the page of what most people consider normal, you MUST be mad to do it. Unless there are such extreme mitigating circumstances to make it a rational and loving decision (eg it's the end of the world and there's noone but you left to care for them and you've been bitten by a deadly snake... bird wanders off into alternative horror flick universe....)

She must have been / be mad. Imagine if she gets well again, and comes to realise what she's done.

Awful awful.

If you take that view, abird, than anyone who commits murder is mad.

Most people consider that off the page and very abnormal.

Yes. Not much detail being given at the moment but people will fill in the gaps.

You have a point Expat but to kill someone you actually gave birth to is (top me) unexplainable unless mad, even if said madness is a complete one off.

To you it is, gor, the court, it must be proven. And it is difficult to prove for a reason, as there are many possible motives behind each murder and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plenty of people kill people they gave birth to or procreated and are not insane, but just fucked up, ghetto, on drugs/drink, etc.

Marvin Gaye, for example, was shot to death by his father in a drunken argument.

The man was not insane, he was a drunken prick.

True Expat but couldn't one argue that Marvin Gaye's father was "temporarely insane" under the influece of alcohol and that he might not have killed his own son had he had all his mind ?

More and more, gor, the courts, especially in the US, are less inclined to accept substance abuse as a grounds of diminished capability, and honestly, in cases of drug/alcohol use, this is justified, IMO.

And yes, his representation did try that during his defense.

It was argued back, however, that he had a long history of violence whilst drunk. Therefore, he was not temporarily insane. This was his normal state whilst intoxicated.

This is very interesting, I did not think they would consider the usual behaviour while intoxicated but just the difference of behaviour between intoxicated and not intoxicated IYSWIM.

I have read somewhere that the origine of the word "assassin" came from an arabic word "ashishin" (or some such) who were people purpusly given drugs to before they were sent to kill someone because they would not have accepted such a task if they were not under the influence of drugs. Do you know if it true?(you seem to know an lot and I find the subject fascinating.)

There's a world of difference between a throw away diagnosis of "s/he must have been mad/ill" to do that and the legal requirments for insanity as a defence.Which in England I believe is still governed by the M'Naghten rules.Insanity as a defence is a legal principle not a psychiatric one. So to be legally insane in England you must be (I'm paraphrasing from memory here so please correct me if I make a mistake) suffering from a disease of the mind.
This disease of the mind must stop you from 1.recognising the nature or quality of the act
2.being aware that the act is wrong (legally not morally)

So someone could potentially suffer from a sever psychiatric illness which may have contributed to their act but not be one which would see them meet the requirments for legal insanity.

"This is very interesting, I did not think they would consider the usual behaviour while intoxicated but just the difference of behaviour between intoxicated and not intoxicated IYSWIM."

Self-induced intoxication is only a defence to crimes of specific intent i.e. murder but not to ones of basic intent i.e. manslaughter.

Mayorquimby, I am not sure I understand , does that mean that someone who totally loses it and kills their children, try to kill themselves afterwards but miss and then realise that what they did was totally wrong would not even be considered insane at the moment of the facts because in retrospective they realise it was wrong?

Somehow you have to be more mad to kill a child imo. If it's an adult, you might have all sorts of financial / emotional history. A child cannot have done you wrong - so you must be mad.

sorry didn't do a great job of explaining. rusty on this subject.
I've grabbed out my notes from college and I'll type a more detailed explanation now.

Again, as major has also pointed out, although I'm not as aware about Scottish criminal law, this has to be proven to a legal definition in court.

'If you murder your own child, you must be mad' isn't a foregone conclusion by any means anymore than 'If you murder your mother/father, you must be mad,' is.

Because sometimes, people who perpetrate such crimes are not mad.

Sorry, mayor.

The M'Naghten rules
proving the defence of insanity entails proving that..:
(A) The accused was suffering from a disease of the mind at time of the alleged offence, AND
(B) Such a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason

-A a disease of the mind is any condition that that impairs the working of the mind, in this context mind = reason,memory & understanding
It can include epilepsy,hyperglycaemia etc

-B It must be proved that the disease caused the defect in reason. There are 2 types of defect of reason
1- The accused did not know the nature or quality of his act i.e. didn't know what he was doing. This refers to the physical nature rather than moral or legal character. So someone who cuts off someones head believing it to be a loaf of bread by virtue of their illness would satisfy this.
Someone who merely failed to appreciate the risks would not.
2- The accused did know the the nature and quality of his act but did not know it was wrong. This is legal wrong not moral.

So if we go back to your example . If the person lost it (for the purposes of this I'll assume you mean due to a disease of the mind) and essentially did not know what they were doing, then no they would not be guilty as per the M'naghten rules they would have siffered the disease of the mind at the time of the offence and it caused the defect of reason.
If however they "Lost it" but knew what they were doing and knew it was illegal but they literally couldn't stop themselves from doing it then they would have no defence as England does not recognise a defence of "Irresistable impulse" where as Ireland does.
It comes from a case of R v Windle when a man killed his wife who had asked his assistance. He initially refused but one night suffering from a disease of the mind he assisted her.It was found at court his disease made him incapable of controlling his urge and stopping himself from doing so however when arrested he said "I suppose I'll hang for this" and as such he demonstrated he knew the nature and quality of his act and knew it was wrong

Not at all Mayor, It is me who struggle to understand things as soon as a few legal terms are thrown in.

I think the problem with cases like the OP, I will always think like a mother. I find it too hard to make the emotional and the legal coexist. Probably a good thing I am not in a legal profession of any sort. I wonder sometimes if you learn to be detached from the emotional side of cases (when a lawyer or judge) or if it has to be a quality you are born with, like a special sense to see only facts and nothing else.
I admire anyone who can be totally impatial but somehow do not envy their place.