Teenager guilty of murder.

[placemats]

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

Apart from the fact that she was raped, if consent to sex is to be a legal term, I find the prosecutions allegations appalling.

'But the prosecution alleged Mayo must have known she was pregnant but chose to deliberately conceal it because she was always planning to kill the baby.'

Perhaps Mayo didn't get early abortion help she needed. I know of one woman, who had 3 previous children, who didn't realise she was pregnant, thought it was early menopause until 4 weeks before her due date. However to allege she was always planning to kill the baby is a step too far. It intimates that those in authority know this child's mind.

That is interesting. It could be a good screening test for when someone first seeks help or is identified by others. It’s not unheard of for illnesses to cause delirium- I’ve had that when I had a dangerously high fever. I had seizures and hallucinations- so we know being very physically ill can cause hallucinations and I suppose if someone has a rare auto-immune disorder that can be easily mistaken for psychosis.

Hardly groundless, it’s simply poor practice for a psychiatrist to conclude someone was perfectly sane by watching bodycam footage.

If (god forbid) this happened twice to two newborns....

One perpetrator was a 15 yr old boy who'd witnessed the birth...
One perpetrator was a 15yr old girl who had endured pregnancy and birth alone...

Forget all the other contributing factors.

Would you say both were equally culpable?

It isn't on the feminism board of mumsnet though. Did you not realise that females are pure and perfect and cannot be accountable for their actions. Women = good. Man = bad.
Meanwhile in the real world....

you went further than suggesting this was premeditated. You suggested she didn’t seek abortion so she could have the opportunity to murder the child.
A deeply sick suggestion. Glad to see you’re trying to walk that one back.

That would be premeditated murder, yes. However, in my mind it was more along the lines of 'I'll cross that bridge when I come to it,' knowing that ending the baby's life was a possible solution.

In the real world, men are prostituting their unconscious wives to multiple men.

Should not the father of her child, and he knew she was pregnant, been supportive of her and helped? He has had a major contribution in being the father. He choose to ignore and step away. He is just as culpable as Mayo in the death of the baby.

A possible solution doesn't indicate in anyway a premeditated result.

Besides which, you are actually trying to think into Mayo's mind. I find that very troubling.

Yeah, you keep saying stuff like that. It's quite an obvious attempt to belittle someone who disagrees with you. I expect that on mumsnet though.

No. None are equally culpable.

But your hypothesis doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

AgathaSpencerGregson · Today 08:04

AP5Diva · Today 00:12

Thank you ScrollingLeaves
The jury didn’t do their job imho. This should be appealed and be a verdict of infanticide and the sentencing should reflect that she was a young 15yr old- a minor. A minor who is not even old enough to be having sex because teens that young are at high risk of mental (including psychosis) and physical complications from the stresses of pregnancy.

How can you know the jury didn’t do their job? They heard the evidence - you did not. They deliberated for 8 hours over it for gods sake! I really do despair in these discussions about trials, when people get a verdict they don’t like and they react with allegations of poor conduct by jurors or judges or barristers rather than consider for even one moment that their knee jerk view might be wrong …

@AgathaSpencerGregson wasn’t it you who linked this article which is saying that juries are getting it wrong by measuring an accused mother’s actions against the criteria for ‘diminished responsibility’ instead of for the discrete criteria for ‘infanticide’?

The article was written by Dr Emma Milne who is Associate Professor in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Durham University, who also wrote:
Criminal Justice Responses to Maternal Filicide: Judging the Failed Mother

So perhaps the article is worthy of reading and considering, and just maybe the jury on this case too did not understand the criteria for ‘Infanticide’ and instead used those for ‘diminished responsibility.
https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/100-years-of-the-infanticide-act

This is the final paragraph ( my bold).

Infanticide Act is far from perfect. Three recent cases of women convicted of murdering their newborn children, with their attempts to plead infanticide failing, suggests the law is not working as well as it could. Regardless, to ensure justice for women, it is essential that we remember the principles of leniency and sympathy that embody the Infanticide Act.

(As this was written Dec 2022, presumably this Paris Mayo case could be a 4th recent case of “the law not working as well as it could”.)

About Dr Emma Milne
www.durham.ac.uk/staff/emma-milne/
Research Areas
Emma is a feminist socio-legal scholar. The focus of her research is the social, legal, and cultural controls and regulation of all women, notably in relation to pregnancy, sex, and motherhood.

Research Projects
Prosecuting, Defending, Sentencing
Emma is currently looking at attitudes and perspectives held by legal professionals (solicitors, barristers, prosecutors, and judges) in relation to criminal law and criminal justice responses to women suspected of killing their infants. This project is funded by the BA/Leverhulme Small Research Grants 2020.

“Just as culpable” what the hell kind of dope are you smoking? This is moral illiteracy, pure and simple

The father is culpable to an extent yes, nonsense to say he was “equally “ culpable. He didn’t maim then kill a baby over a period of hours.

Heh. Reverse ferreting like mad.

This article mainly discusses the history of the relevant law. It offers scant justification for its suggestion that the law is not operating as it should (saying three women were convicted of murder does not establish that they were wrongly convicted) and no basis at all for suggesting that the jury in this case did not do its job properly or was materially misdirected (and if the latter did happen, that can be dealt with on appeal).

Once again, very transparent.

So because you think there was poor psychiatric practice here (which again, we don’t know) that provides grounds for supposing she had a psychiatric disorder which there’s no evidence she had? How does that work?

It is poor practice to diagnose someone from body cam footage. No doubt about that.

And there is evidence of her having a psychiatric disorder as the other psychiatrist that actually assessed her in person said her mind had created false memories. That’s one of the things that psychosis does- creates false memories as a way to protect you from trauma.

The problem is that the jury gave more weight to the body cam diagnosis than the one on one assessment diagnosis- likely in part because no one mentioned to them that the first is piss poor and the second is gold standard for assessing a patients mental state. So they went along with preconceived ideas about feckless teen girls….no doubt fuelled by the sexy insta snaps she had of herself online.

This thing is wide open for an appeal.

This is pure speculation from start to finish. You want a certain version of events to be true, and you tailor (or invent) facts to fit. This is nothing to do with how juries or courts should soberly assess evidence.
the truth is we simply don’t know. Those who heard the evidence made a decision. Unless there was material irregularity in how they were directed or the trial process, that verdict should be respected. I certainly prefer it to that of armchair experts who think they are better placed to judge.

Yeah. Let’s wait for the view of the KC who actually represented her at trial on that, shall we?

AgathaSpencerGregson · Today 13:58

Re what you say about what I had posted about this article
https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/100-years-of-the-infanticide-act

This article mainly discusses the history of the relevant law. It offers scant justification for its suggestion that the law is not operating as it should (saying three women were convicted of murder does not establish that they were wrongly convicted) and no basis at all for suggesting that the jury in this case did not do its job properly or was materially misdirected (and if the latter did happen, that can be dealt with on appeal).

mainly - but not entirely
scant - but not nothing

The article was talking about principles regarding two distinct aspects in cases like this which should not be conflated when coming to a judgement: ‘Infanticide’ and ‘diminished responsibility’.

It would be interesting if you, or anyone with relevant legal knowledge could say more about ‘Infanticide’ especially more about how likely it is in real life, with a jury of ordinary people, that the jury could distinguish the criteria for a judgement of ‘Infanticide’ against what is required for a judgement of ‘diminished responsibility’ and therefore when to give a verdict of one over the other?

This case was not included because the article was written last December, not that the other three possibly ‘failed’ cases were named.

KC's represent the client in court on instruction of the solicitor.

And she possibly didn't have the cash to travel even if she could have managed the logistics of arranging an appointment and getting there without her parents knowing etc.

I’m well aware of that, thanks. It will be the KC who advises as to prospects of success of an appeal.