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.

The manner in which you kill shouldn’t affect whether you are charged with infanticide or murder, or in other cases manslaughter or murder. The difference between the two crimes hinge upon the mental state of the mother at the time of the killing- not the manner in which she carried out the killing. As scrollingleaves has noted, infanticide only requires the mother to have a disturbed mental state.

At any rate, she has been given the minimum sentence for a child convicted of murder, so the judge doesn’t deem her actions to warrant adding aggravating factors to lengthen the sentence. His comments do show he does not think it was premeditated. There is an implication that she decided after the birth to kill the baby- as to why she decided that and her state of mind at the time, the fact she had a well known psychotic delusion before birth (pregnancy denial) and one of the court psychiatrists stated she has false memories of that night (both in her medical records) indicates (to me at least) there was a likelihood she wasn’t recovered and may still have been suffering psychosis.

Enough to say yes I think her mental state was disturbed.

AP5Diva · Today 12:13

Iwasafool · Today 11:36

So in this case she'd have got less than 12 years if she pled guilty? I wonder how much they would have knocked off the sentence.

She was offered a conviction for infanticide if she pled guilty. So not only would the sentence have been shorter, she would not have been convicted of
murder.

I missed that detail. I did not see it on the judge’s sentence summing up. If it isn’t too much trouble would you link where you saw that?

So this sentence of ‘Murder’ rather than ‘Infanticide’ is entirely down to her not admitting she did it?

Sorry, it was AP5Diva who wrote this reply:
She was offered a conviction for infanticide if she pled guilty. So not only would the sentence have been shorter, she would not have been convicted of
murder.

@AP5Diva
I thought the perpetrator had been charged with murder.

So if she plead guilty she would be pleading guilty to murder.

Did the judge say, words to the affect that: ‘If you plead guilty to murder, we will change the charge to Infanticide and find you guilty of Infanticide instead.’?

( For anyone who has not rtft. Murder and Infanticide are both crimes under U.K. law involving deliberate killing)

I’m looking for it scrollingleaves, there are so many articles I am having trouble refinding it!

I did find the judge’s comments on the bodycam diagnosing psychiatrist:

”The prosecution relied on the evidence of Dr Harding, but I regret to say that I found his evidence somewhat unsatisfactory. It is apparent he had formed a clear and unshakeable view of your culpability from the time of his very first meeting with you.
He had told the police that you ought to be prosecuted, a surprising opinion for an expert called to give evidence on a defendant’s mental state to express and one which he agreed in his oral evidence ought not to have appeared in his report.
I also regard it as unfortunate that Dr Harding did not know, or at least was unable to call to mind, the standard of proof that would have to be applied by the court considering his opinion.
In my view, he demonstrated in his oral evidence an inflexibility of thinking that seemed to me unhelpful in as complex and difficult a case as this one.”

Clearly the conviction isn’t consistent with how much older women are treated.

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2023/05/woman-admits-charge-of-infanticide-following-death-of-newborn-baby-in-weston-super-mare/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-57916495

so much confusion here. That’s not how this stuff works. It is possible that in circumstances such as this the prosecution might charge murder but indicate that a plea to the lesser charge of infanticide would be acceptable, in which case the murder charge would be dropped after a guilty plea to infanticide had been entered. I have not seen anything to suggest such an offer was made in this case.
and of course it was open to the jury to convict of the lesser offence and acquit on the murder charge, but they declined to do so.

Doesn't make sense. If the forensic evidence was he breathed and she fractured his skull and put the cottonwool in his mouth she must have done that, I don't see why she wouldn't plead guilty to infanticide.

As far as I can tell, she was maintaining that she didn’t intentionally kill him, despite the symmetrical skull fractures and the cotton wool being stuffed in the child. She has been her own worst enemy throughout, it seems.

I wonder what legal advice she got. God forbid my DD would ever do something like that but I'd be telling her to take the plea for infanticide, surely a solicitor/barrister would do the same? I suppose they can't force her to take their advice.

She was represented by a silk. She will have been well advised. But as you rightly say you can lead the horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

Absolutely no sympathy from me. She brutally killed that poor baby.

Anyone who can look at any baby or other defenceless being and subject it to that level of cruelty doesn't deserve sympathy for it.

Personally I think it’s possible to abhor what she did and think she was probably rightly convicted while also feeling extremely sorry for her. It is clear that she was neglected by her parents and in some emotional difficulty. It seems that her anger and despair at her situation lead her to acts of brutality that were entirely out of character. If she were habitually violent I would take a different view but as it is I can feel sympathy.

Many female murderers were not 'habitually violent' at 15 and indeed, many murderers in general, male and female, have suffered neglect and abuse. And of course, many girls have been in her situation and not inflicted horrific injuries on their children.

You are hypothesising that she might have gone on to commit further acts of violence, but the judge’s explicit findings, as detailed in his sentencing remarks, contradict your theory. All the evidence suggests this was out of character. She cannot be said to be habitually violent if there was no violence before or since.

I believe the judge was unable to rule out her being a risk to any future children she hopefully never has.

“I have rega

“I have regard to the fact that on this occasion you acted in a way which was wholly out of character”
how much more explicit would you like the judge to have been?

“I have detected nothing to suggest you would be a danger to children or anyone else”
seems pretty definite

(with the possible exception of another child of your own if you were to fall pregnant again in similar circumstances, which is a remote possibility given the sentence I am about to impose).

Well yes, violent murderers aren't necessarily violent all of the time.

Someone being capable of extreme violence towards their child doesn't mean they are regularly displaying anti social behaviour

Have you just made that up?

What does 'fall pregnant' mean?

I was 32 when I had my first live birth.

Because, as one the of examining psychiatrists noted, she had no memory of hurting the baby much less killing him. She had a completely different memory as to happened and what she did. This is called a “false memory” and is also evidence of psychosis.