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 unfortunate part of your assertion is that we have, in this case, room for doubt.

What more evidence do you want?

That’s a bit like saying why don’t all depressed people commit sucide. Thankfully the vast majority of depressed people do not, but we still research ways to prevent suicde and treat those people who are having those kind of thoughts. There is a scale of severity and individual differences in both the person and circumstances to all mental il health.

Fair enough, that still doesn't mean that murderers shouldn't be 'punished.'

@AllOfThemWitches Of course not. But if she was impaired by reason of mental I’ll health that impacts a) what crime she committed and b) what is an appropriate response

If someone commits murder but is found not guilty for reasons of insanity then they go to secure mental health hospital for example. Sometimes they spend longer in secure hospitals than they would have done in prison.

And what if someone commits murder while their mind is not 'disturbed' to that level, which is a serious possibility in this case?

AllOfThemWitches· Today 22:05
.Right, so are you saying you actually believe she was psychotic at the time? You think she had no idea what she was doing during or after the murder? Otherwise, why aren't all mentally ill pregnant teens murdering their babies?

Your logic doesn’t work. Because something usually doesn’t happen it does not mean it never can. For example, most women know they are pregnant, but sometimes women have got to the point of giving birth without realising etc Most women have a healthy baby but sometimes one might have a cleft palette.

We know next to nothing about the brain.
We have only just recently found out that teenage brains are haywire almost literally.

You said you yourself that you had not read the articles others have been posting about similar cases of a mother killing their newborn child because you find them too upsetting.
Maybe this has meant you don’t understand all the references.

Looking further into this, for murder you would have only a partial defence by reason of diminished responsibility and become instead guilty of manslaughter. But only if you meet the legal test. https://www.ashmanssolicitors.com/articles/murder-trials-what-is-diminished-responsibility/#:~:text=Diminished%20responsibility%20is%20a%20partial,in%20control%20of%20their%20actions.

Infancide is different because it recognises that even mentally well women can become unwell due to childbirth.

With the dimished responsibility partial defence it requires the defence to prove that the person was mentally unwell.

When the normal criteria for infanticide is met, the burden of proof is on the prosecution that the mother intended to kill the baby in her right mind.

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/court-proceedings/infanticide-and-criminal-law#:~:text=the%20criminal%20law-,What%20is%20meant%20by%20infanticide%3F,on%20it%20as%20a%20defence.

This is why the verdict is surprising. Either it’s not correct and will be overturned or there is some evidence we aren’t aware of that she pre planned to kill the baby.

But you're missing my point. When mentally ill (but not legally insane) men, for example, commit murder, people aren't generally trying so hard to make excuses for them.

I think there are some cross purposes. You want to discuss whether the legal framework with the crime infanticide should morally exist. Other people are discussing whether it should legally have been classified as infanticide. Those are ultimately different questions.

But in answer to the moral aspect, I do agree with the particular crime of infanticide (and remember it’s still a crime!). That’s highly impacted by my experience of being a mentally healthy person, then having a traumatic birth as an adult women with a supportive husband and hallucinating. Thankfully my hallucinations were not ones that caused me to harm my baby. But I was adamant that what I was seeing was real and I temporarily lost my grip on reality. 12 hours later I was able to think clearly. But I would say I wasn’t in my right mind in that moment.

We don't make excuses for mentally ill women either. We would like to at least know if they are mentally ill. Same as we would do for mentally ill men of which we can easily name a few. How does this mental illness present in women if it exists?
Knowing is not the same as excusing.

AgathaSpencerGregson · Today 22:10

noone is dismissing her mental state. It was fully explored at trial where she had benefit of expert representation at public expense

But in the summary at the time of sentencing, after it was too late - the jury had given their verdict - the judge himself objected to the method of exploration carried out by one of the ‘experts’ paid for at public expense. The judge said:

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.

Who is to say the expert’s decision based on police bodycam footage that the defendant presented as "remarkably well intact" around the time of the birth, hadn’t made a strong impression on the jury?

The BBC said, “Dr Duncan Harding, a forensic psychiatrist who was appearing as an expert witness for the prosecution, told the jury he had not seen any evidence to suggest Ms Mayo had a disturbance in the balance of her mind at the time”.

This expert whom the judge thought so little of had indeed dismissed the defendant’s mental state.

It could be considered telling that Dr Harding - an expert - had an 'unshakeable view of her culpability.'

Folbigg/meadows - he was an expert paediatrician. She was a murderer (until proven otherwise)
Dingo baby death.

The experts are right until proven wrong. That's how we have to operate, if not there's chaos but we should never stop looking for the truth.

AllOfThemWitches · Today 22:36

But you're missing my point. When mentally ill (but not legally insane) men, for example, commit murder, people aren't generally trying so hard to make excuses for them.

You seem to be missing the point
that a verdict of “Infanticide” is legal, that it is THE LAW saying that a WOMAN who has given birth within a year of intentionally killing her baby, may be guilty of Infanticide if her crime, however brutal, may have been caused by her state of mind?

Infanticide is a verdict only a woman can ever get. The law recognises that giving birth, being pregnant, and being a girl ur woman in society is physically, mentally and socially incomparable to any other human state and can have extraordinary effects.

If you think that is wrong, because it is unfair on men, then campaign to have Infanticide removed from criminal law.

AllOfThemWitches · Today 22:58
It could be considered telling that Dr Harding - an expert - had an 'unshakeable view of her culpability.'

Yes, but not, according to the judge, in the way you seem to think.

OK you're just talking out of your arse here. I'm talking about the actual verdict, guilty of murder. Why do you keep going on about infanticide?

The judge has a different opinion to the expert. So what?

OK you're just talking out of your arse here. I'm talking about the actual verdict, guilty of murder. Why do you keep going on about infanticide?

I am talking about it because the judge told the jury it was an alternative verdict. It is also a verdict that woman who have committed similar crimes have received. This whole thread is about questioning this jury’s verdict.

I agree, that statement right there says he was prejudicially biased and therefore his expert evidence was not impartial.

That’s exactly what I see too. The evidence from Dr Sanford the defence psychiatrist is much more balanced and based on her medical records including observations by other HCPs directly after the birth/killing as well as a full psychological assessment of Mayo.

You say that 'If we could categorically state that this girl stamped on that baby's head, the discourse on this thread would be really rather different. the reaction to that level of proven violence is not sex based.'
Actually I think it is the exact opposite, the level of violence (Remeber Rachel Tunstill stabbed her baby with scissors) indictes psychosis. An otherwise non violent women (or child in this case) suddenly behaves with a shocking level of violence. They often have no memory of the events afterwards (there has actually been a lot of research done into this). They are clearly not in their right minds. There is a strong correlation between the delusional denying of the pregnancy and neonaticide (murder of the child shortly after birth). In the delusional mind of the women the baby cannot exist because she was never pregnant. The level of violence is immaterial because she does not see the baby as either human or real, it is a simply a thing that cannot exist. All this makes it clear that the balance of her mind is distturbed.

Where is that quote taken from? I would like to see the whole of the judges summary. It is very telling that the judge went to such lengths to challenge Dr Hardings 'evidence'. Did he really make these snap judgements from police cam videos? The jury would have been very influenced by his testimony which would have made all the difference between whether the death could be considered infanticide or not. I still cannot understand why it took 4 years to come to court. Was she assessed by a psychiatrist at the time? It's all so wrong.

Apologies for all the typos, typing in a hurry and dyslexic!