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.

I posted that quote of the judge’s remarks during the sentencing @Faybian and found them here:
https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-06-26/judges-remarks-as-teenage-mum-jailed-for-killing-newborn

The fact that that expert, Dr Harding based his view on webcam footage can be seen here in this BBC 16 June report:

Experts differ in their opinions about the mental state of the teenager around the time of the birth.

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.

But another forensic psychiatrist Dr John Sandford, who appeared earlier for the defence,said he believed she had created a false memory in order to repress her actions, to "block out the bad bits, the bits that are hard to live with".

Dr Harding disagreed and told the court: "She presented as remarkably well intact, the way she speaks to people, presents herself.

"She was in shock, but she's consistent in her account. If she had memory loss, her account would have changed over time as she came to terms with what happened."

Having seen bodycam footage taken by police, after officers were called to the house in Springfield Road the day after the death, Dr Harding stated that in his opinion "Paris didn't meet the criteria for any mental disorder".

"She was remarkably intact and coherent given the circumstances owhat had happened," he continued.

"She's able to have conversations with police officers about her future plans and ambitions. She was planning to be a nurse or a midwife."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-65929543

The other expert witness, another forensic psychiatrist, was Dr Sandford:

Appearing as an expert witness for the defence, forensic psychiatrist Dr John Sandford told Worcester Crown Court that Paris Mayo had "*taken out the bad bits, the bits that are hard to live with - that she extinguished the life of her baby^."

He said that, in his opinion, Paris Mayo was in denial and at no time did she recognise that she was pregnant.

The defendant, who now lives in Ruardean, Gloucestershire, had carried on taking part in her school PE lessons and seeing a nurse at her GP surgery, he told the court.

'More common than triplets' (Insert headline in the text.)

"As a 15-year-old girl giving birth, she went into a state of shock, of panic and distress, with very high anxiety and emotional trauma," Dr Sandford said.

"Such events could lead to a disturbance of the balance of her mind."

He told the court that being in denial of a pregnancy was recognised by the medical profession and was "more common that having triplets".

When questioned about the baby's death, Dr Sandford said the teenager had "repressed the actions".

"She cannot acknowledge it, but she must know that she did it," he said.

The jury heard that, by putting the baby's body into a bin bag, the teenager's actions were that of "somebody emotionally numb and damaged^".

Dr Sandford said it was his professional opinion that Ms Mayo had created a false memory "in which she doesn't have to face the consequences of her actions,"

but told the court that it was also possible that she was "deliberately and deceitfully lying".

(Though no one can know without the transcript, and this report is not clear on this point, it seems to me that after Dr Sandford gave his professional opinion, the prosecution would have asked: “Is it also possible that she was deliberately and deceitfully lying?”

To which, of course he would have had to answer, “Yes” -
but meaning, it is possible.)

What I am not sure about is when did Dr Sandford interview her?

and when did Dr Harding look at the police webcam footage ( a method the judge seemed to see as being a poor standard of evidence)?

@Faybian
That last section was quoted from this BBC report 15 June:
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-65922302

Before the judge passed his sentence, Mr Richmond ( the defence barrister) said: “When faced with a decision she had to make, she did not face up to it. By the time she had to, the decision she made was woefully, woefully wrong. This was a 15-year-old girl who was vulnerable and used by people around her and wasn’t supported.”

He added that Mayo’s mother had not been able to face seeing her daughter in the dock, and explained that when he was alive, her father Patrick could be “emotionally cruel”
www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/regional-news/teen-mum-gloucestershire-who-killed-8553261

So this was the family she was supposed to have gone to for support.

“Her mother had not been able to face seeing her in the dock”.

So she was alone in the dock when she received the verdict of murder and the minimum 12 year prison sentence!

With that summary, how on earth could be give her 12 years @ScrollingLeaves ? Awful!

Yes, as you rightly note, she was able to call her own psychiatric expert, and of course the other could be and I’m sure was cross-examined by her counsel.
I’m not quite sure what anyone thinks has gone wrong here; she has not been denied the opportunity to put her case, as far as I can see, in relation to any of the matters in issue. But if there has been unfairness, well, that’s what the court of appeal is for.

Because he was obliged to follow the law and sentencing guidelines. Unsurprisingly, they suggest that people who crush newborn babies’ skulls then choke them with cotton wool should go to prison for quite a while.
shocking I know.

AgathaSpencerGregson · Today 18:58

Gothambutnotahamster · Today 18:20

With that summary, how on earth could be give her 12 years @ScrollingLeaves ? Awful!

.Because he was obliged to follow the law and sentencing guidelines. Unsurprisingly, they suggest that people who crush newborn babies’ skulls then choke them with cotton wool should go to prison for quite a while.
shocking I know.

Re: “Shocking I know”

I am not sure why you are being sarcastic here?

For exactly this same crime of “crushing a new born baby’s skull then choking him with cotton wool” the jury could, according to the judge himself, according to the legal system reinforced only a few years ago by the Appeal court , have given a verdict of Infanticide.

An ‘expert’ witness with a very questionable approach may have had a particular influence on the jury. A girl who was 15 at the time of the crime was seen by the jury when she was a young woman.

The girl could still have had a sentence but one that put her in an institution that got her mental help, and further education.

Re The sentence of 12 years following the sentencing guidelines, after the jury gave their verdict of murder, I thought someone somewhere said it could have been less - 9?

This is an interesting article about pregnancy denial and how it can lead to neonaticide. It is something that is well known and documented and is a form of psychosis. The trouble is most people dont know about this sort of thing (like AgathaSpencerGregson for example) and the 'expert witness' for the prosecution appears to have been very intrumental in persuading the jury against believing something that should have been obvious to an expert in the field, that is that she was mentally disturbed when she killed her baby. www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx

There’s no nuance for some people, this is reminding me of the dogmatic anti-abortion types, so certain, so binary, such a total lack of… empathy? Humanity? A lack of something, anyway.

If stressed enough, female mammals often do kill newborn offspring, especially after first pregnancies.

That's one of the reasons this crime has traditionally been treated as different from murder. Women very rarely commit murder, but there are these postpartum cases involving severe distress outside the bounds of normal mental functioning.

I agree. One must beware of assuming all women are innocent. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances, I do not know. But she killed her child. She was not, afaiks, raped (I know she was underage and technically that is rape, but that is another point). She concealed her pregnancy and killed her child. All irrational behaviour typical of a teenager. But she still wilfully killed another human being when there were several other options.

”this crime” is murder. That’s what she was convicted of. Women do rarely commit murder; but this girl did.

She was able to call her expert witness and cross examine the crown’s expert. If your theory as to psychosis had any foundation she had ample opportunity to put it forward. I have to repeat my questions; what do you think has gone wrong here? What procedural errors were made? What else should have happened?

I genuinely don’t understand the urge so many seem to feel to invent exculpatory theories and details for this person. It seems rather mad to me. The result might not have been what you expected or would have preferred; are you so incapable of understanding that the people who heard all the evidence might have a better clue than you do? Why this desperation to find reasons to excuse someone who has done something so cruel and brutal?

You are referring to the fact that the starting point for the tariff for an under 18 convicted of murder is 12 years. The judge in mayo’s case in fact started at 9 (so he was more lenient). After taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors as required by sentencing guidelines he ended up at 12.

Some explanations about pregnancy denial here if anyone's interested. Video is about the case of the 19 year old in the US who did similar.

I watch this psychologist's videos sometimes, and was actually surprised by his opinion, even though I agree.

@Faybian . Today 21:14
This is an interesting article about pregnancy denial and how it can lead to neonaticide. It is something that is well known and documented and is a form of psychosis. The trouble is most people dont know about this sort of thing (like AgathaSpencerGregson for example) and the 'expert witness' for the prosecution appears to have been very intrumental in persuading the jury against believing something that should have been obvious to an expert in the field, that is that she was mentally disturbed when she killed her baby. www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx

Thank you for that. I would bet anything that no one in that jury had the least knowledge of Pregnancy Denial or it’s effects. It is a potentially devastating condition as in this case.

How interesting that women who are living through PD often present to a doctor with abdominal pains, but it is still not realised that they are pregnant, just as happened with Paris Mayo. She fits the profile in so many ways.

Anyone following this case would want to read this article, which also has a bibliography for anyone looking for other related articles.

*Grammarnut+ · Today 21:48
She concealed her pregnancy and killed her child. All irrational behaviour typical of a teenager. But she still wilfully killed another human being when there were several other options

I presume from you saying this that you have not read the article about Pregnancy Denial posted by Faybian yet. If you have time, it is worth reading and sheds a lot of light on cases like this.

I think if you did you might see the facts you just mentioned, “ She concealed her pregnancy and killed her child” from an unexpected perspective.

This is definitely something imo which very few people know about.

The jury is required to decide the case on the basis of the evidence. They are not permitted to speculate about disorders which there is no evidence about even if they are aware of them. If you think about it I am sure you will appreciate that it’s really important that the jury decides based on the evidence, not extraneous speculation.

It’s not speculation because the psychiatrist for the defence stated she had pregnancy denial and the judge referenced that she had pregnancy denial in his remarks.

The statements by both have been posted numerous times in this thread.
Mayo had pregnancy denial.

So why are we getting our knickers in a twist then?

I don’t think @Faybian was posting the article for the jury to read. I think they posted the article for you to consider, just to flex your mind the teensiest bit, maybe.

But it doesn’t matter what I think, does it? I wasn’t on the jury and didn’t hear the evidence. I’m sure there’s lots of interesting articles on various psychiatric illnesses we can post at each other. They won’t change the fact that we didn’t hear the evidence and it’s on the evidence that the issues have to be decided.

Yes, why are you getting your knickers in a twist saying that pregnancy denial is “extraneous speculation” and that the jury cannot “speculate about disorders which there is no evidence about” when even a cursory reading of the posts on this thread and a few links to Dr Sanford’s expert evidence and the Judge’s sentencing remarks would inform you that Mayo had pregnancy denial?

Nothing I said there is incorrect. The poster was complaining that the jury was ignorant of these matters. That’s a silly complaint for the reasons I gave.

Funny how you can read the evidence that states how she killed her baby and repeat it so accurately, but when it comes to other written evidence regarding the case you dismiss any discussion of it by calling it invention and speculation by women desperate to disagree with an infallible jury.