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.

BreatheAndFocus · Today 13:05
There is so far no evidence in any of the reports we have been able to read about the trial that this jury had any idea about what Infanticide is and how it manifests itself, often starting with pregnancy denial

How ridiculous! Mayo was offered the chance to plead guilty to infanticide. Do you not think her defence would have mentioned it? That the judge wouldn’t have explained it? People are clutching at ridiculous straws here.

Please would you link to where Mayo was offered the chance to plead guilty to Infanticide?

You say the judge would have explained it, but at what point was that? I have only seen his words before the jury retired to sum up, saying they could consider a verdict of Infanticide.

On this thread there has been some interesting information, legal and medical, posted about Infanticide. Would the jury have had information of that nature.

If the judge ‘explained it’ it, was this in a way which would introduce a probably novel idea of some complexity to the jurors, or was it no more than a few words. There has been no reference to that in any of the newspaper reports I saw, but please link if you know if one.

There were no reported words from the judge or witnesses to the effect either that pregnancy denial and killing a baby/ murder/ Infanticide may go together.

I forgot to explain re the last point, that if someone has pregnancy denial, and killed their baby, the two are often linked. If so, if it has all been denied, that would explain refusing to plead guilty.

AllOfThemWitches · Today 11:09
Oh ffs hormones don't excuse murder. I mean, look at men with all that testosterone.

As you have not read the articles people have posted, you would not know this is much more than hormones.

As for males and testosterone,
I have never forgotten a nasty rape case of a little girl if 8 by her father or stepfather. Her mother was pregnant at the time . The judge said, the rapist was just behaving like any red blooded man.

Why do you think rapists are not convicted?

It's only about more than hormones if you believe her mind was disturbed by psychosis.

Well I think, as suggested by the judge himself, which is surely quite unusual, that the expert witness was biased and misled the jury. The facts seem to clearly indicate a likelyhood of psychosis and as her own expert witness said, pregnancy denial and the link to neonaticide is pretty well understood and documented. Reading the research she seems to be a classic case of neanaticide (infanticide) and many others have recieved non custodial sentences in very similar cases. The difference between whether she commited murder or infanticide rests, in law, purely upon whether 'the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth'. The violence of her actions have nothing to do with it because if the balance of her mind was disturbed she would most likely be in a psychotic state and acting totally irrationally. To judge whether she was in a psychotic state imeadiately after the birth by watching the police interviews the next morning and to be so emphatic to the jury about it seems very odd and unproffesional to me, and apparently also to the judge, but the jury probably assumed, as you seem to, that his word was to be trusted.

Really appreciate the detailed response.

It is quite sad to think that women who could have had a plea accepted for infanticide might be walking themselves into a murder conviction exactly because of the circumstances which would have made infanticide a more suitable verdict.

I once sat on a jury for a case - I can't remember all the details now, a man had stabbed someone - where there wasn't actually a trial as such. The judge simply outlined to the jury the details, which had been agreed upon by both the defense and prosecution, and the jury was directed by the judge to issue a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. I don't know why this had to be put before a jury at all but for some reason it did, however we were given a very clear direction.

I'm sure there's particular circumstances which makes that legally a completely different situation but I can't help but wonder if there couldn't be something similar in cases like this? I guess you'd need all parties to be in agreement and in this case there was a difference of opinion between the experts?

It is quite sad to think that women who could have had a plea accepted for infanticide might be walking themselves into a murder conviction exactly becauseof the circumstances which would have made infanticide a more suitable verdict.

It is very sad. I’ve posted five screen shots (the maximum!) from the Law Commission report that recommended procedural changes because if this phenomenon in 2016. There’s more detail if you want to read the report in full.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228782/0030.pdf

The do propose alternate solutions, not room to post them all.

I don’t think that’s true. The judge explicitly criticised the ‘biased’ expert. If the jury heard from two experts with differing views, they’re not going to automatically go with the ‘biased’ one. They’d go with the one they believed to be giving the most truthful or accurate report, along with the evidence relating to Mayo.

In his summing up, the judge criticised the ‘biased’ expert because he had formed an immediate opinion. However, that does not mean that what the ‘biased’ expert was saying had no factual basis. After commenting on the ‘biased’ expert, the judge went on to say:

”However, I accept the prosecution's submissions that, on any view, you knew you were pregnant and about to give birth an hour or so before you did so. At that time there is no question of the balance of your mind being disturbed by pregnancy denial or any other condition
You could have asked your mother for help or rung the emergency services. Whilst there might have been grounds for doubting how your mother would have coped, that cannot be said of the emergency services.
I am accordingly driven to the conclusion that at that stage at least you had decided you would have to kill your baby “

Thus, despite criticising the way the ‘biased’ expert formed his opinion, the judge clearly stated that the balance of Mayo’s mind was not disturbed by pregnancy denial or anything else. That’s a pretty clear statement.

@BreatheAndFocus
“Is she recalling it though or is she recalling a story she constructed to explain away what happened? I know I’ve asked similar of you before, but, to me, both of those things are possibilities, and both were rightfully considered. It seems the jury weren’t convinced that she had absolutely no knowledge/memory of what she’d done.”

Both are possible, but it doesn’t seem likely given Mayo’s behaviour and the consistency of the medical notes all through her pregnancy, in the hospital directly after the birth and then years later all circle back to pregnancy denial (the delusional sort).

”Moreover, you mention pregnancy denial but how could Mayo tell the alleged father of the baby about the pregnancy if she had pregnancy denial? The judge said she had some pregnancy denial.”

I had posted earlier, or perhaps on the other thread an excerpt from a peer reviewed research paper on pregnancy denial which summarised the facts known about one of which was this:

Those with psychotic denial tend to be chronically mentally ill (e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) and remain psychotic throughout pregnancy. They may experience physical symptoms of pregnancy, but contribute these to other delusional causes. They may oscillate between open acknowledgement and emphatic denial of their pregnancy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3128877/

So even the fact she openly told the father she thought she was pregnant absolutely fits the profile of a girl suffering pregnancy denial- the psychotic sub classification of it.

Finally- and important point forgive me if I have mentioned it, but the judge would not have been allowed to even offer the jury and alternative verdict of infanticide if the evidence did not support it. The very act of offering it to the jury meant there was sufficient evidence for Infanticide.

The judge HAD to state that because his sentencing remarks HAVE to go by & support the murder verdict that the jury has decided. That part is not his personal opinion- he has inserted his opinion where he can and that’s what is so unusual about his criticism of the prosecutions expert.

You are quoting the judges sentencing remarks. These are made AFTER the jury has made their verdict so his remarks would have no effect on the verdict. As Ap5Diva says he is forced by the verdict to speak as if he accepts the decision of the jury, otherwise he would be contesting the verdict, he cannot speak freely at this point, he has to accept the prosecution's submissions that, 'on any view, you knew you were pregnant and about to give birth an hour or so before you did so. At that time there is no question of the balance of your mind being disturbed by pregnancy denial or any other condition' because to do otherwise would be going against the jury's decision to convict her of murder and not infanticide because it all rests on whether the balance of her mind was disturbed. It makes it all the more notable that he chose to criticise the prosecutions 'biased' expert who appears to be the key reason for the jury convicting her of murder and not infanticide.

Yes, I know they’re his sentencing remarks - I said that. At the beginning of this sentencing statement he says,

”For the purposes of sentencing, I reach conclusions against you only when I am sure of those facts”

But he can’t deviate from the conclusions reached by the jury.

Empathy and humanity seem to have passed Mayo by. The baby is the innocent victim here.

Presumably because the jury didn't believe she experienced a disturbance in the balance of her mind.

A mother could kill her baby because her mind was disturbed, that doesn't mean all women who kill their baby have a disturbed mind as they might just want to get rid of an inconvenient baby.

It isn't automatic that a murder by a mother of an infant is infanticide.

I think you make an important point. The alternative verdict of infanticide was left to the jury. But mayo seems to have been insisting she did not kill the child, claiming accident. Hard to see really how the jury could convict of infanticide in those circumstances.

I don’t assume that at all. I’m not in a position to assess the evidence; I haven’t heard it. The salient point is that the defence had the opportunity to challenge the crown’s expert in cross examination and to call their own. The jury, having heard all of that, chose to convict of murder. Why would I think my judgment is better than theirs?

Oh don’t bother them with your tedious facts. They’re having far too much fun.

Right, but he didn’t direct the jury to find her not guilty of murder. That suggests that the evidence was sufficient enough to find her guilty of murder. He explains why.

He can’t direct the jury to come back with a specific verdict.
Yes, there was evidence for either murder or infanticide.
The jury decided the prosecutions argument was more compelling.
That was the opinion of the jury.
His sentencing remarks are not “why he didn’t direct the jury to come back with not guilty for murder”
His sentencing remarks summarise the findings of the jury and then his application of the sentencing guidelines.

Well in your case, it’s probably the best thing to consider all juries know better than you, but that doesn’t necessarily apply for the rest of us.

How is it hard? Both are the intentional killing of an infant.
Mayo insisting she did not remember killing her baby has no impact on coming back with either verdict.

"Well in your case, it’s probably the best thing to consider all juries know better than you, but that doesn’t necessarily apply for the rest of us."

Despite your apparent arrogance or superiority complex It's not about what the jury knows though is it? It is their weighing up and judgement based on the expert evidence and expert opinions they are presented with and answers they are given to any questions they may ask.

These people most likely had to see photos and post mortem evidence that would be distressing and make a difficult judgement on an emotive issue. Here you are suggesting they are less intelligent or capable than most Mumsnet keyboard warriors when you literally know nothing about them....

He can’t order them to give a certain verdict but he can direct them and guide them. I see no sign of that here. If he was convinced it was infanticide, he could have given a direction (yes, I know the jury aren’t compelled to follow it). He didn’t.

Every killing of a child under 12 months isn’t automatically infanticide and nor should it be.