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.

Agreed. Amazing that people on here can say what Mayo's mother would have been like when Mayo says differently and let's face it, Mayo actually knows her mother.

There's nothing wrong with people saying 'I don't have an answer to that' or 'I was wrong about that, then'.

We don't need to grasp any every straw to prove her innocence. It's just crazy. Why?!

If we're saying mayo was psychotic, let's stick with that theory. Because the idea of killing a baby in this brutal manner because you didn't want to tell anyone (including sisters, brother, teacher, GP, friend) is not acceptable. And the law agrees, thankfully.

I could not even leave the house to go to the park, nevermind an abortion because that's level of isolation I had. Yes, teenage girls are so vulnerable, and it's such a frightening expert on your own.

If it came to it, I'd run away, not risk being discovered and having to kill and being incarcerated.

Sadly there are many recorded instances of juries getting it wrong. The tragic case of Sally Clark is one such example where the jury was influenced by the testimony of a biased 'expert'. If people didn't question unsafe verdics where something appears to have gone wrong these terrible miscarriages of justice would never be overturned. Lots of people are questioning this particular verdict.

in the Clark case, the verdict was overturned because there was an issue with the trial process that made the verdict unsafe. That happens. What the court of appeal does not do is interfere with the verdict the jury has reached on the facts, provided the process has been sound.
if court of appeal judges can manage not to do that, shouldn’t we?

In other words, the court of appeal does not substitute its own view of the evidence for the jury’s. The jury are the ultimate arbiters of the facts.
some people here could take a few lessons from it.

No one, not one single person I think, is suggesting that if she killed her baby while in her right mind because it was inconvenient that she should be absolved of that. What we are suggesting is that she was not in her right mind. Pregnancy denial is a well known mental illness. No amount of rational argument or obvious signs of pregnancy can persuade a woman experiencing pregnancy denial that she is pregnant. Asking people for help does not occur because the person is unable to believe they are pregant. None of it is rational. For those who reach full term while still in denial the shock of the birth is extreme and can lead to neonaticide because the women cannot accept that she has given birth so has to remove the evidence. This is what worries me, if she was experiencing pregnancy denial then all the questions about how she 'must have known' are immaterial and irrelevant. Either she was experiencing the mental health delusion of full blown pregnancy denial or she wasn't. There are multiple research papers on pregnancy denial. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx

Faybian · Today 11:50

Absolutely what you say.

I personally do doubt that the jury understood the double nature of her Pregnancy Denial and that it can lead to neonaticide.

“When a woman in denial of pregnancy is seen, she requires emergency psychiatric management to avert the possibility of neonatal killing”

www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx

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.

"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."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-65922302

The party must establish the facts to prove and support the case for it to succeed. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ would be an example of a very high standard of proof - the court has to be convinced that there is ‘no doubt’ that something is true.

The higher the stakes are, the higher the standard of proof will be. The highest stakes arise in criminal cases, where the conviction can mean imprisonment.

and

The Crown Court expresses that it requires the jury to be ‘satisfied so that you are sure’ of the defendant’s guilt. This is described unofficially as the 99% test, whilst unofficially a 51% test is described as ‘on a balance of probabilities’
https://www.bljsolicitors.co.uk/blog/understanding-the-standard-of-proof-in-criminal-cases/

I do not see how anyone could be sure in this case.

This verdict was only 83% ‘sure of guilt’ anyway.

I agree @Faybian

One expert witness was ‘biased’ and thought she’d acted deliberately, the other (Dr Sandford, quoted above) ‘told the court that it was also possible that she was "deliberately and deceitfully lying".’

“83 % sure” heh heh
it doesn’t work like that. The law has specified that a 10 to 2 verdict is sufficient for a finding of guilt. If you think that should be changed, by all means campaign for that. But as the law stands she is as guilty as if the verdict were unanimous.

@Faybian from what I understand, pregnancy denial does not make you inculpable for homicide, unless you had psychosis. That's why all this talk about family this and that is irrelevant (and also, does not align with what mayo said) imo

Also, there definitely are people who think 'she was 15, scared and need help not jail, poor girl, it's the parents fault for not being supportive'.

As in, it's understandable to do this if youre scared (even without pregnancy denial or psychosis). It may not have been you, but this isn't an opinion that's hard to find, it's been on here and everywhere else

Also, there definitely are people who think 'she was 15, scared and need help not jail, poor girl, it's the parents fault for not being supportive'.

I had a baby at 16 and ended up with horrific depression, regretted everything, was in an abusive relationship. I still didn't kill my child.

i think people - including perhaps the jury - would be more willing to absolve her of full responsibility had it not been for the brutal method of killing and the prolonged course of conduct. Really tough to get past that.

Or at least it is if you pay attention to, you know, the actual facts. Plenty on here not too keen on doing that.

This Is interesting for anyone interested to read about the court system more generally. There are no easy answers given.

Unintentional bias in court.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0512/POST-PN-0512.pdf

Reading one if the paragraphs here,

An analysis of 44 US- based studies revealed that negative pre-trial publicity significantly affects jurors’ decisions about the culpability of the defendant

It is a shame Paris Mayo was not given anonymity as a child.

This is interesting too:

Neuroscience and the jury system: How can they best coexist?

https://hawkpartners.com/trial-consulting/neuroscience-and-the-jury-system-how-can-they-best-coexist/

Not that it's ok at all.

More that I'm surprised that with all the known circumstances, murder was chosen rather than infanticide.

As we know, in many other cases where people are killed the killer gets a shorter sentence.

This case has many indicators which suggest infanticide:
Killed pretty much at birth
15 yr old
Secrecy
Lack of support
Etc.

I don't think awareness of what's happening during the last hour of labour classes as premeditation. All I was thinking was 'dear god make it stop'. I couldn't have premeditated a nice cup of tea let alone anything else.

I'm really sorry some of you went through shit at 15, and I'm impressed that you pulled through so successfully.
It's not a reason to deny the extreme experiences of other 15yr olds that aren't coping though.

Infanticide as a charge exists for situations like this one. I'm really surprised it wasn't used, and hope over time the reasons for that become clearer.

'It is a shame Paris Mayo was not given anonymity as a child.'

I do think this case would have gone very differently if it had been a 15 year old standing in the dock, and no publicity.

I do think this case would have gone very differently if it had been a 15 year old standing in the dock, and no publicity.

And without possible jury lack of knowledge of the conjunction of Pregnancy Denial + Neonaticide standing in the way.

• like the lack of knowledge of jury members in rape trials, mentioned in the Parliamentary article about bias I posted last night: lack of knowledge that rape by someone known to the victim is rape, that the victim’s underwear as shown to them by the prosecution barrister does not mean the victim was consenting etc etc

9 months of a 15 year old denying pregnancy, followed by 47 hours of labour, sleeplessness, and silently endured pain, does not mean there was a 48th hour of consciousness to come out of a dissociative state and get help at night from parents who have been clueless hitherto, one abusive, and who are upstairs dealing with the abusive but loved one being on dialysis and about to die within a short time.

Have said all along that I couldn't understand why Mayo wasn't tried in a youth court. She was described as being 'big boned' by her brother.

It's shocking to me that a 15 year old had to wait four years before the trial came to court and for what purpose?

This incident has brought back memories of this case in Ireland. I was at university here at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Lovett

And I always wonder had she survived, an ambulance should have been called immediately, but there was a delay, what sort of treatment she would have had and would she have been brought to court.

As has been repeatedly stated, infanticide was left to the jury as an alternative verdict to murder. Having heard all the evidence they chose to convict of murder. Given the brutality of the conduct which took place over some time, I am not sure why anyone finds that surprising.

I have mentioned this to you before, but the method of the neonaticide is actually yet another way Mayo fits the profile of psychosis. We know she was diagnosed with pregnancy denial. The psychotic subtype of pregnancy denial is associated with a high risk of neonaticide via violent methods.

The “brutality of the conduct” supports a verdict of infanticide more than a verdict of murder. So, yes it is surprising the jury would go off piste and that does raise questions as to just how well were they instructed.

Especially since a woman much older than Mayo also committed neonaticide in a similar fashion and was convicted of infanticide contemporaneously.

The “brutality of the conduct” supports a verdict of infanticide more than a verdict of murder

General comment not specifically about Mayo, but I don’t understand what you said there. There are lots of brutal, violent, shocking murders, including of babies and young children sadly. Hate, rage, revenge, sadism - no end of reasons that aren’t psychosis.

I had quoted and linked a scientific paper earlier in the thread that summarises psychotic pregnancy denial facts at the beginning and this was one of them.

“In instances of neonaticide, non-psychotic denial of pregnancy is most likely to result in passive death; the woman may become acutely confused and disorientated at the time of delivery, or panic after the birth and the infant may die from maternal negligence, through exposure. Psychotic denial is more likely to be associated with active killing, by means such as suffocation or strangulation.
Denied pregnancies have a statistically significant worse outcome compared with a normal group; at least some of these poor outcomes are potentially avoidable.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3128877/

The rest of the paper is very informative too
“Denial of pregnancy is more common than may be thought. A German study8suggested that the incidence of denial of pregnancy at 20+ weeks' gestation was 1 in 475 (0.21%). This is higher than that of rhesus haemolytic disease (1 in 1000) or uterine rupture (1 in 1500).8 This incidence was collaborated by an Austrian study indicating a rate of 1 in 400 pregnancies (0.25%) and an American study suggesting a frequency of 1 in 516 births (0.19%).9
A series of 27 Austrian women10 with denial of pregnancy indicated that in 11 cases, denial continued until delivery; in nine cases it resolved at 27–36 weeks, while in seven cases, it resolved between 21–26 weeks gestation. Other work suggests that the incidence of denial of pregnancy that continues until labour is approximately 1 in 2455 to 1 in 2500,2,5,8 which is equivalent to the observed frequency of eclampsia11 (1 in 2500), or three times more common than triplet births (1 in 7225).8”

”There is also an increased incidence of precipitous or unassisted delivery (one study of 74 neonatal deaths revealed 18 cases that involved giving birth into toilets.1 The majority of these involved denial of pregnancy). “

The jailing of Paris Mayo (Teenager Paris Mayo sentenced to at least 12 years for murder of newborn son, 26 June) should bring us up short. What on earth are we doing when current penal policy suggests that this is an appropriate sentence for a child offender who killed her newborn child but who, in the judge's words, was
"*vulnerable" and «ill-supported at home"?
^What purpose does such a lengthy
minimum sentence serve^?
Prof Rod Morgan
*Former chief inspector of probation; ex-
chairman, Youth Justice Board^
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/02/no-sense-in-locking-up-a-vulnerable-teen