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.

+FunkyBuddha85* · Today 13:19
So at 15 you wouldn’t have felt it abhorrent to kill? We all know the brain doesn’t fully mature until 25. So anything done before that age should be excused?
That is absolutely no excuse

The law says 15 is a child not that most people of 15 would not find it abhorrent to kill.

Who said the crime should be excused?

rosiepozis · Today 13:22
She killed a baby.

Everyone knows that.

So from reading this article it sounds like she is basically denying the baby was ever breathing and the cotton wool in his throat was to mop up blood? And that any injuries sustained were simply due to him dropping to the floor head first at birth?

Whereas the corner finds that the baby was alive for 1-2 hours after birth and suffered traumatic injury consist With having his head stamped on.

I tend to think that had she admitted infanticide the jury may have settled for that as a verdict, but continuing to deny her role in her baby’s death is likely to have had an impact on the outcome of the trial.

Whilst I have some sympathy for the circumstances she was in, continuing to deny her role in the baby’s death after some four years to process that trauma is quite abhorrent.

Sorry I missed a link there:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-65640676

Both murder and infanticide were considered. The jury heard detailed arguments for both and made a decision based on what they had heard. I don't think it's up to a few people who have read a couple of quotes from the trail to say that the decision was wrong.

That said, the article is short on a lot of detail available elsewhere. Medical experts said that they believed the child had lived for hours after birth and that the injuries inflicted in the baby were so severe that they would more often be seen in something like a car crash. The injuries described were inconsistant with her version of how they were sustained, and I would think that fact would have a heavy bearing on how the jury would have viewed the veracity of her version of events.

By all accounts, it was a brutal, violent and premeditated killing. She's a fucking murderer, end of.

Yes, exactly my thoughts.

Been looking for trial reporting on this.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/paris-mayo-gloucestershire-teen-accused-8451468

I’m not going to bother to respond to an idiotic post attacking things I didn’t say. Learn to read.

Explanation of Infanticide Act.

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

I did bear in mind when posting that there are some posters on Mumsnet who consider abortion at any stage the murder of a child. The baby was a neonate, i.e. new born. It doesn't matter the gestation or size.

I find it incredibly creepy that the father named the baby Stanley, but maybe that's just me.

The last paragraph in that link seems relevant.

In a report the terms of which were agreed on 1 November 2006, the Law Commission recognised the difficulties facing the court when a defendant is in denial and unwilling to submit to psychiatric examination, as she perceives the purpose of such examination as an attempt to prove her guilt. In such cases, the mother is unlikely to have any other defence and is therefore more likely to be convicted of murder or causing a child to die.

I wonder if she refused to engage with a psychiatric examination.

It's a terrible event, and I do feel sympathy for that frightened 15 year old.

I feel less sympathy for the 19 year old who is still sticking to the cover story she invented as that frightened 15 year old. I suspect it may be at least part of the reason for the murder verdict. If she's still lying about how Stanley died, which she clearly is, as the coroner's report completely rules out her version, why would the jury believe anything else she said?

I feel nothing but sorry for her.

She was having sex from 13 because she craved attention and affection. She said she couldn’t ask boys to use condoms because then they wouldn’t like her. She got pregnant at 14 and through the common magical double think of the young, remained in denial that it was real. She gave birth silently and alone. She was terrified of her father.

This is a scared, damaged kid who tried to hide the reality that she had a baby. It’s tragic, it’s horrific what happened to the baby, but this young woman needs help not incarceration.

I agree, what we hear of the father relationship sounds a bit off.

That’s interesting.

The father was terminally ill and not mentally all there.
I agree with pp that Mayo was afraid of him, but I think also her mum too. But her mum is being viewed as a saint.

It's a terribly sad story & I hope she is given help.
Could her legal team have requested that she plead guilty to infanticide? It appears she was denying any wrongdoing.
Would admitting guilt straightaway have made any difference to how she was viewed in court?

Both DH and I have done jury service. We agree that most juries are far more inclined to acquit, and to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused ( sometimes when it is quite difficult to find an excuse , but someone will try).

Well, it was a 10-2 split verdict.

Sorry, pressed by mistake.

in this case, though, the defendant was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to infanticide. She probably would have been given a much shorter , maybe even. Non custodial sentence. It would be surprising if her counsel did not try to persuade her to accept this, and to offer the defence of mental disturbance and distress.

for the apologists, you only have her word for it about the reasons for her sexual activity. She knew who the father was, and the sex was consensual. We do know that she lied about it to the GP and the school. It may be true, it may not. no one except her knows.

The jury sat in the court and observed the defendant. They made there decision based on the evidence, on the judges instructions, and on their own observations.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · Today 15:05

for the apologists, you only have her word for it about the reasons for her sexual activity. She knew who the father was, and the sex was consensual. We do know that she lied about it to the GP and the school. It may be true, it may not. no one except her knows.

Firstly, no one is an apologist for her crime.

Secondly,as to our only having her word about the reasons for her sexual activity, what do you mean? What other reasons might there be which have any bearing? She loved sex and couldn’t get enough of it? Don’t you know that in a child that can be a symptom?

In our society underage girls (13 -15 in her case) are supposed to be protected from having sexual relationships precisely because of the danger of tragic or even just very difficult consequences.

A tissue of lies then. She has refused to accept what she did; has repeatedly lied; and, in reality, gave every impression of hating her baby. She killed him violently, assaulting him over a period of two hours or more, then threw him out with the rubbish. She even denied saying that she hated the cry of newborn babies when she was in hospital with the police after Stanley’s death. She didn’t cuddle him goodbye when he was born, she crushed his skull and then continued to assault him when he had the effrontery to survive. Her actions are vile.

She knew she was pregnant (although tried to lie about that too) and had every opportunity to end this differently. The jurors would have been sympathetic to ‘a poor vulnerable 15 year old’, but this wasn’t what she was. The idea that the jurors just casually found her guilty of murder rather than infanticide is insulting.

Rightly so too

I’m very sympathetic to the actions leading up to her getting pregnant. What happened once she gave birth was absolutely terrifying. I can’t have sympathy for child killers, I just can’t.

It would have been so much better to leave the baby on someone’s door step (which is still terrible) or something along those lines. Why kill the baby and in such a horrific way too? I hope she’s given a life sentence. I’ll be monitoring the sentence she’s given on Monday

She's a fucking sick, twisted individual and Anyone defending her should take a good look at themselves.