Ahh, de poor little girl was distraught.

mehfesto

georgieporgy wrote: »

As for suggesting the killer is evil, has somebody made that suggestion in this thread?

I would have thought any murderer was evil, which is why for the third time I ask would you convict a person with Alzheimers of murder?

MrPudding

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Accidental and negligent are quite different as well.

Well yes. That is why I mentioned them both. That said, what the layman might consider to be accidental mau be considered negligence by the courts.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Purely negligent, eg. knowingly selling a fake drug/substance and ending up killing someone because of it, should be treated the same way as if they killed them with a gun - I think the intention or "hope" shouldn't matter here, it's no good to the person that's dead.

Intention has been, at least in the UK, tweaked slightly. Put simply, I you carry out a act and don't intend a negative consequence, but it is virtually certain it will arise and you know this, then you are considered to have intended that consequence. I think this would cover the scenario you mention.

MrP

Festus

This world has gone beyond Sodom and Gomorrah

MrPudding

Festus wrote: »

This world has gone beyond Sodom and Gomorrah

Your god created humans, presumably he had something to do with mental illness as well.

MrP

prinz

Original convictions should have stood.

mehfesto

prinz wrote: »

Original convictions should have stood.

Why?

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

Why?

Based on the facts as I have read them I think that the not one, but two juries came to the correct conclusion. The premeditated preparation, the strangulation with an object, attempted disposal, the lying to police, the attempt to blame the child's father for the death (according to an article in The Edmonton Sun) etc says there was a lot more going on than a temporary lapse in sanity. This is not a woman who tried to cover the child's mouth to stop it crying and accidentally killed it or some such.

That said time served seems to be consistent with other cases and Canada does seem to have an issue with just how it values the life of a child. Women have gotten off with a suspended sentence and less than 100 hours community service for killing their babies.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/09/09/baby-killer-katrina-effert-walks

Interesting article on the legal side here..

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Calgary_Sun_Canada-Infanticide_Law_must_die_Commentary_25SEP2010.aspx



Also you'd have to question the parenting skills of her own parents.

mehfesto

prinz wrote: »

Based on the facts as I have read them I think that the not one, but two juries came to the correct conclusion. The premeditated preparation, the strangulation with an object, attempted disposal, the lying to police, the attempt to blame the child's father for the death (according to an article in The Edmonton Sun) etc says there was a lot more going on than a temporary lapse in sanity. This is not a woman who tried to cover the child's mouth to stop it crying and accidentally killed it or some such.

I'm not saying it was an accident. Indeed I am saying she was responsible, but that she was not 'in her right mind' at the time. She wasn't mentally stable. But you seem to be suggesting that these are the actions of a sane person? Dumping a body over a fence, into the next-door neighbors'? I mean did she expect it never to have been found? I don't think so. Sounds to me like someone who wasn't thinking straight. Surely giving up for adoption, considering the baby had already been born was an infinitely more rational choice? And indeed, what has the mother to gain from killing her own child willingly? It seems that when you take emotions out of it, it's a fairly clear cut case.


From one of your sources:

“I am of the view that those actions, along with the action of throwing her baby’s body over her back fence, are painful evidence of Ms. Effert’s irrational behaviour as a result of her disturbed mind,” said Veit (Queen’s Bench Justice).

and

"She also ruled that, due to the finding Effert was suffering from a disturbance of her mind” at the time, she has a “diminished moral blameworthiness” compared with others who kill young children under their responsibility."

This is from one of the top legal minds in Canada. A woman who has dealt with more cases like this than we have.

You also suggested the first two cases' results should have stood. Your link suggests you may want to put aside emotion again:

"a new trial was ordered because jurors were given flawed instructions."

It'd be particularly unfair to convict someone if the correct process had not been followed - especially if the jurors were given incorrect instructions. I cannot find any information upon the overruling of the second decision, I will admit.

Your links also cited:
A forensic psychiatrist testified Effert was suffering from an “imbalance of the mind” at the time while a forensic psychologist told jurors she had an acute stress disorder. If you wish to disagree with a mental health professional, who has heard the case in its entirety and instead base it on 'gut feeling', I'm not stopping you. It just seems a little silly to me.

I'll also leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_psychosis
It is a wiki article, but it's quite well supported.

I'm getting the impression that people on the Christianity have a thing against mental health issues. I'll ask you Prinz, so. It being the fifth time I've now asked it here:
Would you convict a person with Alzheimers of murder?

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

I'm not saying it was an accident. Indeed I am saying she was responsible, but that she was not 'in her right mind' at the time. She wasn't mentally stable. But you seem to be suggesting that these are the actions of a sane person? Dumping a body over a fence, into the next-door neighbors'? I mean did she expect it never to have been found? I don't think so. Sounds to me like someone who wasn't thinking straight. Surely giving up for adoption, considering the baby had already been born was an infinitely more rational choice? And indeed, what has the mother to gain from killing her own child willingly? It seems that when you take emotions out of it, it's a fairly clear cut case.

You are confusing sanity and clarity with rationality. Is getting a gun and going around to shoot your ex's new lover a rational choice? No. Does it mean the person is obviously having a break with santiy? No. You can be perfectly sane and in your right mind, and yet act extraordinarily irrationally. Somebody acting in an irrational manner does not have to be concurrently insane. By the by, emotions have been left out of it.

mehfesto wrote: »

This is from one of the top legal minds in Canada. A woman who has dealt with more cases like this than we have..

Coincidentally dismissing concerns about the infanticide option from another of the top legal minds in Canada. Still clear cut?

mehfesto wrote: »

You also suggested the first two cases' results should have stood. Your link suggests you may want to put aside emotion again...

Once again, emotion formed no part of it. If there was a technicality which made the original conviction unsafe, then it should rightly have been retried. However my point stands that between the first trial and the second trial the conviction did not change. The challenge to the first conviction was based apparently on the judge's instructions to the jury, not on a challenge to the charges brought. Therefore I'd argue that the original charges were the correct ones, before infanticide was introduced into the mix.

mehfesto wrote: »

A forensic psychiatrist testified Effert was suffering from an “imbalance of the mind” at the time while a forensic psychologist told jurors she had an acute stress disorder. If you wish to disagree with a mental health professional, who has heard the case in its entirety and instead base it on 'gut feeling', I'm not stopping you. It just seems a little silly to me. ...

..and we all know how expert testimony is never wrong, even when you have two experts in the same field providing opposing findings depending on which side of the courtroom you happen to be sitting on.

mehfesto wrote: »

I'm getting the impression that people on the Christianity have a thing against mental health issues....

Oh lookee, some unsubstantiated rubbish.

mehfesto wrote: »

I'll ask you Prinz, so. It being the fifth time I've now asked it here:
Would you convict a person with Alzheimers of murder?

Depending on the facts of the case obviously (Whitey Bulger for example is now said to have AD - should he not be convicted?), and how advanced it was at the time of the murder, how affected the person was by their AD. In essence as a black and white question the way you have asked it is meaningless.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

You are confusing sanity and clarity with rationality. Is getting a gun and going around to shoot your ex's new lover a rational choice? No. Does it mean the person is obviously having a break with santiy? No. You can be perfectly sane and in your right mind, and yet act extraordinarily irrationally. Somebody acting in an irrational manner does not have to be concurrently insane. By the by, emotions have been left out of it.

By the same token, just because the act appear to be those of a sane mind do not mean they were. Someone who is completely insane or even sleepwalking is capable of complex behaviour.

prinz wrote: »

Once again, emotion formed no part of it. If there was a technicality which made the original conviction unsafe, then it should rightly have been retried. However my point stands that between the first trial and the second trial the conviction did not change. The challenge to the first conviction was based apparently on the judge's instructions to the jury, not on a challenge to the charges brought. Therefore I'd argue that the original charges were the correct ones, before infanticide was introduced into the mix.

NO, this is not correct. Infanticide is a lesser included charge that comes automatically with a murder charge in a situation like this. There was no change of charge and infanticide was not introduced into the mix at a later point. It was always there.

I am not sure what the reasons for the second appeal were; I will try to find out.

prinz wrote: »

..and we all know how expert testimony is never wrong, even when you have two experts in the same field providing opposing findings depending on which side of the courtroom you happen to be sitting on.

It has been a while since I looked at this, did the prosecution contest her mental state?

prinz wrote: »

Oh lookee, some unsubstantiated rubbish.

Hardly unsubstantiated. Several posters appear to have an issue. Perhaps not overwhelming but more christian posters have complained than have approved.

MrP

mehfesto

prinz wrote: »

Somebody acting in an irrational manner does not have to be concurrently insane.

Indeed. However someone suffering from Postpartum Depression could be clinically insane and prone to acting in an irrational manner - and indeed quickly so. As the article states: "The onset is abrupt, and symptoms rapidly reach a climax of severity."

..and we all know how expert testimony is never wrong, even when you have two experts in the same field providing opposing findings depending on which side of the courtroom you happen to be sitting on.

Except that in this case she was found to be mentally unstable by two separate mental health professionals (as stated earlier in this thread). But of course, hearsay on the internet is far more important in cases like this. The independent evaluation from Vijay Singh at Alberta Hospital concluded that:

When Effert gave birth, Singh concluded, she killed the baby because of her disturbed mind.

Her defense lawyer, Dr. Marc Nesca argued she had suffered a major mental breakdown. Something from which she has yet to recover. He too argued that she was very mentally unstable at the time of birth and the death of Rodney.

Nesca and Singh disagreed on the precise details of her mental state at the time, but both agreed she 'was disturbed when she killed Rodney'. (from the link above)

Now obviously, the prosecutor disagreed, and stated that their evidence was 'lacking in credibility' and 'self serving'. But hey, you can check out Mr. Nescas CV here, if you want. He doesn't seem to lack credibility. Looks like he's pretty much set too, and doesn't really appear to need the attention of the media to go any further in his career. He has over 20 years of training in psychology. His evidence seems to fit too...

But hey, he and Mr.Singh are probably both wrong. Best not to give her the benefit of the case being beyond reasonable doubt. Sure send her to prison, at a guess - she probably did it. Deliberately, too. In fact, this is what the prosecution must have thought - they didn't even bother performing a psychological evaluation of their own. Odd, I would have thought.

Alternatively to all this, we could make rational decisions, based upon the best evidence currently at hand and decide upon it logically and fairly. All parties agree that she was responsible for the death of the child (infanticide), not all agree it was deliberate. Given the evidence we have (and the new psychological evidence that was made available for the second trial) - it is only fair that she was tried for infanticide and not murder.

Depending on the facts of the case obviously (Whitey Bulger for example is now said to have AD - should he not be convicted?), and how advanced it was at the time of the murder, how affected the person was by their AD. In essence as a black and white question the way you have asked it is meaningless.

He didn't have Alzheimers at the time of the murders. He does now that he has been found. Would you convict him had he suffered AD at the time of the murders, though?

Look, mental illness is mental illness. While we are baffled by it, we cannot convict people because we refuse to understand the issues they have. I'm not saying because you're dyslexic you have free roam with a handgun. I'm saying there are special cases where we cannot seek justice - because it is just not possible. Being mentally unstable or insane is one of these times.

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

By the same token, just because the act appear to be those of a sane mind do not mean they were. Someone who is completely insane or even sleepwalking is capable of complex behaviour.

Indeed, so not as clear cut as claimed.

MrPudding wrote: »

NO, this is not correct. Infanticide is a lesser included charge that comes automatically with a murder charge in a situation like this. There was no change of charge and infanticide was not introduced into the mix at a later point. It was always there..

Read again. I said the original charge, second degree murder as I see is the correct one and the conviction for that should have stood. The setting aside of that conviction occurred in the appeal. This is what was meant. The original two juries could have found her guilty of infanticide, but they didn't.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not sure what the reasons for the second appeal were; I will try to find out...

On the grounds of 'unreasonable verdict' as far as I can tell based on the fact that other women involved in such crimes in other Canadian provinces were not convicted on the murder charge.

MrPudding wrote: »

It has been a while since I looked at this, did the prosecution contest her mental state?...

They seem to have contested the defence's conclusions about her mental state based on her actions.

MrPudding wrote: »

Hardly unsubstantiated. Several posters appear to have an issue. Perhaps not overwhelming but more christian posters have complained than have approved. MrP

Put the case in any other forum and I am sure you'll find a similar response of people shocked with the judicial response not just in this case but in many others like it to the deaths of infants in Canada. None of which by the way reflects on how people view mental health issues in general.

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

Indeed. However someone suffering from Postpartum Depression could be clinically insane and prone to acting in an irrational manner - and indeed quickly so. As the article states: "The onset is abrupt, and symptoms rapidly reach a climax of severity."....

..and they start wearing off just in time to start pointing the finger at someone anybody and everybody else? She even found the time to start messing with the timeline claiming she only put her underwear around the child's neck after it had already died. It was almost a week before the child's body was found, and two weeks before she was main suspect... and at the end of that she still stuck to her concoction of stories about seeing strangers hanging around, then the father did it, etc etc.

mehfesto wrote: »

Except that in this case she was found to be mentally unstable by two separate mental health professionals....

Hired by the defence, never! Actually the two separate mental health professionals came to quite differing conclusions. Singh concluded she wasn't suffering from a major mental breakdown but that she was conflicted on other grounds (being alone, feeling incapable of caring for the child, isolation etc) Nesca came to the conclusion that she was suffering from some acute stress disorder and had had a major mental breakdown.

I'm not sure about the 'sure send her to prison' remark is about. Oh wait, if you disagree with the findings you automatically must be in the 'lock her up and throw away the key' chorus?

mehfesto wrote: »

He didn't have Alzheimers at the time of the murders. He does now that he has been found. Would you convict him had he suffered AD at the time of the murders, though?

Again with the stupid question. Does someone who could have been diagnosed as being in ther early stages of AD suddenly lose the concept of right and wrong? One day they know what murder is, the day after their diagnosis they don't? What if the strangle the doctor who tells them they have AD?

mehfesto wrote: »

Look, mental illness is mental illness. While we are baffled by it, we cannot convict people because we refuse to understand the issues they have. I'm not saying because you're dyslexic you have free roam with a handgun. I'm saying there are special cases where we cannot seek justice - because it is just not possible. Being mentally unstable or insane is one of these times.

All well and good and happy clappy. Except it ignores the elephant in the room. The abuse of mental illness as a defence in criminal cases. Nothing in the details of the case that I have read so far convince me 100% that she was obviously mentally unstable and couldn't have dealt with the consequences of her actions.

mehfesto

prinz wrote: »

..and they start wearing off just in time to start pointing the finger at someone anybody and everybody else? She even found the time to start messing with the timeline claiming she only put her underwear around the child's neck after it had already died. It was almost a week before the child's body was found, and two weeks before she was main suspect... and at the end of that she still stuck to her concoction of stories about seeing strangers hanging around, then the father did it, etc etc.

Imagine that, an 18year old changing her story after being questioned by the police for the death of her child. Come on, she acknowledged what she had done was horrid, but stated herself that she panicked and didn't know what to do.

Also, you're aware of the difference between chronic and acute? Because it can mean that the problem can quite literally be triggered instantly and then be resolved.

Hired by the defence, never!

One was, one wasn't. Hence the bold 'independent'. Seems unusual though, that in a case based upon the mental health of the accused, the prosecution wouldn't have sought a psychological review of their own, don't you think?

Actually the two separate mental health professionals came to quite differing conclusions. Singh concluded she wasn't suffering from a major mental breakdown but that she was conflicted on other grounds (being alone, feeling incapable of caring for the child, isolation etc) Nesca came to the conclusion that she was suffering from some acute stress disorder and had had a major mental breakdown.

Singh didn't exactly give her a clean bill of mental health, though:

• When Effert gave birth, Singh concluded, she killed the baby because of her disturbed mind.
• In the end, Nesca and Singh didn't agree on Effert's precise mental state at the time of the baby's birth, but did agree that she was disturbed when she killed Rodney

I'm not sure about the 'sure send her to prison' remark is about. Oh wait, if you disagree with the findings you automatically must be in the 'lock her up and throw away the key' chorus?

Well if you don't believe she was mentally disturbed and you believe she did kill her child knowingly, what outcome would be more fitting for you?

Again with the stupid question. Does someone who could have been diagnosed as being in ther early stages of AD suddenly lose the concept of right and wrong?

No, they don't. They may however accidentally kill someone. They are working in a world that is confusing and not necessarily as we see it. I have seen instances where Alzheimers patients mix up people and get aggressive with who they think they are. Similarly I've seen some brandish knives in states of total confusion, not sure what they are doing. These moments can be fleeting - but could if unsupervised - result in terrible consequences.

I witnessed a patient with Alzheimers hold a knife to the throat of another patient, convinces he had done terrible things to his mother (who had long since past). Had he not been talked out of it, he hypothetically could have slit his throat; He could have been responsible for the death of another. This is why I've been asking on this particular one. I sure as hell wouldn't prosecute him.

All well and good and happy clappy. Except it ignores the elephant in the room. The abuse of mental illness as a defence in criminal cases. Nothing in the details of the case that I have read so far convince me 100% that she was obviously mentally unstable and couldn't have dealt with the consequences of her actions.

Then what has convinced you she has been lying?

For me a young girl killing her own child, dumping it in an open place, being found to be 'mentally disturbed' by an independent psychological review, in a country where there is no time-limit on abortion and who carried out the act in a bizarre manner in a secretive place - well, to me at least, it doesn't smack of the actions of a sane person.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

Read again. I said the original charge, second degree murder as I see is the correct one and the conviction for that should have stood. The setting aside of that conviction occurred in the appeal. This is what was meant. The original two juries could have found her guilty of infanticide, but they didn't.

The first one because they were misdirected and the second because they made a mistake... If both of these were indeed the case then why should the conviction stand?

prinz wrote: »

On the grounds of 'unreasonable verdict' as far as I can tell based on the fact that other women involved in such crimes in other Canadian provinces were not convicted on the murder charge.

Yeah, I have found some reference to this since my last post, but I am still have not had a chance to get a copy of the judgement itself. Where did you get the information that it was based on other women not being convicted of murder? Not being argumentative or saying I don't believe you, I am genuinely interested and have not had a chance to get decent information myself.

prinz wrote: »

They seem to have contested the defence's conclusions about her mental state based on her actions.

Yes, they contested it but chose not to provide their own expert witness. I wonder why that was... I did a tiny piece of work on a defence case last summer. The accused solicitors had retained the forensic computer expert to try to rebut the crown's evidence. He was unable to so he did not get called. Could this be a case of that?

prinz wrote: »

Put the case in any other forum and I am sure you'll find a similar response of people shocked with the judicial response not just in this case but in many others like it to the deaths of infants in Canada. None of which by the way reflects on how people view mental health issues in general.

I think you may be right here to a certain extent actually. Once it is poor innocent children rationality has a habit of going out the window.

prinz wrote: »

..and they start wearing off just in time to start pointing the finger at someone anybody and everybody else? She even found the time to start messing with the timeline claiming she only put her underwear around the child's neck after it had already died. It was almost a week before the child's body was found, and two weeks before she was main suspect... and at the end of that she still stuck to her concoction of stories about seeing strangers hanging around, then the father did it, etc etc.

What would you expect her behaviour to have been?

prinz wrote: »

Hired by the defence, never! Actually the two separate mental health professionals came to quite differing conclusions. Singh concluded she wasn't suffering from a major mental breakdown but that she was conflicted on other grounds (being alone, feeling incapable of caring for the child, isolation etc) Nesca came to the conclusion that she was suffering from some acute stress disorder and had had a major mental breakdown.

Of course they were hired by the defence. They would be pretty poor if they did not hire some experts. What is telling is comparing the defence expert testimony to the prosecutions expert testimony. Oh. Wait. They did not bother with an expert to try and rebut the defence expert.

prinz wrote: »

I'm not sure about the 'sure send her to prison' remark is about. Oh wait, if you disagree with the findings you automatically must be in the 'lock her up and throw away the key' chorus?

Prinz really. I expect more from you. Have you read the thread?

prinz wrote: »

All well and good and happy clappy. Except it ignores the elephant in the room. The abuse of mental illness as a defence in criminal cases. Nothing in the details of the case that I have read so far convince me 100% that she was obviously mentally unstable and couldn't have dealt with the consequences of her actions.

My understanding is that mental illness defences are not thought to be widely abused. Undoubtedly they are abused, but it is not as widespread as many people think. Certainly the majority of practitioners and academics would be of the opinion that there is a greater risk of injustice without these defences than there is with them.

MrP

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

Also, you're aware of the difference between chronic and acute? Because it can mean that the problem can quite literally be triggered instantly and then be resolved.

Ah yes. It's amazing how often those instantaneous problems wind up with someone else dead. Haven't you heard, the Yorkshire Ripper is alright again.

mehfesto wrote: »

One was, one wasn't. Hence the bold 'independent'.

...and it just so happened that the one that was arrived at much more serious conclusions with regard to her mental state.

Seems unusual though, that in a case based upon the mental health of the accused, the prosecution wouldn't have sought a psychological review of their own, don't you think?

Not particularly. It's not the job of the prosecution to prove sanity.

Singh didn't exactly give her a clean bill of mental health, though:

Yes, basically alluding to situations, emotions, fears etc facing thousands of mothers the world over on a day to day basis.

Well if you don't believe she was mentally disturbed and you believe she did kill her child knowingly, what outcome would be more fitting for you?

As I've said, second degree murder.

No, they don't. They may however accidentally kill someone. They are working in a world that is confusing and not necessarily as we see it. I have seen instances where Alzheimers patients mix up people and get aggressive with who they think they are. Similarly I've seen some brandish knives in states of total confusion, not sure what they are doing. These moments can be fleeting - but could if unsupervised - result in terrible consequences.

I witnessed a patient with Alzheimers hold a knife to the throat of another patient, convinces he had done terrible things to his mother (who had long since past). Had he not been talked out of it, he hypothetically could have slit his throat; He could have been responsible for the death of another. This is why I've been asking on this particular one. I sure as hell wouldn't prosecute him.

In other words the question you have been asking 'Would you convict someone with AD or not' is absolutelyely meaningless because one person with Alzheimer's could know exactly what they are doing and another might not.

Then what has convinced you she has been lying?

Welll, she has been. That much is clear.

For me a young girl killing her own child, dumping it in an open place, being found to be 'mentally disturbed' by an independent psychological review, in a country where there is no time-limit on abortion and who carried out the act in a bizarre manner in a secretive place - well, to me at least, it doesn't smack of the actions of a sane person.

Tbh that could be applied to almost any crime going. If it seems irrational then the person must be insane. Don't you find it odd that AFAIK based on reading up today not a single one convicted of infanticide has actually be given more than a suspended sentence? Throw your child alive into a plastic bag and stick it in a bin? No problem, suspended sentence for you..

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

The first one because they were misdirected and the second because they made a mistake... If both of these were indeed the case then why should the conviction stand?

Who said they made a mistake in the second trial?.. because a convicted person finds their conviction unreasonable it does not follow that the jury made a mistake. This was of course after her legal team had sought a lot of other accommodations such as a change of location (granted) a change to a non-jury trial (not granted).

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, I have found some reference to this since my last post, but I am still have not had a chance to get a copy of the judgement itself. Where did you get the information that it was based on other women not being convicted of murder? Not being argumentative or saying I don't believe you, I am genuinely interested and have not had a chance to get decent information myself.

Pieced together from various sources but this seems to be the best..

The Effert verdict has been called an extreme departure in how the courts treat women who take the lives of their newborns, a crime known as neonaticide, the killing of a child within 24 hours of birth. Compassion, rather than extended jail time, is the norm for a neonaticidal mother, or for a mother who commits infanticide, defined in Canadian law as the killing of a child less than one year of age.
"Effert's second-degree murder conviction is completely out of step with jurisprudence in other provinces," University of Winnipeg criminologist [ error noted by CanadianCRC editor: she's a feminist sociologist ] Kirsten Kramar, a Canadian expert on infanticide, has said. "It wasn't a just outcome."
Effert's life sentence with no parole for 10 years -- the mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder -- is unprecedented for a case of infant homicide, in modern times at least. No Canadian woman has gone to jail for longer than a year for this crime since a legal provision for infanticide was enacted in 1948. Instead, convicted mothers usually get no jail time at all, Kramar says

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Edmonton_Journal_Revisiting_Canadas_infanticide_law_12NOV06.aspx

Yes, they contested it but chose not to provide their own expert witness. I wonder why that was... I did a tiny piece of work on a defence case last summer. The accused solicitors had retained the forensic computer expert to try to rebut the crown's evidence. He was unable to so he did not get called. Could this be a case of that?

Could be. Could also be a case of the prosecution doing what prosecutions do. It hasn't been the job of the prosecution to prove sanity for a long, long time. Instead they questioned the findings of the defence witnesses. Calling an expert witness(es) to give a third, fourth, fifth opinion could serve to only confuse the jury, easier to allow the defence witnesses say their bit, then question the conclusions directly to the jury.

I think you may be right here to a certain extent actually. Once it is poor innocent children rationality has a habit of going out the window.

Is it somehow irrational to expect a child a few hours old to be awarded the same protection in law as a child a few years old?

What would you expect her behaviour to have been?

For one I'd expect her to have a similar breakdown when confronted with her role in the crime. Instead she had the wherewithall to continue her charade.

Of course they were hired by the defence. They would be pretty poor if they did not hire some experts. What is telling is comparing the defence expert testimony to the prosecutions expert testimony. Oh. Wait. They did not bother with an expert to try and rebut the defence expert.

They did try to rebut or at least question the testimony given. As above, when insanity is being provided as a defence then the onus is not on the prosecution to prove sanity.

My understanding is that mental illness defences are not thought to be widely abused. Undoubtedly they are abused, but it is not as widespread as many people think. Certainly the majority of practitioners and academics would be of the opinion that there is a greater risk of injustice without these defences than there is with them. MrP

Fantastic. Then again I have never suggested doing away with them entirely. Personally I just question this case, where a girl who had prior to birth already told some people the baby was dead in her womb, suddenly had a mental breakdown, killed her child, disposed of it, covered up the crime, invented suspects, tried to blame the father, lied about the course of events etc... and suddenly hey presto she's fine again. No more mental problems.

From what I understand Infanticide doesn't exist at all in the US and in the UK it exists in so far as infanticide is trialled as manslaughter rather than murder, however even at that very, very few women convicted of infanticide in the UK serve a custodial sentence rather suspended sentences/counselling orders etc, in other words you can kill your own child until it's a year old and serve no time. Is that rational? Even in Canada infanticide can carry a prison term of 5 years IIRC and yet Efferts has served only 7 months awaiting her original trials...

I could think of cases where I'd agree that some woman or girl wasn't fully aware of what she was doing in the moment and in such an instance manslaughter would be correct. In this case, having read what I have read I am still of the mind that Katrina Efferts was aware of what was going to happen, aware of what she did, and aware of the consequences.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

Who said they made a mistake in the second trial?..

The court of appeal.

prinz wrote: »

because a convicted person finds their conviction unreasonable it does not follow that the jury made a mistake. This was of course after her legal team had sought a lot of other accommodations such as a change of location (granted) a change to a non-jury trial (not granted).

Well in this case it was held that they did. Most unusual by all accounts.

prinz wrote: »

Pieced together from various sources but this seems to be the best..

I will try to get a hold of the case reports.

prinz wrote: »

Could be. Could also be a case of the prosecution doing what prosecutions do. It hasn't been the job of the prosecution to prove sanity for a long, long time.

I think we will have to disagree here. In general it is not for the prosecution to prove sanity, but in cases where the defence is raising insanity or DR then the prosecution should attempt to prove sanity. How else can you rebut a defence of insanity or DR.

prinz wrote: »

Instead they questioned the findings of the defence witnesses. Calling an expert witness(es) to give a third, fourth, fifth opinion could serve to only confuse the jury, easier to allow the defence witnesses say their bit, then question the conclusions directly to the jury.

That clearly did not work here. Well, it worked on the jury, but was held to be incorrect.

prinz wrote: »

Is it somehow irrational to expect a child a few hours old to be awarded the same protection in law as a child a few years old?

prinz wrote: »

No, that is not irrational at all. What is somewhat irrational is not to accept that, irrespective of the victim, not all killer are equally culpable.

prinz wrote: »

For one I'd expect her to have a similar breakdown when confronted with her role in the crime. Instead she had the wherewithall to continue her charade.

This does not, obviously, bar a defence of DR or infanticide. Interestingly, or not, attempting to hide a crime would negate a defence of automatism due to sleepwalking.

prinz wrote: »

They did try to rebut or at least question the testimony given. As above, when insanity is being provided as a defence then the onus is not on the prosecution to prove sanity.

Well, yes it is.

prinz wrote: »

Fantastic. Then again I have never suggested doing away with them entirely. Personally I just question this case, where a girl who had prior to birth already told some people the baby was dead in her womb, suddenly had a mental breakdown, killed her child, disposed of it, covered up the crime, invented suspects, tried to blame the father, lied about the course of events etc... and suddenly hey presto she's fine again. No more mental problems.

What can I say, it apparently happens. People with more expertise in law and mental issues than us have said so.

prinz wrote: »

From what I understand Infanticide doesn't exist at all in the US

Then cases of this type are obviously dealt with in a different way. I must admit to not knowing myself.

prinz wrote: »

and in the UK it exists in so far as infanticide is trialled as manslaughter rather than murder

I don't think this is correct. Infanticide in the UK, which incidentally the Canadian law was based on, is again a kind of offence / defence. It is available when the charge is manslaughter or murder. If it is successful they are found guilty of infanticide but punished as per manslaughter, s 1 Infanticide Act 1938.

So they are tried for murder or manslaughter but, if successful in running the defence, are found guilty of infanticide and can be punished as if found guilty of manslaughter.

prinz wrote: »

however even at that very, very few women convicted of infanticide in the UK serve a custodial sentence rather suspended sentences/counselling orders etc, in other words you can kill your own child until it's a year old and serve no time.

Unlike you, apparently, I do not have any figures relating to the to infanticide convictions or the punishments handed down, so I can neither support nor rebut your assertion. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of your source?

prinz wrote: »

Is that rational?

If the women in question were mentally unbalanced at the time and lacked the required mens rea for murder? Hell yes.

prinz wrote: »

Even in Canada infanticide can carry a prison term of 5 years IIRC and yet Efferts has served only 7 months awaiting her original trials...

I think in Canada it is 3 years actually. In the UK it can carry a sentence of life, there can also be a complete discharge. What's your point?

prinz wrote: »

I could think of cases where I'd agree that some woman or girl wasn't fully aware of what she was doing in the moment and in such an instance manslaughter would be correct.

Infanticide is manslaughter by another name. The result is more or less the same.

prinz wrote: »

In this case, having read what I have read I am still of the mind that Katrina Efferts was aware of what was going to happen, aware of what she did, and aware of the consequences.

Have you found a transcript of the trial or something? I have not found anything in any of the news sources that would give we the confidence to make a statement like you have.

Please point me in the direction of the information that you have that confidently allows you to disregard the opinion of two mental health professionals and a highly experience appeals court judge.

MrP

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

The court of appeal. Well in this case it was held that they did. Most unusual by all accounts.

The Court of Appeal finding doesn't mean the jury 'made a mistake'. It means you found a judge with a different opinion.

MrPudding wrote: »

I think we will have to disagree here. In general it is not for the prosecution to prove sanity, but in cases where the defence is raising insanity or DR then the prosecution should attempt to prove sanity. How else can you rebut a defence of insanity or DR.

You can use the facts of the case to undermine any testimony presented to raise doubts about the insanity claims. Simple. You don't need to end up with 50 experts on each side testifying against each other in a never ending cycle.

MrPudding wrote: »

No, that is not irrational at all. What is somewhat irrational is not to accept that, irrespective of the victim, not all killer are equally culpable.

Not all are. Has anyone said so?

MrPudding wrote: »

This does not, obviously, bar a defence of DR or infanticide. Interestingly, or not, attempting to hide a crime would negate a defence of automatism due to sleepwalking.

As I saw noted on another website, I can't remember which jurisdiction it was, it may have been in Scandinavia where they decided that where relying on insanity as a defence gets a court imposed period in a mental facility. From what I remember the number of people choosing to use an insanity defence suddenly dropped.

MrPudding wrote: »

What can I say, it apparently happens. People with more expertise in law and mental issues than us have said so.

..and people with more expertise in law and mental issues have made plenty of mistakes.

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think this is correct. Infanticide in the UK, which incidentally the Canadian law was based on, is again a kind of offence / defence. It is available when the charge is manslaughter or murder. If it is successful they are found guilty of infanticide but punished as per manslaughter, s 1 Infanticide Act 1938. So they are tried for murder or manslaughter but, if successful in running the defence, are found guilty of infanticide and can be punished as if found guilty of manslaughter.

Which is what I meant.

then, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this Act the offence would have amounted to murder, she shall be guilty of felony, to wit of infanticide, and may for such offence be dealt with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of the child.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/1-2/36/section/1

MrPudding wrote: »

Unlike you, apparently, I do not have any figures relating to the to infanticide convictions or the punishments handed down, so I can neither support nor rebut your assertion. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of your source?

In recent years, it has become very rare for a mother who kills her infant child to receive a custodial sentence, except in very exceptional circumstances

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

Kirsten Kramar, a sociology professor at the University of Winnipeg who studies infanticide, said women rarely spend time in prison when convicted of the charge. “Women whose circumstances fit with the intention of the infanticide charge tend not to spend time in prison,” Kramar said, noting she does not believe this case is one of those instances. “There is no social value for putting women in prison under those types of circumstances.”

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3d1ede97-e0db-4520-b0fa-d90858d5c4a9

I particularly like the prominent case in the article above. Killed two babies years apart. These mental departures from reality, so convenient.

The maximum penalty for infanticide is life imprisonment. However, in practice a non-custodial sentence is usually the outcome. This non-custodial sentence will however, often be subject to a treatment or a hospital order.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/infanticide-and-criminal-law.htm

MrPudding wrote: »

If the women in question were mentally unbalanced at the time and lacked the required mens rea for murder? Hell yes.

Which brings us back to the case in question where I don't agree that Katrina Efferts was so unbalanced. The fact that she was apparently unbalanced is being deduced from the fact that she killed her child in the manner she did (at least according to one poster).. so you are in a circurlar argument. You killed your infant, therefore we can only assume you are unbalanced, therefore you get some counselling and off you go.

Thanks for putting mens rea in italics by the way. I never would have noticed it but for that.

I think in Canada it is 3 years actually. In the UK it can carry a sentence of life, there can also be a complete discharge. What's your point?

Not exceeding five years.

237.Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

From the Criminal Code of Canada.

MrPudding wrote: »

Infanticide is manslaughter by another name. The result is more or less the same.

Until it comes to sentencing and custodial sentences being imposed. Then it appears the result is quite different as I have shown.

MrPudding wrote: »

Have you found a transcript of the trial or something? I have not found anything in any of the news sources that would give we the confidence to make a statement like you have. Please point me in the direction of the information that you have that confidently allows you to disregard the opinion of two mental health professionals and a highly experience appeals court judge. MrP

No doubt you've never questioned a court's decision. Ever. Jesus wept. People come to different conlusions, breaking news. I have gone over the details (all of which can be gotten from news articles on the case) which lead to my opinion plenty of times already, her statements and behaviour prior to birth, her actions during the killing, her actions after the killing, her attempts to mislead the investigation.. these are the details which lead me to question the fact that she had a momentary psychotic episode, killed her child, and is now back on planet earth and mentally healthy.

Edit: Either way, verging toward a discussion more suited to Legal Discussion perhaps.

georgieporgy

Albert Mohler, baptist preacher, has this to say
http://www.christianpost.com/news/infanticide-canadian-style-55828/

here's a teaser;

So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person - that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?
That is exactly the point. Judge Veit did indeed “extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a living person.” The only problem with that statement is that this baby was “a living person” before his birth. The issue of birth is artificial and deadly. The willingness to kill within the womb leads logically to a willingness to kill outside the womb. The horrifying illogic of abortion, even in the United States, means that this mother could have aborted her baby in the hours prior to his birth with no legal consequence. This woman was convicted by juries of killing her son just after his birth. The appeals court reduced the crime, and then Judge Veit suspended the sentence

georgieporgy

I like this comment too;
Post-partum depression, this decision would seem to indicate, serves as an excuse to strangling your newborn. If you can prove you were depressed, killing your child is something that is understandable and if you listen to this judge, acceptable. If abortion advocates actually believe that women are so fragile after childbirth that strangling their child is understandable, I wonder what they would say if the same judge proposed that new mothers have to prove their sanity before taking custody of their newborn children? It is absurd to simultaneously claim that women are strong enough to do anything they choose in the world, but that childbirth, something they are biologically designed to do, will result in a spasm of murder. The only natural instinct abortion advocates believe women lack is the maternal instinct.

read the rest of the commentary here
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/infanticide-just-a-late-late-abortion-according-to-one-canadian-judge-prett

prinz

georgieporgy wrote: »

That is exactly the point. Judge Veit did indeed “extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a living person.”.........

The infanticide defence has been on the books in Canada, and the UK and many other jurisdictions for decades. It is not the 'extension' of any principles relating to abortion.

georgieporgy

prinz wrote: »

The infanticide defence has been on the books in Canada, and the UK and many other jurisdictions for decades. It is not the 'extension' of any principles relating to abortion.

I accept that point. However, the debate presently raging in north america originates from this judge linking the two actions, namely, abortion and killing a newborn infant by the mother.

Seeing as one action (abortion) is not a crime in Canada, she states the other is more or less an understandable error of judgement, deserving of compassion and not judgement.

If the child's father did the killing, because he didn't want his parents to know he had a baby (they'd be mad at him I suppose), or perhaps he wasn't ready for fatherhood just yet, or wasn't in a stable relationship, or was young an immature, etc, the same legal leniency would not be extended to him.

Why so, like?

prinz

georgieporgy wrote: »

I accept that point. However, the debate presently raging in north america originates from this judge linking the two actions, namely, abortion and killing a newborn infant by the mother.

Which IMO was a serious error in judgement by the judge. All it has served to do is create controversy where there would have been none. There was no need to bring abortion into it at all IMO. Looks like this case has thrown needless fuel on the fire of the abortion debate.

georgieporgy wrote: »

Seeing as one action (abortion) is not a crime in Canada, she states the other is more or less an understandable error of judgement, deserving of compassion and not judgement..

Resulting in a punishment that is comparable to other cases of this type in Canada. The fact of the matter remains, had the judge never mentioned abortion at all this case would not have been headline news, this thread would never have happened, and Efferts would have gotten more or less the same punishment she did. So arguing that by alluding to legal abortion this has somehow had a serious impact on the length or severity of the sentence is a red herring.

georgieporgy wrote: »

If the child's father did the killing, because he didn't want his parents to know he had a baby (they'd be mad at him I suppose), or perhaps he wasn't ready for fatherhood just yet, or wasn't in a stable relationship, or was young an immature, etc, the same legal leniency would not be extended to him. Why so, like?

..because everyone knows a woman would have to be deranged and needs help, but a man would be a cold sadistic murderer silly. Those wimminz need protecting (apparently).

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0330/leslier.html

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

The Court of Appeal finding doesn't mean the jury 'made a mistake'. It means you found a judge with a different opinion.

No. It does mena the jury made a mistake. That is how the law works. The judge has passed judgement. The jury were mistaken, therefore the jury were mistaken.

prinz wrote: »

You can use the facts of the case to undermine any testimony presented to raise doubts about the insanity claims. Simple. You don't need to end up with 50 experts on each side testifying against each other in a never ending cycle.

How do you raise doubts about insanity? Prove sanity?

prinz wrote: »

Not all are. Has anyone said so?

Have a look:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74385919&postcount=4

I use this one reservedly as I think Jimi, whilst he still has issues with the verdict, understands infanticide a little more.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74388912&postcount=7

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74396730&postcount=14

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74396873&postcount=16

One of my favs:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74575679&postcount=63

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74577212&postcount=64

prinz wrote: »

As I saw noted on another website, I can't remember which jurisdiction it was, it may have been in Scandinavia where they decided that where relying on insanity as a defence gets a court imposed period in a mental facility. From what I remember the number of people choosing to use an insanity defense suddenly dropped.

In the UK it was, and still is rarely used. The unspecified time in a mental institution is no longer mandatory, but the “special verdict” has such a stigma attached to it that it is not a popular defense. So much so that there are a number of cases where the accused was trying to run a defense of non-insane automatism, the judge directed the jury that it was not available but not guilty by reason of insanity was, and the accused changed their plea to guilty and then appealed!

prinz wrote: »

and people with more expertise in law and mental issues have made plenty of mistakes.

Indeed they have and will no doubt continue to. For example, the jury and prosecution in this case were wrong twice

prinz wrote: »

Which is what I meant.

Apologies.

prinz wrote: »

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



http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3d1ede97-e0db-4520-b0fa-d90858d5c4a9

I particularly like the prominent case in the article above. Killed two babies years apart. These mental departures from reality, so convenient.



http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/infanticide-and-criminal-law.htm

Thank you, I think. I really should be studying…

prinz wrote: »

Which brings us back to the case in question where I don't agree that Katrina Efferts was so unbalanced. The fact that she was apparently unbalanced is being deduced from the fact that she killed her child in the manner she did (at least according to one poster).. so you are in a circurlar argument. You killed your infant, therefore we can only assume you are unbalanced, therefore you get some counselling and off you go.

Here is the case report.

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb%5C2003-%5Cca%5Ccriminal%5C2011%5C2011abca0134.pdf

prinz wrote: »

Thanks for putting mens rea in italics by the way. I never would have noticed it but for that.

No need to be rude. Force of habit that I try to overcome, but it sometimes slips through.

prinz wrote: »

Not exceeding five years.



From the Criminal Code of Canada.

Cool. Am I going mad or was it originally 3?

prinz wrote: »

Until it comes to sentencing and custodial sentences being imposed. Then it appears the result is quite different as I have shown.

I am not sure what can be inferred from that, or what you are trying to infer. My understanding is that infanticide cases are, thankfully, rare. I don’t know if there enough to make a meaningful analysis.

prinz wrote: »

No doubt you've never questioned a court's decision. Ever. Jesus wept. People come to different conlusions, breaking news.

I tend to only question a courts decision when I have read a court report and not just potentially biased and generally inaccurate reporting, but that’s just me.

prinz wrote: »

I have gone over the details (all of which can be gotten from news articles on the case) which lead to my opinion plenty of times already, her statements and behaviour prior to birth, her actions during the killing, her actions after the killing, her attempts to mislead the investigation.. these are the details which lead me to question the fact that she had a momentary psychotic episode, killed her child, and is now back on planet earth and mentally healthy.

The only think that is important is her state at the time of the act. Having read the case report it seems apparent that the judges believe there was reasonable doubt. That is all it should take.

prinz wrote: »

Edit: Either way, verging toward a discussion more suited to Legal Discussion perhaps.

Yeah, you might be right, but the discussion there are never as interesting for some reason.

georgieporgy wrote: »

...I wonder what they would say if the same judge proposed that new mothers have to prove their sanity before taking custody of their newborn children?

And how would that work, exactly, in cases like this one where no one knew she was pregnant because she hid it due to the fact that she was terrified about how her parents would react?

MrP

georgieporgy

MrPudding wrote: »

And how would that work, exactly, in cases like this one where no one knew she was pregnant because she hid it due to the fact that she was terrified about how her parents would react?

MrP

Lots of her friends knew she was pregnant because she discussed it with them. Furthermore her mother asked her on a number of occasions was she pregnant because she had heard rumours around town, and she noticed the weight gain. The young woman lied to her mum and denied it.

Subsequent to the killing, her parents have proven to be quite supportive, so it should be fair to presume they were supportive types all along.

georgieporgy

http://www.canadiancrc.com/newspaper_articles/Edmonton_Journal_The_verdict_on_Katrina_Effert_Baby_Killer_Mother_28JUN09.aspx

a partial quote here, but anyone wanting to know her state of mind in the months leading up to the killing should read the whole article;.......


While Effert's family and some of her friends stand by her in fierce fashion, some of her other old friends and acquaintances agree that she is guilty of murder. Their judgment of Effert dates to the summer of 2004, when 19-year-old Katrina Effert first told friends she was pregnant.
That summer had been an endless parade of wakeboarding, beer drinking, karaoke, cars and parties for Effert and her friends in Wetaskiwin. Everyone in Effert's gang was just out of high school, working low-wage jobs, charging into the world of adult pleasures and cares.
One day late in the summer, Effert sought out her friend Vanessa Dancey at a house party. Effert asked Vanessa if she wanted to go outside for a smoke. The two sat down on the curb, Dancey recalled.
"I have to talk to you," Effert said. "I found out I'm pregnant."
"What are you going to do?" "I don't know quite yet. I don't really want to have kids, but I do."
Dancey knew Effert as a tough chick, who would stand up with her mouth and, if necessary, her fists if anyone annoyed her. But Effert looked scared and sounded like she might be thinking of having an abortion. Dancey knew that Effert didn't have a regular boyfriend and made no mention of the baby's father. "Whatever you do, make sure you keep it," Dancey told her. "If you have to, give it up for adoption."
"OK," Effert replied.

prinz

Arrgh, is something up with boards, I had a nice long post prepared but I was logged out while writing it and lost it. I'll skip the nonsense and summarise

MrPudding wrote:

The only think that is important is her state at the time of the act. Having read the case report it seems apparent that the judges believe there was reasonable doubt. That is all it should take.

All it should take for what? All it should take for people not to have a different opinion? I don't agree with the findings on her mental state at the time. Tell me, do you think OJ Simpson did not murder two people? I mean the verdict is all it should take right? Now you can accept the verdict, we must, but you don't have any personal thoughts on whether he did it or not?

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

Arrgh, is something up with boards, I had a nice long post prepared but I was logged out while writing it and lost it. I'll skip the nonsense and summarise

Hate that. Been stung a couple of times. Use word or notepad for long posts now. 
 

prinz wrote: »

All it should take for what? All it should take for people not to have a different opinion?

No. All it should take to be found not guilty of the charge. I am perfectly happy to have a different opinion to you. I kind of thought that was the point of this type of discussion. 

prinz wrote: »

I don't agree with the findings on her mental state at the time.

Ok I under stand that, and clearly you are entitled to that opinion. I am just interested as to why you have a that opinion. I am sorry if this irritates you. I shall stop asking. 

prinz wrote: »

Arrgh, is something up with boards, I had a nice long post prepared but I was logged out while writing it and lost it. I'll skip the nonsense and summarise

Hate that. Been stung a couple of times. Use word or notepad for long posts now. 
 

prinz wrote: »

All it should take for what? All it should take for people not to have a different opinion?

No. All it should take to be found not guilty of the charge. I am perfectly happy to have a different opinion to you. I kind of thought that was the point of this type of discussion. 

prinz wrote: »

I don't agree with the findings on her mental state at the time.

Ok I under stand that, and clearly you are entitled to that opinion. I am just interested as to why you have a that opinion. I am sorry if this irritates you. I shall stop asking. 

prinz wrote: »

Tell me, do you think OJ Simpson did not murder two people? I mean the verdict is all it should take right? Now you can accept the verdict, we must, but you don't have any personal thoughts on whether he did it or not?

To be honest I don't know. I did not follow the case. 

Leaving that aside, I have clearly misunderstood the purpose of a discussion board. 

MrP

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

No. All it should take to be found not guilty of the charge. I am perfectly happy to have a different opinion to you. I kind of thought that was the point of this type of discussion.

Granted, but at some point we're just going around in circles.

MrPudding wrote: »

Ok I under stand that, and clearly you are entitled to that opinion. I am just interested as to why you have a that opinion. I am sorry if this irritates you. I shall stop asking..

I have explained that already. Her actions prior to the birth and her actions after the birth. To me they point to someone who was fully aware of what was going on, not someone who in the moments after birth had a sudden breakdown and did something completely off the wall. I see it as someone determined and desperate for whatever reasons to keep the birth underwraps and someone who thought if she could just get rid of it the problems would just vanish. Somebody whose only real concern throughout was for herself. To me that doesn't add up to her being so mentally ill as to not understand the real consequences of her actions.

You can take the expert testimony on board and weigh up the fact that they are basing their opinions on the words of a competent liar. Do I think it's possible she put on an act to make herself seem more unstable at the time than she actually was? Absolutely.