Woman who strangled her newborn daughter to death... spared jail.

Wibbs

On the surface it looks pretty damning, but journalists tend to only look at the surface. PND is a very real psychiatric condition recognised since the ancient Greeks. It may sound odd to our ears but infanticide in the first year of life was considered a "lesser crime" in much of the western world before the 19th century and acute post birth "hysteria" was often given as a reason.

Would a new father be given the same understanding? No, simply because he wouldn't be going through the hormonal and physical results of childbirth and pregnancy. This is just a physiological fact. However, if the new father was shown to have a history of mental illness that was triggered by a powerful emotional event like fatherhood, I'd not be surprised if he would also get a diminished sentence.

Just like any crime really, though it would be my opinion that in other such crimes women defendants are more likely to a) be given the benefit of the doubt of diminished responsibility and b) get lesser sentences. The latter an established given, even without mental states being brought to bear. Women face softer punishments in the courts. And I think that wrong, but not in this particular case.

red ears

red ears wrote: »

Can you imagine any circumstances where a man gets away with strangling and drowning a human being.

Well yes, I did post about it already

am i bovvered

red ears wrote: »

Can you imagine any circumstances where a man gets away with strangling and drowning a human being and claiming he had temporary anxiety or mental illness. I can't. She basically got away with killing a baby she tried to hide from her boyfriend. That child could have been handed up for adoption.

Originally that was my thoughts too, however posters in the thread have clarified that the defence was postnatal depression this defence obviously cannot be applied to any man.

infogiver

Thumpette wrote: »

I'm going to absolutely judge her. Firstly, I don't care how traumatic her birth was- as someone who has experienced the pinnacle of traumatic birth (the stillbirth of my son at 41 weeks) I get the ptsd and the anxiety and depression that can follow. Surely all people who commit horrendous murder of someone, particularly a family member is in some way unbalanced- that doesn't make it ok.

Mainly though the fact that she concealed the whole pregnancy shows that in a premeditated way she never intended to keep this child. She didn't seek out medical support in case the pregnancy or labour went wrong (perhaps she was hoping it would as an 'out'). This wasn't a decision made in the midst of the pains of labour or in the haze of pnd- this decision, though maybe not the specifics- was set in motion the minute her pregnancy threatened to reveal her affair.

She could have left the baby somewhere safe to be cared for, but instead she brutally and violently choked and drowned the life out of her. She abandoned her body without dignity.

That little girl is the real victim here- murdered by the one person who should have loved her most, and now not even valued enough for that crime to be properly punished.

Rip little one.

How do you explain the judge and jury in the Old Bailey, who heard all the evidence including from medical professionals, reaching a different conclusion from you( who knows absolutely nothing about the details of this case)?
They are wrong and you are right?
Explain, I'd love to hear it.

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

Yes. The judge and jury should just have been shown these pics, taken before the tragedy, and no other evidence entered.
Then they should have thrown her into the lion pit at the zoo. Isn't that right poster?

I assumed that was the point he was making, he also used "that Lithuanian" in italics to emphasise his criticism of the article...

Jawgap

red ears wrote: »

Can you imagine any circumstances where a man gets away with strangling and drowning a human being and claiming he had temporary anxiety or mental illness. I can't. She basically got away with killing a baby she tried to hide from her boyfriend. That child could have been handed up for adoption.

She didn't get away with anything.....

....the original charge was murder, which was varied using the defence available under the Infanticide Act and she was convicted and sentenced under that legislation.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that an Old Bailey judge, despite what the tabloids might have you believe, is no schmuck and is quite capable of seeing through any ruse intended to allow a murderer escape their punishment especially when they've admitted to carrying out the acts that led to a baby's death.

.....and on a technical point, the judge directed that the murder charge lie on file, so no verdict has been entered in relation to it.

Thumpette

infogiver wrote: »

How do you explain the judge and jury in the Old Bailey, who heard all the evidence including from medical professionals, reaching a different conclusion from you( who knows absolutely nothing about the details of this case)?
They are wrong and you are right?
Explain, I'd love to hear it.

Is this not the whole point of this thread? That some people agree with the judgement and some people don't? Did I miss the part where we are all just meant to applaud their fair and humanitarian stance and never utter a word against it?

Are you saying that there has never been a miscarriage of justice, that innocent people are never locked up or that guilty people never manage to walk free?

You're right- I have no idea of the facts beyond the link to the publicly available information on which this thread is being discussed. There may be more to it- but none of us know what that is. Therefore based on the piece we are discussing I have formed and shared my own views.

The indisputable facts are that for 9 months this woman sought no care and support for her child and then took her healthy child and violently murdered her.

Wibbs

Thumpette wrote: »

Mainly though the fact that she concealed the whole pregnancy shows that in a premeditated way she never intended to keep this child. She didn't seek out medical support in case the pregnancy or labour went wrong (perhaps she was hoping it would as an 'out'). This wasn't a decision made in the midst of the pains of labour or in the haze of pnd- this decision, though maybe not the specifics- was set in motion the minute her pregnancy threatened to reveal her affair.

Maybe, but I've known enough "normal" people who are happy to be in denial until such denial creeps up on them. They can become like a rabbit in the headlights in the face of this. She stays in this state of denial, hiding the pregnancy, maybe it'll all go away etc, then gives birth and the dam bursts. That is not to deny the suggestion of a more cold blooded thought process, but I can certainly see that happening.

Maybe I can see this happening because of seeing something like that in a woman I knew way back when. Boyfriend left her, which she was expecting and was OK with, then she found out she was pregnant(near religious pill user, didn't want kids, great career etc, but had a bout of food poisoning/antibiotics and...). She was in an odd denial about it. Flip flopping between acknowledgment and taking the boat to the UK and was back and forth on the latter. It was only when she started to show that it really seemed to hit her and she went through a near meltdown(and only then told the perspective father). In her case the birth was the complete opposite of how this case went, in that it was an overwhelmingly joyful thing for her, that "reset the mechanism" as it were and she and the kid were fine after that. It could have gone either way looking back.

infogiver

Thumpette wrote: »

Is this not the whole point of this thread? That some people agree with the judgement and some people don't? Did I miss the part where we are all just meant to applaud their fair and humanitarian stance and never utter a word against it?

Are you saying that there has never been a miscarriage of justice, that innocent people are never locked up or that guilty people never manage to walk free?

You're right- I have no idea of the facts beyond the link to the publicly available information on which this thread is being discussed. There may be more to it- but none of us know what that is. Therefore based on the piece we are discussing I have formed and shared my own views.

The indisputable facts are that for 9 months this woman sought no care and support for her child and then took her healthy child and violently murdered her.

Your wrong again thumpette. She wasn't found guilty of murder.
You might at least read the report before contributing to the discussion
You've already admitted you know nothing about the case
Now you prove you haven't even read the OP.
Why do you want to have your POV taken seriously when it's littered with errors?

Jawgap

Thumpette wrote: »

Is this not the whole point of this thread? That some people agree with the judgement and some people don't? Did I miss the part where we are all just meant to applaud their fair and humanitarian stance and never utter a word against it?

Are you saying that there has never been a miscarriage of justice, that innocent people are never locked up or that guilty people never manage to walk free?

You're right- I have no idea of the facts beyond the link to the publicly available information on which this thread is being discussed. There may be more to it- but none of us know what that is. Therefore based on the piece we are discussing I have formed and shared my own views.

The indisputable facts are that for 9 months this woman sought no care and support for her child and then took her healthy child and violently murdered her.

You think this was a miscarriage of justice?

Plus you've no idea (and neither have I) if/when she formed the intent to kill the baby. The reports of the case that are not in the tabloids, go into a bit more detail about her social exclusion.

I wonder how well mentally an Irish person, for example, would do if they went to Lithuania and struggled with the language, the society etc. And then had a crisis pregnancy layered on top of that?

Btw, it's fairly well established that men and women form intent differently - by your logic the 'battered wife' should always be done for murder if she plots it for months then violently snaps even though the intent to kill was well formed, it was the result of a mind corrupted following, potentially, years or months of abuse.

neonsofa

infogiver wrote: »

Your wrong again thumpette. She wasn't found guilty of murder.
You might at least read the report before contributing to the discussion
You've already admitted you know nothing about the case
Now you prove you haven't even read the OP.
Why do you want to have your POV taken seriously when it's littered with errors?

Why do you need to be so forceful in your response? It's a discussion board not a court of law, the poster is not on trial, she gave her opinion.

learn_more

infogiver wrote: »

Yes. The judge and jury should just have been shown these pics, taken before the tragedy, and no other evidence entered.
Then they should have thrown her into the lion pit at the zoo. Isn't that right poster?

No. Someone hasn't fully woken up yet

pickarooney

incredulous

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.

Little CuChulainn

Here's a good explanation of the crime she was guilty of

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

infogiver

neonsofa wrote: »

Why do you need to be so forceful in your response? It's a discussion board not a court of law, the poster is not on trial, she gave her opinion.

...and this is my opinion, of her opinion. An opinion which doesn't even reflect the scant facts that we do have about this sad case. Is it not even a requisite that posters reflect facts and not just what they imagine happened?

Thumpette

infogiver wrote: »

...and this is my opinion, of her opinion. An opinion which doesn't even reflect the scant facts that we do have about this sad case. Is it not even a requisite that posters reflect facts and not just what they imagine happened?

Thanks Neonsofa, actually really shocked at the personal nastiness directed at me from this thread for having an opinion.

Funny how there is so much empathy for the woman and her potential state of mind here but absolutely none of the same empathy or understanding of how a bereaved parent like myself who had to bury my own baby might feel triggered and particularly passionate about the murder of an innocent baby.

Anyway, please feel free to return to your morale crusade of ripping my right to an opinion apart.

neonsofa

infogiver wrote: »

...and this is my opinion, of her opinion. An opinion which doesn't even reflect the scant facts that we do have about this sad case. Is it not even a requisite that posters reflect facts and not just what they imagine happened?

It's possible to ask for this in a polite way.

volchitsa

Thumpette wrote: »

Thanks Neonsofa, actually really shocked at the personal nastiness directed at me from this thread for having an opinion.

Funny how there is so much empathy for the woman and her potential state of mind here but absolutely none of the same empathy or understanding of how a bereaved parent like myself who had to bury my own baby might feel triggered and particularly passionate about the death of an innocent baby.

Anyway, please feel free to return to your morale crusade of ripping my right to an opinion apart.

Thumpette,
First of all, my condolences on the death of your own baby, genuinely.
However I don't think anyone has criticized you for that, what people are reacting to is your belief that you feel entitled to judge someone else based on your own experiences. With respect, that just isn't true. This woman has been found by a jury to have been mentally ill at the time, and your tragedy doesn't mean that hers is a fake.

People are entitled to point that out, and I'd suggest that the hostile reaction your own rush to judgment has provoked is because other people have other experiences, and you appear to be dismissive of anything except your own story.

infogiver

Thumpette wrote: »

Thanks Neonsofa, actually really shocked at the personal nastiness directed at me from this thread for having an opinion.

Funny how there is so much empathy for the woman and her potential state of mind here but absolutely none of the same empathy or understanding of how a bereaved parent like myself who had to bury my own baby might feel triggered and particularly passionate about the murder of an innocent baby.

Anyway, please feel free to return to your morale crusade of ripping my right to an opinion apart.

Once again your referring to murder when no such crime took place. Your also referring to a "potential " state of mind when an actual state of mind has been established in this case by mental health professionals.
Whilst I'm sympathetic with your bereavement, I'm not sure why you think that it excuses you from being pulled up on inaccuracies in your allegations?

infogiver

neonsofa wrote: »

It's possible to ask for this in a polite way.

I really would refer you to the rules which state that you should report a post that you feel is contrary to the charter.

Thumpette

volchitsa wrote: »

Thumpette,
First of all, my condolences on the death of your own baby, genuinely.
However I don't think anyone has criticized you for that, what people are reacting to is your belief that you feel entitled to judge someone else based on your own experiences. With respect, that just isn't true. This woman has been found by a jury to have been mentally ill at the time, and your tragedy doesn't mean that hers is a fake.

People are entitled to point that out, and I'd suggest that the hostile reaction your own rush to judgment has provoked is because other people have other experiences, and you appear to be dismissive of anything except your own story.

Wow thank you for not criticising me for the death of my baby.

I absolutely feel for the people who have spoken out about their own experiences with pnd and have thanked posts on this thread which have given that insight.

I think my place in this thread is going no-where apart from upsetting me (and potentially others and I genuinely apologise if that is the case) so I am going to bow out.

neonsofa

volchitsa wrote: »

Thumpette,
First of all, my condolences on the death of your own baby, genuinely.
However I don't think anyone has criticized you for that, what people are reacting to is your belief that you feel entitled to judge someone else based on your own experiences. With respect, that just isn't true. This woman has been found by a jury to have been mentally ill at the time, and your tragedy doesn't mean that hers is a fake.

People are entitled to point that out, and I'd suggest that the hostile reaction your own rush to judgment has provoked is because other people have other experiences, and you appear to be dismissive of anything except your own story.

In fairness, and i dont want to speak for that poster, but I got the impression that post was in relation to one particular post and not people debating the issue generally with her, moreso the way it was put to her in one or two posts. Fwiw I don't agree with that posters opinion, but like you've shown in your well thought out post, there is a polite and respectful way to disagree and discuss the issue rather than saying "you're wrong" etc.

Earthhorse

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No doubt if this happened in Ireland it would be held up as an example of how we need "safe legal abortion" available to women here so as to prevent such things happening again but yet this happened in a country where they have sure "health care" on tap.

Given this, if all she wanted was to cover up the affair, wouldn't it have made more sense to have an abortion?

Thumpette wrote: »

Mainly though the fact that she concealed the whole pregnancy shows that in a premeditated way she never intended to keep this child. She didn't seek out medical support in case the pregnancy or labour went wrong (perhaps she was hoping it would as an 'out'). This wasn't a decision made in the midst of the pains of labour or in the haze of pnd- this decision, though maybe not the specifics- was set in motion the minute her pregnancy threatened to reveal her affair.

Again, if she never intended to keep the child why didn't she just get an abortion?

It seems to me people are either saying she suffered some form of breakdown during the birth and killed the child, in which case she was mentally ill. Or else she deliberately concealed the pregnancy with the intention of killing the child once she gave birth to it, in which case she was mentally ill.

This case is the very definition of a tragedy. I understand why people are uncomfortable with the verdict but I don't think this case qualifies as "business as usual" for the courts.

volchitsa

neonsofa wrote: »

In fairness, and i dont want to speak for that poster, but I got the impression that post was in relation to one particular post and not people debating the issue generally with her, moreso the way it was put to her in one or two posts. Fwiw I don't agree with that posters opinion, but like you've shown in your well thought out post, there is a polite and respectful way to disagree and discuss the issue rather than saying "you're wrong" etc.

Sure, but what you're doing there is back seat modding, which I believe is against the rules of the site.

Not only that but I got quite an aggressive reply from the poster concerned to my attempt at being reasonable, more so than her reply to the person she claimed was attacking her, IMO. Which illustrates something I'm sure. :rolleyes:

neonsofa

volchitsa wrote: »

Sure, but what you're doing there is back seat modding, which I believe is against the rules of the site.

It wasn't my intention to do so, just didn't see why that poster needed to be so forceful in their response hence me asking them why directly, but you're right it could be seen as that so will leave it there, apologies.

volchitsa wrote: »

Not only that but I got quite an aggressive reply from the poster concerned to my attempt at being reasonable, more so than her reply to the person she claimed was attacking her, IMO. Which illustrates something I'm sure. :rolleyes:

I only saw that after my post. I thought your post was more than reasonable so don't understand that myself.

Guess it's an emotive topic.

thee glitz

cnocbui wrote: »

If it was a psychosis triggered by the hormonal and chemical turmoil of pregnancy and birth, it would be self-correcting as things settle down to normal. No need for that nonsense.

And that's grand then ye? Oh no she's lost the plot and killed her baby but that's the cure so nothing to see here... I think she was just mental anyway. Not once in 9 months did she think to report her pregnancy, make arrangements with a hospital, go for a scan etc. The chances are she wouldn't have been able to do what she did do if she was on a hospital ward.

Omackeral

Jawgap wrote: »

Got away with it??

Maybe she didn't go to prison but I'd imagine the emotional and psychological turmoil she'll likely go through for the rest of her life will be punishment enough?

You're right. Release all the murderers please. They're already punished enough.

Omackeral

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why is this news to you?

Take a look across the punishments for serious crimes. Women always do less, and do their time in better facilties.

Take Mountjoy and the Dochas for eg. Mountjoy cram cells and the prisoners still slop out.



In the Joy, they shower together. This where many men have their first gay experience.

So ill informed and simply untrue. Mountjoy has had single cells for 5 years now and all cells have their own toilets and running water. Slopping out is done with, doesn't exist anymore. Also, the gay experiences of the showers is news to me. Having worked in the prison service for near ten years, have never heard one complaint of that nature, nor have any of my colleagues.

Jawgap

Omackeral wrote: »

You're right. Release all the murderers please. They're already punished enough.

No, nobody is saying that.

This is why we have courts - to judge such matters dispassionately and impose appropriate punishments, taking into account all the facts, rather than punishments based on populism.

And just so you're aware the principle of 'enough' is firmly embedded in the law - after all very few murders get a whole life term, and even where they do get a lengthy sentence of incarceration there is always the possibility of part of a sentence being remitted.

I'm all for retribution being part of the penal model of the country, and while you may argue we're overly focused on the other 'Rs' (reform, rehabilitation) there's plenty of other countries, the US being a prime example, who have gone down the route of giving primacy to retribution with nothing but growing prison populations and accelerating rates of recidivism to show for it.

Jawgap

Omackeral wrote: »

So ill informed and simply untrue. Mountjoy has had single cells for 5 years now and all cells have their own toilets and running water. Slopping out is done with, doesn't exist anymore. Also, the gay experiences of the showers is news to me. Having worked in the prison service for near ten years, have never heard one complaint of that nature, nor have any of my colleagues.

Yes, because, historically, reporting a fellow inmate to the prison authorities has always been demonstrably in the best interest of the victim.

Robineen

The original post does throw up questions but it's a shame that some people in the thread seem unwilling to give any consideration to the reasons why that judgement was reached. It could indeed be just plain unfair that she did not receive a custodial sentence but isn't it best to read up on the case and the whole thought behind infanticide before making a beeline for whataboutery straight away?

And the OP also shoehorned in something about the issue of abortion in Ireland, which was odd.

mdwexford

Yeah living with the guilt is punishment enough.

60 days rehab seems a fair sentence.

People are so brainwashed into believing this rubbish.
Infanticide, what a load of crap.

Omackeral

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, because, historically, reporting a fellow inmate to the prison authorities has always been demonstrably in the best interest of the victim.

Saying the prison showers is where many men have their first gay experiences is based on what then? The prison culture over here is far different to US Penitentiaries or the movies. Anyway, it's off topic, just grinds my gears when people present things as facts when they're not e.g. the slopping out and the overcrowded cells.

Jawgap

Omackeral wrote: »

Saying the prison showers is where many men have their first gay experiences is based on what then? The prison culture over here is far different to US Penitentiaries or the movies. Anyway, it's off topic, just grinds my gears when people present things as facts when they're not e.g. the slopping out and the overcrowded cells.

Hey, I've zero experience of prisons and hope it remains that way.

I'm just simply saying that if the basis for you saying that sort of activity doesn't go on is a lack of reports to the prison authorities then it's flawed data - are inmates really going to complain about other inmates?

Maybe they do, I don't know. As I said I've zero experience of that environment but my sense is your life expectancy and heath status are likely negatively correlated with your level and frequency of engagement with prison authorities to report misbehaviour, misdeeds and crimes committed by fellow inmates.

Robineen

Ellie2008 wrote: »

People keep citing post-natal depression, I'm assuming the court found the woman suffered from post-partum psychosis, a much more serious illness which is much more unusual than post-natal depression.
Women are know to have delusions that the baby is the devil, voices order them to flush the baby down the toilet that type of thing...

I feel people need to accept that it is possible to lose your sanity. If you didn't have the mental capacity to commit the crime you shouldn't IMO be jailed for it.
I understand that a baby is dead, punishing a mother who acted under delusions achieves nothing & would be morally wrong IMO.

Great post. Sadly people have A Point To MakeTM so it might have little impact.

infogiver

Omackeral wrote: »

You're right. Release all the murderers please. They're already punished enough.

But this woman wasn't convicted of murder so your talking nonsense

Robineen

volchitsa wrote: »

BTW, the implication by the OP and a couple of posters here that there is a gender difference where women get the benefit of a doubt whereas men get punished is nonsense : the man who killed his parents with an axe in Donegal a couple of years ago "got off scot free". By which I mean that he was found not to be responsible for his acts and got no prison sentence.

Yes, was just about to say the same. Men also get off due to diminished responsiblity. Another point to add, diminished responsibility claims are taken very seriously. People can't claim it willy nilly.

RobertKK

What she did was no different to abortion, according to ethicists at Oxford.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

infogiver

mdwexford wrote: »

Yeah living with the guilt is punishment enough.

60 days rehab seems a fair sentence.

People are so brainwashed into believing this rubbish.
Infanticide, what a load of crap.

Here we have it in all its glory. The predujice of the ignorant ill informed bigot towards mental illness. This is usually followed by a dismissive "pull yourself together there's nothing wrong with you".
These are the people who in times gone past condemned the autistic and the special needs amongst us to a lifetime in an institution and they would do it again in a heartbeat.
Disgusting.

padd b1975

Jawgap wrote: »

Got away with it??

Maybe she didn't go to prison but I'd imagine the emotional and psychological turmoil she'll likely go through for the rest of her life will be punishment enough?

Or she might continue to be a heartless killer, nobody can tell for sure.

Jawgap

padd b1975 wrote: »

Or she might continue to be a heartless killer, nobody can tell for sure.

Indeed she might - which is why the judge left the murder charge to lie on file to account for this remote possibility and for the possibility that evidence might emerge that would permit the charge to be pursued.

It's important to realise that just because she was found guilty of the lesser charge of infanticide she wasn't acquitted of the original charge of murder.

Robineen

pickarooney wrote: »

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.

THANK YOU!

Incredulous is an adjective, for starters.

Killergreene

Horrible vermin of a human being. She deserves to be locked up and have the key melted down to hot metal and poured down her throat.

May the poor baby rip. The only consolation is she will never have to endure what would presumably have been a lifetime of misery at the hands of that animal of a human.

Shame on anyone here using depression or anxiety to justify this murder. This is one of the most heinous crimes I've ever heard of.

Jawgap

Killergreene wrote: »

Horrible vermin of a human being. She deserves to be locked up and have the key melted down to hot metal and poured down her throat.

May the poor baby rip. The only consolation is she will never have to endure what would presumably have been a lifetime of misery at the hands of that animal of a human.

Shame on anyone here using depression or anxiety to justify this murder. This is one of the most heinous crimes I've ever heard of.

.....and of course you know this how?

mdwexford

infogiver wrote: »

Here we have it in all its glory. The predujice of the ignorant ill informed bigot towards mental illness. This is usually followed by a dismissive "pull yourself together there's nothing wrong with you".
These are the people who in times gone past condemned the autistic and the special needs amongst us to a lifetime in an institution and they would do it again in a heartbeat.
Disgusting.

Don't put words in my mouth you horrible creature. You have no idea what I think or do in my spare time.

Inventing a term to pretend the murder of a baby is any different from the murder of an adult is nonsense. So any woman can murder their baby within a year of them being born and then just claim mental issues and get away with it. That doesn't sit right with me at all.

Jawgap

mdwexford wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth you horrible creature. You have no idea what I think or do in my spare time.

Inventing a term to pretend the murder of a baby is any different from the murder of an adult is nonsense. So any woman can murder their baby within a year of them being born and then just claim mental issues and get away with it. That doesn't sit right with me at all.

They can claim it as a defence - it doesn't mean they'll get away with it.

.....and it's not an invented term. It's been on the statute books in England for nearly 80 years and in Ireland for nearly 70 years.

Maybe we should wind the clock back to before then when young mothers traumatised by having children out of 'wedlock' left them to die and then were faced with a capital murder charge?

Robineen

Killergreene wrote: »

Shame on anyone here using depression or anxiety to justify this murder.

They are "using" psychosis, from what I can see.

mdwexford

Jawgap wrote: »

They can claim it as a defence - it doesn't mean they'll get away with it.

.....and it's not an invented term. It's been on the statute books in England for nearly 80 years and in Ireland for nearly 70 years.

Maybe we should wind the clock back to before then when young mothers traumatised by having children out of 'wedlock' left them to die and then were faced with a capital murder charge?

How can something so subjective be proven, it's all about opinions isn't it. In cases like this with no history of mental issues and the judge says unlikely to reoffend. So it's just put down as a freak occurance and brushed aside.

Was still invented then. I'd imagine it's only become more common in recent years.

Why what do you think should have happened to those poor "traumatised mothers" then?

infogiver

Killergreene wrote: »

Horrible vermin of a human being. She deserves to be locked up and have the key melted down to hot metal and poured down her throat.

May the poor baby rip. The only consolation is she will never have to endure what would presumably have been a lifetime of misery at the hands of that animal of a human.

Shame on anyone here using depression or anxiety to justify this murder. This is one of the most heinous crimes I've ever heard of.

After a trial involving evidence from mental health care professionals, a Judge found differently to you.
Based on your professional mental health care qualifications and your studying of the evidence in its entirety, can you tell us why you came to your conclusion and the punishment you would like inflicted?

infogiver

mdwexford wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth you horrible creature. You have no idea what I think or do in my spare time.

Inventing a term to pretend the murder of a baby is any different from the murder of an adult is nonsense. So any woman can murder their baby within a year of them being born and then just claim mental issues and get away with it. That doesn't sit right with me at all.

who cares wether it sits right with you or not? It's the law of the land and your not liking it or not is irrelevant? Do you think she claimed mental illness without having medical evidence to back up her claim?