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

volchitsa wrote: »

Presumably that is because her condition is known to be closely associated with pregnancy and childbirth, so if she isn't pregnant she isn't at risk?

If a person has previously had a psychotic murder episode I find it hard to believe they aren't any possible danger to themselves or others in the future.

Have enough people done things like this and then monitored and then studies been done to show the chance of re-offending is close to zero?

Mrs Woman wrote: »

She didn't think her baby was the devil. You are speculating quite a bit but I understand you are upset and shocked by the case. Its a very tough one!

I just was replying to the other poster who mentioned that being a thing in cases like this.

It certainly is a sick case.

Jawgap wrote: »

So? Lock up everyone displaying signs of psychosis?

EDIT: at least you seem to concede she may have suffered some form Of severe defect leading to a severe impairment and a detachment from reality (the definition of psychosis)

Certainly lock people up who have committed psychotic murders until they are established beyond doubt of being no risk to the public.

Find it hard to take anyone serious who has 4.5k post on a cycling forum anyway.

volchitsa wrote: »

But you're constantly making suggestions about what you think, while denying doing so. You suggested she might have had that plan "all along", which implies being capable of having a plan, i.e., not being insane.

Now you seem to think you know something about what form this insanity might take. Do you have any actual basis for any of these opinions, (or whatever you care to call them)?

So you think she was insane from the day she found out she was pregnant?

Your reading comprehension seems to be of a very low standard. I'm trying understand what some of you seem to think was her issue here, how long it affected her and how it will affect her in the future.

You know just as little as me about whether she had a plan or not or what form of insanity she had.

volchitsa wrote: »

Better yet, lock up all pregnant women. Better safe than sorry, eh? :rolleyes:

Embarrassing, letting yourself down now.

volchitsa wrote: »

I mentioned that because there was a case of psychosis recently where someone thought a baby was the devil. Not sure it was the mother, mind - it may even have been someone entirely unrelated to the child. But if it was psychosis related to pregnancy and childbirth, presumably it's unlikely to be permanent.

I'm not sure where you get information about how long these episodes last though - especially as you've since said that women are less likely to have future episodes (I don't actually understand those figures BTW, perhaps you could clarify? With a source would be good too, thanks.)

But in any case we aren't being asked to decide how long she needs to be interned for, we can leave that to psychiatrists, luckily, so what you or I think about that doesn't really count does it? Unless you're have some reason to think they've got it wrong? I personally don't.

Don't think I said that women are less likely to have future episodes did I?

We aren't being asked to decide but we can have an opinion on it. As I said above so you would be totally fine if this woman moved in next door to your family safe in the knowledge the psychiatrists have checked her out and deemed her no risk to anybody.

Fair play to you if so, braver person than I am.

volchitsa wrote: »

Nice.




No.


And again. Nice. Thanks. :rolleyes:


As I've been pointing out to you, and you keep ignoring, the only mental health professional (afaik) who took part here seemed to agree with the jury's decision that she had a genuine but temporary mental impairment and would not have been responsible for her acts at that time. That's good enough for me.

I'm not sure what your point is here, it seems to change constantly. And of course you claiming that you don't think anything doesn't help.

You two talk are posting rudely and condescending to me so I think my posts are fair.

Put in another roll eyes smiley.
They make you looks super cool.

volchitsa wrote: »

If you think the mentally ill are all locked up in mental hospitals you are very wrong. A friend of mine's child minder had a psychotic episode and took my friend and her baby hostage in the child minder's house they had to be rescued by police and emergency services. Well she'd have let my friend go but she wouldn't let her have the baby, so my friend was too terrified for her baby, as you can imagine.

Turned out she was schizophrenic and had stopped her medication. Medical confidentiality meant parents thinking of leaving their children with her weren't informed of her (supposedly under control) mental health issues.

So yes, if I had to choose I'd much rather live next door to someone who had a pregnancy-related psychotic episode which only put her own child in danger.
But the truth is that nobody will ask you your opinion who you want next door. So better just get used to that.

God that must have been traumatic. Bizarre things like that aren't disclosed to potential employers for a position like that. Surely she wouldn't have passed Garda vetting with a history of mental issues.

But if you had the choice you wouldn't live next door to anyone with psychotic issues.

That's true, I'll have to get a big detached house in the middle of nowhere.

mdwexford wrote: »

God that must have been traumatic. Bizarre things like that aren't disclosed to potential employers for a position like that. Surely she wouldn't have passed Garda vetting with a history of mental issues.

But if you had the choice you wouldn't live next door to anyone with psychotic issues.

That's true, I'll have to get a big detached house in the middle of nowhere.

It wasn't down south so I don't know what would happen there, but here it seems that medical confidentiality covers it. And that German pilot who crashed his plane was also covered, so I think it's likely to be the case in most countries.

She hadn't committed a crime, see, she was just schizophrenic and on medication. So unless she's going to be banned from any job where she has contact with people her employers aren't going to be told her medical history. And if she's a registered child minder then the parents aren't told either.

The fact that she then stopped taking her medication is kind of unpredictable isn't it? But a lot of people do because the side effects are pretty nasty I gather, and because they feel fine, so they can't think they're ok.

(I didn't know any of this before my friend had her experience, btw. The odd thing is she's one of the most stressed out people I know, worries about everything - I really thought she'd have a nervous breakdown over it, but she took it better than I would have!)

eurokev wrote:

How can you hide a pregnancy though? It's fairly obvious that someone is pregnant

I did it for nearly 7 months. It's not impossible.

Judge must of fancied her, its the same with domestic violence these days the woman doesnt need any evidence for a safety or barring order yet theyl be handed one no questions asked. Women can litrilly get away with murder when its been proven by scientists women are more jealous nasty and calculated than men.