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

Jawgap · 05-02-2017 3:34pm

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 · 05-02-2017 3:34pm

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 · 05-02-2017 3:35pm

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 · 05-02-2017 3:37pm

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 · 05-02-2017 3:39pm

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 · 05-02-2017 3:46pm

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 · 05-02-2017 4:02pm

Killergreene wrote: »

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

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

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 4:03pm

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 · 05-02-2017 4:13pm

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 · 05-02-2017 4:18pm

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?

infogiver · 05-02-2017 4:23pm

mdwexford wrote: »

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?

It's not about your opinion, that's for sure.
I'm quite confident that your not a mental health care professional like the professionals who have evidence in this trial. You hadn't even heard of infanticide until today, assumed it was a crime just made up by the judge in this case and now your casting a judgment on the many women in the country who down through the years allowed their fatherless baby to die rather the suffer the wrath of the community.
Where do you stand on the Ann Lovett case for example?

Jawgap · 05-02-2017 4:25pm

mdwexford wrote: »

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?

There's nothing invented about it. Lots of people, ordinary decent people, faced with extra-ordinary circumstances 'snap' - maybe the traumatic event overwhelms them, maybe it brings something latent to the fore.

And it hasn't "become more common in recent years" - the charge she pleaded guilty to, and the defence she ran are rooted in legislation nearly 80 years old, so hardly a recent invention.

And by the way, there were 124 such cases in Ireland between 1922 and 1949 (when we introduced our own Infanticide Act) that were prosecuted.....

......and when you compare how those mothers were treated in Dev's Catholic Conservative Ireland with how this mother was treated you'll see that her punishment today was fairly consistent with how such matters have been dealt with over the last number of decades......(from Brennan, Punishing Infanticide in the Irish Free State, Irish Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 3(1), 2013)....

This article explores sentencing of women convicted of infanticide offences at the Central Criminal Court between 1922 and 1949. A sample of 124 cases involving women who had been convicted of manslaughter, concealment of birth, or child abandonment/child cruelty, after appearing at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of murdering their newly or recently born infant, is examined.

The sentences imposed in this sample mainly include short prison terms, suspended prison sentences, and conditional discharges/probation. It will be argued that the limited use of imprisonment, particularly in cases involving manslaughter convictions, indicates that Irish judges took a lenient
approach to sentencing in cases of maternal infanticide.

....so either the judges then in Ireland were far ahead of their time or generally as a society we've recognised infanticide as being different from other categories of homicide.

padd b1975 · 05-02-2017 4:27pm

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

That is an important point right enough.

05-02-2017 4:29pm

Pretty tragic. I don't know what state she must have been in to be choking and drowning a baby that was still actually attached to her.

It's an entirely unnatural thing to do caused by extreme stress and temporary insanity. I highly doubt she roaming the streets looking for babies to kill.

One side sees the sentence as the fall of humanity whereas others see it as the peak.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 4:33pm

infogiver wrote: »

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?

It's a public discussion forum and I am as entitled to post my opinion as you are to post yours.

As I said she had no history of mental illness and the judge doesn't think she will be of danger in the future. What evidence can their be to claim this wasn't a premeditated murder?

infogiver wrote: »

It's not about your opinion, that's for sure.
I'm quite confident that your not a mental health care professional like the professionals who have evidence in this trial. You hadn't even heard of infanticide until today, assumed it was a crime just made up by the judge in this case and now your casting a judgment on the many women in the country who down through the years allowed their fatherless baby to die rather the suffer the wrath of the community.
Where do you stand on the Ann Lovett case for example?

Yes you are correct I'm not a mental health professional.

Wrong facts again, I had indeed heard of the term infanticide before today. I just think it's a load of nonsense.

I certainly do cast judgement on any person who decides to murder their child.

I know nothing about it, just googled it.
Where do you stand on it?

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 4:40pm

Jawgap wrote: »

There's nothing invented about it. Lots of people, ordinary decent people, faced with extra-ordinary circumstances 'snap' - maybe the traumatic event overwhelms them, maybe it brings something latent to the fore.

And it hasn't "become more common in recent years" - the charge she pleaded guilty to, and the defence she ran are rooted in legislation nearly 80 years old, so hardly a recent invention.

And by the way, there were 124 such cases in Ireland between 1922 and 1949 (when we introduced our own Infanticide Act) that were prosecuted.....

......and when you compare how those mothers were treated in Dev's Catholic Conservative Ireland with how this mother was treated you'll see that her punishment today was fairly consistent with how such matters have been dealt with over the last number of decades......(from Brennan, Punishing Infanticide in the Irish Free State, Irish Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 3(1), 2013)....

....so either the judges then in Ireland were far ahead of their time or generally as a society we've recognised infanticide as being different from other categories of homicide.

Everything is invented or thought up by someone.

Depends on the level of the "snap" I guess. Killing your child shows a level of unstableness that warrants a lot more than 60 days rehab. I certainly wouldn't trust or want to be around anyone who has done something like that.

And how many cases has their been in the past 27 years?

05-02-2017 5:38pm

So this woman wasn't deemed a risk for further offences because there was no underlying psychiatric illness... thus suggesting someone with a psychiatric illness would in this case have been deemed as a risk, very stereotypical, very backwards, very misinformed.

I find it interesting that there was no "underlying" psychiatric illness, I am curious as to whether or not this incident was recognised as an episode of psychosis? Postpartum psychosis is not unheard of but very rare and usually brought on by an underlying illness e.g a mood disorder. I also find it strange that they referred to her behaviour during pregnancy as:

"in a state of

partial denial

during the pregnancy"

"Partial denial" is an interesting choice of words for hiding a pregnancy for 9 months, secretly giving birth and horrendous consequences, whether or not she suffered from antenatal depression who knows, but either way I am very confused as to how this behaviour wasn't drawn upon more when considering the episode that happened after giving birth.

05-02-2017 5:41pm

mdwexford wrote: »

Depends on the level of the "snap" I guess. Killing your child shows a level of unstableness that warrants a lot more than 60 days rehab. I certainly wouldn't trust or want to be around anyone who has done something like that.

Was 60 days in rehabilitation the required actions for the woman in this case? If there was no psychiatric illness what exactly are they suggesting she be rehabilitated for?

Little CuChulainn · 05-02-2017 5:52pm

mdwexford wrote: »

It's a public discussion forum and I am as entitled to post my opinion as you are to post yours.

As I said she had no history of mental illness and the judge doesn't think she will be of danger in the future. What evidence can their be to claim this wasn't a premeditated murder?

The evidence given by mental health experts. The fact she had no real plan, either for the act itself or the aftermath. The fact she probably would have died herself if she had not received medical attention.

mdwexford wrote: »

Yes you are correct I'm not a mental health professional.

Wrong facts again, I had indeed heard of the term infanticide before today. I just think it's a load of nonsense.

I certainly do cast judgement on any person who decides to murder their child.

I know nothing about it, just googled it.
Where do you stand on it?

Do you believe in post natal depression?

222233 wrote: »

Was 60 days in rehabilitation the required actions for the woman in this case? If there was no psychiatric illness what exactly are they suggesting she be rehabilitated for?

Grief and post traumatic stress would seem appropriate.

05-02-2017 6:10pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Grief and post traumatic stress would seem appropriate.

So no admission or no therapy for the most prevalent problem here, the episode that resulted in the death of the infant?

I absolutely understand the need to deal with the aftermath which in this instance would be grief and PTSD, perhaps. Ultimately though this was an ongoing problem, 9 months of deceit and denial followed by a serious episode, there is a lot more to deal with than grief and PTSD.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 6:25pm

222233 wrote: »

So no admission or no therapy for the most prevalent problem here, the episode that resulted in the death of the infant?

I absolutely understand the need to deal with the aftermath which in this instance would be grief and PTSD, perhaps. Ultimately though this was an ongoing problem, 9 months of deceit and denial followed by a serious episode, there is a lot more to deal with than grief and PTSD.

Denial in this case is a psychological state of mind, nothing to do with deceit.
What are you suggesting she did : consciously lied about her pregnancy?

I don't think that's what the mental health experts will have found.

I know a couple of women who were in that situation for most of a pregnancy, though none who gave birth in that state, but apparently the woman is in some way unaware herself that she is pregnant, and not only that but the pregnancy may not really show for much longer than normal.

It's hard to believe, I know, but I'm told that's one reason why people around her may genuinely not be aware that she's pregnant. It's a lot more complicated than just deceit.

JuliusCaesar · 05-02-2017 6:26pm

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that's fair enough.

You can all rush to judgement in the absence of the complete facts, backed up by tabloid hysteria that exists for one reason only: to sell more copies of the paper (I won't call them NEWSpapers), or to draw you to their website so they can sell more advertising. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" as they say.)

But that doesn't stop me being absolutely aghast at the opinions I find voiced in this thread.

I am a mental health professional. I have come across similar stories, and heaven knows they used be common enough.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, courts were extremely understanding of women who found themselves 'unexpectedly' pregnant - maybe by consensual sex, maybe forced sex by an employer (now regarded as rape). Have a look here.

From the scant details available, it seems that she was in complete denial about being pregnant. Being in denial is NOT an active reaction, it's an unconscious defence mechanism against an event or truth that is unbearable to the person. It's a kind of forlorn hope that if the event is ignored, it'll go away. Maybe she was sort-of hoping to miscarry, who knows. Add that in with the hormones, and it's no wonder that she thought that killing the child would be the best solution - it would make the whole problem go away.

For those of you who think a man wouldn't get away with it, do have a look at those murders committed in Ireland every few years where a man will kill his parents or somebody, usually in the grip of delusions. Most of them are committed to the Central Mental Hospital for psychiatric treatment.

Anyway, I know there's little point in explaining all this to most of you - your minds are made up, and you see no reason why you should listen, because I'm just a liberal do-gooder bleeding-heart who is naive and regularly has the wool pulled over my eyes. Absolutely no reason that I should have studied to PhD level, because the dogs in the street could tell me better.

All I can say is, I'm very glad that there are people like me around - if anything happened my relatives to be that distressed that they cannot think straight, I would hope that they would be treated with understanding and helped cope with their guilt and despair, and helped protect themselves getting into such situations ever again.

infogiver · 05-02-2017 6:33pm

It's so frustrating to find so many people still obviously completely dismissing the effect and even the existence of depression in all its horrible forms.
I feel particularly sorry for any close family members of these troglodytes who are suffering from PND and have to put up with the sneering and the snide comments.
Awful stuff

infogiver · 05-02-2017 6:37pm

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that's fair enough.

You can all rush to judgement in the absence of the complete facts, backed up by tabloid hysteria that exists for one reason only: to sell more copies of the paper (I won't call them NEWSpapers), or to draw you to their website so they can sell more advertising. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" as they say.)

But that doesn't stop me being absolutely aghast at the opinions I find voiced in this thread.

I am a mental health professional. I have come across similar stories, and heaven knows they used be common enough.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, courts were extremely understanding of women who found themselves 'unexpectedly' pregnant - maybe by consensual sex, maybe forced sex by an employer (now regarded as rape). Have a look here.

From the scant details available, it seems that she was in complete denial about being pregnant. Being in denial is NOT an active reaction, it's an unconscious defence mechanism against an event or truth that is unbearable to the person. It's a kind of forlorn hope that if the event is ignored, it'll go away. Maybe she was sort-of hoping to miscarry, who knows. Add that in with the hormones, and it's no wonder that she thought that killing the child would be the best solution - it would make the whole problem go away.

For those of you who think a man wouldn't get away with it, do have a look at those murders committed in Ireland every few years where a man will kill his parents or somebody, usually in the grip of delusions. Most of them are committed to the Central Mental Hospital for psychiatric treatment.

Anyway, I know there's little point in explaining all this to most of you - your minds are made up, and you see no reason why you should listen, because I'm just a liberal do-gooder bleeding-heart who is naive and regularly has the wool pulled over my eyes. Absolutely no reason that I should have studied to PhD level, because the dogs in the street could tell me better.

All I can say is, I'm very glad that there are people like me around - if anything happened my relatives to be that distressed that they cannot think straight, I would hope that they would be treated with understanding and helped cope with their guilt and despair, and helped protect themselves getting into such situations ever again.

Excellent post. My thoughts exactly. The responses here from some are horrifying

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 6:42pm

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, that's fair enough.

You can all rush to judgement in the absence of the complete facts, backed up by tabloid hysteria that exists for one reason only: to sell more copies of the paper (I won't call them NEWSpapers), or to draw you to their website so they can sell more advertising. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" as they say.)

But that doesn't stop me being absolutely aghast at the opinions I find voiced in this thread.

I am a mental health professional. I have come across similar stories, and heaven knows they used be common enough.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, courts were extremely understanding of women who found themselves 'unexpectedly' pregnant - maybe by consensual sex, maybe forced sex by an employer (now regarded as rape). Have a look here.

From the scant details available, it seems that she was in complete denial about being pregnant. Being in denial is NOT an active reaction, it's an unconscious defence mechanism against an event or truth that is unbearable to the person. It's a kind of forlorn hope that if the event is ignored, it'll go away. Maybe she was sort-of hoping to miscarry, who knows. Add that in with the hormones, and it's no wonder that she thought that killing the child would be the best solution - it would make the whole problem go away.

For those of you who think a man wouldn't get away with it, do have a look at those murders committed in Ireland every few years where a man will kill his parents or somebody, usually in the grip of delusions. Most of them are committed to the Central Mental Hospital for psychiatric treatment.

Thanks for that JC (umm... Just a bit worried about your choice of username though,

)

Since you've outed yourself a professional, I wanted to ask something that's been the cause of a lot of conflict on here : there's a certain PoV from a few posters that considers all murders of fame members as so horrible that the killer must necessarily have been out of his/her mind. So, the man who killed his wife and children in Cavan for example, or the one who drowned his daughter in Co Cork would be considered as being as much to be pitied as this woman.

What do you think?

(Just for full disclosure, I don't think they're the same at all, not because those were men, but because they seemed to have planned the killings and to have a motivation for them that is entirely different from someone who is delusional. But not being a health professional, I'd be interested in hearing from someone e who is.)

Samuel T. Cogley · 05-02-2017 6:46pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You could say that about any crime

In reference to post #27.

No you can't. There are many cases and many criminals who show absolutely no remorse for their crimes. The punishment is generally adjusted accordingly.

On a separate note, this is still on our books too IIRC. It's entirely 'your*' fault. You voted in a government who spend their time coming up with bigger penalties for speeders in stead of dangerous drivers, for prostitution and not infanticide.

As in you, me and every one else - not PR despite the quoted post although I'm sure he/she fits within the subset of everyone :pac:

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 6:57pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The evidence given by mental health experts. The fact she had no real plan, either for the act itself or the aftermath. The fact she probably would have died herself if she had not received medical attention.

Do you believe in post natal depression?

From what I read in the limited information in the article was she had a quite a plan. Get the baby out and kill it as soon as possible. How do we know this wasn't her plan all along if the baby was born and not miscarried.

I believe having a new baby is a hell of a lot of work and people can certainly get down on themselves when things get tough.

Samuel T. Cogley · 05-02-2017 7:00pm

Some academics see infanticide as merely an extension of abortion, have to admit I find that a bit scary.

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

Edit: Obvious who hadn't read the thread, sorry RobertKK, I see you already posted this.

Jawgap · 05-02-2017 7:03pm

mdwexford wrote: »

Everything is invented or thought up by someone.

Depends on the level of the "snap" I guess. Killing your child shows a level of unstableness that warrants a lot more than 60 days rehab. I certainly wouldn't trust or want to be around anyone who has done something like that.

And how many cases has their been in the past 27 years?

Everything?

We may invent names or appellations but that doesn't change the fact that phenomena exist independent of how we choose to name them.

Also, to be clear, you're stacking up your opinion that punishment was inadequate against the trial judge? I'm guessing a trial judge in the Old Bailey sees the worst humanity has to offer and as such is probably a bit more clued in than most?

You're entitled to your opinion about her sentence and not spending time around her.

In the U.K., according to the ONS, about 3% (16) homicides involve a victim under the age of 1. Not all those would be classed as infanticide and not all would be successfully defended as such.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 7:03pm

mdwexford wrote: »

From what I read in the limited information in the article was she had a quite a plan. Get the baby out and kill it as soon as possible. How do we know this wasn't her plan all along if the baby was born and not miscarried.

If that was her plan "all along" why on earth would she not just have had an abortion? She had 24 weeks to do this, it's free on the NHS.

Instead she went through the pain of unaccompanied labour, actually risking her life so that even though she was haemorrhaging badly afterwards, she still didn't want to seek medical help.

You call that a plan? I call it madness. Literally.

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

Comments