Mother guilty of murdering baby

'erindoors · 30-08-2008, 13:40

Mother guilty of murdering baby - | MSN News UK - news & weather

I don't have ANY words for this!!!!

Gail xxxx

accyman · 30-08-2008, 13:44

i know theres an old joke about whats pink and taps on the window but i never thought anyone would actually do this sort of thing

AccyLass · 30-08-2008, 13:45

OMG! That's sick!

Hmmm let me think, let the fella leave, or kill the baby hmmm

Death Penalty!!

jaysay · 30-08-2008, 13:57

You could really understand how any human being could do anything remotely like that, just one sick ditch who needs putting down

derekgas · 30-08-2008, 13:58

And the jury deliberated for 8 hours!!! what about?

jambutty · 30-08-2008, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'erindoors

Mother guilty of murdering baby - | MSN News UK - news & weather

I don't have ANY words for this!!!!

Gail xxxx

I do but I don’t want to get banned for life.

Is there no end to human beings depravity?

We were horrified with the Nazi final solution, the Mau Mau and Kikuyu tribesmen and others who chopped up their victims with machetes, but this depraved action deserves the eye for an eye attitude.

Do the same to her but slowly.

cashman · 30-08-2008, 15:00

why ANY jury should take 8 hrs to decide if this sicko was guilty, mind the "Holier than Thou" could never see it that way.

accyman · 30-08-2008, 15:34

well if you can think of any other reason it would take 8 hours to find her guilty the put your ideas forward

also if you want to see the sensible replies this has been posted before and discussed in great length

WillowTheWhisp · 30-08-2008, 16:23

She thought he would leave her if he found out the baby wasn't his. So she thought he would stay with her if she cooked the baby? There is no way that woman is even sane. How could she even consider it as an option?

grannyclaret · 31-08-2008, 00:18

Thats Even Too Sick For The Jeramy Kyle Show...

blazey · 02-09-2008, 07:59

Funnily enough the jury don't just sit down and think, yes she's obviously guilty, all agreed? and that's the end of it. They have to talk about everything they have seen in court and decide what offence the person is actually guilty of. Obviously she killed the baby but they have to decide whether the evidence suggests she is deemed insane or whether the reasons were enough for them to see why she might have done it. Depression for a start is very common and could easily change the entire perspective of a case like that. It's easy enough to say it's easy to send someone down when you are just reading the newspaper but I think anyone with any sense knows that court is nothing like what the newspapers make it out to be, and it's far more complex. I think it'd be disgusting if sound minded people could sentence someone to a lifetime in prison based on their own view point instead of deliberating over the evidence with the other members of the jury in case they missed something of relevance and considering it from every angle, and even more so if capital punishment was still an option. Newspapers simply don't give enough detail to really make a decent judgement like that in my opinion.

Lilly · 02-09-2008, 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

Funnily enough the jury don't just sit down and think, yes she's obviously guilty, all agreed? and that's the end of it. They have to talk about everything they have seen in court and decide what offence the person is actually guilty of. Obviously she killed the baby but they have to decide whether the evidence suggests she is deemed insane or whether the reasons were enough for them to see why she might have done it. Depression for a start is very common and could easily change the entire perspective of a case like that. It's easy enough to say it's easy to send someone down when you are just reading the newspaper but I think anyone with any sense knows that court is nothing like what the newspapers make it out to be, and it's far more complex. I think it'd be disgusting if sound minded people could sentence someone to a lifetime in prison based on their own view point instead of deliberating over the evidence with the other members of the jury in case they missed something of relevance and considering it from every angle, and even more so if capital punishment was still an option. Newspapers simply don't give enough detail to really make a decent judgement like that in my opinion.

You're right, Blazey.

Newspapers don't give us all the evidence and they portray stories to make us think what they want us to think.

This woman did an evil thing...was she mentally ill? I think she must be but they don't answer that question, do they?

There is no excuse for what she did but if the balance of her mind was disturbed it might go some way to explaining her actions.

Eric · 02-09-2008, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

Funnily enough the jury don't just sit down and think, yes she's obviously guilty, all agreed? and that's the end of it. They have to talk about everything they have seen in court and decide what offence the person is actually guilty of. Obviously she killed the baby but they have to decide whether the evidence suggests she is deemed insane or whether the reasons were enough for them to see why she might have done it. Depression for a start is very common and could easily change the entire perspective of a case like that. It's easy enough to say it's easy to send someone down when you are just reading the newspaper but I think anyone with any sense knows that court is nothing like what the newspapers make it out to be, and it's far more complex. I think it'd be disgusting if sound minded people could sentence someone to a lifetime in prison based on their own view point instead of deliberating over the evidence with the other members of the jury in case they missed something of relevance and considering it from every angle, and even more so if capital punishment was still an option. Newspapers simply don't give enough detail to really make a decent judgement like that in my opinion.

You are right on this one B. This woman is on trial for her life in a legal system in which she has to be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." And one thing that the report does not mention is the judge's charge to the jury. And what is always implicitly "on trial" in a case like this is the defendant's, any defendant's, right to a fair and impartial hearing, however horrendous the crime he/she is charged with. And we musn't forget that it isn't over yet. She does have the right to appeal. So it is better that the jury deliberate for hours rather than minutes.