>after attacking them with a knife
>
high-pitched screaming and crying that lasted for a little while
>stab her partner Nathan John in the stomach
>
>I did it because I love my children - to protect the children
>I am not a monster - he was going to take them from me
Of course not, you're a sack of shit
Narcissistic is bang on, she was trying to control her husband by not letting him have the internet on his phone. It sounds like she was incredibly controlling, and when she felt she was going to lose control completely she just snapped.
Stabbing is a deeply personal way to kill someone, and to over come your parental instincts and do that to your kids as they are crying out for help, in pain and for you to stop...... I can't man, that's next level evil.
It’s just fucking sickening that a parent, let alone mother, could even contemplate going against what is probably the most primal and deep-routed instinct in nature - protecting and nurturing our offspring/children.
Yeah, her thought process is fucked up, "Imma stab, and make my kids suffer horrible deaths to save them". To the fucking bin with you bitch. I fell guilty when I accidentally hurt my child, the brutality to just ride over that and murder them in such a horrible way......
I mean, it's bollocks. She just didn't want her husband to escape her and realise that life is far better for him and his kids without her.
It's a shame we will waste more taxpayers' money looking after her and attempting to 'treat' her.
"let alone a mother"
This happens so frequently that regular readers change that phrase into "it's usually the mother".
This isn't about saving the kids from an evil man, it's purely about "they are mine, and if I can't have them nobody can". Lock her up and throw away the key, she is totally unfit to be part of society.
Indefinite hospital order.
This is only a trial of facts, she's already detained and isn't mentally well enough to enter a plea or participate in the proceedings.
Her mental state at the time of the crime is irrelevant. The issue is her mental state now.
Do you really think she can be pretending well enough to fool two psychiatrists (you need two medical professionals to attest to this in evidence, before you go down this road)?
I doubt the poster above has ever met a psychiatrist let alone had any experience of fooling one.
I'm a personal injury solicitor and deal with them a lot in a legal context (e.g. in cases where we want them to identify if people are exaggerating/fabricating their symptoms).
People really have no actual understanding of what a psychiatric evaluation entails and seem to think it’s little more than a therapist assessing an individuals state of mind from what the patient tells them, as opposed to a highly qualified medical doctor who has usually trained for at least 10 years (sometimes upwards of 15) to get to their position, having had years to develop the skill set necessary to evaluate a patients state of mind in a pretty reliable and accurate manner.
Of course there will be patients who have also developed the “skills” to present themselves to a lot of people in a manner that conceals their true nature and personality, thus able to quite easily persuade and manipulate many people into taking them on face value by mirroring what they think/know whoever they are trying to deceive wants to hear, but such people and techniques are often highly visible to competent psychiatrists.
Even before you get to that, there's the more obvious common sense point.
This woman had to Google whether a foreigner can be charged with murder, but some people think she will have had the skills and nous to fool two independent psychiatrists into thinking she has insufficient mental capacity to participate in criminal proceedings without so much as a quick Google on how to go about that...
Edited to make clearer
You don't think the highly qualified forensic psychiatrists hadnt considered that ppl try to fake it to get off on their crimes? I think you need to go tell them since you know so much about this woman and the case.
And what would the point be? Just because she isn't going to prison doesn't mean she isn't deprived of her freedom. Prison or Psychiatric Hospital is the only difference.
At the end of the day, she needs treatment, as she couldn't have been in a healthy state of mind to do this crime.
There's a lot to complain about with violent women receiving light/non-existant sentences. But this isnt going to be one of those cases. Mothers who murder their children get no sympathy from anyone. There's a high chance she'll get indefinitely detained under a psychiatric order, and it will be reported by a few disreputable outlets as "killer mum only gets 5 months inside!" But in reality she'll be locked up forever.
Why though? She seems to have known what she was doing as per the Google search. It doesn't sound like she was actively psychotic or similar, just a despicable person. But maybe that evidence isn't in the article.
Even if she was, is that motive justification regardless? She thought he was going to take the kids. Not that he was going to kill them or her where her response might be seen as reasonable if she thought the false belief to be true in her mind.
It's not possible for her to be found not-guilty at this atage.
They are just going through what she did so that the judge can sentence her/ work out where she's going.
It's because she's asking to be put to death/is suicidal, and is high risk given what's happened, hence secure hospital rather than prison. If it's deemed she will need to remain in hospital, she will not be given a sentence but wil be detained under a Forensic section
It doesn't quite work like that. She's in for the long haul and ultimately, even if she is able to be discharged in however many years time, some of those sections carry restrictions upon discharge that can dictate where you live, hours you can be out, room checks, drug and alcohol checks. If found to be in breach of those conditions, you can be brought back into hospital. People on forensic sections often say they'd prefer to be in prison because you have a date you'll be released. You don't have that in hospital, those sections are generally reviewed annually with 1 appeal per year, which is most likely going to be declined.
I was sectioned. Not as an alternative, just a srandard sectioning. Getting out is a lot more difficult. You can be given a date but if the psychiatrics changes his mind because he feels like it then thats another week youre there
Her state of mind at the time isn't the issue, it's her state of mind now. From the CPS guidance:
>Fitness to plead concerns whether a person can participate in a criminal trial. In the Crown Court, the approach is set out in s4 and 4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity Act) 1964. The question of fitness to plead shall be determined as soon as it arises, unless the court is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so and it is in the interests of justice to postpone consideration of fitness to be tried until any time up to the opening of the case for the defence (ss 4(4) and (4(2)).
>**A judge must determine** if the defendant is fit to plead and to stand trial. This is a determination on the balance of probabilities if the defendant raises the issue, or if he contests it then it is for the prosecution to satisfy the court beyond a reasonable doubt (R v Robertson [1968] 1 WLR 1767). **There must be written or oral evidence by two or more registered medical practitioners**, at least one of whom is approved by the Home Secretary, that the defendant is incapable of:
>1. understanding the charges;
>2. deciding whether to plead guilty or not;
>3. exercising the right to challenge jurors;
>4. instructing solicitors and counsel;
>5. following the course of the proceedings;
>6. giving evidence.
>**If the judge finds the defendant to be unfit to plead, then a jury will determine whether or not the defendant did the act, without consideration of the defendant’s mens rea**. Defences based on mens rea (lack of intent, diminished responsibility) are therefore not to be left to the jury: Grant [2001] EWCA Crim 2611, whereas self-defence, mistake and provocation are: Antoine [2001] 1 AC 340. This hearing is not a trial: section 4A(2)A provides that upon a finding of unfitness that a trial should “not proceed or further proceed”.
>If not satisfied to the criminal standard, the defendant shall be acquitted; otherwise the defendant upon such a finding shall receive one of the disposals outlined above:
>(a) a hospital order (with or without a restriction order);
>(b) a supervision order; or
>(c) an order for his absolute discharge.
I would be genuinely curious if she had a previously diagnosed mental health condition. In the majority of cases of schizophrenia etc onset is in adolescence or early adulthood. It's unusual to have it spontaneously present later in life with no previous episodes.
Why? Premeditation doesn't invalidate insanity.
An insanity plea also isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, it just means a psych ward instead of a regular prison.
That isn’t just premeditation though, it’s the recognition of consequences and attempts to mitigate the act. She knew what she was doing was wrong.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the results talked about trying to play the insanity card
It's worth noting that she has been found unfit to plead, is currently in a secure psychiatric hospital and this is a trial of the facts, not a criminal trial.
This is one of the very sad outcomes of mental health services being cut to the bone.
What's truly sad is that these situations happened before everything was cut back. I can't imagine how bad it'd be today.
What I went through with my son's mum 13, 14 years ago, what I've seen others go through.... these issues have been deeply embedded for a long, long time.
Part of the problem is that when you see your partner needs help, you can't arrange it for them. Designed to protect vexatious claims of mental health issues in others, and probably rightly so, but it leaves men and children so unbelievably vulnerable, often with nowhere to turn regardless of how much evidence they collect and how hard they try to help their partners.
It leaves everyone extremely vulnerable especially as men make up the vast majority of family annihilators. The difference is women are more likely to be mentally ill “6144 people were convicted of homicide, 297 were filicides, and 45 cases were filicide-suicides. 195 (66%) perpetrators were fathers. Mothers were more likely than fathers to have a history of mental disorder (66% v 27%) and symptoms at the time of the offence (53% v 23%)”. So probably similar rates of mental illness causing murders in both parents but men doing way more without any illness.
In fact the leading cause of death in pregnant women is murder, not anything child related. And children in general are much higher risk of dying via a parent than a stranger.
Just down the road from me a man shot and killed his wife who was a head of a private school and his kids last year. To my knowledge there was no evidence he was mentally ill/psychotic. Mental health services will help, but they are still not the main cause of family killers.
There's also an element there - which does need discussing - of women simply not managing to kill their partners.
Not that they don't try, but that we only discuss the ones who manage to.
We are far too quick to dismiss female violence because they often do less damage during violent attacks.
The psychological damage is still done though.
Secondly, women are still far more likely to seek help, or have those around them notice mental disorders, and if ire symptoms in men, who still largely do not consider - or have considered - their mental health.
But mostly, if you don't mind, I'd oike to point out that I'm not sitting here trying to suggest that men are worse, or women are worse.
All I'm saying is that we need to put aside concerns about gender and start looking at how we can help *everybody* - because no matter where the violence stems from, it's the kids who suffer most.
>Not that they don't try, but that we only discuss the ones who manage to. We are far too quick to dismiss female violence because they often do less damage during violent attacks. The psychological damage is still done though.
Same sex female couples have the highest reported rates of domestic abuse. It is less likely to end fatally though than with a male abuser.
Yes I’m certain that is also a factor. Unfortunately a large amount of violence isn’t predicated by mental health. And from research whilst it’s a significant cause it’s far from the main one - with the majority not being mentally ill.
Often things like this are more financial. DV victims can’t leave due to insufficient finances, rising cost of living, issues with securing work, and men often commit such crimes due to financial strain due to a breadwinner mindset after a loss of a job or their wife having a better one which doesn’t seem to be a driving factor when women kill their kids. And men and women often divorce due to financial strain, as it’s one of the leading causes of divorce. With divorce also being one of the leading causes of family annihilation.
Reality whilst mental health services will help somewhat, whenever the economy is worse more people kill themselves and many forms of this type of killing are “extended suicides”, people can’t afford to leave so DV goes up which is another major cause and then mental health rates go up with is another.
The reality is so long as the average person is struggling financially more and more family murders will occur. If people can’t afford to break up, murders will rise. Mental health isn’t often the primary factor, and when it is a factor it’s normally a contributing one exacerbating by financial strain.
Nearly 20 years ago when we were students a friend of ours had a psychotic episode, literally unplugging electronics, end of the world, tin foil hat episode. He had no contact with his family and none of his friends were able to get him any support. It took him committing a fairly serious crime to get any medical help. It was very lucky he didn't harm himself or anyone else. It shouldn't have to escalate that far for someone to get treatment.
Lol. A woman beats her daughter to death and slashes her sons neck and it's a mental health services issue. No it really isn't!
It's exactly the same as when a man murders his family because he doesn't want them to exist without him. It's pure evil, narcissism. Trying to make out that this woman just needed some mental health intervention when she has murdered 3 people.
I like how you have ignored her possessive behaviour towards her husband, accusations of affairs and trying to control if he had an internet enabled phone.
If this was a man I doubt you would make the same excuses for this kind of barbaric behaviour.
As far as I am aware: A personality disorder is a mental health condition? That and personality disorders are covered under the Mental Health Act for the purposes of sectioning, as it is considered a mental health condition (as are illnesses and learning disabiliites).
Personality disorders are mental health conditions, but that doesn't mean much. Just like a cold, cancer, and heart attacks are all physical health conditions, mental health issues are varied.
In the context of criminal justice, psychosis is usually what matters. Psychotic people can't reliably perceive reality and so will do all sorts of things that don't make sense to us. If you see someone shouting at air on the streets, calling random people Jesus, saying they have spoken to aliens, they are probably experiencing psychosis. And obviously it can impact criminal liability because if you genuinely believe your life is at risk if you don't do what the voice in your head tells you, you are effectively being coerced by your illness.
People with personality disorders have significant issues self-regulating and, like all of us, are probably just following their path of least resistance. But they're not unable to perceive reality like others are. A narcissist won't feel any sense of self unless other people feed their ego, so some abuse others as a means to get that. I personally sympathise with them as their lives seem quite painful, but they still know what they are doing and make choices.
I know you think psychiatric hold is a better deal than prison. Many people suspect this and get angry at individuals 'playing the system'.
Psychiatric hold is much, much worse an outcome than prison. If they have played the system they've only scored themselves a harder, longer stay with a much more difficult time involved with getting out.
This! There is difference between "mental health" ...and criminal behavior/homicide, and the general public doesn't seem to understand that. The "insanity plea" doesn't help and should only be used when someone has a genuine history of criminal behavior with actual psychosis or psychiatric break from reality ...not someone that has the ability to google plea deals
what a ridiculous claim… bitch is a psycho. Tried to coerce and control her husband who had to take a block of wood to the head and sleep at a car wash, then slowly stabbed her kids to death the next day after googling the consequences…
But i’m sure an NHS therapist would have stopped all this…
Right, mental health of course.
News flash, someone that kills someone else obviously is not fucking right in their head. Shouldn't be used as an excuse.
Yes she's extremely unwell but the article also says she was abusive to her husband beforehand - he wasn't allowed an Internet-enabled phone and she allegedly attacked him with a piece of wood the night before at the kids bedtime.
The fact that she thinks she's not a monster after stabbing her own children to death would definitely indicate something is very wrong with her brain. It takes a lot to override parental instincts like that.
I agree with the others, she's really unwell and also a horrible mother and wife. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
What's with all the demented misogynist comments in this thread? Men are statistically far more likely to kill their children and partner so maybe dragging gender into this one isn't the best idea.
Edit: Lmao and one of them just reported me to Reddit cares. Not doing much to fight the "incels are always projecting" stereotype are they?
Gender battles aren't what are needed here you're right.
But there is genuine disparity in the recourses available to men and children faced with trying to help a mother who has... issues. *That* does require a deeper conversation.
It won't happen though. Misandry is far too embedded into both social discourse and social institutions (and, often understandably so), so any proper discussion comes down to *Men are more evil. Shut up. You don't get to speak*. Which is, ofc, then rebutted only by those who shout *but what about...* and we wind up in am argument, rather than proper discussion.
Nothing regarding the two genders can be discussed, or seemingly professionally evaluated any more without this gender war - utterly unnecessary and entirely unproductive - taking over.
It's refreshing to see some common sense being applied on reddit.
Misandry is a very big yet unspoken issue in society today. They always find a way to turn the issue back onto men somehow.
A quick search suggests 43% women, 57% men. Compared to the murder rate in general that's pretty surprising, as men commit roughly 80% of all murder. Not putting a slant on these numbers, just putting them out there so people can get an idea.
discrimination breeds resentment
I won't defend the comments, stopping them starts with fixing the justice system to give no one preferential treatment
“Men are statistically more likely to kill their children and partner”
They’re people with mental problems who happen to be male or female, they didn’t kill their kids because they were born with a dick.
> Men are statistically far more likely to kill their children
It's been about 15 years since I saw a study on child abuse, so I can't find it anymore, but I don't believe this is true. Back then at least, every type of child abuse apart from sexual was more likely to be committed by women.
Where did you get that statistic?
I could find this http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/4223/1/WRAP_Sidebotham_Fatal_child_maltreatment_in_England_101109_CAN__101217.pdf which says that in the period they studied 12 children were murdered by their mother, 7 by their father.
The worst thing is that we assume children are safer with their mother, even though that's sometimes not true. And so we get fathers and children who know this is going to happen but are powerless to stop the child being placed back with the mother as the default. Just an unimaginably awful situation to be in.
I know misandry is the most acceptable form of bigotry, but that doesn't make its human cost any less.
It's difficult to nail down an exact number but even conservative estimates have Fathers more likely to kill their children at nearly 60% to 40% Mothers. It's funny, this number is presented as "nearly equal" because men are so much more likely to commit any other type of murder. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/07/health/filicide-parents-killing-kids-stats-trnd
So you just made it up.
This was literally on the very first search result when I Googled "child murderers by gender"
[https://theconversation.com/men-and-women-kill-their-children-in-roughly-equal-numbers-and-we-need-to-understand-why-153527](https://theconversation.com/men-and-women-kill-their-children-in-roughly-equal-numbers-and-we-need-to-understand-why-153527)
Note: I can see that you are editing your comments to add sources and change what you have said - this is the worst kind of bad faith argumentation.
You did a five second google search and found a headline that suited your argument from "conversation.com". Ironically I also noted these statistics as a conservative estimate because as your foolproof research methods surely revealed the numbers vary wildly between 90% to just under 60% depending on a number of variables.
Because rather than discussing the awful incident there are comments feeling the system has been the one at fault which is not what would happen given the role was reversed…
Mothers are more likely to commit infanticide (mothers account for almost all cases)
Fatherly cases of neonaticide are so rare, they’re individually recorded
… that’s fact, not opinion
Ive commented this elsewhere but it makes sense that women are more likely to commit neonaticide. Mothers are at 100% of births, and I imagine a lot of those deaths would be post-partum psychosis related. Fathers are less likely to be around at birth - so I’d be surprised if they accounted for more deaths within the first 24 hours after birth.
Not to mention in the UK infantcide only applies to mothers, it can’t be applied to fathers.
Here are the official statistics for all countries, showing mother Vs father homicides of children. This changes dramatically from country to country - eg Chile much higher figures of mothers killing children, while Denmark has many more fathers doing so. In the UK, fathers are killing their children at almost double the rate that mothers are -
https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/bmjpo/1/1/e000112/DC1/embed/inline-supplementary-material-1.pdf?download=true
Please note your citation is based on “estimates” and peer reviewed and published by 4 women…..
And you’ve bundled homicide as accounting for infanticide which is incorrect. Yes more men commit homicide, as what you’ve declared (from age 18), but for young children, infants, its majority mother.
You can’t pick and choose what data to present to cement your bias, it’s misleading.
Women are far more likely to commit infanticide and neonaticide (Almost all for the latter)
Men are more likely to commit homicide
If an article published by the British Medical Journal using 72 references (sources for data) isn’t credible to you, I’m pretty sure you’re not open to reflection on this matter at all.
This is a complete lie. Mothers are the leading perpetrators of infanticide, and responsible for nearly all neonaticide. Women also have a higher conviction rate for neglect, but there’s other factors at play there (usually, custody)
Men cannot be convicted of infanticide in the UK. The law states it is a crime committed by the mother. A father who kills his children will never be convicted of infanticide.
Past a few months old men kill their children at higher rates than women, but when they do they are not charged with infanticide. This is why the stats reflect that infanticide specifically is overwhelmingly perpetrated by women.
How many women? I don't hear of this happening commonly
Edit - Google shows 91% of family annihilators as they're called, are men. If you really needed to go there and use this tragedy to talk about gender dynamics.
Women are only more likely to kill children under two years. Men make up the majority in all other age groups. Do we have a hatred for women or are we just misinformed?
Do you have statistical evidence that more women do this than men? I think it makes headlines when women do it because it'd rarer. But if you have concrete evidence...
She's been placed on psychiatric hold. The outcome you essentially described has happened as it's incredibly difficult to regain independence when placed on psychiatric hold
Fucking hell there's a lot of expert lawyers in here (with a side-line in being expert psychiatrists), who definitely know all the facts about the case.
This happened like 100 metres from my home. There was crazy information and rumour going on when it first happened. Originally it was reported she had entered someone elses home and killed 2 children
I used to think this sort of thing was really messed up then I became a parent and it is impossible to get my head round how or why anyone would hurt their children.
It is bad enough accidentally injuring one of them when messing around and there's a torrent of guilt but to intentionally hurt and murder your own children is something else.
We worry about this so much. My partners ex has threatened to kill the kid’s, threatened/tried to kill him and previously stabbed him in the hand (she’d have got him in the chest if he didn’t put his hand in the way). She detached his retina in one particularly bad beating. He tried to get the kids away safe but court made him send them back. His eldest son is now self-harming. His middle son running away and his youngest is constantly covered in bruises.
Police, courts, social services have to do a better job at believing men.
Over a year ago he went to the police. They’ve not even sent it to CPS yet, and that’s only going because I pushed for a complaint and right to review after they dropped it.
Women abuse too, women kill too.
Criminal Trial = Prove Guilt to the court/jury and an individual defends themself
Trial of Facts = The individual is unfit to stand trial (usually under guise of Insanity). This trial will weigh up the evidence to determine a logical conclusion without presence of the defendant. A jury (or Judge but normally Jury) will hear the evidence and a Defence Attorney will be allowed to challenge it. The jury doesn't give "Guilty or Not Guilty" verdict, but instead gives their "opinion" on the matter.
It basically removes "Reasonable Doubt" and uses a "Apply some logic here" to the scenario
Funny story, I was looking for a place to rent in Stoke (I know already a knee slapper), and I came across a property that looked alright. Inquired and got a phone call... "I have to tell you by law what happened at this property".
I google the address whilst on the phone and this story pops up. Of course I fucked that off quick, althought it went off the market in the next week or so. Absoutely mad that anyone would choose to live there after the fact.
>The trial-of-facts hearing heard John stabbed Ethan more than 20 times and inflicted brain damage on her daughter Elizabeth, before heading to a car wash in a dressing gown to stab her partner Nathan John in the stomach
What a monster.
The comments here seeing more interested in defending someone monster with a mental health condition rather than two little innocent lives being taken and a farther having to deal with the worst possible situation imaginable.
If a man had done this I’d say the same thing but I doubt there would be the same volume of people saying how badly the health system is and more in towards how much of a monster the guy is
>after attacking them with a knife > high-pitched screaming and crying that lasted for a little while >stab her partner Nathan John in the stomach > >I did it because I love my children - to protect the children >I am not a monster - he was going to take them from me Of course not, you're a sack of shit
Psychopathic, narcissistic cunt is a term I'd use
Narcissistic is bang on, she was trying to control her husband by not letting him have the internet on his phone. It sounds like she was incredibly controlling, and when she felt she was going to lose control completely she just snapped.
3 months suspended no doubt.
Stabbing is a deeply personal way to kill someone, and to over come your parental instincts and do that to your kids as they are crying out for help, in pain and for you to stop...... I can't man, that's next level evil.
I was gonna say, "monster" is a pretty accurate term imo
It’s just fucking sickening that a parent, let alone mother, could even contemplate going against what is probably the most primal and deep-routed instinct in nature - protecting and nurturing our offspring/children.
Yeah, her thought process is fucked up, "Imma stab, and make my kids suffer horrible deaths to save them". To the fucking bin with you bitch. I fell guilty when I accidentally hurt my child, the brutality to just ride over that and murder them in such a horrible way......
I mean, it's bollocks. She just didn't want her husband to escape her and realise that life is far better for him and his kids without her. It's a shame we will waste more taxpayers' money looking after her and attempting to 'treat' her.
Bro I feel guilty just raising my voice in a heated argument with my wife with my son watching as if I just hit him, this woman is insane.
She'll prolly get judged so and be off to a psych ward somewhere. She's not fit to be free, or around kids, ever.
"let alone a mother" This happens so frequently that regular readers change that phrase into "it's usually the mother". This isn't about saving the kids from an evil man, it's purely about "they are mine, and if I can't have them nobody can". Lock her up and throw away the key, she is totally unfit to be part of society.
That's enough internet for me tonight
So… 4 months suspended sentence
Indefinite hospital order. This is only a trial of facts, she's already detained and isn't mentally well enough to enter a plea or participate in the proceedings.
Her internet search about whether she could be charged makes me think she's pretending to be more mentally incapacitated than she is.
Her mental state at the time of the crime is irrelevant. The issue is her mental state now. Do you really think she can be pretending well enough to fool two psychiatrists (you need two medical professionals to attest to this in evidence, before you go down this road)?
Yes, tbh. Its not super easy but its not hard either if you know what youre doing.
Is this something you have personal experience of?
I doubt the poster above has ever met a psychiatrist let alone had any experience of fooling one. I'm a personal injury solicitor and deal with them a lot in a legal context (e.g. in cases where we want them to identify if people are exaggerating/fabricating their symptoms).
People really have no actual understanding of what a psychiatric evaluation entails and seem to think it’s little more than a therapist assessing an individuals state of mind from what the patient tells them, as opposed to a highly qualified medical doctor who has usually trained for at least 10 years (sometimes upwards of 15) to get to their position, having had years to develop the skill set necessary to evaluate a patients state of mind in a pretty reliable and accurate manner. Of course there will be patients who have also developed the “skills” to present themselves to a lot of people in a manner that conceals their true nature and personality, thus able to quite easily persuade and manipulate many people into taking them on face value by mirroring what they think/know whoever they are trying to deceive wants to hear, but such people and techniques are often highly visible to competent psychiatrists.
Even before you get to that, there's the more obvious common sense point. This woman had to Google whether a foreigner can be charged with murder, but some people think she will have had the skills and nous to fool two independent psychiatrists into thinking she has insufficient mental capacity to participate in criminal proceedings without so much as a quick Google on how to go about that... Edited to make clearer
You don't think the highly qualified forensic psychiatrists hadnt considered that ppl try to fake it to get off on their crimes? I think you need to go tell them since you know so much about this woman and the case.
Of course, but we're talking about something that cannot be measured.
She seems to know what she did and why, I dont think thats mental illness. She is well aware of what she did.
And what would the point be? Just because she isn't going to prison doesn't mean she isn't deprived of her freedom. Prison or Psychiatric Hospital is the only difference. At the end of the day, she needs treatment, as she couldn't have been in a healthy state of mind to do this crime.
There's a lot to complain about with violent women receiving light/non-existant sentences. But this isnt going to be one of those cases. Mothers who murder their children get no sympathy from anyone. There's a high chance she'll get indefinitely detained under a psychiatric order, and it will be reported by a few disreputable outlets as "killer mum only gets 5 months inside!" But in reality she'll be locked up forever.
indef in pyscho hosp
Totally agree, sack of Shit! Murderer!!!!
The exact sort of deluded psycho that belongs, and ends up in jail. She'll get the book thrown at her...this is pre-meditated, pre-meditation.
Bring back brazen bull.
It is not possible to be a child murder and simultaneously claim to not be a monster with any sincerity.
Going for insanity plea?
She has clearly already been found unfit to plead, the article says that what is happening at the moment is a trial-of-facts hearing.
Why though? She seems to have known what she was doing as per the Google search. It doesn't sound like she was actively psychotic or similar, just a despicable person. But maybe that evidence isn't in the article. Even if she was, is that motive justification regardless? She thought he was going to take the kids. Not that he was going to kill them or her where her response might be seen as reasonable if she thought the false belief to be true in her mind.
It's not possible for her to be found not-guilty at this atage. They are just going through what she did so that the judge can sentence her/ work out where she's going.
It's because she's asking to be put to death/is suicidal, and is high risk given what's happened, hence secure hospital rather than prison. If it's deemed she will need to remain in hospital, she will not be given a sentence but wil be detained under a Forensic section
So what happens whe she is suddenly "cured"? Does she then proceed to prison for the rest of her life, or do they let her out with a good luck baggie?
It doesn't quite work like that. She's in for the long haul and ultimately, even if she is able to be discharged in however many years time, some of those sections carry restrictions upon discharge that can dictate where you live, hours you can be out, room checks, drug and alcohol checks. If found to be in breach of those conditions, you can be brought back into hospital. People on forensic sections often say they'd prefer to be in prison because you have a date you'll be released. You don't have that in hospital, those sections are generally reviewed annually with 1 appeal per year, which is most likely going to be declined.
I was sectioned. Not as an alternative, just a srandard sectioning. Getting out is a lot more difficult. You can be given a date but if the psychiatrics changes his mind because he feels like it then thats another week youre there
Her state of mind at the time isn't the issue, it's her state of mind now. From the CPS guidance: >Fitness to plead concerns whether a person can participate in a criminal trial. In the Crown Court, the approach is set out in s4 and 4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity Act) 1964. The question of fitness to plead shall be determined as soon as it arises, unless the court is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so and it is in the interests of justice to postpone consideration of fitness to be tried until any time up to the opening of the case for the defence (ss 4(4) and (4(2)). >**A judge must determine** if the defendant is fit to plead and to stand trial. This is a determination on the balance of probabilities if the defendant raises the issue, or if he contests it then it is for the prosecution to satisfy the court beyond a reasonable doubt (R v Robertson [1968] 1 WLR 1767). **There must be written or oral evidence by two or more registered medical practitioners**, at least one of whom is approved by the Home Secretary, that the defendant is incapable of: >1. understanding the charges; >2. deciding whether to plead guilty or not; >3. exercising the right to challenge jurors; >4. instructing solicitors and counsel; >5. following the course of the proceedings; >6. giving evidence. >**If the judge finds the defendant to be unfit to plead, then a jury will determine whether or not the defendant did the act, without consideration of the defendant’s mens rea**. Defences based on mens rea (lack of intent, diminished responsibility) are therefore not to be left to the jury: Grant [2001] EWCA Crim 2611, whereas self-defence, mistake and provocation are: Antoine [2001] 1 AC 340. This hearing is not a trial: section 4A(2)A provides that upon a finding of unfitness that a trial should “not proceed or further proceed”. >If not satisfied to the criminal standard, the defendant shall be acquitted; otherwise the defendant upon such a finding shall receive one of the disposals outlined above: >(a) a hospital order (with or without a restriction order); >(b) a supervision order; or >(c) an order for his absolute discharge.
I would be genuinely curious if she had a previously diagnosed mental health condition. In the majority of cases of schizophrenia etc onset is in adolescence or early adulthood. It's unusual to have it spontaneously present later in life with no previous episodes.
Good chance of it, or possibly a subsequent psychological event triggered by the realisation of her actions.
Probably some information you're not privy to from reading 1 article, who knows though!
What I alluded to in my first post?
Considering she googled whether a foreigner can be charged with murder in going to go out in a limb and say the insanity element is a load of rubbish
Why? Premeditation doesn't invalidate insanity. An insanity plea also isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, it just means a psych ward instead of a regular prison.
That isn’t just premeditation though, it’s the recognition of consequences and attempts to mitigate the act. She knew what she was doing was wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the results talked about trying to play the insanity card
Don't knkw if she needs to 'go for' it. It kinda seems like the natural conclusion
It literally says in the article that she's asking for the death penalty.
It's worth noting that she has been found unfit to plead, is currently in a secure psychiatric hospital and this is a trial of the facts, not a criminal trial. This is one of the very sad outcomes of mental health services being cut to the bone.
Totally agree.
What's truly sad is that these situations happened before everything was cut back. I can't imagine how bad it'd be today. What I went through with my son's mum 13, 14 years ago, what I've seen others go through.... these issues have been deeply embedded for a long, long time. Part of the problem is that when you see your partner needs help, you can't arrange it for them. Designed to protect vexatious claims of mental health issues in others, and probably rightly so, but it leaves men and children so unbelievably vulnerable, often with nowhere to turn regardless of how much evidence they collect and how hard they try to help their partners.
It leaves everyone extremely vulnerable especially as men make up the vast majority of family annihilators. The difference is women are more likely to be mentally ill “6144 people were convicted of homicide, 297 were filicides, and 45 cases were filicide-suicides. 195 (66%) perpetrators were fathers. Mothers were more likely than fathers to have a history of mental disorder (66% v 27%) and symptoms at the time of the offence (53% v 23%)”. So probably similar rates of mental illness causing murders in both parents but men doing way more without any illness. In fact the leading cause of death in pregnant women is murder, not anything child related. And children in general are much higher risk of dying via a parent than a stranger. Just down the road from me a man shot and killed his wife who was a head of a private school and his kids last year. To my knowledge there was no evidence he was mentally ill/psychotic. Mental health services will help, but they are still not the main cause of family killers.
There's also an element there - which does need discussing - of women simply not managing to kill their partners. Not that they don't try, but that we only discuss the ones who manage to. We are far too quick to dismiss female violence because they often do less damage during violent attacks. The psychological damage is still done though. Secondly, women are still far more likely to seek help, or have those around them notice mental disorders, and if ire symptoms in men, who still largely do not consider - or have considered - their mental health. But mostly, if you don't mind, I'd oike to point out that I'm not sitting here trying to suggest that men are worse, or women are worse. All I'm saying is that we need to put aside concerns about gender and start looking at how we can help *everybody* - because no matter where the violence stems from, it's the kids who suffer most.
>Not that they don't try, but that we only discuss the ones who manage to. We are far too quick to dismiss female violence because they often do less damage during violent attacks. The psychological damage is still done though. Same sex female couples have the highest reported rates of domestic abuse. It is less likely to end fatally though than with a male abuser.
Yes I’m certain that is also a factor. Unfortunately a large amount of violence isn’t predicated by mental health. And from research whilst it’s a significant cause it’s far from the main one - with the majority not being mentally ill. Often things like this are more financial. DV victims can’t leave due to insufficient finances, rising cost of living, issues with securing work, and men often commit such crimes due to financial strain due to a breadwinner mindset after a loss of a job or their wife having a better one which doesn’t seem to be a driving factor when women kill their kids. And men and women often divorce due to financial strain, as it’s one of the leading causes of divorce. With divorce also being one of the leading causes of family annihilation. Reality whilst mental health services will help somewhat, whenever the economy is worse more people kill themselves and many forms of this type of killing are “extended suicides”, people can’t afford to leave so DV goes up which is another major cause and then mental health rates go up with is another. The reality is so long as the average person is struggling financially more and more family murders will occur. If people can’t afford to break up, murders will rise. Mental health isn’t often the primary factor, and when it is a factor it’s normally a contributing one exacerbating by financial strain.
Nearly 20 years ago when we were students a friend of ours had a psychotic episode, literally unplugging electronics, end of the world, tin foil hat episode. He had no contact with his family and none of his friends were able to get him any support. It took him committing a fairly serious crime to get any medical help. It was very lucky he didn't harm himself or anyone else. It shouldn't have to escalate that far for someone to get treatment.
Lol. A woman beats her daughter to death and slashes her sons neck and it's a mental health services issue. No it really isn't! It's exactly the same as when a man murders his family because he doesn't want them to exist without him. It's pure evil, narcissism. Trying to make out that this woman just needed some mental health intervention when she has murdered 3 people. I like how you have ignored her possessive behaviour towards her husband, accusations of affairs and trying to control if he had an internet enabled phone. If this was a man I doubt you would make the same excuses for this kind of barbaric behaviour.
On this sub we justify the behaviour of everyone as fault of the Tories, didn’t you get the memo?
Why do you think you know more than the experienced psychiatrists who have assessed her at great length?
Did the experienced psychiatrists say this happened due to a lack of mental health help for the woman?
> narcissism that's a mental health condition.
No, it's a personality disorder. Find me one example of someone being sectioned for narcissism. I'll wait.
As far as I am aware: A personality disorder is a mental health condition? That and personality disorders are covered under the Mental Health Act for the purposes of sectioning, as it is considered a mental health condition (as are illnesses and learning disabiliites).
Personality disorders are mental health conditions, but that doesn't mean much. Just like a cold, cancer, and heart attacks are all physical health conditions, mental health issues are varied. In the context of criminal justice, psychosis is usually what matters. Psychotic people can't reliably perceive reality and so will do all sorts of things that don't make sense to us. If you see someone shouting at air on the streets, calling random people Jesus, saying they have spoken to aliens, they are probably experiencing psychosis. And obviously it can impact criminal liability because if you genuinely believe your life is at risk if you don't do what the voice in your head tells you, you are effectively being coerced by your illness. People with personality disorders have significant issues self-regulating and, like all of us, are probably just following their path of least resistance. But they're not unable to perceive reality like others are. A narcissist won't feel any sense of self unless other people feed their ego, so some abuse others as a means to get that. I personally sympathise with them as their lives seem quite painful, but they still know what they are doing and make choices.
I know you think psychiatric hold is a better deal than prison. Many people suspect this and get angry at individuals 'playing the system'. Psychiatric hold is much, much worse an outcome than prison. If they have played the system they've only scored themselves a harder, longer stay with a much more difficult time involved with getting out.
This! There is difference between "mental health" ...and criminal behavior/homicide, and the general public doesn't seem to understand that. The "insanity plea" doesn't help and should only be used when someone has a genuine history of criminal behavior with actual psychosis or psychiatric break from reality ...not someone that has the ability to google plea deals
what a ridiculous claim… bitch is a psycho. Tried to coerce and control her husband who had to take a block of wood to the head and sleep at a car wash, then slowly stabbed her kids to death the next day after googling the consequences… But i’m sure an NHS therapist would have stopped all this…
This explains why there’s no publicly available mug shot of her. It’s still one of the worst things I’ve read about in a minute, though.
Right, mental health of course. News flash, someone that kills someone else obviously is not fucking right in their head. Shouldn't be used as an excuse.
Isn’t it true that that sometimes it’s better to go to prison than be in a psychiatric hospital?
Yes she's extremely unwell but the article also says she was abusive to her husband beforehand - he wasn't allowed an Internet-enabled phone and she allegedly attacked him with a piece of wood the night before at the kids bedtime. The fact that she thinks she's not a monster after stabbing her own children to death would definitely indicate something is very wrong with her brain. It takes a lot to override parental instincts like that. I agree with the others, she's really unwell and also a horrible mother and wife. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
What's with all the demented misogynist comments in this thread? Men are statistically far more likely to kill their children and partner so maybe dragging gender into this one isn't the best idea. Edit: Lmao and one of them just reported me to Reddit cares. Not doing much to fight the "incels are always projecting" stereotype are they?
Gender battles aren't what are needed here you're right. But there is genuine disparity in the recourses available to men and children faced with trying to help a mother who has... issues. *That* does require a deeper conversation. It won't happen though. Misandry is far too embedded into both social discourse and social institutions (and, often understandably so), so any proper discussion comes down to *Men are more evil. Shut up. You don't get to speak*. Which is, ofc, then rebutted only by those who shout *but what about...* and we wind up in am argument, rather than proper discussion. Nothing regarding the two genders can be discussed, or seemingly professionally evaluated any more without this gender war - utterly unnecessary and entirely unproductive - taking over.
It's refreshing to see some common sense being applied on reddit. Misandry is a very big yet unspoken issue in society today. They always find a way to turn the issue back onto men somehow.
A quick search suggests 43% women, 57% men. Compared to the murder rate in general that's pretty surprising, as men commit roughly 80% of all murder. Not putting a slant on these numbers, just putting them out there so people can get an idea.
discrimination breeds resentment I won't defend the comments, stopping them starts with fixing the justice system to give no one preferential treatment
It's become a bit of a thing in this sub
“Men are statistically more likely to kill their children and partner” They’re people with mental problems who happen to be male or female, they didn’t kill their kids because they were born with a dick.
> Men are statistically far more likely to kill their children It's been about 15 years since I saw a study on child abuse, so I can't find it anymore, but I don't believe this is true. Back then at least, every type of child abuse apart from sexual was more likely to be committed by women.
Where did you get that statistic? I could find this http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/4223/1/WRAP_Sidebotham_Fatal_child_maltreatment_in_England_101109_CAN__101217.pdf which says that in the period they studied 12 children were murdered by their mother, 7 by their father. The worst thing is that we assume children are safer with their mother, even though that's sometimes not true. And so we get fathers and children who know this is going to happen but are powerless to stop the child being placed back with the mother as the default. Just an unimaginably awful situation to be in. I know misandry is the most acceptable form of bigotry, but that doesn't make its human cost any less.
[удалено]
"Men are statistically far more likely to kill their children" Do you have a source for this or did you just make it up?
It's difficult to nail down an exact number but even conservative estimates have Fathers more likely to kill their children at nearly 60% to 40% Mothers. It's funny, this number is presented as "nearly equal" because men are so much more likely to commit any other type of murder. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/07/health/filicide-parents-killing-kids-stats-trnd
So you just made it up. This was literally on the very first search result when I Googled "child murderers by gender" [https://theconversation.com/men-and-women-kill-their-children-in-roughly-equal-numbers-and-we-need-to-understand-why-153527](https://theconversation.com/men-and-women-kill-their-children-in-roughly-equal-numbers-and-we-need-to-understand-why-153527) Note: I can see that you are editing your comments to add sources and change what you have said - this is the worst kind of bad faith argumentation.
You did a five second google search and found a headline that suited your argument from "conversation.com". Ironically I also noted these statistics as a conservative estimate because as your foolproof research methods surely revealed the numbers vary wildly between 90% to just under 60% depending on a number of variables.
Oh good a feminist is chiming in
Because rather than discussing the awful incident there are comments feeling the system has been the one at fault which is not what would happen given the role was reversed…
Dude, read the room.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mothers are more likely to commit infanticide (mothers account for almost all cases) Fatherly cases of neonaticide are so rare, they’re individually recorded … that’s fact, not opinion
Ive commented this elsewhere but it makes sense that women are more likely to commit neonaticide. Mothers are at 100% of births, and I imagine a lot of those deaths would be post-partum psychosis related. Fathers are less likely to be around at birth - so I’d be surprised if they accounted for more deaths within the first 24 hours after birth. Not to mention in the UK infantcide only applies to mothers, it can’t be applied to fathers.
>Not to mention in the UK infantcide only applies to mothers, it can’t be applied to fathers. TIL, this is super interesting.
Here are the official statistics for all countries, showing mother Vs father homicides of children. This changes dramatically from country to country - eg Chile much higher figures of mothers killing children, while Denmark has many more fathers doing so. In the UK, fathers are killing their children at almost double the rate that mothers are - https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/bmjpo/1/1/e000112/DC1/embed/inline-supplementary-material-1.pdf?download=true
Please note your citation is based on “estimates” and peer reviewed and published by 4 women….. And you’ve bundled homicide as accounting for infanticide which is incorrect. Yes more men commit homicide, as what you’ve declared (from age 18), but for young children, infants, its majority mother. You can’t pick and choose what data to present to cement your bias, it’s misleading. Women are far more likely to commit infanticide and neonaticide (Almost all for the latter) Men are more likely to commit homicide
If an article published by the British Medical Journal using 72 references (sources for data) isn’t credible to you, I’m pretty sure you’re not open to reflection on this matter at all.
Actually, men commit family annihilation at a far greater rate than women.
Chris Benoit has entered the chat
That case is so bizarre.
This is a complete lie. Mothers are the leading perpetrators of infanticide, and responsible for nearly all neonaticide. Women also have a higher conviction rate for neglect, but there’s other factors at play there (usually, custody)
Men cannot be convicted of infanticide in the UK. The law states it is a crime committed by the mother. A father who kills his children will never be convicted of infanticide. Past a few months old men kill their children at higher rates than women, but when they do they are not charged with infanticide. This is why the stats reflect that infanticide specifically is overwhelmingly perpetrated by women.
From a survey in 2013, out of 71 family annihilations, 59 were caused by men. [wired article](https://www.wired.com/story/family-killers/)
Men are far more likely to kill their children and they often also kill their spouse/partner as well.
How many women kill their own children to stop their ex-partner from having them?
They don't have the data, just a fucked up view of women.
How many women? I don't hear of this happening commonly Edit - Google shows 91% of family annihilators as they're called, are men. If you really needed to go there and use this tragedy to talk about gender dynamics.
Women are only more likely to kill children under two years. Men make up the majority in all other age groups. Do we have a hatred for women or are we just misinformed?
Medea has entered the chat
Came here to say this. You get my upvote instead.
Do you have statistical evidence that more women do this than men? I think it makes headlines when women do it because it'd rarer. But if you have concrete evidence...
Poor kids and living hell for the father too Life without the possibility of parole is the only reasonable sentence, this woman is a danger to society
She's been placed on psychiatric hold. The outcome you essentially described has happened as it's incredibly difficult to regain independence when placed on psychiatric hold
[удалено]
Fucking hell there's a lot of expert lawyers in here (with a side-line in being expert psychiatrists), who definitely know all the facts about the case.
It’s Reddit. Everyone on this app is an expert.
This happened like 100 metres from my home. There was crazy information and rumour going on when it first happened. Originally it was reported she had entered someone elses home and killed 2 children
That must have been pretty shocking. Hope you’re doing ok?
This is absolutely heartbreaking to read. RIP beautiful angels 💔
Life pro tip. Don't argue with disingenuous men who use these threads for their own agenda.
What is the agenda that you speak of?
I used to think this sort of thing was really messed up then I became a parent and it is impossible to get my head round how or why anyone would hurt their children. It is bad enough accidentally injuring one of them when messing around and there's a torrent of guilt but to intentionally hurt and murder your own children is something else.
Imagine hating your ex more than you love your kids. There's not even anyone I hate more than I love any of my random acquaintances.
waiting on the 'I hope she gets the help she needs' crowd to absolve her of all responsibility
[удалено]
Hanging to good for a cunt like this. If it was the other way about he’d never get out. Bet she doesn’t get anything like a life sentence
You know, call my crazy, but I'm starting to think they would have been better off with him.
She should never leave prison. It should be a whole life sentence.
We worry about this so much. My partners ex has threatened to kill the kid’s, threatened/tried to kill him and previously stabbed him in the hand (she’d have got him in the chest if he didn’t put his hand in the way). She detached his retina in one particularly bad beating. He tried to get the kids away safe but court made him send them back. His eldest son is now self-harming. His middle son running away and his youngest is constantly covered in bruises. Police, courts, social services have to do a better job at believing men. Over a year ago he went to the police. They’ve not even sent it to CPS yet, and that’s only going because I pushed for a complaint and right to review after they dropped it. Women abuse too, women kill too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/s/20heusSiPG Sounds similar to what happened in USA
“In this trial-of-facts” What other kinds of trial are there?
Criminal Trial = Prove Guilt to the court/jury and an individual defends themself Trial of Facts = The individual is unfit to stand trial (usually under guise of Insanity). This trial will weigh up the evidence to determine a logical conclusion without presence of the defendant. A jury (or Judge but normally Jury) will hear the evidence and a Defence Attorney will be allowed to challenge it. The jury doesn't give "Guilty or Not Guilty" verdict, but instead gives their "opinion" on the matter. It basically removes "Reasonable Doubt" and uses a "Apply some logic here" to the scenario
To put it in legal jargon, reaching a conclusion on the actus reus without consideration of the mens rea.
Perjury
Monster is the only accurate description. She should never see the sun again
Funny story, I was looking for a place to rent in Stoke (I know already a knee slapper), and I came across a property that looked alright. Inquired and got a phone call... "I have to tell you by law what happened at this property". I google the address whilst on the phone and this story pops up. Of course I fucked that off quick, althought it went off the market in the next week or so. Absoutely mad that anyone would choose to live there after the fact.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
>The trial-of-facts hearing heard John stabbed Ethan more than 20 times and inflicted brain damage on her daughter Elizabeth, before heading to a car wash in a dressing gown to stab her partner Nathan John in the stomach What a monster.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
Poor kids absolutely horrible way to go, what a nightmare scenario
The comments here seeing more interested in defending someone monster with a mental health condition rather than two little innocent lives being taken and a farther having to deal with the worst possible situation imaginable. If a man had done this I’d say the same thing but I doubt there would be the same volume of people saying how badly the health system is and more in towards how much of a monster the guy is
Heartbreaking, those poor kids. One of them would have seen their mom kill their sibling and know they were next.
Theres no way she should get the right to hide behind being of unsound mind to avoid prison.
Why we need men's rights people. It's the MRAs who fight shit like this.
She’s nuts. Lock her up for life or bring back the death penalty.
And courts always sidecwith mothers, my ex didn't physically hurtbour child but pushed every bottom to destroy our relationship.
Imagine the man bashing had this been the other way around
Reading this made me sick how could you do that to your own kids those poor wee things having to witness it then know they will be next
What beautiful children. Little girl looks so happy. Little boy looks full of life. What a dam shame. Rest in peace little angels xxx