Can Someone Explain To Me Why........

[ToraToraTora]

.....this savage should ever see freedom again?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-25874635

[sandyRoe]

Mr Dunkels said it was not the crown's case that Wilson intended to kill her son but claimed she carried out "a violent act" against a "vulnerable" child.
It was a terrible thing she did but it doesn't look as though there was intent.

[jake-the-peg]

If there was no intent sandy it wouldn't have been a murder charge!

More to the point can someone explain to me why someone who already was an good mother to her older son would behave like this, appear completely detatched during interviews and still come up with a psychiatric report saying she had no disorder or illness?

[leahbee]

No it's no but's, she should be locked up for life.

[pixie373]

She wasn't a good mother to the oldest one. She consistently tried to blame him for the baby's injuries. Why would you want your child to live with that? But i agree, i have real trouble believing this woman is sane.

[FredPuli43]

Mr Dunkels said the prosecution did not believe Wilson intended to kill her son but claimed she carried out "a violent act" against a "vulnerable" child. [from the link]

Paul Dunkels QC was the lead prosecution counsel for the Crown.

If you give her a full life sentence, what do you give someone who did intend to kill the victim?

[leahbee]

Exactly the same. Both end up with the death of an innocent child.
What is the difference?

[Prudie]

If the report is to be believed this was not the first time she'd inflicted violence on him, she lied persistently about other children doing it, including a daughter that didn't even exist. The baby was in care for months after the birth and she'd also put him up for adoption. 3 months after she got him back she killed him. A very insane and evil woman, definitely carried out with intent. I can't see why should ever be freed. I don't agree with the death penalty but this woman could never be part of society.

[FredPuli43]

leahbeah, motive is always significant. This woman was convicted following the principle in DPP v Smith, that a person does not have to intend to kill to commit murder; wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to cause gbh is sufficient. Applying your reasoning, it seems to follow that every person convicted of murder must serve a full life term. Is that your position?

[leahbee]

Against children I'm afraid it is.
I really kn ow nothing about the law but in cases like this I feel that the law is an ass.

[pixie373]

I agree, leahbee. If someone else had killed him, she could have been convicted of neglect? Her job is to protect him. It wasn't a one-off, but a sustained pattern of odd behaviour.