GUILTY UK - Katie Rough, 7, killed by teen, Woodthorpe, York, 10 Jan 2017

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
The girl who killed tragic seven-year-old Katie Rough has been given the child equivalent of a life sentence.

The girl, now 16, was sentenced to detention for life by Mr Justice Soole at Leeds Crown Court today and was told she will serve a minimum of five years.

The judge said: "The utter tragedy and devastation of all this needs no emphasis.

"In this truly exceptional case I have concluded that it is necessary to impose a sentence of detention for life."

The case had been adjourned for three months while psychiatrists investigated whether she could be treated if she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and they reported back that they did not think she could be.

Her barrister Nicholas Johnson QC said: “We submit that she was fundamentally driven to this killing by her mental disorder.”

Psychiatrists cannot agree what she is suffering from but do agree that she is mentally disturbed.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15682358.Katie_Rough_s_killer_sentenced_to__detention_for_life_/

:gaah:
 
What a sad and horrific case this has been. I wonder what happened to cause “the girl” to change so drastically.

Thanks to all of you who posted articles/links about the sentencing. Reading through the events of that day, and the behaviors in the past year preceding for the older girl, I have no idea how the parents can handle all this.

To me, this is just sad in so many ways. Could not the mental health help she seems to have been having have foreseen something this horrible as a possibility. or was she able to keep most of that from everyone? I wish I could understand ...
 
The girl who killed tragic seven-year-old Katie Rough has been given the child equivalent of a life sentence.

The girl, now 16, was sentenced to detention for life by Mr Justice Soole at Leeds Crown Court today and was told she will serve a minimum of five years.

The judge said: "The utter tragedy and devastation of all this needs no emphasis.

"In this truly exceptional case I have concluded that it is necessary to impose a sentence of detention for life."

The case had been adjourned for three months while psychiatrists investigated whether she could be treated if she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and they reported back that they did not think she could be.

Her barrister Nicholas Johnson QC said: “We submit that she was fundamentally driven to this killing by her mental disorder.”

Psychiatrists cannot agree what she is suffering from but do agree that she is mentally disturbed.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15682358.Katie_Rough_s_killer_sentenced_to__detention_for_life_/

:gaah:
So she's going to receive no mental health treatment because they think it won't work? Wow.

I think she needs to be named, I know the family probably don't want that but society needs to be protected from people like her.
 
Nicholas Johnson QC, said... his client had been telling people of “delusional and bizarre thoughts” for many months before the killing, including the “genuine belief in her head that her family and many others were not human and may be controlled by a higher and hostile force”...

On Friday, the court heard that experts could not agree a diagnosis of the girl’s mental disorder, nor decide how long it would take before she could no longer be considered a danger. The judge was told this was because she had failed to engage with doctors...

Psychiatrists have explored whether she was suffering from a depressive disorder and there has also been a concern she was suffering from an emerging schizo-type personality disorder.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...irl-gets-life-for-manslaughter-of-katie-rough
 
This reminds me of another case that I read about. Jeremiah Wright in the USA killed his disabled son, Jori Lirette, because he became convinced that the boy was a CPR dummy or a robot and not a human being. He still holds that delusion to this day.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-decapitated-Thibodaux-14-Aug-2011-*Insanity*

"Psychiatrist Sarah DeLand and psychologist Robert Storer testified that Wright thought his son was really a government social experiment and told them: 'I don't believe they can do anything to me because it wasn't a real person. His skull was made of plastic. He had foam in him.'"
He thought the the government had put the dummy into his home as part of an experiment.

The girl who killed Katie might be refusing to co-operate with the psychiatrists because she thinks they are robots and part of some conspiracy to harm her.
 
So she's going to receive no mental health treatment because they think it won't work? Wow.

I think she needs to be named, I know the family probably don't want that but society needs to be protected from people like her.

Isn't it by law that she can't be named? I'm not sure.

I don't understand the not treating her part. It's confusing.

"The case had been adjourned for three months while psychiatrists investigated whether she could be treated if she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and they reported back that they did not think she could be."

Then goes on to say:

"Psychiatrists cannot agree what she is suffering from but do agree that she is mentally disturbed."



They say she is mental disturbed yet they don't think she can be treated? Or is it that she can't be treated ONLY if she's sectioned under the Mental Health Act? Not sure what "sectioned" means in this case...hospitalized and not jailed, perhaps?
 
So she's going to receive no mental health treatment because they think it won't work? Wow.

I think she needs to be named, I know the family probably don't want that but society needs to be protected from people like her.

she's locked away. naming her won't make any difference, besides,the whole of the UK know who she is and what her name is anyway
 
she's locked away. naming her won't make any difference, besides,the whole of the UK know who she is and what her name is anyway

‘Tis true and I am heartbroken. For some reason, I find myself feeling anguish of the parents, torn between so many thoughts most likely.

I do not understand why treatment would not be helpful. Whatever can go so wrong in a year that one is beyond help? While I would not want her free I would hope she gets decent care and hep for her mental state. Will she have visitors, will she be always alone, will she make friends, can she improve? So many questions in my mind still.

:tears:
 
things can go wrong as the teenage brain develops....its quite complex i'm told! hence teens going off the rails a bit

as she moves to adulthood i hope she can find a way to speak about whats happened, and maybe salvage something of her life
 
Isn't it by law that she can't be named? I'm not sure.

I don't understand the not treating her part. It's confusing.

"The case had been adjourned for three months while psychiatrists investigated whether she could be treated if she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and they reported back that they did not think she could be."

Then goes on to say:

"Psychiatrists cannot agree what she is suffering from but do agree that she is mentally disturbed."



They say she is mental disturbed yet they don't think she can be treated? Or is it that she can't be treated ONLY if she's sectioned under the Mental Health Act? Not sure what "sectioned" means in this case...hospitalized and not jailed, perhaps?

Sectioned means being hospitalised against one's will, as opposed to voluntarily signing yourself into a psychiatric hospital. They may have been looking into forcibly medicating her since she won't cooperate with them.

If she's suffering from a mood disorder or a psychotic illness then medicating her against her will might make her lucid again. Or it may not, as the medications don't work for everyone and fixed delusions can be particularly stubborn and resistant to medication.
Or, she may have a personality disorder rather than (or as well as) a mental illness, in which case medication is unlikely to help her.

JMO.
 
Schizotypal personality disorder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disorder

Not sure whether the nine criteria mentioned above are ICD-10 or DSM-V. Both appear to have nine criteria:

DSM-5

In the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5, schizotypal personality disorder is defined as a "pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts."[2]

At least five of the following symptoms must be present: ideas of reference, strange beliefs or magical thinking, abnormal perceptual experiences, strange thinking and speech, paranoia, inappropriate or constricted affect, strange behavior or appearance, lack of close friends, and excessive social anxiety that does not abate and stems from paranoia rather than negative judgments about self. These symptoms must not occur only during the course of a disorder with similar symptoms (such as schizophrenia or autism spectrum disorder).[2]

ICD-10

The World Health Organization's ICD-10 uses the name schizotypal disorder (F21). It is classified as a clinical disorder associated with schizophrenia, rather than a personality disorder as in DSM-5.[20]

The ICD definition is:

A disorder characterized by eccentric behavior and anomalies of thinking and affect which resemble those seen in schizophrenia, though no definite and characteristic schizophrenic anomalies have occurred at any stage. There is no dominant or typical disturbance, but any of the following may be present:

  • Inappropriate or constricted affect (the individual appears cold and aloof);
  • Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric or peculiar;
  • Poor rapport with others and a tendency to withdraw socially;
  • Odd beliefs or magical thinking, influencing behavior and inconsistent with subcultural norms;
  • Suspiciousness or paranoid ideas;
  • Obsessive ruminations without inner resistance;
  • Unusual perceptual experiences including somatosensory (bodily) or other illusions, depersonalization or derealization;
  • Vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, over-elaborate or stereotyped thinking, manifested by odd speech or in other ways, without gross incoherence;
  • Occasional transient quasi-psychotic episodes with intense illusions, auditory or other hallucinations and delusion-like ideas, usually occurring without external provocation.

The disorder runs a chronic course with fluctuations of intensity. Occasionally it evolves into overt schizophrenia. There is no definite onset and its evolution and course are usually those of a personality disorder. It is more common in individuals related to people with schizophrenia and is believed to be part of the genetic "spectrum" of schizophrenia.
 
It refers to several sections (usually ss2-4) of the Mental Health Act 1983 which allow a person to be hospitalised against their will for investigation or treatment if they are, or are suspected to be, a danger to themselves or others due to known or suspected mental health issues.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/about-sectioning/

So, the psychiatrists stated that they didn't think she could be treated if sectioned under the Act - basically saying they feel she's untreatable. This case is heartbreaking on so many levels.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
526
Total visitors
712

Forum statistics

Threads
608,303
Messages
18,237,529
Members
234,337
Latest member
HunterJ
Back
Top