Monday, October 23, 2006

Mad Female Child Killer Walks Free (yet again)

Danielle Wails, a young mother from Newcastle, was convicted of infanticide and walked free today. If you also follow the other link on the page, 'False trail after baby fire death', you start to get the picture.

Wails was the mother of a four month old baby, Alexander. She was estranged from the baby's father, Robert Gallon, who apparently "did not live with Ms Wails, but played an active part in his son's life". Wails wanted him back. She obviously believes in the grand romantic gesture.

She set fire to her own house, apparently in an effort to gain Gallon's attention. The baby was burned alive. The BBC stated on TV that 'the 999 call, with the baby screaming in the background, was so distressing it could not be played to the court'.

What kind of kangaroo court is this? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. There is important evidence in this case, but we're not going to play it to you in case it upsets you. We don't want you to have nightmares, you poor little things". Could it be that, had the court heard the recording, they would have locked her up? We couldn't have that now, could we?

But it gets worse. Much worse. She explained the fire by telling the police that 'two men' had broken into the house, tied her up with the telephone cord, and set the house on fire. A massive police search was launched to find the two masked intruders.

After Alexander's death, she then proceeded to bombard Gallon and his family with phone calls and texts in an effort to effect a reconciliation. Paul Sloan QC, prosecuting, said: "There were many other false claims. It would seem that the underlying purpose behind these false claims was to win back her partner's sympathies and support."

The police and fire brigade noticed early on that her story didn't add up. She was eventually charged with murder, but pleaded guilty to infanticide.

Can you imagine if the police had believed her and convicted two random local men for the murder? Do you think she would have owned up?

"An independent review into Alexander's death concluded that his mother's behaviour was unpredictable and his death could not have been prevented."

So the social workers have covered their arses then. No-one's directly to blame. However, the report's author - social care expert Catherine Weightman - found a series of shortcomings by the agencies involved with the family and has made a number of recommendations which must be implemented.

It seems these vague, ill-defined, institutional failures have provided the justification for Wails to walk: "Wails was given a three-year community order with a period of supervision".

Is it just me, or does that seem surprising to you? This woman is a child killer, an arsonist, a serial liar, and a stalker, who wasted police time, and put the human rights of local men in danger. And the court set her free because she was apparently depressed at the time. Awww, poor dear.

If she committed these actions as a result of mental illness, shouldn't she be in a secure psychiatric hospital? She is obviously a danger to herself and others. The judge has left her free to walk the streets.

Can you imagine what the outcome would have been if Gallon had done this instead of Wails? He would be in Broadmoor for life. The tabloid press would take him apart. The grieving mother would be all over the day-time chat-show circuit for months to come.

I think there is a double-standard at work here. If a man is mentally unstable, that's a reason to lock him up. If a woman is mentally unstable, that's a reason to set her free.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So true Heretic. Yet another outraging case of double standards!

I actually leave this comment to point out something about your article. You said: "Can you imagine if the police had believed her and convicted two random local men for the murder?"
I understand the police cannot convict suspects in Britain (certainly not here in Spain), as it takes a judge to do so.

I hope this helps.
Regards.

Heretic said...

Dear anonymous, Of course you are right. It technically requires a judge (and probably a jury) to get a conviction. Perhaps I should have said 'charged'. In a case of this type, if the police have someone in the frame, the court will usually convict them. It is in everyone's interest to get closure. Socially marginalised men do the time.

Anonymous said...

as being the sister of a baby killer i truly understand all comments made against her. i have a child myself and i admit it is hard wen u have ur first but not to an extent where you would kill ur baby. i think its wrong that she got away with it she should of been punished. what about justice for poor alexander ,he didnt stand a chance poor little soul. i will never be able to forgive her ever, she has to live with what shes done for the rest of her life. as for going out on a drinking binge thats sick shes got let off and hit the drink to celebrate i dont no how she dared after what shes done. if it was his father who killed him he would have got jail instantly so why let a woman free. what evers gonna happen next? my heart will always be with my dear cousin.