Hope to Die

However, it must be noted that while she did not see either a doctor or midwife during any of the pregnancies, and behaved in ways which she must have known would put the unborn children at risk (regular and fairly heavy drinking, playing contact sports), she did appear perfectly capable of thinking rationally about her situation and acting accordingly as soon as labour began. In the case of the missing child, she travelled immediately to a maternity unit, and presented herself in plenty of time – indeed, her behaviour at this point was so prompt and decisive one can only conclude she had researched which hospital she intended to attend some time before, though the subject herself would not be drawn on this. By contrast, women suffering genuine ‘pregnancy denial’ often fail/refuse to recognise the onset of labour and as a result give birth in traumatic circumstances, such as in bathrooms or lavatories. Likewise, unlike most such women, the subject appears to have had no problem establishing a basic bond with all the children immediately after the birth (both the two she had adopted and the one she is alleged to have killed), with nursing staff attesting to the fact that she held them and breastfed them in the normal way.

I was particularly intrigued to learn that the subject and her two closest friends were known at school as the ‘chameleon girls’. Even though this was clearly the result of nothing more than an accidental combination of Christian names, the subject does indeed appear to have developed a form of psychological ‘cryptic colouration’, adapting her self-presentation to what she believes other people want of her: the Dutiful Daughter, the Good Sport, the Fun Friend, or, in the context of my interaction with her, the Compliant Interviewee. I also noted her adopting some of my own mannerisms as the interview progressed, possibly in a subconscious attempt to ‘please’ me. Though it should be noted that there is also research suggesting that people are more likely to use mimicry of this kind – again, usually unconsciously – when telling complex untruths.

The only time the subject became distressed was when questioned about the events leading to the disappearance of her second child. She vehemently denied harming the baby in any way, and insisted that as far as she is concerned the child is safe and happy with its biological father. When pressed on the subject of the lies she told the police, and entered on a series of official documents (some 36 in all) she became evasive, looking around the room and failing to maintain eye contact. I was interested, but not surprised, that she also lied at least five times to my knowledge during the course of the three interviews; when challenged on some of these she merely changed the subject. I also raised the issue of the false address she gave at the time of the first birth, suggesting that choosing an anagram of her own name and the number 13 gave the message – whether consciously or not – that she was ‘mixed-up’ and ‘unlucky’. She replied merely that ‘it hadn’t occurred to her’ and she was ‘no good at crosswords or stuff like that’, a comment which is likewise patently untrue.

Summary

The subject proved extremely hard to assess. She is not mentally ill (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983), she is not a psychopath, she is not a narcissist, and she is not delusional; and while she lies repeatedly, and is clearly comfortable doing so, I am not convinced she is a ‘pathological’ liar. I believe there may be a degree of psychological ‘segmentation’ at play, but certainly not to the extent of schizophrenia or Dissociative Identity Disorder (previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder). Many normally functioning people compartmentalise their lives, whether out of fear, self-interest, convenience, or in the interests of privacy; the subject merely does so to an unusually high degree.