The Case Of Mary Bell: A Portrait of a Child Who Murdered

by Gitta Sereny

  Only minutes after Mary had completed her testimony, after more than three hours in the witness box, the defense called Dr. Robert Orton. He said that he had seen Mary twice: on 16 August at the Remand Home in Croydon, and again on 14 November at the Remand Home in Seaham.

  “And you have heard at any rate some of the evidence?” asked Harvey Robson. “Particularly Mary’s evidence?”

  “I have heard the whole of Mary’s evidence.”

  “Now first of all,” said Mr. Robson, “will you tell the Court briefly to begin with what your conclusions are concerning her . . . [and] then I shall ask you how you arrived at them. Do you regard her as suffering from something?”

  “Yes,” said Dr. Orton. “I think that this girl must be regarded as suffering from psychopathic personality, which is defined as a persistent disorder or disability of the mind which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the patient and requires, or is susceptible to, medical treatment.”

  “. . . Is that the statutory definition?” the Judge asked.

  “That is the statutory definition, My Lord.”

  “What are the symptoms indicating that state of affairs?” asked Harvey Robson.

  “. . . The primary symptoms are: 1) a lack of feeling quality to other humans; 2) a liability to act on impulse and without for-thought. And then there are secondary symptoms which really derive from the above: 3) a combination of the previous two, under suitable circumstances leading to aggression; 4) a lack of shame or remorse for what has been done; 5) an inability to profit by or use experience which includes the lack of response to punishment; and 6) with the above the presence of viciousness or wish to do damage to things or persons. And then there are negative features of the condition. . . . Lack of psychoses such as schizophrenia or depression, in other words lack of mental illness and lack of intellectual deficit . . . and lastly, My Lord, lack of criminal motivations.”

  Dr. Orton’s meaning of “negative features” in this context was that the condition of psychopathy is not generally identified with mental retardation or any specific mental illness.

  “Now, Dr. Orton,” said Harvey Robson. “Did you find that Mary was suffering from some or all of those symptoms?”

  “I think she shows all of them in varying degrees.”

  “Are you able to indicate the ones which she most markedly manifested?”

  “Yes, I think I could. I think first of all I ought to dispose of [what are called] the negative features. On examination she shows no evidence of mental illness. . . . She is of average intelligence [he also told me later that she might well be much better than that], and lastly I could really, as a personal opinion, see no real criminal motivation.”

  “. . . Does that mean that what she does is not done for gain or other personal benefit?” asked the Judge.

  “Yes, I think that is what it means.”

  “. . . Now could you come to the positive ones . . .”

  “When I saw her on 16 August, she stated to me, ‘I was with Norma Bell when she strangled Brian.’ Now this was a statement made without any disturbance or emotion at all and I felt this was evidence of the lack of feeling quality to other humans. It was said in a completely matter-of-fact way, not as though she was talking about a human being. And she was very casual in that she went on to say, ‘I am going to Whickham View School after the summer holidays,’ and then asked me, ‘Am I going home and then to the Court next Tuesday?’ showing complete and bland disregard for the seriousness of the offense with which she was charged.”

  Asked about her other offenses or possible offenses, Dr. Orton continued, “She claims she was quite good at school and well behaved there but she also did admit that she had twice run away from home and again incriminated Norma Bell by saying, ‘This is only since Norma Bell was up here,’ and I felt these occasions when she ran away, although minimal or relatively trivial in this setting, are indications again of a tendency to act on impulse and without forethought. They really had no idea where they were going and why. . . .”

  (Much later it turned out there had been a good reason for at least one of these escapades: Mary and Norma had been invited to spend Whit-weekend with Mary’s aunt Cath, in the village where she lived, an hour away from Newcastle. Norma Bell’s mother had even gone there, to meet Cath and see the house. But when the weekend came around, Mary’s mother had said they couldn’t go. When Mary then asked whether they could go instead to Rothbury, a convalescent home for eneuretic children where she had stayed in the past and whose superintendent she was particularly fond of, Billy Bell had said they couldn’t go there either. When Cath asked her later why she had run away she said, “Mum wouldn’t let me come to you and Dad wouldn’t let me go to Rothbury, so I ran away. We were going to Rothbury. . . .” Later, however, she told another psychiatrist who tried to find out the real reason for her running away, “I thought it would be fun, and I wanted to go see my gran. . . .”)

  “In addition,” said Dr. Orton, “she showed no remorse whatever, no tears and no anxiety. She was completely unemotional about the whole affair [of the murders] and merely resentful at her detention. That was largely the first interview. Again this shows, I thought, this lack of shame or remorse for what has been done. It’s the fourth symptom. . . . She was abnormal in the way she was when discussing death and so on in this completely unemotional way, whether she be the guilty one or party to it seemed to make no difference. As party to it she was completely without remorse.”

  “Let us deal with the guilt of being party to it,” Mr. Justice Cusack said, “because these matters are in dispute as to fact. On her evidence she knew about death?”

  “She knew about it and discussed it.”

  “She discussed it without emotion?”

  “Without emotion, without any evidence of being anxious or upset or any signs of distress for someone who had been hurt. . . .” Dr. Orton then described various incidents which occurred during Mary’s stay at Seaham. “She is a trouble-maker and tends to play off one girl against another and whilst in the Remand Home she has twice absconded.”

  “Do you know for how long?” the Judge said.

  “Well, it was only a matter of hours before she was apprehended on one occasion [the second]. She got out through the toilet window, I believe, in the middle of the night. She was returned by the police at 5:45 A.M. showing no concern, no emotion, or contrition with regard to this.”

  (One was tempted to wonder here why Mary should show “emotion, concern, or contrition” about running away. Do any children? Particularly as her “absconding” on these two occasions was nothing more than a gesture of defiance, or even more a way of calling attention to herself, perhaps because she feared she was ceasing to be quite the center of attention. The first time she “ran away” she had merely run across the garden and hid in a shed, within the precincts of the Remand Home. And on the second occasion she was found a mile or so away, about an hour and a half after she had left.)

  “There was one further piece of information which I questioned her about,” said Dr. Orton. “This question of suffering beforehand when someone was strangled. . . . The replies were, ‘Why, if you’re dead, you’re dead,’ and she expressed the opinion that she did not think it mattered once you were dead, implying that you were then no longer aware of previous suffering. . . . In addition, she discussed with me the fact, and admitted, that she and Norma had returned to Brian’s body and cut the boy’s hair and legs with scissors and a razor blade. This again was said without any feeling of any sort, any sign of distress or emotion. . . . I think it (and the breaking into the Nursery) is a fairly good example of the presence of viciousness and wish to do damage to things or persons.”

  “As a result of those investigations, Dr. Orton,” asked Harvey Robson, “what opinion did you arrive at?”

  “I came to the conclusion, sir, that I think this girl was and is suffering from such abnormality of mind, namely, psychopathic personal
ity such as substantially impaired her mental responsibility for her acts and omissions in doing or being a party to this killing.”

  “And that is assuming that she was,” Mr. Justice Cusack interposed. Later in his summing up to the Jury he explained the law relating to “Diminished Responsibility.”

  With regard to Mary you have to consider not only her capacity to commit crime and her capacity to form a specific intent either to Murder or to cause serious bodily injury appreciating it may cause death, but you have a further problem (which does not apply to Norma). That is the question of Diminished Responsibility. . . . In 1957 there was an Act of Parliament and it said that . . . ‘where a person kills, or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of Murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, or any inherent causes, or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing . . . that it was up to the Defence to prove Diminished Responsibility. But that while the Prosecution has to prove things ‘beyond a shadow of doubt’, the Defence, in a case such as this, must only prove that it is more likely than not that there is Diminished Responsibility (which is always linked to a conviction for Manslaughter rather than Murder).

  One must consider, of course, what abnormality of mind means. It includes the inability to form a sensible reasonable judgement, and as to whether a thing is right or wrong; not from immaturity; not from being a child; but because of this state of arrested or retarded development or for inherent reasons. It includes inability to exercise will power. It includes inability to exercise self-control for the same reasons.

  It was with knowledge of this law that the evidence of the two psychiatrists called by the defense for Mary, Dr. Orton and shortly afterwards Dr. Westbury, was heard.

  “The abnormality of mind to which you have referred,” said Mr. Robson to Dr. Orton, “did it arise from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, or any inherent cause, or [was it] induced by disease or injury?”

  “Well, psychopathic personality,” said Dr. Orton, “is thought to arise from a combination probably of genetic factors, which are inherent, and there are also environmental influences. . . .”

  “Environmental?” Mr. Justice Cusack repeated quickly.

  “Influences,” Dr. Orton repeated.

  (Although no amount of additional information would have changed the legal outcome of the trial, at least an indication of the traumatic events of Mary’s childhood—the environmental influences the doctors referred to—would have been of the greatest importance from the point of view of mitigating the very harsh public opinion of her that had arisen. But no such information emerged during the trial, nor were these circumstances [which are described later in this book] known by the authorities, who only a few days after the trial decided Mary’s future.)

  “Insofar as it [psychopathic personality] is related to genetic factors,” Harvey Robson asked Dr. Orton, “would they be classed as inherent causes in your opinion?”

  “Yes.”

  “. . . It occurs to me,” said the Judge, “that this may have a bearing on the capacity of a child of this age to commit crime. . . . One of the issues in connection with a child’s responsibility is that of the child’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong. If you are going to apply this evidence to the question of responsibility, I think subject to what you may say, you must have the opinion of this witness as to her ability to distinguish between right and wrong.”

  “Now, Dr. Orton, in the light of what you have been saying, in your opinion, would Mary be able to judge right and wrong?” Mr. Robson asked.

  “She would.”

  “When you say ‘wrong’ are you thinking in terms of contrary to Law, or contrary to morals or doing morally wrong?”

  “I would think that she would know unequivocally that it was contrary to Law.”

  “That what was contrary to Law?” asked the Judge.

  “The acts that she was discussing with me. After all, she did admit that she was with Norma when the boy was strangled, and I think she knew these were contrary to Law.”

  “It comes to this,” said the Judge. “Would she know that it was wrong to take another child by the neck and squeeze so that the child became unconscious? Let us take it that way.”

  “Yes, I think she would.”

  “Would she know,” he continued, “that by taking a child by the neck and squeezing that she would result in [doing] injury to the child?”

  “I think she would.”

  “Would she know that a killing was a crime?”

  “Yes.”

  “My Lord, only one other matter,” Harvey Robson said (bringing up an absolutely vital point). “Would she know that those things to which you have just answered a series of ‘yes,’ Dr. Orton, as being wicked?”

  “I think you are trying to bring in the question of the degree of moral turpitude, a degree of wrongness from the moral aspect. Then I think one must say that only partially. I think her moral sense of virtue with her abnormality of mind is not so highly developed as the average child of eleven.”

  “Would she know that it ought not to be done?” the Judge asked again.

  “Yes, I think so, My Lord.”

  It was of the utmost importance to Norma’s defense to bring out, for the benefit of the Jury, the extent of Mary’s domination over Norma and her capacity to manipulate others into doing what she wanted them to do. R. P. Smith cross-examined Dr. Orton for Norma:

  “. . . Is it your view of Mary that she is a dominating personality?”

  “Yes, I think she is.”

  “And what might be called, by psychiatrists, a manipulator?”

  “Yes.”

  The Judge, always intent on clarifying difficult technical terms for the benefit of the Jury, asked him to explain what this meant.

  “I think it means this: a person who is capable of lying and deceit to gain their own ends and for instance . . . capable of playing off one girl against another . . . and so manipulating the circumstances whereby two girls [are brought to] quarrel, she really having been the instigator of the quarrel.”

  “She will use lies and deceit to gain her own ends?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Using other people in the process?”

  “If need be.”

  Forensic psychiatrist Dr. David Westbury was the second psychiatrist called on Mary’s behalf. He saw Mary four times before her trial (and has seen her twice since). 3 “On the first two occasions (26 October and 2 November),” he said, “I was able to examine her fairly fully, that is to say to go through the whole procedure. But without going into it in depth, because she was sulky and only partly cooperative.” (The other two times he went, Mary had meanwhile been visited by her mother, and refused to cooperate at all.)

  “Did you form some tentative view at that time?” asked Harvey Robson.

  “. . . I saw enough of her to form a definite view,” Dr. Westbury replied. “. . . My opinion then was that there is no evidence of mental illness or severe subnormality, or subnormality of intelligence. But that she had however a serious disorder of personality which I called ‘an unsocialized manipulative personality’ that constitutes a persistent disorder of mind and has resulted in abnormal aggressive and seriously irresponsible conduct and required medical treatment. . . .”

  “Did anything you say or hear subsequently alter your diagnosis?” asked the Judge.

  “No, My Lord.”

  “You are still of the same opinion?”

  “Exactly, sir.”

  “. . . You have been present throughout the trial?” asked Harvey Robson.

  “I have, yes.”

  “Now, in your opinion, is Mary Bell now suffering from abnormality of mind?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And, in your opinion, was she so suffering in May and Jul
y of this year?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And, in your opinion, is that abnormality of mind attributable or arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes, or by disease or injury?”

  “There are two parts to that, sir. It is a retarded development of mind.”

  “Yes.”

  “And this has been caused partly by genetic factors and partly by environmental factors.”

  “Just help me,” said the Judge. “The words ‘genetic factors,’ what does that mean?”

  “The inheritance of disease, My Lord.”

  “That would be inherited factors?”

  “Inherited factors, yes.”

  “And, Doctor, in your opinion, does such abnormality as you say you consider existed substantially impair her mental responsibility for her acts?” asked Mr. Robson.

  “Yes, sir, it does.”

  “In doing or being a party to the killing, assuming that that took place?”

  “Yes, it does, sir.”

  “Just one matter, Doctor,” Mr. Smith cross-examined on behalf of Norma. “Do you agree with Dr. Orton’s view that Mary Bell is a manipulator?”

  “That is my view, yes. That is my diagnosis.”

  “. . . Did you say on page 7 of your report to the Director of Public Prosecutions that ‘her social techniques are primitive and take the form of automatic denial, ingratiation, complaining, bullying, flight or violence’?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “From the history, you have gathered that she is a bully?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  Both girls had been in Court throughout the whole of the trial, Norma much of the time off on thoughts of her own, but Mary listening intently. She became really agitated when the word “bully” was mentioned. This was a familiar term—and she resented it. She shook her head vehemently, whispered furiously to David Bryson, replied sharply when he told her to be still, turned around to her mother and made a furious face, and turned toward Norma mouthing angry words. It was one of her angriest moments during the trial and one to which she was to refer repeatedly in conversations with policewomen later.