Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch and I will do my best to assist.
Yours sincerely,
Diana Whittingham
Dr Diana Whittingham
MBBS FRCPsych
Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
Encclass="underline"
PSYCHIATRIC REPORT
Name: Camilla Kathleen Rowan
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: Caucasian
Date of birth: 30th September 1980
Date of report: 4th March 2003
The subject is a 22-year-old woman who has been charged with the murder of her newborn child in 1997. She has no previous criminal convictions. This report has been prepared as part of the pre-trial assessment process. I conducted three interviews, two at my office, and one at her parents’ address, where I was able to observe the home environment and family dynamic. I also administered an MMPI-2 test (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2), the full results of which are given in the annexe. This is a standard psychological diagnostic test.
Executive summary
The subject comes from a stable and socially advantaged background, and has had a private education. She is an only child, with attentive and supportive parents. She has no history of mental illness, nor any other significant health issues beyond minor childhood ailments, nor is there any family history of psychiatric issues. She was well presented at interview, well groomed and neatly dressed in slightly formal clothes. When questioned about this, she said her mother had chosen them. She was polite and co-operative, exhibiting neither aggression nor impatience with the process. Throughout the interview she was calm and self-possessed, apart from on certain specific occasions as detailed below. Her affect was normal and congruent.
MMPI-2
This test assesses a subject’s mental health on ten scales, including depression, paranoia, and schizophrenia. In this case the data gave no indication of any of the above, and found no evidence that the subject is experiencing psychopathology. However, it is important to note that the subject scored extremely highly on both the ‘L’ and ‘K’ scales. In twenty-two years of practice, I have rarely seen scores of this magnitude. High answers on the L scale (commonly referred to as the ‘Lie’ scale) indicate that the subject is hyper-sensitive to their public image, to the extent of refusing to acknowledge traits or responses that might paint them in a poor light. In respect to the subject, these scores were amply borne out by the observations made in interview. The K scale questions are designed to measure defensiveness, and again, in this case, indicate the subject has an abnormally strong need to be seen positively.
Interview
Based on my observations at the parental home, the subject’s family milieu has clearly been problematic: the mother masks profound social insecurities under an assertive, almost brusque outward demeanour, and has clearly fetishised social standing almost to the point of mania (a trivial but telling example: on my arrival at the house she made a rather lame joke about being relieved I wasn’t wearing a white coat ‘so the nosey parkers won’t find out’). Numerous items in the house attested to the value attached to the family’s position in the local community: photographs of the subject’s father with dignitaries such as the Mayor and MP, a cabinet of the subject’s sporting medals and trophies, framed cuttings from the local press featuring the family business and charitable events organised by the subject’s mother. The immediate community context also served to inculcate a habit of secrecy: the subject described her small rural town as ‘the sort of place where everyone wants to poke their noses in – you learn pretty quick how to mind your own business’. The fact that she used this particular phrase was instructive: I note from police transcripts that when the subject’s mother was asked by a teacher from another school whether her daughter might be pregnant she replied ‘it’s none of your business’ (I note also that the mother denies this incident ever occurred).
The subject would thus have grown up in an environment in which it would be not only unacceptable but unthinkable to bring shame or embarrassment on the family. This was clearly a major factor in the subject’s decision to hide the pregnancies, not just from her parents but from the world in general. However, I believe the issue is more complex than that; I believe there was, in fact, no real ‘decision’ or thought process at all. Becoming pregnant out of wedlock (and especially, in the case of the first pregnancy, with a mixed-race child) was literally ‘unthinkable’: she was unable to think about it, or, therefore, do anything about it. The subject herself described the pregnancies as feeling ‘unreal’ and ‘like it was happening to someone else’. Likewise, when asked why she did not arrange to have terminations, especially after the first live birth, she could not give a coherent answer.
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.