Update on a Grim Tale
(“Similar Circumstances,” Forensic Files)
Note: Updated with news from 2021
This week’s post tells the story of a woman who reversed a common Forensic Files equation. Usually, it’s one spouse killing another to ensure access to the children.
Paula Sims murdered her kids to — allegedly — gain access to her spouse.
Unusual folks. Actually, she killed only her daughters, allowing her son to live, because her husband wanted male children exclusively, or so she believed.
For this week, I looked for biographical information that might hold clues as to why life at the Sims household went so horribly wrong.
And because prisoners guilty of harming children tend to get the harshest treatment from other inmates, I also checked into how Paula, who’s serving a life sentence, is faring in captivity.
Athletic kid. So let’s get started on the recap of “Similar Circumstances” along with extra information from internet research:
Paula Marie Blew came into the world on May 29, 1959, the youngest of three children born to a middle-class Missouri couple, Nylene and Orville Blew. Orville worked as an operator for Amoco Pipeline, according to the Alton Telegraph.
Growing up, Paula acquired a reputation first as a tomboy and later as a partyer, according to The Encyclopedia of Kidnappings by Michael Newton.
Pain and loss. Overall, Paula had an unremarkable youth until tragedy struck.
Her brother Randy, with whom she was close, died in an auto accident. Paula sustained facial lacerations in the wreck.
Paula’s other brother, Dennis, wasn’t hurt in the crash, but he already lived with disabilities resulting from childhood seizures.
Husband’s checkered job history. It’s not clear what Paula’s educational background was, but media sources list her occupation as supermarket worker or cashier.
As for Robert Sims, he graduated from Alton High School, where he played the tuba in the marching band.
In adulthood, he hit some sour notes, however. Robert served in the Navy but was declined when he sought to reenlist. He worked as a loan collector but left the job amid allegations of misbehavior.
Earlier marriage. His relationship status wasn’t wonderful either. Robert’s first wife divorced him on charges of “extreme and repeated mental cruelty,” according to the Encyclopedia of Kidnappings.
He also had a tiny bit of legal trouble, having paid $115 to settle a shoplifting charge in 1979, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
But he got his act together soon after.
Robert found steady work at the Alton Box Board Co., a paper products manufacturer that employed many locals in Alton, Illinois, a St. Louis suburb.
Paula and Robert got married in 1981 and later settled into a picturesque wood-framed house in Alton. Robert was a few years older than Paula, so perhaps she was looking to replace her deceased big brother.
Or maybe she hoped to compensate for her brother’s loss by creating a household full of male children.
Terrifying story. On April 29, 1989, Robert Sims came home after a late shift and found Paula unconscious on the floor and their 6-week-old daughter missing from her crib. The couple’s 2-year-old son, Randall, known as Randy, was fine.
Paula, a slender 29-year-old Amelia Earhart lookalike, said that a masked intruder knocked her out and took her baby daughter, Heather Lee.
During the ensuing effort to find Heather, reporters camped out at the Sims house constantly. The FBI, state law officers, and trained dogs were brought in to help local police with the frantic search.
No sign of an invader. It came to a halt four days later, when a fisherman found the baby’s body in a trash barrel.
Medical examiner Mary Case determined someone had suffocated Heather.
Meanwhile, police couldn’t find any forensic evidence of a stranger at either crime scene.
He said what? Soon, investigators started realizing something was awry inside the Sims household and it didn’t have anything to do with an anonymous intruder.
For one, Robert volunteered that he and Paula had been having great sex since the baby’s disappearance.
Yikes.
It got more bizarre. Police found out that the Simses’ first baby, a girl named Lorelei Marie, had been kidnapped in 1986. Paula had given a similar story about an unknown home invader. Lorelei’s remains turned up, but no one was ever charged.
In the bag. After Heather disappeared, investigators noticed the Simses had pictures of their son displayed in the house, but none of her.
Detectives got a break when an FBI lab matched the plastic bag used to discard Heather’s body to one found in the Sims household.
Then, it came out that Robert Sims had banned Paula from the bedroom after she gave birth to Lorelei, her first child. She had to sleep in a separate room downstairs with the baby.
Contradictory evidence. After Paula brought home her infant son, her husband allowed her back on his mattress again — but he banished her a second time, after she had Heather.
Robert would later explain that he needed his rest because of his work schedule — that’s why he liked to sleep alone.
Prosecutors alleged that Paula murdered Heather while Robert was at work, then disposed of the body in the trash barrel.
At the trial, which took place in the same Peoria court house where nurse killer Richard Speck was convicted in 1967, Paula testified that she loved having daughters and had saved her old Barbie clothes for them. Other witnesses said the Simses were “thrilled” and “walking on air” over Lorelei’s birth.
Orville Blew testified that the babies’ deaths devastated his daughter.
Husband stands by her. During the legal proceedings, which were so packed with spectators that the court had to bring in extra chairs and turn away some people, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Paula appeared frail, sickly, and weak and “walked into the courtroom with her arms hanging limply at her sides” every morning, and rarely spoke to her defense lawyer during the proceedings.
Robert Sims testified that Paula was a good mother and he didn’t believe she was involved in the homicides. He also said that the FBI had lied in an attempt to make him turn against his wife.
But a maternity ward roommate testified that she overheard Paula making a “tearful apology on the telephone to her husband for having a daughter,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
Coming clean. Nurses present around the births of all three Sims babies at Alton Memorial Hospital said that Robert ignored the girls but was ecstatic over Randy.
Robert Sims admitted that the couple had hoped to have a boy first, but said that he was happy about the girls just the same.
When prosecutor Don W. Weber grilled Robert Sims over his remark about the couple’s sex life, Robert explained that it was a stress reliever and a comfort to his wife, adding, “What are we supposed to do 24 hours day?”
On Jan. 30, 1990, a jury found Paula guilty of murder.
After receiving a sentence of life in prison without parole, she admitted to killing both her daughters.
Court of public opinion. Amid the requisite flood of outrage at a mother who would murder her own children, there was a bit of sympathy in the community.
“We ignore heart-breaking problems,” read a St. Louis Post-Dispatch letter from Margaret B. Phillips of University City. “Then, when a tragedy happens, we rush to assign blame.”
Paula’s defense lawyer Donald E. Groshong vowed to fight to overturn the conviction.
Although Robert Sims eventually divorced Paula and remarried, the couple never turned against each other in legal proceedings (another deviation from the Forensic Files norm).
Psychiatric factors. Robert Sims later said he believed Paula had killed both infants by accident.
In a 2006 interview with St. Louis TV station KSDK, Paula refused to talk about her former husband. She blamed the murders on postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis and said that she loved and missed both her daughters.
According to a segment on a Deadly Women episode, Paula Sims fed her postpartum depression with marijuana and alcohol, which made her problems worse.
Male mystery remains. Many online commenters expressed frustration that Robert Sims was never charged in connection with the murders, and an officer who appeared on Forensic Files hinted that Robert remained under investigation.
It’s still not clear why Robert didn’t want daughters — or whether that contention was true in the first place.
The state gave Robert custody of Randy, who had been placed in a foster home during the trial. It was a controversial decision, but they went on to lead a pleasant life together — until another horrible tragedy.
More loss. In 2015, an intoxicated Volvo driver clipped Robert Sims’ Jeep and sent it flying off an Interstate 55 overpass. Robert, 63, and Randy, 27, were ejected from the vehicle, and they both died.
A local office holder expressed sympathy for Paula, as the Belleville News-Democrat reported:
“The whole history is sad to me. It’s very sad when people die tragically. It’s very disturbing,” said State Sen. Bill Haine, who was Madison County state’s attorney when Sims was prosecuted. “My heart goes out to Paula. The poor woman is still in jail and now will grieve the loss of her only child.”
Blood money refused. Around the same time, a supporter started a Change.org petition asking Gov. Bruce Rauner to free Paula Sims based on a diagnosis of postpartum psychosis. It collected 178 signatures.
Paula herself has requested clemency from the governor because of her mental illness.
The efforts have been unsuccessful.
Paula Sims’ name surfaced in the media again in 2017, when the Belleville News-Democrat reported that she signed away any rights to her late son’s $900,000 estate; the money came from a car insurance settlement. Robert Sims’ widow, Victoria, was pegged to get the jackpot.
Fading scar. Today, Paula is an inmate at the Logan Correctional Center. Her profile mentions no disciplinary problems and she has resisted the siren song of prison-yard tattoo artists.
There’s no indication that she’s faced abuse from other inmates. In recent mug shots, she appears healthy and unmarked. (The prison record mentions one facial scar, but it’s faint and probably came from the car accident in the 1970s.)
Although Logan offers courses like hair braiding and cake decorating, it’s a rough place.
Guards gone bad. A 2016 study for the Illinois Department of Corrections found the prison to have unnecessary use of harsh isolation “cages” and “few chances to prepare for community re-entry, contributing to a recidivism rate of 50 percent.”
In 2018, five male Logan employees were accused of sexually abusing female inmates.
Candice DeLong, a former FBI profiler who hosts Deadly Women, said she believes Paula would no longer be a danger to society. DeLong also said that a woman with postpartum depression should not have been left alone to take care of a baby.
Deserving of reconsideration. And it should be noted that, in another departure from the typical Forensic Files motives, Paula clearly didn’t commit her crimes out of ill will or pursuit of money.
At age 62 today, Paula doesn’t face the risk of postpartum mental illness.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker commuted Sims’ reduced Paula’s life without parole sentence.
In October 2021, a board voted to give Paula parole. (Thanks to reader TJ for sending in the scoop.)
Her lawyer, Jed Stone, pointed out that she had committed no infractions while in prison, regretted the murders, and thought about her lost daughters every day.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Paula had a job on the outside and would continuing living in Illinois after her release.
In addition to the Forensic Files and Deadly Women episodes, there’s a mediocre (despite a good cast) Lifetime movie based on the case, Precious Victims.
There’s also a Belleville News-Democrat article with photos of the Sims daughters and video interviews with acquaintances of Robert and Randy Sims.
That’s all for this post. Until next time, cheers. — RR
Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube or Amazon Prime
Thanks, Rebecca. One of FF’s more interesting cases (for me), and one I vaguely recall viewing from some years ago.
While I have no knowledge of ‘postpartum psychosis’ I do of those affected by steroidal psychosis (and they could be quite different). Psychotics are by no means necessarily violent – and I suggest the babies’ deaths have to be construed as violent (it wasn’t mere neglect, for example). Once established that she killed her babies, the defence has to show that (i) she was psychotic and (ii) the psychosis can reasonably be accepted to be violent. On this basis I expect the jury was not able to be persuaded that her actions were borne of illness rather than will – particularly with the (possibly) significant business that the husband was ‘rejecting’ of her/her girls, such that she was putting her relationship (including sex) before the girls’ lives.
Without knowing that she has PP, and also its possible effects and the way courts have treated it, I think you’re a little generous to the perp. For we do know that mothers have killed their babies/children for the want of a man (I can’t remember names, but the one at the front of my mind is that evil woman who drowned her children in a car and said they were kidnapped, because the man she was interested in said he didn’t want her children).
Yes, this man SEEMS pretty awful. But if there’s no evidence he knew of her plan, she must accept the blame morally and legally, in that no decent mother could ever contemplate what she did (pace mental illness).
And no, she’s surely no danger to society – but that’s not the main point. If she’s legally, and certainly if she’s morally, responsible for the deaths, she absolutely deserves life, but with a chance of parole if she was, on balance, less than fully responsible for her actions (which she may have been). Can it really be said that “Paula clearly didn’t commit her crimes out of ill will”? That’s a medico-legal question the answer of which is (for me) unclear, for putting your husband before your babies in this grotesque manner would be precisely ill-will (to them). As an aside, that she relinquished the money from the accident could represent justified guilt, not the ‘good character’ that you may be making a case for… Again, I’ve directly encountered prisoners who committed terrible crimes but are now – perhaps many years later – I believe guilt-ridden and remorseful. So they should be, deserving of no credit for it. Morally and psychologically, that what guilt was ‘made for’…
While I suspend judgement about the perp for the given reason I can, like you, only feel sorry for the whole family and loved ones that this is such a tragic story.
Thanks so much again for your research and engaging write-up.
I had a feeling that creating sympathy for Paula Sims would be a hard sell. But she strikes me as a sad figure rather than an evil one.
R: Sympathy and mercy is a better disposition than its opposite, and in a situation of doubt – if this is – it’s appropriate and commendable. I may come over as ‘hard,’ but I’d need to believe she really wasn’t in sufficient control of her actions – on two occasions some time apart, in seemingly suspicious circumstances (the husband’s disposition; the fact that her son was unharmed, potentially implying ‘selective’ illness…)
The hard sell for me is specifically of the claimed mental illness and the effect it allegedly had, not the mother-kills-babies-but-isn’t-evil dynamic (that you’re surely right about being difficult to make palatable).
I’ll be interested to know other posters’ views…
Why only her duty? Where was her husband? Perfectly fine to donate his sperm and defective X chromosomes, then banish his wife and daughter from their own bed so he could sleep!
What a guy! Reminds me of countless other cases where the husbandsrepeatedly impregnated the wife as her PPD/PPP increased.
Legally she may have killed the kids but morally, Mr. Sims is just as responsible to me. Paula and Robert are each where they belong.
Being a poor husband is very far removed from the gravity of infanticide. Unless he knew what she intended viz the killing(s), which there is no evidence for (but he may have), he cannot possibly be as morally responsible. She had the option of leaving a horrible husband. There can never be anything NEAR justification for a person disposing of a child because the spouse doesn’t want the child, etc.
I’m tempted to phrase ‘no person in their right mind’ could kill their child – and she may not have been. But infanticide is very rare of mothers experiencing postpartum psychosis – she could be an exception – and that we’re asked to believe it had the same effect TWICE stretches credulity too far. As I said in an earlier post, if she’d been concerned/traumatised about the first killing when she recovered – as she surely should have – surely she’d have sought help when next pregnant, when should could, should and was duty-bound to seek help, knowing the risk? The first death might be accepted as tragic result of illness but the second cannot be: she must accept responsibility.
The husband appears to have been, in this regard, at least negligent. Why wasn’t he getting her help (if indeed the illness was the reason for the killing)? But his in/action doesn’t amount to hers…
Not only was he negligent but also cruel and abusive. It’s also highly likely he knew what she did to her first child but kept going, pushing for that boy.
She rots in prison while he got to remarry. It’s disgusting. Legally nothing could be done to him, but it might be for the best that the whole Robert Sims lineage ended.
I don’t believe he knew or suspected nothing, especially in view of the banishment from the bedroom and later, the fantastic sex comment after the child disappeared.
Being raised by a dad like that probably did Randall no favors.
I would think post-partal psychosis would NOT be as calculated and planned as these two deaths…no post-partal with the son….
Indeed; the manner of death, inc body disposal, doesn’t reflect psychosis, and that must properly undermine such a defence; but it would seem possible to have killed per psychotic episode THEN panicked when ‘recovered’, applying one’s normal mind to disposal and concealment. I don’t buy this but it needs consideration – specifically, how quickly does one typically regain mental stability following such an episode (if episode is even correct characterisation…), such that one might fairly quickly regain the ability to plan and conceal? Also, without anti-psychotics (it seems she wasn’t taking any) is it even plausible to suggest such peaks and troughs of mental function?
The jury would have to have regarded that, at least on the balance of probabilities, the perp was ‘insane’ at the killing AND square this with hard-on-its-heel subsequent ‘sane’ actions. They didn’t – and I agree.
Why on the inmate search page for Paula does it state under her inmate picture “sex offender registry required”?
Odd: As she’s a non-parolee such registration seems redundant. If she were paroled, the sex-offender categorisation may be a proxy for ‘vulnerable persons’ (children), given her crime.
PS: In a further indictment of her behaviour, as she killed her first baby some three years before the second, she was surely alerted to the serious problem she had then (if it was psychosis). She had a DUTY to address this when she became pregnant again but didn’t, much like an epileptic has a duty morally (and legally) to inform his flying school. She wouldn’t have needed to confess about the first murder, just say she was ill.
I therefore have even less sympathy for her then I may have earlier. Unless her alleged psychosis were such that she had no memory of the murder, believing that her first baby was kidnapped, the illness citation is a red herring. When she confessed she evidently DID recall the fist murder, raising the question of whether she was ever psychotic and, if so, establishing that it was episodic, such that her memory WAS NOT permanently lost. This being the case, the above paragraph applies – surely?
Paula’s recent mug shot has some groovy Havelock Ellis criminal physiognomy going on. The Hav-meister believed atypical facial features are common to crooks, while non-criminals resemble the Leave it To Beaver family. His book, The Criminal, is great fun for romantic types who watch Forensic Files. Thanks again for so much, RR. Havelock would have loved you.
Just looked him on the internet — thanks for bringing up his name.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/havelock-ellis
Alas, if only criminality were written on the head, detectives would be jobless. It’s rubbish, of course. As an aside, Ellis is much out of favour, especially with liberals, ‘cos of his support of eugenics, averring that the black person’s cranium, intellectual ability, etc indicated lesser development than whites.’
Of course, some aren’t sure that Sims IS properly a ‘criminal,’ rather is, or was, mentally ill. RR herself has some sympathy with that, it seems. Where does that leave the ‘criminal look’ if Sims’ sympathisers are correct? Probably with further argument that Ellis was misguided…
Crazy story. And who knew there was such a resource as “Encyclopedia of Kidnappings”? You did.
Murderpedia.com is another good one.
I don’t feel bad at all that Mr. Sims died. He is just as responsible for his daughters deaths as his wife.
He knew that she was mentally unstable and exacerbated it with his cruel treatment. He had to know or suspect something.
My opinion is unpopular but I stand by it. When I read that he and his son were killed I couldn’t help but think, Karma strikes again.
Probably not just as bad, but bad…
The whole story must be one of FF’s worst and saddest.
I remember this case well my Mom is from southern Il. Paula is where she deserves to be — too bad they could never prove Robert’s part in it.
Marcus needs to chill. He admits in his first comment he is unfamiliar with postpartum psychosis, and yet goes on to act like he is an expert in this still misunderstood and maligned mental affliction that affects many, many women.
Women are scared to speak up when they experience PPD or PPP, and it’s primarily due to ignorant men who think it’s some silly, frivolous thing that women can just “easily bring up” and “easily avoid.” PPP does not need rage. It’s a sad, dark and twisted mental illness that consumes women. These women often have no control over their mind when in the throes of PPD or PPP.
A woman in an abusive relationship like Paula would NEVER “address” her PPP if she became pregnant again for fear of retaliation from her spouse. Look at Andrea Yates. Her husband knew she had PPP and that didn’t stop him from forcing her to get pregnant time and time again. It’s not that easy, Marcus.
This is why men’s opinions on illnesses that affect only women are pure garbage.
Ugh,
I’m chillin… Now, there’s a bit of implicit disingenuousness – or plain misleading argument – in what you state. You aver I’m wrong, then elide your reason(s) why with quotes that aren’t mine: ‘”easily bring up / easily avoid'”. I never suggested anything like this! I’m not medically trained, but I am qualified in clinical psychology and worked in a prison with inmates with psychosis, so I have SOME knowledge and experience of related conditions – sufficient to know that nothing could be further from the truth per those quotes (and that a little knowledge may be dangerous).
I’m afraid it’s ‘gendered’ perspectives on mental illness that is garbage: you’ll find very little support for such a claim among clinicians.
Now, a relevant ethical (and philosophical) matter to get to grips with: you can’t get from an ‘is’ (the case) to an ‘ought’ (to be the case). Whether or not a woman is inclined or not to address her illness – hopefully with, but if necessary without, the support of her partner – that cannot in law and moral excuse her from the ought. Precisely because lives may at stake she has a duty, where she discerns declining mental health – to seek medical help. It’s tough if the man she’s with doesn’t like it: she chose him; she can leave him, with police help if necessary. Now, she MAY NOT discern such decline – psychotics are unaware of their condition when experiencing episodes, but psychoses wax and wane, and there’s a decline into the condition during which one knows one’s ill.
This is why the law is as it is: because PPD cannot be treated as a get-out-of-jail-free card. It should be legally viewed as illness, and therefor in some cases is mitigation. But like other mental illnesses, the question of guilt is a precise one: did the person know right from wrong, AND is any impairment as to that distinction culpable? If (for reasons other than mental illness) one fails to seek medical help, allowing oneself to decline to a potential homicidal state, it’s not much different from taking illegal drugs that do that or failing by choice to take drugs that one knows prevent such a state. If one’s threatened or forced against seeking help, that’s mitigation. Individual cases will stand and fall on their merits.
Your generalisation (and feminist perspective) does nothing to advance the debate, which is one between jurisprudence and psychiatry. And who says this was an “abusive” relationship, bar it fitting your anti-patriarchal narrative? If the court determined it was abusive, that would likely render mitigation. It didn’t (co-responsibility for the crime is another question).
Just FYI to all –
Postpartum mental disorders usually fall into three to four categories, each diagnosed based on a severity of symptoms.
Baby Blues: the period that usually commences from two or three days postpartum until around two weeks marked by a “blue” state brought on by a sharp decline in hormones. This is physiologically normal and will usually resolve itself without treatment.
Postpartum Anxiety: an anxious state marked by periodic episodes of crying, frantic thoughts and emotions, and fear. This can be intermingled with mild depressive symptoms.
Post partum Depression: a pronounced depressive state wherein the mother is so consumed that she has difficulty completing daily tasks, may have thoughts of suicide or infant harm, and has trouble showing interest in or bonding with infant. This stage can have varying states of severity, and should ALWAYS be treated and never ignored, as it can eventually become psychosis.
Postpartum psychosis: commonly regarded as the most severe form of PPD, this is the stage wherein the mother’s depressive or anxious state has deteriorated to paranoia, delusional thinking or behavior, and some even hallucinate and begin to hear voices. This is the stage that is the most potentially dangerous for the infant as mothers who have progressed to this level are at greatest risk for self harm and/or harming the infant.
Many women who have harmed their children have cited these disorders as reasons for doing so. While this may be the case for some, it’s not the case for all. Sure, she’s saying she’s sorry and was suffering from PPD. But why, if it were simply a matter of PPD, did she not have these issues with her son? Her alleged mental illness is not an excuse for killing her two infant daughters. As a mother of two girls, one three and one four months old, who did suffer from mild PPA and PPD, I still put their safety first and sought help immediately when I suspected that I had it. I never had thoughts of harming the children – self harm was more of a worry for me personally – but it never got even close to being that bad. So someone just pulling that excuse from the air to explain away a mother abusing or otherwise harming her babies is suspect to me. This woman was entirely too conniving and calculating to be out of her mind from PPP, and her behavior towards her son is inconsistent with having PPD, as mothers who get it tend to get it with each subsequent birth, regardless of the circumstances. Is this an overall sad situation? Yes. Was this woman suffering from undiagnosed mental illness? Probably. Does it excuse her actions? Not in the least. Those two helpless, defenseless infant girls are the ones who need to be remembered and mourned. Paula Sims had her chance. Her daughters never did.
Gabrielle: I agree with your analysis. Assuming you have the most serious psychotic symptoms, you are still not in a permanent psychotic state such that you’re never lucid enough to know something is wrong with you and that you therefore should/must seek help for your baby’s sake at least. I would also expect any adults you come into contact with to note the typically fairly clear strange behaviour (this does assume you’re not totally isolated) and to express concern in knowing you have a baby. In this regard, what was the husband doing (as people have asked) if you were that ill? If the husband physically prevented her seeking help, that would of course be a different matter, and he then becomes complicit in what may result (if he wasn’t anyway).
The law has to be rigorous – and therefore seemingly potentially harsh – in this matter because of the paramountcy principle: children (and babies’) welfare is the most important consideration, not ‘understanding’ for mothers, who could too easily use claimed psychological unfitness as mitigation or excuse for carelessness, abuse, even killing. The default position: I am responsible in law for the harm I do others unless I can show beyond reasonable doubt that I was so mentally ill I did not know right from wrong and could not reasonably be expected to have sought help for me and/or protection of the others because of the danger I could reasonably expect myself to place them in. Ms Sims did not pass this test.
It should also be noted that psychosis per se does not entail physical violence. It may, but it usually does not.
Hey RR, it’s hard to garner sympathy for a woman who killed her infant children twice. She had no remorse the first time so she did it again. All I can say is based upon her action she is where she need to be in prison regardless of the mental causes of her action. The auto accident with her ex-husband and son is a tragic situation. Nothing else needs to be said. I honestly don’t feel sorry for the woman. Good riddance.
I understand your point — really, I do. But postpartum depression can be a horrible illness. Why else would a woman go through nine months of pregnancy and the pain of labor only to snuff out the life she has created?
Matters compromising the notion that this was a straightforward case of PPD:
+ the induced psychotic state isn’t permanent: the subject experiences lucidity and delusion/hallucination alternately, and is therefore likely aware of deluded acts committed such as harming one’s child after the event;
+ homicide of daughters COULD be probative, but is certainly not conclusive of deliberation;
+ elaborate concealment of crime (‘the intruder’) is inconsistent with psychotic behaviour;
+ did illicit drug use cause psychosis, worsened it, or was it merely a response to it – ie, she could be considered reckless in taking drugs?;
+ if PPD existed, could other mental disturbance, such as a desire for sympathy/attention also apply (Munchausen-esque?), whereby a poor calculation about the chance of being caught was made?;
+ that this happened twice, assuming cause by PPD, renders her reasonably responsible for failure to seek treatment at her second pregnancy as it’s implausible that she had no idea of, or memory about, mental dysfunction after the first girl’s birth (nor that she would have no inkling that maybe SHE killed the baby – assuming she did);
+ it cannot be assumed that PPD existed; it is only a possible inference.
Therefore there’s too much doubt to ascribe this only to mental illness and give her a ‘pass’ per so. None of this detracts from the husband’s apparent negligence (at least).
Sims may not have been found criminally responsible had one child been killed and PPD diagnosed – but when the (likely) second was, and both were at least seemingly concealed, reflecting cognitive function, deliberation appears present, and to the degree it was, criminal responsibility…
A general difficulty is that no-one wants to believe mothers deliberately killed their babies (Routier et al), therefore inducing search for psychiatric explanation when their perpetration is known. Speculation’s reasonable and valuable, but it doesn’t replace fact, and we should reach for explanation beyond what the evidence requires to explain it (Occam).
I should add that in a case such as this, murder v manslaughter may well be in issue. A ‘partial’ defence to murder, reducing it to voluntary manslaughter, could be diminished responsibility on the ground of insanity; ie, in this case, there is acceptance of SOME mitigation – or outwith murder completely, involuntary manslaughter constituted by gross negligence; ie, in this case, failure to seek treatment where it was reasonably possible to do so (after the first killing, say, before or during a subsequent pregnancy.)
Manslaughter is a felony with a considerable range of custodial sentence. The question viz Sims for me is not whether she was innocent of serious crime but of the degree of culpability, from involuntary manslaughter through murder. That she knowingly lied – only admitting killing both babies following conviction, together with concealment of bodies, will be regarded as incongruous with ‘madness’ – yet she may understandably have been frightened of the consequence of coming forward and admitting the killings.
She should not have gone to prison. Instead, she should have been taken to the electric chair and been fried slowly and painfully.
She’s out now: https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/crime/2021/10/30/paula-sims-illinois-woman-who-killed-infant-daughter-granted-parole/6212702001/
Thank you for sending this! I’m glad she’s getting a second chance. She always seemed more like a pathetic character than an evil one.