‘Child for a child’ - Court hears shocking motive behind Danielle Rowe’s murder

Convicted child killer Kayodi Satchell said she murdered Danielle Rowe out of frustration after she allegedly contracted HIV from the child's father.

Rowe, a second-grade Braeton Primary and Infant School student was abducted from the St Catherine school on June 8 last year and was later seen that day with her throat slashed on Roosevelt Avenue in St Andrew.

Satchell, a 32-year-old dental assistant, pleaded guilty to murder and child stealing, through her lawyer Pierre Rogers. She reportedly had a relationship with the child's father, who is a police corporal.

Rogers, in his plea-in-mitigation before Justice Carolyn Tie-Powell in the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston yesterday, described his client's action as a "tragic mistake". He indicated that she has regretted the pain caused to the family and proposed that Satchell be given a 20-25 discount for her early plea and a pre-parole sentence of about 28 years imprisonment after the discount and the pre-trail remand deduction.

In court yesterday, Satchel was observed turning around while in the dock to whisper "I am sorry" to Rowe's elder sister, Alicia, and her mother.

Rogers disclosed that his client was in a "stormy relationship" with Rowe's father whom he said allegedly advised his client in a voicemail that, "If yuh know wa gud fi yuh, yuh go test yuself fi HIV".

He said his client sought the help of the authorities to have the man prosecuted for what she thought was a conscious decision to infect her. He said she acted out of frustration after receiving no help.

Rogers said his client also indicated that she did not steal the child away to kill her; instead, it was a desperate attempt to get attention from the father.

While declaring that the murder was not premeditated, Rogers said his client's "frustration" cannot account for the taking of the child's life and that a strong message must be sent to the society that taking of an innocent life is wrong.

But he also asked the court to consider the peculiar factors which were operating in Satchell's life at the time, including the loss of her job, her home, her relationship and the loss of her own child two months into her pregnancy and that she was diagnosed with adjustment disorder.

The lawyer said somewhere in his client's mind she thought "child for a child" but now knows that that was wrong.

"She acted in a manner that caused hurt while she too was hurting."