Corie Walsh, Mother Accused of Murder, Deemed Too Dangerous to Return Home as Psychiatrist Warns Risk Could Change

An Illinois judge determined that Corie Walsh was too dangerous to release after prosecutors alleged the Frankfort mother threatened her husband and three surviving children following her arrest in the killing of her 2-year-old son, Barrett.

Forensic psychiatrists, however, say dangerousness is not necessarily a permanent designation. It is a forward-looking assessment that may change when a person’s mental health improves with treatment.

Walsh, 40, remains in custody without pretrial release after a Will County judge rejected her request to leave jail during a detention hearing earlier this month.

The judge also ordered that Walsh begin receiving psychiatric medication immediately. Her attorneys had said she went several days without treatment, despite a hospital recommendation for round-the-clock psychiatric care.

Prosecutors argued Walsh should remain jailed not only because of the allegations involving Barrett’s death, but also because she allegedly threatened to kill her husband after her arrest. The judge agreed that she posed too great a danger to be released before trial.

The decision highlights a broader question beyond Walsh’s case: What does it mean when a judge rules that someone is too dangerous to release?

Under Illinois law, judges weighing pretrial detention focus on a defendant’s current risk to other people, rather than using detention to punish alleged conduct from the past.

Dr. Stephen Dinwiddie, a Northwestern University psychiatry professor with four decades of experience in forensic psychiatry, said mental-health professionals view dangerousness similarly—as a prediction about future risk, not a permanent label.

“Obviously we’re talking more about what we’re afraid they’re going to do tomorrow,” he said. “Part of that prediction is based on what they did yesterday … what they did in the past … and what they have said they intend to do.”

Unlike a criminal verdict, which examines what allegedly happened, a dangerousness determination is intended to assess the risk a person may present in the future, Dinwiddie said.

“It’s pretty squishy,” he said. “Dangerous to whom? Imminently or long-term? Dangerous in a physical way or something else?”

In civil commitment cases, judges often determine whether a person should receive treatment against their wishes because they pose an immediate danger to themselves or others.

The reasoning, Dinwiddie said, is straightforward: “If we don’t act, something bad is going to happen within a matter of days, if not sooner.”

Treatment can significantly alter how psychiatrists assess a person’s potential danger in the future, Dinwiddie said.

“If they’ve behaved in a violent fashion while ill in the past and now they’re ill, obviously that’s important information and obviously that’s something to worry about,” he said. “The intervention obviously is to try to get at that particular symptom of illness and get it under control.”

That possibility can matter in court because Illinois judges may revisit a detention decision when circumstances materially change. Any decision to release a defendant before trial, however, remains with the judge.

That does not mean Walsh will be released before trial. It means the judge’s finding that she is dangerous is not necessarily permanent.

“I think most of us believe that our interventions can prevent tragedies,” Dinwiddie said.

He cautioned that psychosis alone does not make someone dangerous.

“I think one misconception is they’re just different. They’re not like us,” Dinwiddie said. “The tragic fact is they are like us and severe mental illness can affect family members. It can affect anybody.”

Another common misconception, he said, is that people experiencing psychosis cannot think logically.

“Within that delusional system, people can act in a very organized, very logical, very purposeful way,” he said.

He described that concept as “rationality within irrationality,” explaining that someone can carry out a series of organized actions while acting on profoundly delusional beliefs.

Dinwiddie also emphasized that psychosis is not a matter of choice.

“The fact that somebody has evidence of a psychotic process … that is not a matter of choice,” he said. “Nobody would wish that upon themselves.”

Walsh is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in Barrett’s death. Prosecutors allege she believed the toddler was the devil and also threatened to kill her husband and the couple’s three surviving children after her arrest.

Walsh has not entered a plea, and the case remains pending.