Mothers Who Murder (13 page)

Rachel’s behaviour towards Dean was probably severe enough to be classed as emotional abuse, a major category of intimate relationship violence where the offender – in this case the mother – constantly undermines the victim (Dean), lowering his sense of self-worth through name calling, chastisement and constant criticism. This type of behaviour often goes hand in hand with physical abuse, for which there was evidence from a number of witnesses in this case. Dean was the victim of what criminologists call ‘poly-victimisation’, where an individual is subjected to multiple forms of abuse and/or neglect simultaneously, all at the hands of his mother.

I think we cannot underestimate the effect on Rachel’s psyche of the recovery order, enacted without the parties being present on 11 October 2007. That morning, Rachel Pfitzner walked to Ms Daley’s house with Dean and his brother B. Dean had been warned not to eat anything while they were there. Again, I wonder if control was an issue: control over who Dean saw, when he ate, when he was allowed in the house with the rest of the family, who he lived with, and ultimately that he wasn’t going to be taken away.

Although she lied to numerous people and told them she had surrendered Dean to social services, she told her mum that she had decided against this as she was concerned that if she had they would have taken her other children too. Two questions arise for me when I consider Rachel’s claim that she did not surrender Dean because she did not want social services to take her other children: 1) if she desperately wanted Dean taken away, why kill him the day that she must have believed he would be collected? And 2) as Pfitzner, at least at this stage, realised that surrendering Dean may result in her losing her other children, that would
indicate to me that she did not plan to hurt Dean – as surely she would have known that killing him would end with her losing her children and being sent to prison. But was that what getting rid of his body was about – self-preservation and keeping her other children? This certainly appears to be what the judge thought.

Aside from the statement Pfitzner made to the defence psychiatrist, Dr Nielssen, she also spoke to Dr Yvonne Skinner, engaged by the Crown. She told Dr Skinner that she had become very frustrated by Dean’s behaviour in the time just before his murder because he was ‘clinging’ to her. Again, she claimed not to remember with any clarity the events leading up to his actual death; at this time, she couldn’t explain how he’d died. She claimed to have disposed of his body because she panicked, and that she was in a state of shock and was petrified.

In 2009, Pfitzner also spoke to Ms Anna Robilliard, a forensic psychologist, and during their conversation she repeated that she was irritated by Dean’s presence, his clingy nature, and that she wanted him to go away, telling him repeatedly to go play. She told Ms Robilliard that Dean had just stood there; he wouldn’t go and play. That’s when she picked him up by his jumper and shook him from side to side. She claimed during the interview ‘it all happened so quick’, and that she never intended to kill Dean. Ms Robilliard concluded that Rachel was suffering from a deep-rooted paranoid personality disorder, as well as having a highly defensive character. Robilliard added that Pfitzner was always expecting adverse treatment and undesirable consequences. We see evidence of this right through Pfitzner’s life, from the way she talks about her siblings being favourites over her, to her belief that her
teachers were unfairly harsh with her at school. A clinical neuropsychologist, Dr Reid, was given a history of her formative years and educational history, which led him to determine that – in addition to the other anti-social and mood-related issues – Pfitzner also suffered from impaired empathy. The blueprint of this personality was there all along. Dr Skinner diagnosed Pfitzner as suffering from borderline personality disorder. This is a serious mental condition that causes sufferers to have very significant and very fast mood swings and to act impulsively; they are self-loathing and have an extreme fear of abandonment that can cause them to lash out at others with unfounded blame and constant criticism. Contemporary research has shown that this condition has a high level of heritability, showing a strong potential biological bias, combined with significant anatomical and functional abnormalities in the brains of sufferers – meaning that the disorder should be seen as no different from any other medical problem.

There were psychological factors that Dr Skinner felt were important in the lead-up to the events surrounding Dean’s murder. These included Pfitzner’s fear of Paul Shillingsworth – regardless of whether this was a result of paranoia – Rachel’s use of marijuana, which increased her paranoia in the time leading up to Dean’s death, her sense of abandonment as Connors had returned to work, and her unrealistic expectations for Dean’s behaviour – perhaps exacerbated by her inability to empathise. In terms of treatment for her psychological disorder, Pfitzner has had regular contact with mental health professionals and receives mood stabilisers and anti-depressants. Historically, though, people suffering with borderline personality disorder don’t respond well to treatment.

THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE

The only physical evidence available regarding how Rachel killed Dean comes from the forensic pathologist’s comments, taken from the court documents. The post-mortem was performed by Dr Dianne Little, who stated that she was unable to determine a cause of death. She added, however, that the bruising on Dean’s face, together with wounds to his mouth, were consistent with the type of injuries sustained when someone is suffocated, and that they may indicate that the offender put something over his face. Pfitzner denied this, saying that at no time did she put anything over Dean’s mouth. As she had confessed to shaking Dean, I wonder why, or if, she would lie about that. What would be the point? Of course, she could simply be mistaken, as we know that our memory of events is very fickle. Two people can give a full, accurate and honest account of an occurrence, but their reports when compared may have very little in common. Both are being truthful, but both simply remember the incident a different way.

When questioned about Pfitzner’s claim that she had shaken Dean to death, Dr Little was unconvinced that this explained Dean’s death. When cross-examined at the committal proceedings, Little was asked to comment further on two injuries on Dean’s cheek, which she had stated were, in her opinion, supportive of the fact that Dean had been suffocated. On cross-examination, she acknowledged that she could not determine how old the injuries were and that they could have been sustained when Pfitzner tried to resusitate Dean, as Rachel claimed. Little conceded that this was possible, although she maintained that in her professional opinion Dean was unlikely to have died from being shaken. One hypothesis that was put to
her was that while Dean was being shaken the sides of his hooded jumper could have been pulled together around his neck, and that this may have choked him. Again, she agreed that this was a possibility, and that this could have caused, or at least contributed to, his death. There is also no certainty that Dean was dead when he was put in the suitcase, although Pfitzner claims that she had killed him – but that is only her impression of what happened.

As an expert, it is always very difficult to say how injuries occurred. There are normally a range of several possibilities, and all any expert can go on is the likely cause. No expert opinion can be given with 100 per cent certainty – it remains an opinion, albeit an educated one. Experience is essential here, as fact is definitely stranger than fiction, and only through experience will an expert, in this case a forensic pathologist, have the background knowledge on which to base their opinion. But at no stage did Dr Little overstep the mark, as had occurred in some other cases. She agreed there were a range of possibilities, while sticking to her original conclusion, based on her experience.

THE TRIAL

On 12 December 2007, Pfitzner appeared in court via video link from Silverwater Women’s Correctional Centre. The case was adjourned without bail several times to allow the Department of Public Prosecutions more time to complete their brief of evidence, and Pfitzner finally appeared in court on 28 October 2008. The court heard the evidence that Rachel had lost her temper and had shaken Dean, before throwing him to the floor. Believing that she had killed him, and by her own account panicking, she wrapped
him in plastic before taking him to the pond. Pfitzner was committed to stand trial without entering a plea.

In June 2009 Pfitzner did enter a plea, but of manslaughter, not murder. This plea was rejected by the prosecution; they wanted a plea of murder, which they got on 18 August when Pfitzner relented, thus avoiding a jury trial. She did not give evidence. The psychiatrist for the Crown concluded that she was suffering from substance abuse disorder in addition to severe personality disorder, whereas another psychiatrist believed she had a possible defence of substantial impairment.
⁶

After hearing all of the evidence at the sentencing hearing, the judge concluded that it was impossible to determine the exact cause of death from the evidence available to him. Rather, all that could be said with any certainty was that Dean died of asphyxiation, brought about through Pfitzner’s actions. Pfitzner was found guilty of murder on 9 December 2009. Dean’s father, Paul Shillingsworth, was in prison at the time of the offence, and the court heard how the volatility of their relationship, a relationship punctuated by violence, may have contributed to Rachel’s final fatal act.

Pfitzner cried as the judge read out her sentence, but Justice Robert Hulme did not believe the tears were for Dean, as he did not think she had accepted responsibility for what she’d done. Hulme recognised that Pfitzner had a severe personality disorder and had given in to her anger the day she murdered Dean. He sentenced her to a maximum of twenty-five years and six months in jail, with a non-parole period of nineteen years and two months. She would have received thirty years had she not plead guilty before her trial.

In July 2010 Pfitzner appealed against the severity of the
sentence. Three judges dismissed her appeal, stating that, while it was severe, it was not excessive. The judges took into consideration that Pfitzner’s maltreatment of Dean had been going on for some time; they thought weeks, but perhaps it was months. Justice McClellan concluded that Pfitzner had a ‘callous disregard’ for Dean. Pfitzner sees it differently, commenting on conviction, ‘Dean forgives me’.

THE MEDIA’S RESPONSE

The media’s response to Rachel Pfitzner was extreme, but not surprising. The
Daily Telegraph
called her evil, and said she despised her son.
⁷
This is simplistic and doesn’t reflect the complexity of the causes and problems in this case. What came out in the press was the unrest between the two families – the Shillingsworths’ claim Rachel Pfitzner was addicted to drugs, which Rachel denies, and the Pfitzners’ claim Paul Shillingsworth was violent. The accusations flew back and forth. But none of it could help Dean. Also discussed in the press was the response of the government agencies charged with watching over and protecting Dean. Could his death have been avoided? Were chances to help him missed? Or was the outcome inevitable, the chain of events that would result in Dean’s eventual death set in stone with the first fateful contact between Rachel Pfitzner and Paul Shillingsworth?

This case did lead to a special commission of inquiry into the actions taken by child protection services in New South Wales. Rachel Pfitzner was certainly known to the department and the family had a caseworker. As we have seen, a number of witnesses saw bruises on Dean’s body, and his behaviour indicated that he was being abused and neglected. A day after Pfitzner’s sentencing, the New South
Wales Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, decided that Dean’s death was suitable for review by his office as well. An evaluation of the records held by DoCS by the Ombudsman’s office raised questions about the actions of the department as they related to the Pfitzner/Shillingsworth family.
⁸
Questions were also asked about the adequacy of the response by other support services; thus the Ombudsman’s review was expanded to include the actions – or inactions – of non-government family support groups involved in Dean’s case. This investigation was completed and a report sent to the agencies involved, as well as other relevant parties, including Justice Wood. In total, DoCS had received thirty-four reports about Pfitzner’s three children prior to Dean’s death; none apparently warranted the department’s performing a comprehensive risk assessment. Unsurprisingly, the Ombudsman’s investigation concluded that DoCS continued to fail to adequately respond to reports about the risk of harm to Pfitzner’s children.

This report followed an earlier account made to Parliament, focused on the death of a little seven-year-old girl called Ebony, who died as a result of starvation and neglect.
⁹
On 24 November 2008, Justice James Wood AO QC handed down the inquiry report.
¹⁰
The report listed a significant number of recommendations aimed at reforming the system and protecting vulnerable children like Dean. It was not the purpose to comment on Dean’s (or Ebony’s) cases specifically, as both were at the time still subject to criminal proceedings. In response to Wood’s report, the New South Wales Government developed a five-year plan to reform child protection, an initiative that sees the publication of annual reports.
¹¹
Shortly afterwards, the government actually apologised for the lack of action
they took to protect Dean. The media were understandably damning, with headlines like ‘Dean Shillingsworth Condemned by his Protectors’
¹²
and ‘DOCS errors and tragic cover-up in the death of little Dean Shillingsworth’.
¹³

The local community reaction was also noteworthy. Many people attended the reserve following the discovery of Dean’s body in the days that followed, and a spontaneous shrine of cards, flowers and balloons soon formed. The police took Rachel Pfitzner to the scene on 20 October 2007; many people will never forget the crowds swarming towards her and the police car in which she was travelling. A few days later, on 26 October, the community held a ceremony at Mandurama Reserve to commemorate Dean. Prayers were said by the 2000 people who gathered and the floating candles they left on the pond is an image that will always be associated with little Dean Shillingsworth.