At around 12 pm Pfitzner went back to Ms Daley’s house, this time with T and B, but without Dean. She was visibly upset and was crying. To explain her emotion, she told Ms Daley that she had felt compelled to take Dean to the Department of Community Services in Campbelltown and had left him there. She said she’d attached a note. Rachel was still crying when Mr Connors got home at 4 pm; he was given the same story to explain why Dean was not with them, as were a number of other people in the days that followed. But when Rachel spoke to her caseworker on 15 October, four days after she had strangled Dean, she told a different lie, saying that she had kept Dean with her and that everything was going well, adding that Dean had been good and that she wasn’t stressed and was managing.
On 17 October a group of children found the suitcase containing Dean’s decomposing body floating in a public pond. By the time his body was found, Dean had been dead for six days. The combination of the warm weather in Sydney in October and the water meant that Dean’s body would have been fairly decomposed before it was analysed. As a result, in the early days of the investigation into the body in the suitcase, the police had difficulty identifying the remains, as initially it was thought that they belonged to a boy aged between four and seven years. The police would have initiated a review of the missing persons’ register, to look for potential candidates fitting the profile of the body. Of course, Dean’s name would not have come up against the details given, as he was much younger than the biological profile suggested, at just two years and eight months.
Simultaneously, a police investigation was also taking place into Dean’s whereabouts. On 18 October, a week after the recovery order was granted, the police went to Rachel’s home three times to execute the order. On every occasion, Rachel maintained her story that she had dropped Dean off at the Department of Community Services in Campbelltown. Although the police searched the house, no sign of Dean was found. The police followed up on Rachel’s story and found that it was untrue – that Dean was not in care – and they urgently set about trying to locate him.
In the early hours of the 19 October, the police interviewed Mr Connors. He confirmed what Rachel had told her caseworker about the time Dean had spent with them – that things were okay to start with, but after a while Pfitzner began mistreating Dean. According to Connors, Rachel treated Dean’s two siblings well, but he stated that Dean was terrified of his mother. But Connors was unable to help find Dean, as Pfitzner had told him the same story as the police, so as far as he knew Dean was with social services.
By this stage it had been determined that the unidentified body found in the duck pond was Dean. Officers arrested Rachel Pfitzner for Dean’s murder on 20 October 2007. When interviewed, she claimed that his death had been an accident. In a quote taken from the court documents, Pfitzner claimed that she picked Dean up by his jumper and shook him, that she lost control. She demonstrated how it happened to the officers, using a one-handed grip in front of the throat. She said she tried but couldn’t stop herself – even walking away only to return and resume shaking him. The whole incident lasted somewhere between two and five minutes; she couldn’t be sure how long or how much force she’d used. Pfitzner told the interviewing officers how Dean had made a strange gurgling sound and was gasping for breath. After the second episode of shaking, she either pushed or threw Dean to the ground. Pfitzner said he fell on the back of his head and again made more gurgling sounds. It was at this stage that she realised he was seriously injured, so she commenced CPR, trying to resuscitate him. After about ten minutes, Pfitzner stopped administering CPR and felt his heart, stating that initially it was going very fast, but then it stopped, and that Dean had froth coming out of his mouth. Pfitzner knew at this time that Dean was dead. She also told the officers that he had wet himself.
After it was all over she took Dean’s lifeless body upstairs, where she undressed him before placing him in a plastic bag and then in the suitcase. To move Dean’s body, she put the suitcase in a pram and took him to the duck pond where she threw the suitcase into the water. She waited for the suitcase to disappear from view and then went home. Pfitzner was charged with Dean’s murder and remanded in custody.
Rachel and her mother spoke the next day (21 October), while Rachel was held in custody; she was then moved to Silverwater Women’s Correctional Centre, Sydney. Pfitzner told her mother that she had strangled Dean – a different version of events from the one reported to the police – and when her mother asked why she had told the police that she had shaken Dean to death, there was no answer. The police decided to secretly monitor Rachel’s communications, and eleven days later recorded another conversation between Rachel and her mother. During this taped exchange, she confirmed what she had told the police during interview – that she picked Dean up by his jumper and that she pushed him to the ground, whereupon he started frothing at the mouth and his heart stopped. When Pfitzner’s mother asked if she was ‘in a rage’ when it happened, Rachel responded that she felt intimidated. She also told her mother that she had begged the Federal Magistrates Court to process the recovery order to take Dean 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.
RACHEL’S PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE AT THE TIME OF DEAN’S DEATH
In my opinion, Rachel could be argued to have an addictive personality – although the very existence of this as a personality type is still hotly debated – which many scientists believe can be characterised by the disproportionate, recurring use of pleasurable activities to cope with internal conflict, pressure or stress. There are two main forms of addiction: one is substance-based, the other behaviour-based. The causes of addictive personality are varied, and one of the trigger factors is thought to be the psychological stress resultant from someone feeling socially isolated. This can be compounded by a lack of coping skills, as seen in Rachel’s earlier life, and cognitive distortions when people feel inferior and unworthy; they are often vulnerable to depression and emotional insecurity. People with this type of addictive personality disorder often act on impulse and struggle to control their stress levels. Again, these are traits seen in Rachel’s early behaviour as a child and teenager, as well as in her adult life.
In none of the psychiatrists’ or psychologists’ comments I’ve seen, nor anywhere in the court documents, does anyone mention the possibility that Pfitzner suffered from an addictive personality disorder. However, even though no one has yet succeeded in substantiating the existence of a true ‘addictive personality’, if we are going to consider all of the potential ‘why’s, it cannot be ignored as potentially having an influence over Rachel’s actions. Experts think that the tendency to dependence is more accurately a combination of biological, psychological and environmental factors. Therefore, I have to wonder – did all of these come together in Rachel Pfitzner to create an addictive personality? If Rachel is or was suffering from an addictive personality, at its most basic level addiction is the desire – the need – to take control and fulfil a sense of emptiness and unhappiness. And did that personality become addicted to the idea of hating and fearing Paul Shillingsworth? Did that progress to the point where she could no longer see her son as Dean, a separate person, a little boy who needed protection, and instead, by torturing Dean, she gained a means to control that hatred and fear?
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 si
multaneously, 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
Mothers Who Murder Page 10
