April Jones, a five-year-old British toddler who went missing while playing near her home in Wales in October 2012, clearly did not simply decide to vanish. In May 2013, Mark Bridger was convicted of her murder, although he claims he killed her by accident after running her over in his car. He then said he forgot where he hid her body as he had been drinking heavily at the time. At his trial the jury rejected Bridger’s version of events, as the child’s blood and bone fragments were recovered from his house. The rest of April’s body, besides the small pieces found in Bridger’s home, has never been found, despite the largest police search in British history. Witnesses reported seeing the child being taken away in a van or four-wheel drive vehicle. Bridger owned a Land Rover. She was going willingly; there was no sign of a struggle. It later transpired that Bridger knew the family and had talked to April. The judge presiding over his trial labelled him a pathological liar and pedophile after child sex abuse images were found on his computer and Internet searches in his computer’s history included terms such as ‘naked young five-year-old girls’. The police also found images of murder victims Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman;15 arguably innocent in itself, but given the rest of the circumstantial evidence, highly suspicious. Bridger is only the thirty-seventh person in the United Kingdom to receive a whole-life tariff for his crimes. Bridger did plan to appeal, but on 14 January 2014 he abandoned his application for permission to appeal against his whole-life tariff. Again, there was no body, but we do have witnesses and the offender did confess to the crime. Plus, there’s physical forensic evidence linking the offender to the victim, and the evidence also proves that the child had been seriously injured, as a bone fragment found in Bridger’s woodburner came from a child’s skull.
Developments in forensic science have had a twofold impact on prosecuting these types of scenarios. First, juries, partly as a result of television programs such as CSI, expect forensic evidence in every case, and are less likely to deliver a guilty verdict if none is forthcoming. Second, it is really hard to commit an act of this nature and get away with it. Developments in our understanding of geographical profiling (or crime mapping)16 and advances in DNA technologies, for example, mean that even the smallest pieces of evidence that appear almost incidental can be the key to a crime. And certainly the forensic sciences have moved forward since 1996, the year in which Lane is accused of murdering baby Tegan. Yet still, knowing all we know, we can’t find the child’s remains, or a sound motive for her murder.
CASE CLOSED
Keli Lane never fulfilled her ambition to represent Australia at the Olympic Games. It remains a mystery why Lane decided to adopt out her first and third children and yet do something completely different with Tegan. While it is true that a thorough search of birth and death records in New South Wales reveals Tegan Lane was probably not living in that state, there remains the possibility that Tegan and her new family left the state and are currently living elsewhere. However, it should be noted that the police did not limit their search to Australia. Department of Immigration records were searched for passport applications for female children aged under twelve months born between 14 September 1996 and 31 December 1996, none of which could have been Tegan. There are too many possibilities to list to surmise what could have happened to Tegan Lane. Perhaps Keli Lane is the only person alive who knows. Perhaps there are others who know but aren’t, for whatever reason, coming forward.
This is an unusual case for a number of reasons, not least because Tegan’s body – if she is dead – has never been found, and neither has the elusive alleged father, Andrew Morris/Norris. Another unusual aspect of this case was the coroner’s decision to use the media to seek information. The non-publication order, initially put in place to protect Keli and baby Tegan had she been found, as well as the Lane family’s privacy, was lifted in a desperate attempt to find out where baby Tegan was. In 2004 and 2005 the police also used the mass media to attract the public’s attention to the investigation in the hope of finding either Tegan or Andrew Morris/Norris. Information was forthcoming, all of which was followed up. However, all attempts failed and no person who could have been the father or the child was located. Keli’s defence barrister summed it up well when he told the jury that Keli’s desire to live her young life without the additional burden of a child was a long way from making her capable of murdering her newborn daughter.
In December 2013 Lane lost her appeal against her conviction for murder. Although she remains hated by some, others are asking about the veracity of a conviction where no body has been found; logically, had a baby been murdered and disposed of between the hospital and Lane’s home, surely it would have been located by now. I am not saying Lane is innocent as I clearly cannot get inside her head, and I did not sit through the weeks and months of evidence that was put before the jury. Still, this case is problematic for me as it just doesn’t stack up. Lane was recognised as an excellent mother to her final baby, has never before nor since shown any signs of violence or psychological instability, and there is no other evidence that could lead me to believe she was capable of murder. Is she a liar? Yes. She doesn’t deny that. But as the coroner pointed out, someone being a liar is a long way from making them capable of murder – especially of their own newborn child. While I have included some cases here by way of comparison, the case of Keli and Tegan Lane appears to be unique; in truth, I have not been able to discover any scenarios similar to this.
If you would like to read about this case in more detail, I refer you to Nice Girl by Rachael Jane Chin. This book provides ample information about the background to the case, outlines the key facts, and details the original coronial inquest and trial. The book is balanced and asks many of the questions that immediately occurred to me too.
Chapter 7
CAROL MATTHEY (1998–2003)
A case built on inferences based on coincidence is like a castle built from sand in a storm
At around 9.45 am on 28 October 1998, six-month-old Jacob Matthey suffered an ‘acute life-threatening episode’. His mother, Carol, called 000 and when the ambulance crew arrived she told them Jacob was having trouble breathing and was turning purple. When the medics examined him they found that the baby was conscious, had a pulse and was breathing, although his breath was laboured and his limbs were limp; he was also making grunting and wheezing noises when he breathed out. Rushed by ambulance to Geelong Hospital, 20 kilometres away from their Bannockburn home in south-west Victoria, Jacob would survive. Six weeks later, though, tragically he passed away. Within four years and four months, three of his siblings would also die.
The three babies’ and one toddler’s deaths did not cause the medics any concern at the time of each death in isolation, in that there was no evidence that the mother had harmed her children, but the police believed that the occurrence of four deaths was suspicious. Carol Matthey became the prime suspect due to the fact that she was the only adult present when all four children died. In February 2005, Matthey was charged with the murder of her four children, Jacob, Chloe, Joshua and Shania, by deliberate suffocation.
Many of the cases of alleged filicide are based on the suspicion resulting from recurrent child deaths in one family, made famous by Meadow’s law: that one cot death is a tragedy, two are suspicious, but three cot deaths is murder until proven otherwise. This contentious theory was named after the man who coined the phrase, British paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow, who was once the prosecution’s star witness during the 1990s and 2000s when British mothers were accused of murdering their children.
By 2003, across the water in the UK Meadow’s law had essentially been discredited, largely as a result of Sally Clark’s successful appeal of the same year when she was found not guilty of murdering her children (see Chapter 3). In Australia, however, Meadow was still having an influence, and the Kathleen Folbigg case was being heard here just on the cusp of the change. As a result, attention was still focused on women whose children had died. One of these was Carol Matthey.
&n
bsp; The Crown wanted to allege that Carol Matthey murdered her children in order to maintain her relationship with her husband, Stephen, who they claimed had been on the verge of leaving her on a number of occasions. Her pre-trial hearing, where all the evidence is reviewed by the judge to determine what should be heard by the jury, was held before Justice John Coldrey1 in the Supreme Court of Victoria between 20 and 27 August, with a ruling passed down on 12 October 2007. Raymond Elston was the senior counsel for the prosecution. The Crown’s case was based on three things: the forensic medical evidence which the prosecution claimed was consistent with intentional suffocation, the fact that four children from one family had died, together with circumstantial evidence relating to Matthey’s relationship with her husband and children. There was no forensic evidence linking Matthey to the deaths of her children and, like other cases in this book, Carol always maintained her innocence.
None of the assertions was substantiated by the information the prosecution put forward. As a result, and only weeks before Matthey was due to face full trial, Justice John Coldrey called into question both the reliability and admissibility of the Crown’s evidence. It is surprising that the Department of Public Prosecutions decided to indict Carol Matthey at all, as in all four cases there were medical complications that could explain the child’s death. As in Kathleen Folbigg’s case, it wasn’t that any one of the Matthey children’s deaths was suspicious; it was the total number of deaths in one family that raised concerns. The medical evidence, which was all assessed at the pre-trial hearing, was important in forming Justice Coldrey’s assessment that the evidence against Matthey lacked veracity and therefore should not be heard by the jury. It remains to be seen whether this case will have a wider impact and will affect other similar scenarios, and whether it will be used by defence counsels in future cases of alleged filicide or in appellate hearings of women in prison. Information for this chapter comes from a number of sources; the majority was taken from the court documents, which are available online.2
THE SCENARIO
The Mattheys had their first child, Dylan, on 27 May 1997. He was the only child to survive the next four years. Almost exactly a year later, on 3 May 1998, Jacob was born. Although the second of the Matthey children, Jacob was the first to die, on 8 December 1998, at just seven months old. On 28 October 1998 Jacob suffered an ‘acute life-threatening episode’, during which he had trouble breathing and was turning purple. His mother called an ambulance. Although the ambulance crew found Jacob was conscious, his breathing was laboured, with grunting and wheezing noises when he breathed out, and his limbs were limp. The little boy was taken to Geelong Hospital, about an hour south-west of Melbourne, where he was a patient for two days, being discharged on 30 October. When Jacob was assessed a number of medical conditions were identified, including a raised white blood cell count and enlarged spleen and liver, which Associate Professor of Paediatrics Peter Hewson stated were likely to have resulted from an infection, rather than asphyxia (one form of suffocation). Dr Hewson also sought the opinion of Dr Ian Hopkins, a child neurologist, who diagnosed an acute encephalopathic process (acute inflammation of the brain); however, this is difficult to detect and while Hewson said that it could have been the result of an undetected infection it could also have been the result of an asphyxial episode.
Regardless of the cause, Jacob went home, but continued to be the subject of close medical scrutiny, with visits to his general practitioner on both 1 and 2 November. Although Jacob was distressed during these examinations he was deemed medically fit. Jacob was readmitted to Geelong Hospital on 2 November, and remained there until the 7th. After he was discharged for the second time, Jacob was placed under the supervision of Dr Anthony Dinning, a paediatrician, who examined the baby on 9 November. Dr Dinning noted several things: first, that Jacob was unsettled and generally grizzly; he also felt that Jacob was having trouble seeing him properly and determined that Jacob’s liver and spleen were both slightly enlarged. Jacob’s health did not improve and he was again admitted to hospital and reassessed by Drs Hewson and Hopkins on 20 November. At this time, Dr Hopkins considered Jacob to be neurologically normal, and Dr Hewson was of the opinion that the baby’s initial presentation with a swollen brain was probably the result of a metabolic abnormality. Jacob was again discharged but at around 11.15 am on 8 December Carol Matthey contacted the Rural Ambulance Service, telling them that she had found Jacob lying in his cot not breathing. Matthey also went to her neighbour, who was a nurse, for help. When the paramedics arrived they found Jacob on the sofa; he was pale and unresponsive with vomit around his mouth. They tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate the baby. Investigations were ongoing as to the possible metabolic issue when Jacob died at seven months old.
Dr Peter Campbell performed a post-mortem two days after Jacob died. He gave the cause of death as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). At post-mortem Dr Campbell found evidence of a significant asymmetrical cranial deformation, as well as petechial haemorrhages on his thymus gland, lungs and heart.3 Jacob was also suffering from acute tracheobronchitis and bronchiolitis. Both are common respiratory infections, bronchiolitis being particularly prevalent in babies under six months old. In addition, the pathologist established that Jacob had aspirated stomach contents into his lungs. This can lead to chemical irritation of the lungs or a bacterial infection of the lower airway, which in severe cases can cause injuries to the lungs, lead to pneumonia or pneumonitis, or even result in acute respiratory failure. In his committal evidence, Dr Campbell suggested that some pathologists might have given the cause of death as bronchiolitis, given that this was one of the doctor’s findings at post-mortem. Jacob had also been suffering from acute otitis media – (AOM) or inflammation of the middle ear. This condition is common in young children, with over 60 per cent suffering at least one episode by the age of three, and 90 per cent by the time they reach school age. Although very painful in itself, clinicians note that a child suffering from AOM can also have serious bacterial infections, including septicemia or meningitis, and experts urge doctors not to accept otitis media as the sole diagnosis in a sick, feverish or flushed young child without eliminating a more serious cause.4 But as Dr Campbell was unsure as to exactly what caused Jacob’s death, he gave the cause of death as SIDS, a diagnosis of which is established by the pathologist through exclusion when they have been unable to identify another specific cause.
Many clinical presentations at post-mortem do not preclude the diagnosis of SIDS as the cause of death as there is substantial evidence showing that intrathoracic (occurring within the thorax or chest) petechiae happen as a result of upper airway obstruction (as occurs in obstructive sleep apnoea5), which is thought to be the final event in SIDS deaths. As a result, the presence of intrathoracic hemorrhages on the thymus, lungs, pleural surface and occasionally the heart is common in SIDS deaths, and possibly formed by high negative intrathoracic pressure when an infant tries to breathe against the upper airway obstruction during sleep apnoea.
Chloe Matthey was the second of the children within the family to die. She was the youngest of the Mattheys’ two daughters, having been born on 4 September 2000. On 14 November, at eight weeks old Chloe was healthy, but twelve days later she was unsettled while at a birthday party at a friend’s house. There is some indication that she may have been in some pain, as Carol Matthey gave the child Panadol, after consultation with a chemist, which appeared to have the desired effect and settled her down a little. A short time later her husband Stephen arrived, and his presence seemed to have had a further calming influence on the child.
On 27 November, at around 3.35 pm, Carol Matthey called the Ambulance Service as she had found Chloe in her cot, not breathing, after putting her down for an afternoon nap around an hour earlier. After calling for medical help, she called her husband and commenced CPR on the baby, which she knew how to perform as she had been trained after Jacob’s death. On arrival the ambulance crew tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate the baby. Chloe was
ten weeks old when she died. Dr Campbell also performed the post-mortem on Chloe; he was thorough, taking X-rays and performing microbiology, toxicology and metabolic analyses. Dr Campbell found that, like her brother, Chloe showed signs of tracheobronchitis, aspiration of gastric contents into the lungs, as well as otitis media in both ears. In addition, she was also suffering from pulmonary congestion and oedema, caused by excess fluid in her lungs whereby the watery plasma of blood collects in the air sacs making it hard to breathe, which can be caused by heart failure. Under the heading ‘Cause of Death’, the pathologist recorded that his findings were consistent with SIDS. He also made a case note that Chloe was the second child to die in the family for whom the cause of death was given as SIDS, and while this could simply be a result of chance, it also raised the possibility that there was a genetic, inherited condition predisposing these children to sudden death. No metabolic conditions could be diagnosed at the time of the post-mortems, but skin cells were retained for further metabolic analysis. The issue of a non-accidental injury was also posited as being a potential cause of death as a result of the fact that it could not be ruled out by the post-mortem examination. However, no injury was found on Chloe, or on Jacob for that matter, that could account for their deaths.
Mothers Who Murder Page 17
