The couple confronted the child in the kitchen, where Hughes assaulted him before sending John to his bedroom. But the couple decided that was not enough, and followed him to his bedroom where the assault became very violent and prolonged. This attack was carried out in front of his siblings. John’s sister, Melissa, gave evidence that she saw Ashfield and Hughes beat John with their fists as well as with a white aluminium curtain pole. While the ferocious attack continued, John cried and apologised. Apart from the physical assault, Hughes then sought to humiliate the boy by telling him he cried like a girl, taking a girl’s dress out of the wardrobe and forcing the dress over John’s head and his arms through the sleeves. In all John had over 100 bruises all over his body from the savage beating, which culminated with Hughes – a willing and violent accomplice to Ashfield’s malice – putting a phone book against the little boy’s head and then hitting him repeatedly with a hammer, causing severe and fatal head trauma. This continued until John lost consciousness. It was hours before Ashfield took her son to Shoalhaven Hospital, Nowra (approximately 160 kilometres south of Sydney), and from there he was airlifted to Westmead Hospital, Sydney. In the meantime Ashfield coached her other children to say that John had been assaulted by a gang of teenagers when he was out shopping for groceries. Ashfield got her oldest child, an eight-year-old boy, to pretend to have been a witness to the attack, which he did, going on national television repeating his mother’s version of events. This was never going to work, predominantly because John’s injuries indicated that he had been subjected to a repeated and sustained beating.
John died of his extensive injuries on 6 August 1993 and Ashfield and Hughes were arrested. As we have seen with other cases, the Department of Community Services was aware of John and the family, as his biological father, Brian, had warned them that Ashfield was violent and that she intended to hurt the children. The media reported that it was far worse and that DoCS had around thirty-five notifications that there were problems at the Ashfield home.53 In a detail reminiscent of Pfitzner and the murder of Dean Shillingsworth (detailed in Chapter 4), Ashfield had even asked DoCS to take the children away as she felt violent. After dropping the unbelievable story of the gang attack, the couple both admitted to killing John. They were found guilty and both sentenced to twenty-one years in prison with a minimum term of sixteen years. This was reduced to nineteen years on appeal, with a minimum of fourteen years. The judge said John was subjected to ‘hideous brutality’54 at the hands of his carers.
Newspaper reports continue the story of what happened to John’s killers.55 This case is a good example of the print and online media acting as a mechanism to protect the public by spreading information about potentially dangerous individuals – or at least people attempting to hide their true identities and backgrounds. John’s mother changed her name while in prison and now goes by Angelic Karstrom. I find this choice of first name very interesting, as ‘angelic’ literally translates as ‘of or belonging to angels’. Does this tell us anything about how Ashfield sees herself or about how she wants other people to see her? It is hard to say, but nonetheless it is a curious choice. Various other newspapers picked up the story over the years; this was a positive outcome as both offenders have changed their names. However, I would want to know their true identity if they were going to be part of my, and my family’s, life.
Angelic Karstrom (aka Ashfield) was released from prison in August 2011, having served eighteen years in prison. Austin Hughes was released from Silverwater Prison in Sydney in 2009 after serving sixteen years, was placed on the Child Protection Register and is required to inform police of his movements. Hughes moved to Kempsey (a town around 345 kilometres north of Sydney) but, still considered dangerous, was back behind bars the same year when he breached the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 199856 by moving in with a woman and her children. His new partner had no idea about his past, as he had changed his name to Blain Lopez-Smith, thereby leaving his criminal conviction behind. However, the new girlfriend’s sister became suspicious as he was very reluctant to have his photograph taken; she did some research and found images of Hughes online and that’s when she learnt of his criminal past. It could be argued that the media, including the news outlets and Internet sources, have protected this woman and her two children, as who knows if Hughes was, or is, still dangerous. At least she gets to make the choice about whether to have him around her family through knowing his past.
In 2003, Margaret Jalaty murdered her four-year-old daughter, Alia Maarbani (also frequently known as Talia), after giving her a fatal dose of methadone.57 This was not the first time Margaret had given the toddler the drug. Criticism was levelled at social services after Talia’s death, as they failed to inform police of the near-fatal overdose. Social services had been under the impression that the child had accidentally taken her mother’s methadone, which Jalaty was prescribed as an analgesic following a car accident. The question was asked whether, had police been informed and an investigation initiated at that stage, the child could have been saved.58
This is a now sadly familiar query in relation to these cases. In fact, there had been concerns about Talia’s welfare from the time she was born on 21 October 1999, in terms of her neurological condition, for which a doctor at Sydney Children’s Hospital, Randwick, had prescribed clonidin.59 Talia was later taken off this drug after consultation with a paediatrician, Dr McCahon, at the Children’s Hospital in Westmead on 29 June 2003. On 22 August, McCahon reviewed Talia’s health and determined that her neurological condition had improved, principally from the termination of her being administered clonidine. However, just a few days later, on 25 August, Talia was admitted to Bankstown Hospital suffering cardiac arrest. She was transferred to the specialist children’s hospital in Sydney, where she was successfully treated. A urine sample collected that same day tested positive for methadone. Dr Williams, who treated Talia, told Jalaty that ingesting methadone can be fatal for a child of Talia’s age; at this time she was just under four years old. Jalaty lied to Williams, telling him she had no idea how Talia could have methadone in her system. However, in her own evidence during her trial, Jalaty told the court that she had listened very carefully when the doctor had informed her how dangerous the drug was for children, and she knew full well that even a small amount could kill.
Even though she admitted to having this knowledge, on 23 November 2003 (Talia was by this time four years and two months old), Jalaty again gave the child methadone. On this particular night, Jalaty had a male guest at the house, Jason Riggs. Jalaty maintained throughout the trial that she was innocent of intentionally administering the drug, and that on the fatal occasion either Talia had accessed the methadone herself or Riggs had given it to the child. Justice Michael Grove60 presided over Jalaty’s jury trial, at the conclusion of which the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had both dispensed the methadone and that she had done so intentionally. The motive given was that she wanted Talia to stop being an interruption to her relations with Riggs on that night. More than that, Jalaty’s actions were considered reckless as she appreciated the potentially fatal consequences and gave the child the drug regardless. The Crown’s position was that Jalaty’s intent was, in the end, to murder Talia. The jury agreed. Jalaty was convicted and given an overall jail term of twenty years with a non-parole period of fifteen years for Talia’s murder and five years for the maladministration of the methadone. Her sentences will run concurrently.
No evidence was put forward to suggest that Jalaty’s actions were influenced by depression or any other mental disorder.61 It was recognised at trial, however, that Jalaty had had a difficult life, with evidence that she had been raped, and that she had been sent to Lebanon and forced into two organised marriages. She then suffered a serious back injury in a car accident, for which she was given strong pain medication that led to drug addiction.62 Jalaty fell pregnant by Talia’s father, Michael, but the two came from very different cultural
backgrounds, which led to Jalaty’s family rejecting her. I would imagine this made her feel more isolated. In addition, Michael did not want the child, but Jalaty refused his suggestion to terminate the pregnancy. One of the reasons Jalaty was so determined to continue with the pregnancy was that for many years she had been told that she was medically unlikely to be able to have children, leading her to consider Talia her ‘miracle baby’.63 Jalaty was, unsurprisingly, scarred emotionally and psychologically by these events. How they affected her treatment of Talia is difficult to determine, but even after her conviction she maintained that she loved her daughter, even if her actions did not bear that out to those looking on.
IN CONCLUSION
All the cases we have looked at in this chapter have one thing in common – the parents or guardians of the child victims killed them. The reasons vary, but the outcome is the same. There are also discernible patterns to a lot of the circumstances surrounding the child’s death: a break-down in communication between different social services departments charged with protecting vulnerable people; inexperienced social workers with a lack of skills required to diagnose and manage serious cases like Victoria Climbié’s and Peter Connelly’s; a failure to establish suitable procedures; and perhaps the worst of all, totally inadequate resources – including financial and personnel – to meet demands. Then there are the offenders. The most notable trend in the cases in this chapter is the complete lack of empathy they showed towards the children in their care. The levels of emotional vacancy are truly staggering.
Connelly appears to have been neglectful and abusive partly as a result of being more focused on her relationship than on her child’s welfare. The same elements appear with Fabienne Kabou and Margaret Jalaty. But the murderous couples that killed Victoria Climbié, Daniel Pelka and John Ashfield were not acting out of selfish love, nor was Emma Wilson. Their motives remain, to me, completely oblique, and frustratingly confusing as a result.
The fact that there is a discernible pattern should make it easier to detect the abuse before it goes too far, before another child dies. What is clear from the case reviews is that it is simply not that easy to police. If people want to harm their children they can be incredibly deceptive and clever in covering their tracks – misleading professionals, spinning webs of lies to cover the neglect and abuse, and ultimately hiding the child away so no one sees the damage being caused. Perhaps we should all, as individual members of society, take some collective responsibility for the safety of our children. Maybe that is simply a utopian ambition. Regardless, an answer of how to better protect the vulnerable victims needs to be found.
After reviewing these cases, I noticed one important thing – I did not find any women who have been prosecuted (or even taken to the pre-trial stage) for multiple filicide in the UK when the deaths could otherwise have been attributed to SIDS. It looks as if my theory may be correct: the Crown Prosecution Service won’t be going near that one again for possibly a long time, or at least until our understanding of the very complex nature of SIDS is significantly improved.
Chapter 9
MEN ARE FROM MARS
What struck me looking through the case details available, especially those in New South Wales and therefore my new locality since relocating to Australia, was that although women are certainly among those who kill their children, men are often involved as co-offenders and sometimes as the main protagonist. We hear all the time in the news how men are the main violators; then there is the shock when a woman harms a child, as they are seen as the nurturers, the carers. When a man commits a violent or murderous act, even against one of his own children, the same shockwaves don’t resonate through society as when a woman wields the weapon. People seem to have two levels of social conscience and expectations: one for men and one for women.
In my conversations with people around this topic I have been left with the impression that many will make endless excuses why women would commit crimes – even heinous, violent and sadistic acts – as I have done throughout this book, looking for answers or explanations as to why. When a woman acts, there has to be a why. When men commit violent acts, we almost accept it is part of the ‘masculine role’. That made me wonder whether our stereotyping of criminals, in terms of the relationships between men and women who kill and their victims, is borne out by the facts.
I did find one notable difference between the sexes when I ran a search of cases listed under ‘killing of children by parents’1 – a search that did not differentiate between a mother or father, or even grandparent, having committed the act – which was that when women in this category kill they (generally) only murder the children or the children and themselves, but often when the men kill they murder the children and the adult woman. Sadly, with both men and women murderers, it is often nothing to do with the children at all; they are often incidental, almost pawns in the power game of the adults. The men who murder are often focusing on the woman and are either intent on getting rid of them or have an intense fear of losing them. Sometimes they kill to cause a reaction in the woman, often punishing the female for a perceived indiscretion such as starting a new relationship with another man. At its most basic emotional level, it’s a case of tit for tat. The killing of the child could be argued to be an act aimed at the adult female.
Something else we hear is that men and women kill for different reasons: women for love, men for revenge, or stereotypes of that kind. I’m guilty of making those same types of judgements myself when I hear about an incident on the news; I also leap to conclusions. But then my professional brain makes me stop and step back. I’ve applied that ‘backward step’ to my thinking here.
As I was reviewing the cases of the women who killed their own children – and some of them have, without a doubt – I began to wonder if things are that clear-cut, as in some of the cases we’ve looked at love does not seem to feature highly as a motive in the callous acts of the women involved. I decided, if I was going to really look at why women kill, and if the dichotomy of behaviour exists between the sexes, I also need to look at why men kill. Fair’s fair. We all hear about the man’s revenge killing, but I get the feeling we are being too simplistic, as that doesn’t reflect the expanse of human emotional variation between people – even considering the notion that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. This basically implies that men are selfish and vindictive and love doesn’t come into their actions. From what we’ve seen, women can be selfish and malicious too. So my question is – why do men kill their own children?
THE MEN WHO MURDER
In 2000 Sung Eun Park was convicted of murdering his wife and two children, aged two and three, on the night of 17–18 October 1996. The circumstances around this triple murder were that Park had left his wife and had begun a relationship with another woman, Ms Hwang. Park’s estranged wife and their children remained in the family’s flat in Eastwood, a suburb of Sydney. Mrs Park did not initially know that Mr Park was living with Hwang, and when she became aware she visited the couple and an argument ensued. The police were called, which angered Park as Hwang’s visa had expired and she was in the country illegally. Park was also known to have had a gambling habit, and in the year prior to the murders he was constantly short of money.
By October 1996 Mrs Park was receiving social security payments, and she also approached the Child Support Agency for help. That agency wrote to Mr Park, telling him that he was responsible for the financial support of his children, but due to his low wage he was not required to make payments at that time. That could change if his financial circumstances improved. This letter also angered him, and it appears it may have been the straw that broke this camel’s back, as Mrs Park and the children were last seen alive that afternoon. That night, Park went to the flat and murdered all three of them; all had been suffocated by placing a plastic bag over their heads. Mrs Park had been incapacitated first, followed by the two children. Their hands and feet had been tied. He then dumped the bodies in bushland. Park was convicted o
f the murder of his wife and two children. His motive was listed as self-interest, as he was considered to have murdered his family so that he could rid himself of their burden and pursue his relationship with Hwang. He received a sentence of twenty-six years with a non-parole period of nineteen years and six months.
Park appealed the length of his sentence, but was unsuccessful on the grounds that there were three separate murders, two of the victims were very young, and that the method used to murder the victims meant that each would have endured a frightening death. In addition, the appeal court took into consideration absence of any provocation, disability or other handicap to explain Park’s conduct, the partial premeditation in the killing of his children (after he killed his wife he must have then chosen to murder each child in turn), and the lack of any remorse.2 There was no torture or previous abuse. Compared to the women killers we looked at, aspects of this are similar to Kabou and Jalaty (see Chapter 9), who killed for completely selfish reasons. So this is not just a male-centric motive.
On 6 July 2001 Stephen Cheatham was found guilty of murdering his wife, Sandra, and his three-year-old daughter Briahna, and the attempted murder of his other daughter, Tahnee, who was three months old at the time. The circumstances are that on 5 March 1998, Cheatham was at home with his family. His wife went to bed at around 10.30 pm, but the offender stayed up watching television. During this period, he wrote two letters, one to his parents and the other to his wife’s parents, telling them that he intended to kill his family. He then went to the main bedroom where his wife slept and stabbed her five times in the back with a carving knife, after which he went to his eldest daughter’s room and stabbed her, then to his youngest daughter’s room and stabbed her in the cot as she slept. He then carried each child to the main bedroom and lay them on the bed next to their mother. The mother and eldest daughter died of their wounds, and only skilful medical care saved the baby. Cheatham then cut himself several times with the knife and hit himself over the head with a hammer, after which he went for a run with the intention of increasing blood loss as a result of his injuries, thereby committing suicide. He was discovered, lying next to a knife outside a school by a security guard with cuts to his neck and stomach and obviously in need of medical assistance. However, he told the guard he did not want help and instead wanted to be left alone to die. He told the guard and medics that he had given his family AIDS and could not bear his family living with the disease. He became very distressed when he was told that his youngest daughter had survived the attack.
Mothers Who Murder Page 24
