Perfect Victim (32 page)

Justice Vincent said his parole board experience had led him to read ‘vast amounts of material’ relating to victims of sexual abuse and stated that everything about the prisoner’s history was consistent with that picture. ‘There is nothing that jars,’ he said. But, if it
were
untrue, it could indicate the basis of some other psychological disturbance underlying Robertson’s behaviour – right up to the present time. And
that
would provide an entirely different basis for the ‘horrendously tragic action and killing’.

Mr Crewdson told the court that he believed Robertson was suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome. Though more usually an illness suffered by victims of violent crime, PTS was an illness that could affect the perpetrator of an offence too. He explained that Robertson was so traumatised by the murder of Rachel Barber that this form of dissociation was likely to be the cause of her amnesia. He said that in spite of this post-traumatic ‘distancing’ from her crime, being apprehended and incarcerated provided some catharsis as Robertson attempted to internally resolve her guilt and shame. Ironically though, the fearful prospect of being sentenced remained a barrier to any further recall at present.

He said he had no reason to doubt Caroline Reed Robertson’s story that she continued to be ‘haunted’ by her actions – plagued by repeated memories of them at night when she tried to sleep. But she was not a young woman facing trial for an awful murder, he said. For her, at a fantasy level, she was still a young child in trouble again, where revelation of her motive brought the prospect of even more fearful punishment.

30

T
HE
S
ENTENCE

Three weeks elapsed before Justice Frank Vincent announced a date for sentencing. He had already warned lawyers representing both parties at the plea hearing that since his burden of responsibility was ‘heavy,’ he would have to think long and deeply about the evidence.

The Barber family learnt on Monday, 27 November 2000 that the judge had made his decision. Robertson would be sentenced on Wednesday at 10 a.m. and attending media would be issued with a written statement outlining his decision.

Caroline Robertson, looking pale and distant, filed into the Supreme Court through a side door for the final time. Escorted by two uniformed guards, she was led past a watchful and cramped press bench to her seat where she stayed, head bowed, avoiding the eyes of her estranged parents who sat well apart in the public gallery behind her.

Barristers for both sides, shuffling black robes and paperwork, and whispering among themselves, their grey wigs still glistening with raindrops from the downpour outside the historic building, took their places in the bowl of the court. The Barbers, joined by the Carella family together with friends, relatives and many of Rachel’s fellow dance students, sat in a nervous silence. And waited.

In his opening address Justice Vincent told the packed court that while a great deal was known about the circumstances surrounding the crime, material relating to other important matters ‘remained silent’. But the broader sequence of events was clear and essential features on which sentence would be determined had been set out in the narrative provided by the Crown.

The judge, summarising the case against Robertson, said it was clear that the defendant had developed ‘some level of fascination’ with Rachel as far back as 1997. Her writings suggested that this became an ‘abnormal, almost obsessional’ interest. And Justice Vincent said the prisoner’s reference to the proposed disfigurement of her victim’s body in the murder plan was indicative of the degree of jealousy she felt towards Rachel and her family.

The reconstructed notes indicated to him that it
had
been the prisoner’s intention to assume a false identity after murdering her victim. But he thought this a ‘curious’ scheme, lacking the careful planning of the actual murder plot. Evidence suggested that little thought had gone into the activities which followed the young dancer’s death, or into Caroline’s own ‘curious disappearance’ which was to culminate in her developing a new identity. No financial arrangements had been made before the murder to help facilitate the identity-swap plan; no careful scheme had been formulated to help dispose of the victim’s body – and, His Honour noted, Robertson must have been fearful of the risk of attracting attention when faced with the prospect of removing the body from her wardrobe to the country.

By contrast, the murder plan involved a number of steps, and considerable time to execute, he said. Robertson’s every action had been aimed at keeping Rachel Barber under control, while carefully avoiding arousing suspicion. ‘I find the deliberation and malevolence with which you acted extremely disturbing,’ he said. Despite all the unknowns in this bizarre case, he was satisfied Robertson had encompassed the young dancer’s death in her thoughts for a substantial period before finally moving against her. ‘In any event, whatever period may have been involved, there can be no doubt that your actions were carried out after extensive deliberation, and to a great degree, in a calculated fashion.’

Justice Vincent considered that the ‘device’ the prisoner employed to induce Rachel Barber to her home had also been given considerable thought. The victim would have been vulnerable to this approach by Robertson: ‘Indeed, what normal person would have contemplated the terrible existence of such a chilling design or that she was the subject of such hatred?’ he said. ‘I have no doubt that you appreciated that the combination of a slightly adventurous but harmless secrecy, and the prospect of obtaining what she referred to as “a heap of money”, that would enable her to purchase some shoes that took her fancy, would have been very attractive to a person of her age and apparent temperament.

‘Your planning in this respect possessed subtlety and demonstrates the operation of a devious mind and your possession of considerable manipulative abilities.

‘I suspect that the twin fires of a powerful obsession with the perceived attributes of Rachel Barber, and an intense hatred of her for possessing them, increasingly consumed your thoughts, driving out any serious consideration of the practical unreality of achieving your desire, and motivated you to act before you were fully prepared. This view is, I think, consistent with your general conduct at that time.

‘What is apparent in the material before the court in relation to your planning is the total absence of any suggestion or impression that you ever gave thought to the individuality or humanity of your victim, or any sense of the significance of taking a life. You appear to have been totally self-absorbed, concerned only with your own life situation, feelings and desires.’

The judge said that this self-centredness had resulted in the death of a youngster who, in spite of Robertson’s research, she clearly
did not
really know or understand. Justice Vincent, his voice occasionally breaking with emotion, said it was a simple reality, contrary to Robertson’s distorted perception, that there were no perfect lives or perfect people. All individuals were unique
and
irreplaceable in a society where every life is inviolate and should not be unlawfully taken. ‘That is both a profoundly important moral principle, and a proposition of law based, in part, on sheer necessity, if we are to live together in a decent and civilised community,’ he said. ‘You have broken that precept, bringing about the death of Rachel Barber, motivated by envy of her for her family, her beauty, and her personality, and above all, I am satisfied, because you believed that she would be likely to have a happy and successful life of a kind that you anticipated that you would never experience.’

But, he said, it was also possible to feel sympathy and sadness for Robertson, whose level of self-esteem was so low and whose deep-seated, longstanding self-hatred and envy of others were so intense that she was prepared to kill in order to achieve her ‘un-realisable and unreal dream’. But her crime had created more than one victim, he said, referring to the Barber family’s Victim Impact Statements, which conveyed the pain of having a young life criminally and senselessly taken. This was a reminder, he said, of the impact of crime on those intimately affected by it. ‘For most in the community, in time, what you have done will become a distant bizarre occurrence,’ said the judge in a quavering voice. ‘But for some, and I refer to the family and friends of your victim, the anguish will remain, sometimes intensifying as milestone events take place in their lives or the lives of those around them, but ever present and constantly evoked by everyday life occurrences.’

He said that psychological and psychiatric evidence had been of limited assistance to him because of Robertson’s inability or unwillingness to provide further information about aspects of her background or of the crime itself. But what
had
emerged, said Justice Vincent, was that the prisoner suffered from a deeply entrenched personality disorder.

Directing the court to the evidence of Dr Barry-Walsh, Justice Vincent referred to Robertson’s home life. He noted Robertson’s account of poor relationships with her parents and the numerous mentions of her obesity, which had resulted in her being marginalised and bullied at school. Her writings supported the poor self-image she later developed. It was clear, he concluded, that Robertson’s alienation as she grew older increased her sense of anger. But the lack of detail in relation to the crime, and the absence of necessary information on her background, had left everyone speculating.

Justice Vincent told Robertson, who sat in the dock weeping, her head still bowed, that in sentencing her he had taken into account her age; the nature of the offence; the time she had already served on remand; and her eventual change of plea, which indicated her remorse. But, given the impossibility of understanding the motivating factors underlying the murder, he harboured grave reservations about her future and still considered that she posed a serious threat to other members of the community.

Jailing Robertson for twenty years, with a non-parole period of fourteen years and six months – but deducting from her final term the 627 days she had already spent in pre-sentence detention – the judge said he was still not confident that she showed any real insight into the significance of her crime, and suspected that her reactions were based on self-pity.

‘Perhaps,’ he said, ‘the situation will change with the passage of time and with increasing maturity, you will find yourself able to make a full disclosure.’

31

L
ETTERS TO
R
ACHEL
– E
XTRACTS FROM THE
S
ECOND
Y
EAR

The days leading up to the first anniversary of Rachel’s death …

Tuesday, 8 February 2000

Dear Rachel,

Yesterday was torrid. I took your daddy to the doctors as suggested by Michael Clarebrough and he totally collapsed while he was there. He hyperventilated, got the shakes, was crying, lost his mobility, got pins and needles in his hands, and numb lips, on top of the continued pressure in his chest. It was very distressing.

Kathy, our doctor, ordered ECG and blood tests but she thinks the symptoms are related to a post-traumatic panic attack. He’s had about four of these now, always slightly different. He admitted to Kathy that he falls into depressions, sometimes three or four times a day, and admitted to periods of depression before your murder as well. She’s told him to see Michael Clarebrough once a fortnight and she is going to prescribe him anti-depressants which will also relieve his panic attacks. He couldn’t even hold a paper bag to his mouth to breathe in carbon dioxide. When he left he was walking like Frankenstein or like someone recovering from a stroke. He eventually got back to the car but couldn’t even hold a pen to sign his name properly. Afterwards he laughed about it but said he was scared at the time …

This time last year you had approximately twenty-one days to live. I have a book on how to have thin thighs in twenty-one days. Sometimes twenty-one days seems like a long time but then so does the last hour of school on a hot day. Twenty-one days more.

I wonder if Caroline Bloody Reed Robertson has any regrets. I wonder if she wished she could turn the clock back. Only twenty-one days, Rachel, a number of years that will elude you. You will never be twenty-one years old, or eighteen years or sixteen. Darling, I’ll have to leave now, I’m getting tired.

Loving you for ever,

Mum.

15 February 2000

I went back to work today for the first time since the committal hearing. My boss Deb let me have some more time off. It wasn’t too bad today, but I don’t know, by the end of the day I was so miserable. I can’t ever get over this, Rachel. I so desperately need you. Come on, walk or burst, as you so often did, through the front door, laughing and shouting for fun.