In that interim period, Smith had dug a shallow grave, Kiesha’s body had been taken out of the suitcase, doused in petrol, and the couple had attempted to burn the body, presumably in an attempt to disguise her identity should her body be found. Kiesha had been left dressed in her pink pyjamas and was also wearing a purple jacket when she was buried. They then burnt the suitcase and covered Kiesha in dirt and a big branch. Abrahams said that she did not go back to the burial site, but that Smith had returned the following day to make sure everything was all right. In an attempt to further cover their tracks, and demonstrating a reasonable level of forensic awareness, Abrahams then threw out the clothing and shoes she’d worn while disposing of Kiesha’s body, and got rid of their mobile phone SIM cards and the tools used to dig the grave. In essence, they tried to discard any evidence that could link them to Kiesha’s death.
After waiting for some time, Kristi Abrahams contacted the police to report Kiesha Weippeart missing on 1 August 2010. Claiming to be ‘distraught’, she concocted a story about the child wandering from the family home. Abrahams and her de facto partner Smith then gave a press conference, as a result of which the public swung into action. Neighbours, family and friends undertook took a large scale search around the couple’s Mount Druitt home in western Sydney.
What had happened to the little girl? Did she wander off? Had she been abducted? How had she simply vanished? Although there were many questions, initially the focus was on finding the child. Parents are generally top of the list of suspects in cases where a child is killed. However, in this case there was no body – as yet. And both Abrahams and her partner Robert Smith, throughout the first eight months of the search, consistently denied that they had any knowledge of Kiesha’s disappearance.
THE INVESTIGATION AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE
After hearing the contents of the secretly recorded telephone call, the police now had reason to re-interview Abrahams and Smith, and on 21 April 2011 Kristi Abrahams admitted to murdering her daughter. Abrahams and Smith then took the police to where Kiesha’s body was buried in the bushland. The couple had been successful in partially burning Kiesha’s body prior to her burial, but not so badly that identity could not be confirmed. The couple were arrested at the site and the child’s remains were recovered. They were taken to Mount Druitt Police Station, where over a dozen locals congregated to protest; many were the same people who had joined in the desperate search for the child eight months before.
The couple did not apply for bail and so were held in custody. The child’s remains were taken to Glebe mortuary for forensic analysis. As Kiesha had been buried for some time, her remains mostly consisted of bones, teeth and fragments of hair, which were found both within the shallow grave itself and scattered across the surrounding area of bushland.
Now the police had the evidence they needed to review Abrahams’ account of Kiesha’s last hours. A forensic pathologist, Dr Matthew Orde, conducted a post-mortem examination, and confirmed that the remains were those of Kiesha Weippeart. He found that the state of preservation of the body indicated that Kiesha had died several months prior to discovery. Added to the fact that Abrahams and Smith had successfully burnt Kiesha’s body prior to burial this meant Orde was unable to determine a specific cause of death. A forensic anthropologist also assessed Kiesha’s remains and agreed that she had died several months before her body was found, but still could not determine what had killed her.
One of Dr Orde’s key findings were chips in the child’s teeth, which he determined had occurred around the time of Kiesha’s death – a period known by practitioners as ‘peri-mortem’. It is often impossible to determine accurately if an event occurred immediately before death (ante-mortem) or around the time of death (peri-mortem) as the signs of whether something happened in that time period can be very similar; all we can say is ‘around the time of death’. But that can be very helpful, as these pieces of information filled in some of the gaps of what had happened during Kiesha’s last few hours. We now knew that Kiesha’s teeth had been damaged, which would have needed a traumatic event. Orde concluded that the fresh-looking fractures in several of her teeth could have been caused by the forcible closing of her mouth when she hit her head. A forensic odontologist,1 Dr Alain Middleton, looked at Kiesha’s teeth, and agreed that the loss of tooth enamel (the hardest part of the tooth, harder than bone, and resistant to a lot of trauma including burning) was recent, occurring at most three days before death but probably much closer to the time of death. Although the enamel can fracture due to heat during burning, he did not think that this was the case here. Importantly, although Middleton said the fracturing of the enamel occurred during life, he did not think that the pattern of fractures found could have occurred with just one traumatic event. Basically, he thought Kiesha’s head and/or face had been hit at least twice, possibly three times if not more, and the chips were caused by blunt force trauma – which could have been applied by anything not sharp, including a fist or a bat. Middleton went further, saying that the fracture pattern was consistent with Kiesha being punched in an upward direction, but from different angles.
Middleton’s summary was essential as it called Abrahams’ account of events into question. It would seem whatever happened to Kiesha in the hours and minutes before death was not as simple as her hitting her head after being ‘nudged’ by her mother; the injuries caused Kiesha’s death. However, even if we cannot fully accept the story put forward, it would seem that Abrahams did try and resuscitate Kiesha.
The forensic pathologist also noted that Kiesha had suffered ten separate bony injuries that had partially healed during the weeks and months before she died. These included healing injuries to Kiesha’s nasal bones, her upper jaw (maxillae) and both sides of her lower jaw (mandible), and both collar bones (clavicles). There was also possible evidence of injury to the right side of her head and right arm. None of the injuries appeared to have been medically treated. The Crown said that the injuries were becoming more serious in the period leading up to Kiesha’s death, particularly in the last eighteen months of her life, and that some were themselves evidence of bouts of grievous bodily harm. The judge, Justice Ian Harrison, did not agree, as he could not confidently order the injuries to demonstrate this. Regardless, there were injuries, and if this was not direct evidence of increased intensity of abuse it was at least evidence of separate incidents that went untreated.
One difficulty the court had was proving that Abrahams had caused the injuries. As the child was kept away from everyone else, besides Smith, one or other of the adults caused the trauma evidenced on Kiesha’s body. If Smith had caused them Abrahams would have at least known, yet still she didn’t seek medical help. As the main caregiver she failed to protect Kiesha, which would at least legally be neglect and would reveal a lot about how she felt about the child. However, if she caused the injuries – as would appear to be the case – then that would be serious abuse. The judge summed up by saying that as it could not be proven that Abrahams caused the injuries this could not be used against her, except in relation to her failure to get medical help. He did say, though, that taken altogether the circumstances raised a high level of suspicion that Abrahams was directly or indirectly involved in causing the earlier injuries, but suspicion was not enough in itself to make findings against the accused.
Dr Orde also noted the areas of her body that were burnt, including the rear parts of her ribs and spine, indicating that she was lying face down when she was set on fire. There was also evidence that scavengers had had access to her remains. This would mean some evidence may have been lost as scavengers will take small accessible parts of the body, such as the fingers. Evidentially this can be important in some cases. For example, when someone has been attacked with a knife, the fingers often show cuts – known as ‘defence injuries’ – that happen when someone puts their hands up to protect their head and face. The evidence of the presence of scavengers also meant that if they could access the remains then so could i
nsects, and in hot climates remains can decompose very quickly with a high level of entomological activity.
A biological analysis of the unit the family shared showed Kiesha’s blood in several places. However, it wasn’t known how much blood was present or how long it had been there, and as the child lived in the unit her blood could legitimately have been found there; children hurt themselves.
However, Kiesha’s remains provided a timeline showing numerous periods of trauma, indicating different child abuse events. This was not a surprise. The Department of Community Services was aware of the family, and there was a history of physical abuse: when Kiesha was fifteen months old Abrahams had been convicted of biting her in the shoulder, and at the age of three when Kiesha was interviewed alone by a DoCS caseworker Kiesha reported that Abrahams had intentionally burnt her with a cigarette and hit her in the face. Although, even then, the young child knew something was wrong, as the documents indicate that the three-year-old initially tried to keep her face turned away, to hide the injury.
It would seem that the history of physical abuse actually facilitated the crime. Kiesha was kept away from other people, hidden in the unit because she regularly showed signs of injury or abuse, and as an extension Abrahams did not want to risk DoCS finding out. It is shocking that Kiesha as a six-year-old, had only spent a total of four days in school; this led to education workers visiting the family at home several times. During her short time at school teachers noticed bruises on the child’s face – no doubt the reason Kiesha was kept away.
THE ALTERNATIVE SUSPECT
Abrahams had various psychological problems, stemming from an underprivileged childhood as the family lived in poverty, added to which she lost her mother at a young age. Evidence from a clinical psychologist, Mr Peter Champion, was entered during her trial. He was in a better position than most to understand Abrahams as he had spoken to her as a child as well as in preparation for the court case. He provided the court with numerous reports, which helped those involved better understand her psychological state.
Initially, Champion assessed Abrahams as a ten-year-old after her mother died, when he was asked by DoCS to talk to her and her brother before they were made wards of the state. It would seem the father was neither capable nor willing to take care of the two children, nor did he want any further contact with them. Kristi and her brother were placed with a family member, who was unfortunately also grieving from the loss of the children’s mother and was also ill. This led to another unstable home situation for the children – a situation that was not maintainable in the long term. In July 1994 both children were made wards of the state and went to live in a group home, where Kristi stayed from age eleven to when she was fourteen or fifteen.
Initially, Champion determined that Abrahams was functioning in the borderline disabled range. He noted that she was suffering significantly after losing her mother and was grieving heavily. Prior to the death of her mother, who suffered from epilepsy, Abrahams had been unfairly burdened for a child of her age with her mother’s care; this was made worse by her intellectual disability. This led to the situation where Kristi blamed herself for her mother’s death as she had listened to her mother’s seizure and then found her dead. She was neither mature enough nor cognitively capable of coping with the situation. The court documents also assert that Kristi’s mother showed a preference for Kristi’s brother, who was eight years her junior, further alienating and isolating the ten-year-old.
Mr Champion also found Abrahams had been exposed to serious domestic violence, described in the court documents as ‘extreme’ violence. It is known that if children witness such violence this can have a very significant effect on them as adults. Notably, it can result in aggression or in negative responses to children. Not only then did Kristi blame herself for her mother’s death, but because of the domestic situation she also blamed her father for her mum’s death. Moreover, Kristi’s mother struggled to bond with her children because of the mother’s distraction with the ongoing violence in her relationship with her partner. Later, the justice who would preside over Abrahams’ trial would say that anger and resentment left over from her childhood affected her own parenting, the cycle of violence and instability continuing.
The result was that after her mother’s death Kristi rejected her father and his family and isolated herself. Her psychologist determined that Kristi was suffering from severe anxiety and was in a state of denial. As signs of her psychiatric problems, she couldn’t sleep and was generally lethargic. To add to her insecurity, she was in a constant state of uncertainty over where she would be living. This is all a lot for any ten-year-old child to endure, let alone one in mourning who is borderline intellectually disabled.
As part of the legal process associated with her mother’s death, Abrahams was asked to write down everything she remembered of her father’s violence. It makes for disturbing reading, the catalogue of a frightening childhood. Written in the immature style of a child, the documents filed in court repeat some of the violence perpetrated against her mother; the list included attempted strangulation and facial injuries, including a broken nose and split lips. The father also appeared to have sadistic tendencies towards Abrahams when she was a child, as she wrote: ‘And when I went to school I fell off a big beam and when I went was home time [sic] he went to kick my very sore leg’.2
Champion saw her again in May 1997 when she was fourteen years old at the request of Careforce. He didn’t perform another intellectual assessment because she had just had one at school, which showed that she was functioning in the range of upper mild to borderline developmental disability, with an IQ of 68.3 Questions were then raised as to whether she should be moved into specialist education, but it was felt that it was better to keep her in mainstream education to help her social development. Champion recommended that plans be developed to assist with her social and vocational development. This signified that she was showing signs of being underdeveloped in these areas. This conclusion is supported by the fact that even as a thirteen-year-old she was still attracted to things aimed at much younger children including items associated with the animated series Bananas in Pyjamas.
I think a key piece of evidence was forthcoming from Champion in his report to the court in relation to Abraham’s childhood responses when he stated that:
She tended to be quite defensive in her reporting … tends to shy aware [sic – away] from having to explain her thoughts and feelings to others. One cannot of course ignore the issue of her intellectual competence in all this, in that she might well find it threatening to have to try to confront issues which are of themselves traumatic, which are difficult to conceptualise, which are difficult to explain, and into which she perhaps has limited insight.4
I think this comment should be kept in mind when considering her response as an adult to Kiesha, in recognition of the fact that she was a cognitively challenged adult already suffering the long-term effects of psychological trauma.
Even as a child, Abrahams was also suffering depression. This was again complicated by the fact that she had, in Champion’s words, a significant intellectual disability, meaning she was probably incapable of understanding her feelings and struggled to cope. All in all, Champion summarised Kristi’s sad position as follows:
… her pattern of performance was broadly consistent with what one might expect of a lass who has been subject to abuse, who has lost both her parents, and who has not been able to find a viable reliable replacement for them, and who is subject to feelings of guilt and inadequacy.5
Despite Champion’s reports, together with his conclusion that Abrahams desperately needed the support and stability a family would bring her, she was not placed with a family. Instead, she remained in a group care home until she was in her mid-teens when she left to live in a girls’ refuge.
Champion did not see Abrahams again until he assessed her for the court case, when she told him she planned to plead guilty to manslaughter. At that time Champion performed s
ome more tests of her intellectual ability, which confirmed his original findings that she had a mild to borderline intellectual disability, placing her in the bottom 2 per cent of the population. Champion said this cognitive restriction would limit her judgement as well as her ability to cope with stressful situations. Is it fair then to judge her response to the stress of witnessing Kiesha’s seizure (however caused) against what we might expect of a higher-functioning adult who was not subject to the same cognitive limitations? Importantly, though, Champion determined Abrahams was not mentally ill at the time of Kiesha’s death. Taken all together, this led Champion to comment that her intellectual disability was beyond doubt and therefore her culpability was reduced, as an offender does not need to suffer from a serious psychological illness before their mental state is relevant to the sentencing.
The warning signs were there. A diagnosis of a personality disorder could not be made on the basis of one assessment of Abrahams as an adult. However, Champion thought that if Kristi were suffering from such a disorder, there are a number of symptoms that fit with her actions, as sufferers tend to be unpredictable parents and are unable to provide consistent care and nurturance, and have the potential to be abusive.
THE COURT CASES
Robert Smith was tried separately and found guilty of manslaughter as well as being an accessory after the fact after the charge of murder was dropped. Smith, who appeared via videolink, was recognised as a quiet man by nature. He maintained that he was physically and verbally abused by Abrahams, which led to feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem – the claim being that he was essentially bullied into his involvement. However, the judge presiding over his case, Justice Megan Latham, described Smith as the ‘prime mover’ on the disposal of Kiesha’s remains. It was Smith who scouted a suitable disposal site, Smith who dug the shallow grave, and Smith who set Kiesha’s body on fire – all as Abrahams looked on.
Mothers Who Murder Page 12