September 24, 2025 • 35 mins
What drives a teenager to become a killer?
In 2001, three-year-old Courtney Morley-Clarke was put to bed on a hot summer night on the NSW Central Coast. By morning, her bed was empty, the screen door wide open, and her nightie lay on the ground.
Police soon discovered Courtney hadn’t wandered off, she was abducted and murdered by her 13-year-old neighbour, Australia’s youngest convicted killer. He confessed it was practice for more killings.
After serving 22 years in prison, he’s now back in the community.
So, how can someone so young commit such a horrific act? Criminal psychologist Tim Watson-Munro joins us to explain.
Listen to the Motive & Method podcast here.
If any of the contents in this episode have caused distress, know that there is help available via Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.
Make sure to leave us a rating and review on Apple & Spotify to let us know how you're liking the episodes.
CREDITS
Guest: Tim Watson-Munro
Host: Claire Murphy
Senior Producer: Tahli Blackman
Audio Producer: Jacob Round
GET IN TOUCH
We finally have an Instagram! Follow us @truecrimeconversations
Follow us on TikTok @truecrimeconversations
Want us to cover a case on the podcast? Email us at truecrime@mamamia.com.au or send us a voice note.
We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the Land we have recorded this podcast on, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.
Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribe
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
True crime conversations acknowledges the traditional owners of land and
waters that this podcast was recorded on. When you hit
that confusing and vulnerable teenage year's window, a lot is happening.
You're growing out of childhood into something else. Hormones are raging,
(00:26):
and your body, voice, and mental abilities are all evolving
into what will be a giant leap forward for you,
something you haven't experienced since those intense first months after
you even enter the world, and you adjust to life
on the outside. And while you're going through this epic change,
so are your peers, and sometimes that can lead to conflict.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
This is the age where bullying can start to ramp.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Up, social interactions can become more awkward, and feelings can intensify.
Sometimes it's quite hard to understand teenage behavior, the arguments,
the defiance, the disdain.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Towards parents as they challenge their authority.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
But what if that behavior becomes more than typical teen evolution.
What if that behavior becomes murderous. In two thousand and one,
three year old Courtney Morley Clarke was growing up on
the New South Wales central Coast. It's January twenty eighth
and Courtney a tiny blondhaired little girl, who lived with
her older brother and parents, was put to bed around
(01:24):
eight thirty pm. As is typical in Australia in January,
it was hot, so her parents had left the main
doors of the house open, but had shut and locked
the screen doors to allow the cooler night air to
circulate through the houses they slept.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Her mum checked in on her two children.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Around one am to find her little daughter sleeping soundly
in the bunk that she shared with her brother. But
when her dad got up around seven that morning, he
quickly notices that the screen door and sidegate are wide open.
He raced into his children's room and found Courtney's bed empty.
The rail of the bed was down. Could Courtney have
done that herself? She's still so little. He raced outside,
(02:04):
thinking maybe she'd somehow gotten herself up, let herself outside
and was now out there wandering alone. He found her ninety,
lying on the ground near the gate. He checked the
road the bushes nearby, but Courtney was nowhere to be seen.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
He would very.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Soon have his heart broken, not only finding out that
his dear little Courtney was dead, but that her killer
was a child too. I'm Claire Murphy and This is
True Crime Conversations, a podcast exploring the world's most notorious
(02:42):
crimes by speaking to the people who know the most
about them. On the morning that Courtney was discovered missing,
their neighbors, the parents of an adopted son who we
cannot identify, told police that the boy had been absent
from their home in the early hours of that morning.
His mum had realized it when she'd gotten up and
found the back door of their house wide open and
the thirteen year old not in his bed. The father
(03:05):
drove around looking for him his son, but he couldn't
find him anywhere. He was relieved when he finally returned
to the house just before three am through his sister's window.
He was wearing only a pair of shorts, and he
told his father that he'd been out walking and playing
with his pet duck, but on searching their backyard, they
found his clothes had been hidden in an alcove under
their swimming pool. His father and the police confronted him
(03:27):
about the whereabouts of little Courtney, to which he denied
having any knowledge, but he did eventually admit that he'd
seen her while he was out walking, offering to lead
police to a cave where he'd left her sleeping. A
search of the area failed to locate her, as the
boy gave contradictory accounts of what had actually happened that night.
It was only after police, who had been desperately searching
(03:49):
the areas pointed out by the boy, pleaded with him
to tell them where she really was, did he finally
reveal what he'd done. The boy, known in the courts
only as SLD, had gone to the neighbor's house, slashed
open their screen door, and gone into the children's room.
He told police that he had initially done so to
steal computer gangs after the boy who lived there had
(04:11):
bragged about having them, but when he saw the little
sister he chose to take her for ransom instead. He
later admitted that he had actually intended to kill the
older brother, who he claimed was bullying him at scouts group,
along with two others who he also planned to murder
in time. He told detectives that he'd removed the little
girl's nappy while she was still sleeping in her bed,
(04:33):
and then he removed the rest of her clothes. Later,
in order to find a good place to stab her.
He carried her towards his home, laying her down on
a concrete driveway, where he stabbed her once in the chest,
covering her mouth and nose with his hand when she
cried out in pain. After she stopped struggling, he took
her body and threw her up an embankment, covering her
with the long grass, before returning to his home, washing
(04:55):
up and changing his clothes before heading back inside. He
commented during his interview with police that once he'd killed
one person, he expected it would make it easier to
kill the next one, and then the one after that.
SLD would become Australia's youngest ever convicted murderer, and had
he been an adult at the time of his crime,
(05:16):
he would have probably been sentenced to the maximum term available,
facing life behind bars, but he wasn't. He was thirteen
years and ten months old. After spending twenty two years
behind bars, SLD was released into the community in twenty
twenty three under line of side supervision, an NDIS worker
watching his every move, although a witness claimed during one
(05:38):
incident the worker was seen watching his.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Phone rather than his charge.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Over ninety five days, the now thirty eight year old
SLD approached nearly two hundred women. The court told he
was desperate to lose his virginity. He sometimes even approached
women with their young children in tow and in one
instance he approached a woman who was getting her young
son chained at an outdoor shower. This was witnessed by
an undercover police officer who advised of the breach. SLD
(06:06):
was placed back behind bars. Psychiatric reports showed he was
suffering from mental health issues, including delayed maturation and institutionalization
that diagnosed him with a severe personality disorder that led
to him being completely self centered and without the ability
to show empathy. He served another thirteen months, but earlier
this year, despite an application to detain him further the
(06:29):
New South Wales government, citing that SLD continued to show
violent tendencies, has shared plans to remove his electronic monitoring device,
and had attacked prison staff while incarcerated, the Supreme Court refused.
The Court justice noted the risk for sexual offense and
obsessive fixation on those he believed to have wronged him,
including towards the off duty officer who'd reported his breaches
(06:51):
were concerning, but that he was not satisfied to a
high degree of probability that the threshold required under legislation
to impose a continuing detention order had been met.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
He will now be allowed back out.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Into the community, monitored sure, but we can never know
his true identity, the suppression order remaining in place due
to his offense occurring when he was a minor. Criminal
psychologist Tim Watson Monroe, the co host of the Motive
and Method podcast, has spent forty years analyzing the minds
of some of the country's worst criminals, from murderers to
(07:24):
sex offenders, terrorists, and those who have abducted and tortured children.
He's peeked into the thoughts of evil. He joins us
now to try and unpack the thinking of SLD and
whether he can ever truly adjust back into the real world. Tim,
thank you so much for joining us on True Crime
Conversations today. We are speaking about the case of SLD,
(07:49):
who we cannot identify due to the fact that he
was a minor at the time of his offending. But
I wanted to get some idea from you first in
your career, like do you remember the first time you
sat down with a murderer to try and figure out,
like who they are and why they had done what
they had done, Like, do you remember those first moments
(08:11):
that you spent trying to understand people who do evil?
I do.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I'm blessed or cursed with an extraordinary memory. I can
recall my first day at work as the resident psychologist
at Paramount of Jail. It was the fourteenth of August
nineteen seventy eighth, so we're getting pretty close to the
forty seven, forty eight year anniversary. I can remember the
(08:37):
ly soul, the smells of the wolf whistles, and Paramount
of Jail in those days it's been decommissioned. I was
a multi recidiverse maximum security prison, which in essence meant
it was an end of the line prison for intractable prisoners,
people that had nowhere else to go. When they closed
(08:57):
down could Tingle, which was the maximum security super max
jail really in Sidney Knee, all of those people went
to Paramattaga. I was twenty five, so I was pretty
grand and day one I was introduced to a guy
who'd been convicted of murder. And I can remember how
(09:18):
it affected me because I'd come from a fairly gentrified background.
You know, my father's an academic I studied classical music,
and here I am in the worst jail in Australia
of the age of twenty five. I'd never met a
murderer before, and here we go, We've got a guy
across the other side of my desk. I didn't know
what to expect. What I found was he was just
(09:39):
like most people. He was an ordinary guy. He'd committed
other crimes, nothing as serious as that, under the influence
of drugs, he'd killed somebody. And there he was. He
was looking at a life sentence. And back in those
days they didn't have minimum terms. I mean, on average
people did about fourteen years, but it was not guaranteed.
(10:00):
He was subject to good behavior and all the rest
of it. So he was in the beginning of his sentence.
He had been there for about three years. He couldn't
go anywhere else because of the magnitude of the conviction.
He had to stay in maximum security. But he was ordinarily,
you know, he didn't have horns, he was plant respectful.
I didn't feel that I was in any sense of danger.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Did you ever have to treat anyone who was very young, like,
who do you think the youngest person was?
Speaker 2 (10:27):
You've spoken to across your career.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
I mean, maybe not as young as SLD, who was
thirteen at the time, but how young have you been
treating people who've committed some pretty heinous crimes.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Well, Paramount of Jarla, course was an adult prison. But
after I left there, I moved to Melvin and I
started doing assessments for courts and the youngest person I've
assessed was actually charged with murder. I can't recall his name.
It was a bit of a thrill kill where a
taxi driver was murdered in the nineties, and I went
(10:59):
out to see him at what was known then as
the Trani Youth Training Center. I think he was about
thirteen or fourteen years page. I was staggered by the
magnitude of the crime, and I still remember that interaction.
I was staggered by the lack of empathy and remorse,
which I put down to being just young and silly
without trivializing what he had done. But he clearly didn't
(11:21):
have a conceptual grasp with the magnitude of what he
had done and the consequences arising from that.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
Well, with what you know of the case of SLD
and the murder of Courtney Morley, Clark, how could you
help us understand what might push a thirteen year old
boy to commit murder? And in this case, this was
not a thrill kill. This was seemingly in cold blood.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Well, I didn't examine this person, but clearly, as the
punishment reflected, there wasn't a mental health defense to it.
In other words, he was in touch with reality. Notwithstanding
his age, he clearly knew what he was doing and
he suffered the consequences of that anger opportunity. Speaking more
(12:09):
general terms, with these sorts of crimes, they're often preceded
by fantasies of coin and at some point they break
for the fantasy, and when the opportunity presents itself, they
act on that fantasy.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Well, can we talk about how to identify this because
reading through the court documents on this, his family doesn't
really say whether they'd seen any signs of behaviors that
were concerning before Courtney's murder, But there is a documented
instance where he'd taken another young girl, and this was
just a week before Courtney was murdered, at a unit
at a holiday result where he'd been staying with his family,
(12:44):
and he threatened to kill her unless she showed him
her private parts, which she did, and then he took
her back to her family. Like, how do you assess
if that has happened a week before. That's a major
escalation in just seven days time. Like if you, as
a parent were told that that your child had done that, Like,
just how much intervention should you have brought in at
(13:06):
that time? And can that be a sign of something
to escalate down the track.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, the first point I'd make is there's clearly a
sexual component. That's a huge red flag. You've got shelish
your private parts and abduction, highly dangerous situation, and a
week later, you know, this enormous tragedy occurs. I'm not
critical of the parents who would expect that to occur,
(13:30):
but at the very least, I think you'd want to
have the child assess said doctor, see what's going on,
because there's some underlying drivers that have led to that episode,
and in the absence of intervention it escalated into a murder.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
I guess we have to take into account too that
this was happening sort of late January, it's still essentially
the school holiday period. There is you know, access to
mental health services are not always easy in the Australian
health system. And you know the fact that this escalated
over just a week been very difficult for his family
(14:07):
to get the help that he needed in that time, right,
I agree.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
I'm not critical of the family at all, but I
guess as a more general proposition, if a child does that,
you would want to get them in to see somebody expeditiously.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders now, this often posts
some pretty unique challenges when you compare it to adults
entering the system, especially when the crime is something as
serious as murder. Could you explain how mental health evaluations
and approaches do differ between child offenders and what professionals
must consider in cases like SLDs, especially as you mentioned,
(14:47):
sometimes these crimes are done because children are children and
don't quite understand the consequences of what they've done. Like,
how do you approach a child offender as opposed to
an adult defender.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
Well, it has to be with informed consent through the family,
the parents. If they don't have a protective person there,
there should be someone there. This is in terms of
being questioned by the police. There has to be a
spirit of cooperation. I worked for a time at the
Melbourne Children's Court Clinic a long time ago, highly professional organization,
(15:21):
very skilled practitioners there. The process itself, it's not that different,
it's just how you handle it. You get a history
where there's a child involved, where they may be unable
to articulate that history in a comprehensive way. You speak
to significant others in the person's life. Now that may
be parents, it may be foster care as depending on
(15:44):
who those people may be. You would request a lot
of documentation surrounding the individual. Have they been in trouble
before in terms of juvenile offending, Do they have any
history of psychological disturbance? Do they have an intellectual disability?
Is that documented or if it's red flag to you.
(16:05):
As a practice, you would obviously test to see whether
they have a lower IQ because that's relevant to the
issue of intent. If somebody doesn't understand the nature of
what they're doing and the consequences beyond their age, just
because they'll never get it, that needs to be looked
at as well. So I guess what you're looking at
is as much collateral informative data as you can obtain,
(16:30):
medical reports, school reports, discussions with parents, discussions with school
teachers or school counselors if they saw those individuals, so
that you get a pretty broad spectrum of information to
enable you to formulate an opinion about the individual.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Can you explain to us what delayed maturation is in
someone who's been incarcerated since they were very, very young,
And this has been brought up in other cases where
say like John Venables, for example in the UK, who
was only ten years old when he and his friend
murdered James Boulger who was just two, and he was
in prison for a very long time and then was
(17:08):
released and has ended up back in jail for child
sex material exploitation offenses and a lot of the discussion
is around him experiencing delayed maturation, and this has been
brought up in SLD's cases. Well, can just explain to
us what that means if someone is experiencing that from
having been incarcerated from such a.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Young age, Well, their world is very defined normally in
the progression of life, you go to school, you acquire
social skills, you bend and shape your behaviors accordingly. You
have an education, you have a life that's full of
reward and sometimes failure. But in an institution Really, what
(17:47):
we're talking about is institutionalization at a young age, where
those opportunities because you're incarcerated and not available to you,
you're interacting with a very select cohort who may have
similar problems that can shape the way that you view
the universe. I remember years ago when I worked in Paramatta,
a very experienced prisoner. He's deceased, Bernie Matthews notis. He
(18:12):
was excatingle He wrote a book about his experiences and
actually became a journalist. When I was talking to him
back in those days, he said, you know, tim YTC
is the high school of crime, and prisoner is the
university of crime. And you've got to go through high
school to get to university. In other words, when you're
spending all this time in an institution with nothing to
(18:35):
counteract the information the perceptions you've been given, inevitably it's
going to shape your view of the world and set
you up for future crime. So in that sense, your
development is delayed because it's stunted. In some cases it
never progresses beyond that.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
And can that lead to behaviors when they are finally released.
Like we've seen with SLD that he's got this obsession
with losing his virginity and getting a girlfriend, and he's
doing it in a way that is quite wild. Is
that a sign of delayed maturation potentially something else?
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Well, think it's both. The obviously is I said, you
don't acquire the social skills. You're in an environment that's
full of males, you don't know how to approach and
interact with women. It speaks of desperation and I guess
no empathy or insight in terms of the way that
you're approaching these people. It would generally you would think.
(19:30):
I find it very confronting, and it really speaks to
the issue of when people are ultimately released into the community,
particularly after a long period of time with late maturity
and all the rest of it, the need for ongoing
treatment in the community to help them reassimilate, ongoing monitoring
and so on. And I guess, you know, in some
(19:54):
ways we're putting the cart before the horse there, because
people really need to start that process whilst they're in
a youth training center. So if they're released in the
community without those skills, anything's possible. I'm not saying that
everybody gets released is going to behave like that, but
the example he gives a pretty graphic example of where
(20:15):
it can go wrong in the absence of serb A
vision and treatment.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
You're listening to True Crime Conversations with me, Claire Murphy.
I'm speaking with criminal psychologist Tim Watson Monroe about the
case of Australia's youngest ever murderer and the psychology behind
children committing murder. Up next, I asked him if someone
who's been in prison their entire life can ever really
transition back into the community. If someone is institutionalized, like
(20:44):
someone like sld Is, who's you know, essentially his entire
life almost has been behind bars.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Is there any way that he can.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Transition out into the community better because it seems like
they go from those like is there a transition process
that could be handled better? And I know that he's
now been placed in a corrections halfway house whilst he's
being monitored by people every day and every time he's
out interacting with the community, But is there a better
(21:15):
system you think that Australia could introduce to help people
transition out of US detention or prison back to the community.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Well, with prison, they have a classification system and like
the person I mentioned day one at paramount of jail.
He was classify artors maximum security, and then with the
passage of time, with good behavior and so on, the
classification drops, so there's less security. Eventually, they might go
(21:47):
to a prison farm with a C classification. They may
then get works release, They may live in the jail
and work in the community and so on, and that
in a way facilitates what we're talking about. If people
are just in jail or yt C for that period
of time, particularly twenty years. You think about how the
(22:08):
universe has changed the last five years with COVID let
alone twenty years ago, it's like landing on Mars, and
if you don't have that level of support and supervision,
you're almost set up to fail. So my view is
there should be transitional periods. Give people a taste of
what freedoms like, educate them about Melvin, the world in
(22:32):
the twenty first century, and so on, and provide support
for them once they are released, because really it's in
everybody's interest for that to occur. We don't want them
to reoffend and commit bigger and better crimes where they
go to jail. If they're going to have a crack
at the title, give them the sport they need well.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
Psychologists who try to keep Sord behind bars have diagnosed
him with a personality disorder, saying that he is incredibly
self centered and unable to show empathy. Is that something
that with treatment he could potentially be helped to overcome
or is that part of who he is?
Speaker 3 (23:10):
Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat, but they can
be treated. I think what's more important beyond that is
whether a person has empathy and remorse, and that's derived
from insight, Insight to the gravity of what you've done,
Insight into the need to address the issues which have
(23:32):
caused you to do what you have done. As I
said earlier, he was bad, not mad. There was no
mental state defense. Having a personality disorder doesn't excuse you
from a serious crime like that, in fact, any crime.
But in theory, people with personality disorders can be treated,
(23:55):
but it is a long, laborious process that requires considerable
commitment from the patient and from the therapist.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
And do you think the current system we have in
place would be able to help him at this point
with what we currently have access to.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
Well, look, there are truders out They're very good ones
who can provide this service, but there's a paucity of
psychologists in the community now. It's very difficult to get
in a point or with a psychologist. There's a long
waiting list, and cases like this theoretically require urgent intervention.
They need to be met at the gates of the institution.
(24:33):
And then in fact, even before an idea, well, you
meet the person, established some sort of clinical rapport so
that when they're released, they're straight into treatment. I think
what tends to have, sadly is a lot of people
fall through the cracks because they can't get immediate help.
And that's a matter of funding and resources and so on,
(24:53):
either through the public sector. Some individuals might be able
to pay for it privately, but you get ten sessions
under a mental health care plan, it hardly touches the
sides With these individuals. We're talking years of therapy, really
consistent therapy. But you can make progress if that occurs.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
It's some You've spent decades speaking to people who've committed
terrible crimes, and you would have seen the gamut of
personality types. Are there people who are truly evil? Because
we have this idea that anyone who commits a crime
has some level of evilness to them, otherwise they wouldn't
(25:33):
have been able to do that. But then we factor
in other things on their own personal circumstances, it might
have influenced them to become who they are.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
But are there people out there who are genuinely born so?
Speaker 1 (25:44):
I mean, like, if we're talking about young people who
commit a crime which is just so unbelievably out of
character for someone like a thirteen year old to do,
are they born evil?
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Is that even a thing?
Speaker 3 (25:57):
I think it is. I think a lot of crimes
are committed by circumstances in life, drug addiction, terrible role
modeling at home, exposure to violence, developing personality disorders, sexual abuse,
and so on. And I don't agree that all people
(26:18):
who commit crimes are innately evil. There, in many cases
just an example of their circumstances, a product of their circumstances.
That's said, I think there are people who are intrinsically evil.
Look at the Bulger case. I mean, how do you
explain that beyond saying this is evil, simplicitor? And how
(26:38):
does it occur with a ten year old? And then
look what happened subsequently, release from jail, re offending. Now,
that may be a function of delayed maturity as we've described,
or it may be that intrinsic evil, badness was always
there when you.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Are speaking to people who committed crimes?
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Are there those who enjoy if they have a title
attached to that? So sld f ex is known as
Australia's youngest convicted murderer and we don't know how he
feels about that. You have not treated him, So we
don't know whether he sees that as a badge of honor.
But if the media comes in with these titles for
these criminals, do some of them enjoy that.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
It's a badge of honor? You know, at some level,
I enjoy the notoriety. You know. I've been involved some
very high profile, serious criminal behaviors in Australia. And one
that springs to mind was when Julian Knight was arrested
and it's freely available on the net. There's footage of
(27:44):
him on the Sunday morning or the Monday morning, sorry,
wanting to look at all the press articles surrounding what
he had done. Other people keep momentous the reason behind this,
and I'm not talking about Night, and I'm just making
that point that he was very interested in the press.
It keeps the excitement alive. You know, they're still in
(28:05):
the past, the guy, and particularly if they're in prison
where they're writing, they're not interacting with anyone, but it
gives them some social relevance and cachet I think to
be described in that way, and I don't think they
should be talked about it all frankly or named, because
it just gives them oxygen. It amplifies their evil doings
(28:28):
and feeds into their egos.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
Next, I asked him if he thinks there's a problem
with keeping a murderer anonymous, especially if they've reoffended as
SLD has. I think one of the biggest issues that
we see with SLD now that he has been returned
to the community and seeing what happened when he was
returned last time in twenty twenty three, is that he
(28:54):
gets to live his life with a level of anonymity.
He was thirteen when he offended, automatically means he cannot
be identified by anybody, and there have been many where
for example with the Bulger murderers, where people have tried
to identify them because they came out of prison with
a new identity, have tried to identify them, and they
(29:16):
have faced serious consequences for that, legal consequences. But then
there is another part, and especially in the case of
SLD where he showed some really concerning behaviors on being
released from prison, especially around women and young children. Should
the community know who he is so they can potentially
protect themselves and their children from him. But then you
(29:37):
have to weigh up those who may be vigilante and
might take things into their own hands.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Like where do you stand on that?
Speaker 3 (29:44):
With respect? It's a great question, and it's a complex issue.
On the one hand, people are entitled to a second chance.
They've done their time, dependent on treatment and rehabilitation in
jar some individuals just want to get on with their
lives in an anonymous way. But that has to be
(30:04):
balanced I think in terms of the gravity of the
crime and the fact that somebody has committed a crime
such as this, I'd certainly want to know about it
if he was my next door neighbor. It's a balancing act.
I would say that if they reoffend, or if there
are red flags that might be the gateway, then to
(30:25):
open all of that up, because there's no rehabilitation. They've
been given their second chance, and for whatever reasons, they've
continued to offend. Not murder, but certainly the behaviors you
describe are very troubling.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Do you think that someone like sld can be monitored
well enough in the community. He'll be wearing an ankle
bracelet and he's living in the halfway house and currently
has two stuff who are looking out for him, because
the first time he was released, he only had that
one NDAES worker who, according to a witness, wasn't keeping
a close eye on him, and that resulted in him
(31:00):
approaching a few people during one incident. Now, that's a
lot of resourcing to put into one person, and whilst
it is absolutely worth it to protect the community, I'm
presuming there's only so long they can maintain that. For like,
how do we weigh up the cost of having him
in the community as opposed to the cost of putting
him back behind bars.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Well, it's a cost benefit analysis, isn't it. And I
agree that's a lot of resourcing over a period of time.
I would hope that during that period where that level
of resourcing is occurring, that there would be treatment reframing
his attitudes a whole lot of stuff that could enhance
the prospects of him not re offending and going back
(31:43):
to prison. But you know, ankle monitoring, there's been a
lot of controversy around that. There were some private operators
around Australia who were used by the courts, and then
it was utilized it was revealed that in fact they
weren't monitoring anyone at all. I think it needs to
be done by the state, not private enterprise. And there's
(32:05):
always the in fact it's happened where people cut away
their ankle bracelet. The urge has become too grave. They
just want a bit of freedom and then they're not
under supervision. But I don't think that's an argument in
itself for people to not be given a chance. I
think people deserve a chance. But you know, the eyes
of the world are on you, and if you screw
(32:26):
it up, you're back into the institution. Because as a
community we can't take these sort of risks, particularly where
there's been very serious crimes committed.
Speaker 1 (32:36):
A crime that's been committed by a child is so
shocking and it does leave a really deep scar in
the community that is affected, and the immediate community more
so obviously, but the broader Australian community was so shocked
by SLD's crime.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
It seems so senseless.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
What's the long term psychological impact on those who are
immediately affected? You think by a child committing something so
heinous that it's almost just out of the realm of understanding.
And I mean for both that child's family who were
raising him and protecting him at the time, and the
(33:15):
family have lost little Courtney at the hands of a
thirteen year old.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
How do you deal with that?
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Well, I don't think you could overstate the impact. You
talk about the victim, survivors, the family of Courtney, but
often too, the family of an accused person are dramatically affected.
They didn't see it coming their face, with the prospect
of their child spending decades potentially out of the community
(33:44):
in YTC and or prison as they progress, and that
has an impact upon them. I think too, there's a
like a multiplier effect in the community. We're all affected
in a way, and we all acquire and varying degrees
of intensity what I describe as symptoms of black hair
(34:04):
as post traumatic stress. About this, and you think, where
have we failed as a community? What's happened to us
as a community, and why is it that this kid
has committed this offense? Could have been my kid? Probably not,
but you know, these sorts of things float through the
eth with individuals, so I don't think you can overstate
the impact of these sorts of crimes. Murders occur all
(34:26):
the time, far too frequently these days in Australia, but
when it's a juvenile offender killing a three year old,
that's next level.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
You can listen to Tim's podcast Motive and Method with
Doctor's Anthey Mallett at the link in our show notes.
True Crime Conversations is a Mum of Meer podcast hosted
by me Claire Murphy and produced by Tarlie Blackman, with
audio designed by Jacob Brown.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
I'll be back next week with another True Crime Conversation.
True crime conversations acknowledges the traditional owners of land and
waters that this podcast was recorded on. When you hit
that confusing and vulnerable teenage year's window, a lot is happening.
You're growing out of childhood into something else. Hormones are raging,
(00:26):
and your body, voice, and mental abilities are all evolving
into what will be a giant leap forward for you,
something you haven't experienced since those intense first months after
you even enter the world, and you adjust to life
on the outside. And while you're going through this epic change,
so are your peers, and sometimes that can lead to conflict.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
This is the age where bullying can start to ramp.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Up, social interactions can become more awkward, and feelings can intensify.
Sometimes it's quite hard to understand teenage behavior, the arguments,
the defiance, the disdain.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Towards parents as they challenge their authority.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
But what if that behavior becomes more than typical teen evolution.
What if that behavior becomes murderous. In two thousand and one,
three year old Courtney Morley Clarke was growing up on
the New South Wales central Coast. It's January twenty eighth
and Courtney a tiny blondhaired little girl, who lived with
her older brother and parents, was put to bed around
(01:24):
eight thirty pm. As is typical in Australia in January,
it was hot, so her parents had left the main
doors of the house open, but had shut and locked
the screen doors to allow the cooler night air to
circulate through the houses they slept.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Her mum checked in on her two children.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Around one am to find her little daughter sleeping soundly
in the bunk that she shared with her brother. But
when her dad got up around seven that morning, he
quickly notices that the screen door and sidegate are wide open.
He raced into his children's room and found Courtney's bed empty.
The rail of the bed was down. Could Courtney have
done that herself? She's still so little. He raced outside,
(02:04):
thinking maybe she'd somehow gotten herself up, let herself outside
and was now out there wandering alone. He found her ninety,
lying on the ground near the gate. He checked the
road the bushes nearby, but Courtney was nowhere to be seen.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
He would very.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Soon have his heart broken, not only finding out that
his dear little Courtney was dead, but that her killer
was a child too. I'm Claire Murphy and This is
True Crime Conversations, a podcast exploring the world's most notorious
(02:42):
crimes by speaking to the people who know the most
about them. On the morning that Courtney was discovered missing,
their neighbors, the parents of an adopted son who we
cannot identify, told police that the boy had been absent
from their home in the early hours of that morning.
His mum had realized it when she'd gotten up and
found the back door of their house wide open and
the thirteen year old not in his bed. The father
(03:05):
drove around looking for him his son, but he couldn't
find him anywhere. He was relieved when he finally returned
to the house just before three am through his sister's window.
He was wearing only a pair of shorts, and he
told his father that he'd been out walking and playing
with his pet duck, but on searching their backyard, they
found his clothes had been hidden in an alcove under
their swimming pool. His father and the police confronted him
(03:27):
about the whereabouts of little Courtney, to which he denied
having any knowledge, but he did eventually admit that he'd
seen her while he was out walking, offering to lead
police to a cave where he'd left her sleeping. A
search of the area failed to locate her, as the
boy gave contradictory accounts of what had actually happened that night.
It was only after police, who had been desperately searching
(03:49):
the areas pointed out by the boy, pleaded with him
to tell them where she really was, did he finally
reveal what he'd done. The boy, known in the courts
only as SLD, had gone to the neighbor's house, slashed
open their screen door, and gone into the children's room.
He told police that he had initially done so to
steal computer gangs after the boy who lived there had
(04:11):
bragged about having them, but when he saw the little
sister he chose to take her for ransom instead. He
later admitted that he had actually intended to kill the
older brother, who he claimed was bullying him at scouts group,
along with two others who he also planned to murder
in time. He told detectives that he'd removed the little
girl's nappy while she was still sleeping in her bed,
(04:33):
and then he removed the rest of her clothes. Later,
in order to find a good place to stab her.
He carried her towards his home, laying her down on
a concrete driveway, where he stabbed her once in the chest,
covering her mouth and nose with his hand when she
cried out in pain. After she stopped struggling, he took
her body and threw her up an embankment, covering her
with the long grass, before returning to his home, washing
(04:55):
up and changing his clothes before heading back inside. He
commented during his interview with police that once he'd killed
one person, he expected it would make it easier to
kill the next one, and then the one after that.
SLD would become Australia's youngest ever convicted murderer, and had
he been an adult at the time of his crime,
(05:16):
he would have probably been sentenced to the maximum term available,
facing life behind bars, but he wasn't. He was thirteen
years and ten months old. After spending twenty two years
behind bars, SLD was released into the community in twenty
twenty three under line of side supervision, an NDIS worker
watching his every move, although a witness claimed during one
(05:38):
incident the worker was seen watching his.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Phone rather than his charge.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Over ninety five days, the now thirty eight year old
SLD approached nearly two hundred women. The court told he
was desperate to lose his virginity. He sometimes even approached
women with their young children in tow and in one
instance he approached a woman who was getting her young
son chained at an outdoor shower. This was witnessed by
an undercover police officer who advised of the breach. SLD
(06:06):
was placed back behind bars. Psychiatric reports showed he was
suffering from mental health issues, including delayed maturation and institutionalization
that diagnosed him with a severe personality disorder that led
to him being completely self centered and without the ability
to show empathy. He served another thirteen months, but earlier
this year, despite an application to detain him further the
(06:29):
New South Wales government, citing that SLD continued to show
violent tendencies, has shared plans to remove his electronic monitoring device,
and had attacked prison staff while incarcerated, the Supreme Court refused.
The Court justice noted the risk for sexual offense and
obsessive fixation on those he believed to have wronged him,
including towards the off duty officer who'd reported his breaches
(06:51):
were concerning, but that he was not satisfied to a
high degree of probability that the threshold required under legislation
to impose a continuing detention order had been met.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
He will now be allowed back out.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Into the community, monitored sure, but we can never know
his true identity, the suppression order remaining in place due
to his offense occurring when he was a minor. Criminal
psychologist Tim Watson Monroe, the co host of the Motive
and Method podcast, has spent forty years analyzing the minds
of some of the country's worst criminals, from murderers to
(07:24):
sex offenders, terrorists, and those who have abducted and tortured children.
He's peeked into the thoughts of evil. He joins us
now to try and unpack the thinking of SLD and
whether he can ever truly adjust back into the real world. Tim,
thank you so much for joining us on True Crime
Conversations today. We are speaking about the case of SLD,
(07:49):
who we cannot identify due to the fact that he
was a minor at the time of his offending. But
I wanted to get some idea from you first in
your career, like do you remember the first time you
sat down with a murderer to try and figure out,
like who they are and why they had done what
they had done, Like, do you remember those first moments
(08:11):
that you spent trying to understand people who do evil?
I do.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I'm blessed or cursed with an extraordinary memory. I can
recall my first day at work as the resident psychologist
at Paramount of Jail. It was the fourteenth of August
nineteen seventy eighth, so we're getting pretty close to the
forty seven, forty eight year anniversary. I can remember the
(08:37):
ly soul, the smells of the wolf whistles, and Paramount
of Jail in those days it's been decommissioned. I was
a multi recidiverse maximum security prison, which in essence meant
it was an end of the line prison for intractable prisoners,
people that had nowhere else to go. When they closed
(08:57):
down could Tingle, which was the maximum security super max
jail really in Sidney Knee, all of those people went
to Paramattaga. I was twenty five, so I was pretty
grand and day one I was introduced to a guy
who'd been convicted of murder. And I can remember how
(09:18):
it affected me because I'd come from a fairly gentrified background.
You know, my father's an academic I studied classical music,
and here I am in the worst jail in Australia
of the age of twenty five. I'd never met a
murderer before, and here we go, We've got a guy
across the other side of my desk. I didn't know
what to expect. What I found was he was just
(09:39):
like most people. He was an ordinary guy. He'd committed
other crimes, nothing as serious as that, under the influence
of drugs, he'd killed somebody. And there he was. He
was looking at a life sentence. And back in those
days they didn't have minimum terms. I mean, on average
people did about fourteen years, but it was not guaranteed.
(10:00):
He was subject to good behavior and all the rest
of it. So he was in the beginning of his sentence.
He had been there for about three years. He couldn't
go anywhere else because of the magnitude of the conviction.
He had to stay in maximum security. But he was ordinarily,
you know, he didn't have horns, he was plant respectful.
I didn't feel that I was in any sense of danger.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Did you ever have to treat anyone who was very young, like,
who do you think the youngest person was?
Speaker 2 (10:27):
You've spoken to across your career.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
I mean, maybe not as young as SLD, who was
thirteen at the time, but how young have you been
treating people who've committed some pretty heinous crimes.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Well, Paramount of Jarla, course was an adult prison. But
after I left there, I moved to Melvin and I
started doing assessments for courts and the youngest person I've
assessed was actually charged with murder. I can't recall his name.
It was a bit of a thrill kill where a
taxi driver was murdered in the nineties, and I went
(10:59):
out to see him at what was known then as
the Trani Youth Training Center. I think he was about
thirteen or fourteen years page. I was staggered by the
magnitude of the crime, and I still remember that interaction.
I was staggered by the lack of empathy and remorse,
which I put down to being just young and silly
without trivializing what he had done. But he clearly didn't
(11:21):
have a conceptual grasp with the magnitude of what he
had done and the consequences arising from that.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
Well, with what you know of the case of SLD
and the murder of Courtney Morley, Clark, how could you
help us understand what might push a thirteen year old
boy to commit murder? And in this case, this was
not a thrill kill. This was seemingly in cold blood.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Well, I didn't examine this person, but clearly, as the
punishment reflected, there wasn't a mental health defense to it.
In other words, he was in touch with reality. Notwithstanding
his age, he clearly knew what he was doing and
he suffered the consequences of that anger opportunity. Speaking more
(12:09):
general terms, with these sorts of crimes, they're often preceded
by fantasies of coin and at some point they break
for the fantasy, and when the opportunity presents itself, they
act on that fantasy.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Well, can we talk about how to identify this because
reading through the court documents on this, his family doesn't
really say whether they'd seen any signs of behaviors that
were concerning before Courtney's murder, But there is a documented
instance where he'd taken another young girl, and this was
just a week before Courtney was murdered, at a unit
at a holiday result where he'd been staying with his family,
(12:44):
and he threatened to kill her unless she showed him
her private parts, which she did, and then he took
her back to her family. Like, how do you assess
if that has happened a week before. That's a major
escalation in just seven days time. Like if you, as
a parent were told that that your child had done that, Like,
just how much intervention should you have brought in at
(13:06):
that time? And can that be a sign of something
to escalate down the track.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
Well, the first point I'd make is there's clearly a
sexual component. That's a huge red flag. You've got shelish
your private parts and abduction, highly dangerous situation, and a
week later, you know, this enormous tragedy occurs. I'm not
critical of the parents who would expect that to occur,
(13:30):
but at the very least, I think you'd want to
have the child assess said doctor, see what's going on,
because there's some underlying drivers that have led to that episode,
and in the absence of intervention it escalated into a murder.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
I guess we have to take into account too that
this was happening sort of late January, it's still essentially
the school holiday period. There is you know, access to
mental health services are not always easy in the Australian
health system. And you know the fact that this escalated
over just a week been very difficult for his family
(14:07):
to get the help that he needed in that time, right,
I agree.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
I'm not critical of the family at all, but I
guess as a more general proposition, if a child does that,
you would want to get them in to see somebody expeditiously.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders now, this often posts
some pretty unique challenges when you compare it to adults
entering the system, especially when the crime is something as
serious as murder. Could you explain how mental health evaluations
and approaches do differ between child offenders and what professionals
must consider in cases like SLDs, especially as you mentioned,
(14:47):
sometimes these crimes are done because children are children and
don't quite understand the consequences of what they've done. Like,
how do you approach a child offender as opposed to
an adult defender.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
Well, it has to be with informed consent through the family,
the parents. If they don't have a protective person there,
there should be someone there. This is in terms of
being questioned by the police. There has to be a
spirit of cooperation. I worked for a time at the
Melbourne Children's Court Clinic a long time ago, highly professional organization,
(15:21):
very skilled practitioners there. The process itself, it's not that different,
it's just how you handle it. You get a history
where there's a child involved, where they may be unable
to articulate that history in a comprehensive way. You speak
to significant others in the person's life. Now that may
be parents, it may be foster care as depending on
(15:44):
who those people may be. You would request a lot
of documentation surrounding the individual. Have they been in trouble
before in terms of juvenile offending, Do they have any
history of psychological disturbance? Do they have an intellectual disability?
Is that documented or if it's red flag to you.
(16:05):
As a practice, you would obviously test to see whether
they have a lower IQ because that's relevant to the
issue of intent. If somebody doesn't understand the nature of
what they're doing and the consequences beyond their age, just
because they'll never get it, that needs to be looked
at as well. So I guess what you're looking at
is as much collateral informative data as you can obtain,
(16:30):
medical reports, school reports, discussions with parents, discussions with school
teachers or school counselors if they saw those individuals, so
that you get a pretty broad spectrum of information to
enable you to formulate an opinion about the individual.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Can you explain to us what delayed maturation is in
someone who's been incarcerated since they were very, very young,
And this has been brought up in other cases where
say like John Venables, for example in the UK, who
was only ten years old when he and his friend
murdered James Boulger who was just two, and he was
in prison for a very long time and then was
(17:08):
released and has ended up back in jail for child
sex material exploitation offenses and a lot of the discussion
is around him experiencing delayed maturation, and this has been
brought up in SLD's cases. Well, can just explain to
us what that means if someone is experiencing that from
having been incarcerated from such a.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Young age, Well, their world is very defined normally in
the progression of life, you go to school, you acquire
social skills, you bend and shape your behaviors accordingly. You
have an education, you have a life that's full of
reward and sometimes failure. But in an institution Really, what
(17:47):
we're talking about is institutionalization at a young age, where
those opportunities because you're incarcerated and not available to you,
you're interacting with a very select cohort who may have
similar problems that can shape the way that you view
the universe. I remember years ago when I worked in Paramatta,
a very experienced prisoner. He's deceased, Bernie Matthews notis. He
(18:12):
was excatingle He wrote a book about his experiences and
actually became a journalist. When I was talking to him
back in those days, he said, you know, tim YTC
is the high school of crime, and prisoner is the
university of crime. And you've got to go through high
school to get to university. In other words, when you're
spending all this time in an institution with nothing to
(18:35):
counteract the information the perceptions you've been given, inevitably it's
going to shape your view of the world and set
you up for future crime. So in that sense, your
development is delayed because it's stunted. In some cases it
never progresses beyond that.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
And can that lead to behaviors when they are finally released.
Like we've seen with SLD that he's got this obsession
with losing his virginity and getting a girlfriend, and he's
doing it in a way that is quite wild. Is
that a sign of delayed maturation potentially something else?
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Well, think it's both. The obviously is I said, you
don't acquire the social skills. You're in an environment that's
full of males, you don't know how to approach and
interact with women. It speaks of desperation and I guess
no empathy or insight in terms of the way that
you're approaching these people. It would generally you would think.
(19:30):
I find it very confronting, and it really speaks to
the issue of when people are ultimately released into the community,
particularly after a long period of time with late maturity
and all the rest of it, the need for ongoing
treatment in the community to help them reassimilate, ongoing monitoring
and so on. And I guess, you know, in some
(19:54):
ways we're putting the cart before the horse there, because
people really need to start that process whilst they're in
a youth training center. So if they're released in the
community without those skills, anything's possible. I'm not saying that
everybody gets released is going to behave like that, but
the example he gives a pretty graphic example of where
(20:15):
it can go wrong in the absence of serb A
vision and treatment.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
You're listening to True Crime Conversations with me, Claire Murphy.
I'm speaking with criminal psychologist Tim Watson Monroe about the
case of Australia's youngest ever murderer and the psychology behind
children committing murder. Up next, I asked him if someone
who's been in prison their entire life can ever really
transition back into the community. If someone is institutionalized, like
(20:44):
someone like sld Is, who's you know, essentially his entire
life almost has been behind bars.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Is there any way that he can.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Transition out into the community better because it seems like
they go from those like is there a transition process
that could be handled better? And I know that he's
now been placed in a corrections halfway house whilst he's
being monitored by people every day and every time he's
out interacting with the community, But is there a better
(21:15):
system you think that Australia could introduce to help people
transition out of US detention or prison back to the community.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Well, with prison, they have a classification system and like
the person I mentioned day one at paramount of jail.
He was classify artors maximum security, and then with the
passage of time, with good behavior and so on, the
classification drops, so there's less security. Eventually, they might go
(21:47):
to a prison farm with a C classification. They may
then get works release, They may live in the jail
and work in the community and so on, and that
in a way facilitates what we're talking about. If people
are just in jail or yt C for that period
of time, particularly twenty years. You think about how the
(22:08):
universe has changed the last five years with COVID let
alone twenty years ago, it's like landing on Mars, and
if you don't have that level of support and supervision,
you're almost set up to fail. So my view is
there should be transitional periods. Give people a taste of
what freedoms like, educate them about Melvin, the world in
(22:32):
the twenty first century, and so on, and provide support
for them once they are released, because really it's in
everybody's interest for that to occur. We don't want them
to reoffend and commit bigger and better crimes where they
go to jail. If they're going to have a crack
at the title, give them the sport they need well.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
Psychologists who try to keep Sord behind bars have diagnosed
him with a personality disorder, saying that he is incredibly
self centered and unable to show empathy. Is that something
that with treatment he could potentially be helped to overcome
or is that part of who he is?
Speaker 3 (23:10):
Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat, but they can
be treated. I think what's more important beyond that is
whether a person has empathy and remorse, and that's derived
from insight, Insight to the gravity of what you've done,
Insight into the need to address the issues which have
(23:32):
caused you to do what you have done. As I
said earlier, he was bad, not mad. There was no
mental state defense. Having a personality disorder doesn't excuse you
from a serious crime like that, in fact, any crime.
But in theory, people with personality disorders can be treated,
(23:55):
but it is a long, laborious process that requires considerable
commitment from the patient and from the therapist.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
And do you think the current system we have in
place would be able to help him at this point
with what we currently have access to.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
Well, look, there are truders out They're very good ones
who can provide this service, but there's a paucity of
psychologists in the community now. It's very difficult to get
in a point or with a psychologist. There's a long
waiting list, and cases like this theoretically require urgent intervention.
They need to be met at the gates of the institution.
(24:33):
And then in fact, even before an idea, well, you
meet the person, established some sort of clinical rapport so
that when they're released, they're straight into treatment. I think
what tends to have, sadly is a lot of people
fall through the cracks because they can't get immediate help.
And that's a matter of funding and resources and so on,
(24:53):
either through the public sector. Some individuals might be able
to pay for it privately, but you get ten sessions
under a mental health care plan, it hardly touches the
sides With these individuals. We're talking years of therapy, really
consistent therapy. But you can make progress if that occurs.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
It's some You've spent decades speaking to people who've committed
terrible crimes, and you would have seen the gamut of
personality types. Are there people who are truly evil? Because
we have this idea that anyone who commits a crime
has some level of evilness to them, otherwise they wouldn't
(25:33):
have been able to do that. But then we factor
in other things on their own personal circumstances, it might
have influenced them to become who they are.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
But are there people out there who are genuinely born so?
Speaker 1 (25:44):
I mean, like, if we're talking about young people who
commit a crime which is just so unbelievably out of
character for someone like a thirteen year old to do,
are they born evil?
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Is that even a thing?
Speaker 3 (25:57):
I think it is. I think a lot of crimes
are committed by circumstances in life, drug addiction, terrible role
modeling at home, exposure to violence, developing personality disorders, sexual abuse,
and so on. And I don't agree that all people
(26:18):
who commit crimes are innately evil. There, in many cases
just an example of their circumstances, a product of their circumstances.
That's said, I think there are people who are intrinsically evil.
Look at the Bulger case. I mean, how do you
explain that beyond saying this is evil, simplicitor? And how
(26:38):
does it occur with a ten year old? And then
look what happened subsequently, release from jail, re offending. Now,
that may be a function of delayed maturity as we've described,
or it may be that intrinsic evil, badness was always
there when you.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Are speaking to people who committed crimes?
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Are there those who enjoy if they have a title
attached to that? So sld f ex is known as
Australia's youngest convicted murderer and we don't know how he
feels about that. You have not treated him, So we
don't know whether he sees that as a badge of honor.
But if the media comes in with these titles for
these criminals, do some of them enjoy that.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
It's a badge of honor? You know, at some level,
I enjoy the notoriety. You know. I've been involved some
very high profile, serious criminal behaviors in Australia. And one
that springs to mind was when Julian Knight was arrested
and it's freely available on the net. There's footage of
(27:44):
him on the Sunday morning or the Monday morning, sorry,
wanting to look at all the press articles surrounding what
he had done. Other people keep momentous the reason behind this,
and I'm not talking about Night, and I'm just making
that point that he was very interested in the press.
It keeps the excitement alive. You know, they're still in
(28:05):
the past, the guy, and particularly if they're in prison
where they're writing, they're not interacting with anyone, but it
gives them some social relevance and cachet I think to
be described in that way, and I don't think they
should be talked about it all frankly or named, because
it just gives them oxygen. It amplifies their evil doings
(28:28):
and feeds into their egos.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
Next, I asked him if he thinks there's a problem
with keeping a murderer anonymous, especially if they've reoffended as
SLD has. I think one of the biggest issues that
we see with SLD now that he has been returned
to the community and seeing what happened when he was
returned last time in twenty twenty three, is that he
(28:54):
gets to live his life with a level of anonymity.
He was thirteen when he offended, automatically means he cannot
be identified by anybody, and there have been many where
for example with the Bulger murderers, where people have tried
to identify them because they came out of prison with
a new identity, have tried to identify them, and they
(29:16):
have faced serious consequences for that, legal consequences. But then
there is another part, and especially in the case of
SLD where he showed some really concerning behaviors on being
released from prison, especially around women and young children. Should
the community know who he is so they can potentially
protect themselves and their children from him. But then you
(29:37):
have to weigh up those who may be vigilante and
might take things into their own hands.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Like where do you stand on that?
Speaker 3 (29:44):
With respect? It's a great question, and it's a complex issue.
On the one hand, people are entitled to a second chance.
They've done their time, dependent on treatment and rehabilitation in
jar some individuals just want to get on with their
lives in an anonymous way. But that has to be
(30:04):
balanced I think in terms of the gravity of the
crime and the fact that somebody has committed a crime
such as this, I'd certainly want to know about it
if he was my next door neighbor. It's a balancing act.
I would say that if they reoffend, or if there
are red flags that might be the gateway, then to
(30:25):
open all of that up, because there's no rehabilitation. They've
been given their second chance, and for whatever reasons, they've
continued to offend. Not murder, but certainly the behaviors you
describe are very troubling.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Do you think that someone like sld can be monitored
well enough in the community. He'll be wearing an ankle
bracelet and he's living in the halfway house and currently
has two stuff who are looking out for him, because
the first time he was released, he only had that
one NDAES worker who, according to a witness, wasn't keeping
a close eye on him, and that resulted in him
(31:00):
approaching a few people during one incident. Now, that's a
lot of resourcing to put into one person, and whilst
it is absolutely worth it to protect the community, I'm
presuming there's only so long they can maintain that. For like,
how do we weigh up the cost of having him
in the community as opposed to the cost of putting
him back behind bars.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
Well, it's a cost benefit analysis, isn't it. And I
agree that's a lot of resourcing over a period of time.
I would hope that during that period where that level
of resourcing is occurring, that there would be treatment reframing
his attitudes a whole lot of stuff that could enhance
the prospects of him not re offending and going back
(31:43):
to prison. But you know, ankle monitoring, there's been a
lot of controversy around that. There were some private operators
around Australia who were used by the courts, and then
it was utilized it was revealed that in fact they
weren't monitoring anyone at all. I think it needs to
be done by the state, not private enterprise. And there's
(32:05):
always the in fact it's happened where people cut away
their ankle bracelet. The urge has become too grave. They
just want a bit of freedom and then they're not
under supervision. But I don't think that's an argument in
itself for people to not be given a chance. I
think people deserve a chance. But you know, the eyes
of the world are on you, and if you screw
(32:26):
it up, you're back into the institution. Because as a
community we can't take these sort of risks, particularly where
there's been very serious crimes committed.
Speaker 1 (32:36):
A crime that's been committed by a child is so
shocking and it does leave a really deep scar in
the community that is affected, and the immediate community more
so obviously, but the broader Australian community was so shocked
by SLD's crime.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
It seems so senseless.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
What's the long term psychological impact on those who are
immediately affected? You think by a child committing something so
heinous that it's almost just out of the realm of understanding.
And I mean for both that child's family who were
raising him and protecting him at the time, and the
(33:15):
family have lost little Courtney at the hands of a
thirteen year old.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
How do you deal with that?
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Well, I don't think you could overstate the impact. You
talk about the victim, survivors, the family of Courtney, but
often too, the family of an accused person are dramatically affected.
They didn't see it coming their face, with the prospect
of their child spending decades potentially out of the community
(33:44):
in YTC and or prison as they progress, and that
has an impact upon them. I think too, there's a
like a multiplier effect in the community. We're all affected
in a way, and we all acquire and varying degrees
of intensity what I describe as symptoms of black hair
(34:04):
as post traumatic stress. About this, and you think, where
have we failed as a community? What's happened to us
as a community, and why is it that this kid
has committed this offense? Could have been my kid? Probably not,
but you know, these sorts of things float through the
eth with individuals, so I don't think you can overstate
the impact of these sorts of crimes. Murders occur all
(34:26):
the time, far too frequently these days in Australia, but
when it's a juvenile offender killing a three year old,
that's next level.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
You can listen to Tim's podcast Motive and Method with
Doctor's Anthey Mallett at the link in our show notes.
True Crime Conversations is a Mum of Meer podcast hosted
by me Claire Murphy and produced by Tarlie Blackman, with
audio designed by Jacob Brown.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
I'll be back next week with another True Crime Conversation.
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com