The Death of Cassius Turvey

A Cascade of Maternal Failure

Let me be crystal clear at the outset - the maternal failure here was not Cassius Turvey’s mother. That poor grieving woman, since losing her son, has done nothing but fight to stop such things happening again. She says Cassius was targeted because of his Aboriginality - I don’t agree, based on the evidence, but since I have only ever flown over the western states I will not pretend to be an expert on race relations in suburban Perth. I hope through her struggles to stop other parents going through the grief imposed on her, she finds some sort of peace.

Nor are the maternal failures I speak of my personal judgment on the matter. No, this comes from the presiding judge in his sentencing statements.

Five adults - one teenager, four in their 20s - were involved in the incident that led to Cassius’ murder. One - Jack Brearley - physically assaulted Cassius repeatedly with a metal pole and wounded him, injuries he did not survive: Brearley was sentenced to life imprisonment. Another male member of the group, Brodie Palmer, was also sentenced to life, while a third male who “was never the main offender but was always there” (pg 56 of the sentencing statements), Mitchell Forth, was convicted of manslaughter and given 12 years.

A female - Aleesha Gilmore - was Brearley’s girlfriend at the time. Her younger brother’s clashes with another boy over a girl (all nothing to do with Cassius) had seen escalating conflict leading to Brearley’s car window being smashed and the group setting out for vigilante justice. If this all sounds convoluted, it is relevant in understanding the group’s motivations: Gilmore was called a ringleader of the group according to the SMH and Chief Justice Quinlan, in his sentencing remarks, repeatedly commented on her initiating the actions of the group, and previous assaults, to protect that younger brother. On pg. 53 he says,

much of the reason that the group of you had come down to Middle Swan and had gone looking for kids was again because of your completely misguided attempt to come to the aid of your younger brother. You were the one who took the initial phone call and were heavily involved, if not the driving force, in the decision to sort out their issue.

She was acquitted of involvement in Cassius Turvey’s murder.

According to the ABC, Gilmore “and Ethan MacKenzie, [18 at the time of the crime], were convicted of abducting and assaulting other teenagers in the days before Cassius was hunted.” Both denied their guilt and showed no “tangible evidence of remorse”.

The judge said, on page 52 of his sentencing remarks to Gilmore, that “your culpability is greater than that of Mr Mackenzie” and “your youth and difficult upbringing, while of some mitigation, are also not as pronounced in terms of mitigation as those of Mr Mackenzie.”

She was more culpable and had fewer mitigating factors than he did.

He was then given 2 and half years gaol, and she was given a 15-month suspended sentence and set free. I don’t believe I need add any comment.

The maternal failures I mentioned are highlighted when we start to look into these mitigating factors. Mackenzie’s are the most significant: the judge goes through his background on pp. 42-44 and describes a young man almost doomed from birth. Born with meth in his system to a mother who was an addict, and who was dealing himself by the time he dropped out of school in year 8, he was “exposed to violence and drug use by [his] mother and other deprivations such as homelessness and a lack of schooling” (pg. 42) and ended up using many different sorts of drugs. The neuropsychological report for the court suggested he was “more intelligent than [his] behavioural history would suggest” (pg. 43) but had planning, memory and control issues, and was violent because of them.

Most importantly, the judge says (based on this report) that, “the effect of your background means that you have unresolved issues with aggression and violence”. The violence, trauma and neglect experienced by the child explains the violence of the man.

This is common sense, but we continue to see people neglected or brutalised in childhood, most often by the actions or failures of their mother, grow into angry and even violent adults - and then blame society, or the manosphere, or ‘masculinity’, or whatever flavour-of-the-month target we have.

Hold that thought.

Gilmore’s upbringing was not dissimilar, inasmuch as it involved a drug-using mother who ‘introduced’ her to meth at 13. How she ended up living with her mother is a grotesque indictment of the system, as the judge says first (pg. 49):

Your parents separated due in part to your mother's drug use, with you and your brothers initially forced to live with your mother, causing your father severe depression.

In late 2011, your father won custody due to your mother's entrenched drug habit having resulted in neglect.

The preferential treatment of mothers before the court meant that only after the addict had further neglected her children was custody given to the other parent. Unfortunately, while he got custody it sounds like he got very little support:

As your father worked nightshift, it fell to you, Ms Gilmore, to care for the home and your brothers. You were only 10 years old at this time, and were in charge of making dinners, lunches, doing laundry and other general domestic and household duties. At 13 years old you became tired of 'playing the mother' and returned to live with your mother and grandmother.

When was the last time you remember the media saying, “single dads need more support!” Yet they do, in no small part because they are more likely to take personal responsibility for their children and work full-time jobs.

That’s an issue for another day. For now, note the timeline - back with mum at 13, addict at 13. Mum almost immediately introduced her to meth. The judge says (pg. 49),

I don't need a psychological report to know that your mother would have had a terrible effect on your upbringing, Ms Gilmore. I saw her give evidence in the trial and I saw firsthand the disgraceful way in which she treated your little brother in the CCTV footage that was tendered at trial.

Gilmore’s apparent desire to be a proper ‘mum’ to her little brothers and protect them, after what they had previously gone through, in no small part explains the events that were set in motion and led to Cassius Turvey’s death. The judge acknowledges this but correctly follows the law (pg 48):

It is important that I recognise, Ms Gilmore, that you were charged with, but found not guilty of the murder of Cassius Turvey, and also found not guilty of the alternative count of manslaughter. Based on what has occurred during your time in custody, Ms Gilmore, including the nature of the threats that have been made to you, it is clear that there are people who hold you, at least in part, responsible for the death of Cassius Turvey. Your name will likely always be associated with the death of Cassius Turvey and there will no doubt be people who will continue to hold you morally responsible for his death.

Mitchell Forth, the offender convicted of manslaughter, is described by the judge as having a “supportive family” and a “happy and healthy early childhood”, albeit his parents separated and he spent time living with both. He completed high school, despite ADHD, dyslexia and an expulsion for cannabis use. He was also the only defendant to show remorse, albeit quite late, as the consequences of his actions appear to have dawned on him.

There is no need to point the finger in any direction for what ultimately happened to Forth: the lesson here, I believe, is that divorce damages a child no matter how hard the parents try to do it ‘right’. That does not mean parents always need to stay together no matter what, but we should never delude ourselves that a broken family is in any way a positive.

Palmer is the father of a son himself, and was step-father to his ex’s two other daughters. Both he and the ex used drugs, and he had a history of drug-related crimes. Otherwise, he was employed, remains close to his parents (who are together), apparently had a happy childhood, and they visit him in gaol (and have custody of his son). But he was also selling drugs from their property, and the judge notes that of the many people who wrote character references for him, none acknowledged his guilt, nor did he. The judge also says one fascinating thing (pg. 66):

I have no doubt, Mr Palmer, as all of the references attest, that you love your son and you want what is best for him. That is obviously to your credit. But that is the bare minimum required of any parent.

Amen to that.

The judge ultimately concludes that “unlike Mr Mackenzie and Ms Gilmore… there [is nothing] in your childhood or upbringing that might serve to explain or mitigate your offending.”

Turning finally to the main culprit, Brearley.

Brearley also had a “positive” childhood, albeit a strained relationship with his father due to what the judge describes as “misbehaviour and conduct” (pg. 71), but when he was 15 his parents separated and his mother ‘left without warning’, which to the teen would have felt like being abandoned. He also seems to have injured his back riding motocross at about this time. He repaired the relationship with his father but the latter had to go away to work and support everyone - again, what help for single dads? - leaving him to be raised by a grandfather and with his brothers: while apparently loving, grandad’s health was declining and so was his brother’s mental health, potentially exacerbated by Brearley’s trial.

And of course, there was the drug use, and he was involved with Palmer in selling drugs - ‘part of his drug-dealing operation’, says the judge (pg. 72).

Brearley became romantically involved with Gilmore, and they began living together when he was 19. From what I can piece together from various articles, it seems he moved in with her (she had returned to living with her dad and brothers) and they acted as some sort of surrogate parents to her younger siblings and tried to create for themselves the family they needed: this would do a lot to explain why these two were the “ringleaders”, but then, this engaging narrative may well be journalistic imagination. The judge says the relationship was, “volatile and marred by arguments, drug use and trust and control issues.”

Alternatively, Brearley may have simply been out looking for revenge on whoever smashed his car window. Whatever the case, Cassius Turvey’s promising life was tragically cut short, and because these young white men yelled racial slurs during the attack, racial tensions have been inflamed.

Brearley has essentially taken no responsibility for his actions, tried to blame the others, and said he acted in self-defence. The judge believed none of it, and earlier told Forth, “Mr Brearley knew perfectly well what he had done [is] wrong. He just didn't care, which is why he so brazenly lied about practically everything.”

Brearley, as I said, got life, and will not be eligible for parole for 22 years. The most significant thing I notice about him was that his parents divorce and maternal estrangement at 15 was followed by drug use beginning at 16. It clearly had an impact.

So those are the backgrounds of the offenders. Now, not only is all of this publicly available, the SMH in its article I referenced covers most of it. But the SMH tells us all this under the framing headline:

Thugs, drugs and absent mothers: Behind the ‘monsters’ who killed Cassius Turvey.

So it was because of an absent mother! Oh, if only she had been there… not branded a deadbeat who abandoned her child, no reference to the negligent meth addicts (I am torn as to which was worse, based on the scant descriptions), just a reminder that if mum isn’t involved, ‘monsters’ happen.

What a shameful headline. What a disgusting summary. And yet hardly surprising from a main-stream media who saw a child dying every 10 minutes in Gaza and thought, “how can we frame this to be about women?”

The reality was one set of parents who stayed together and supported their son (but apparently didn’t prevent his drug dealing from their house with his violent friend), one set who split up ‘amicably’ (but the damage was done), two meth addict mothers, one abandoned mother, two overworked fathers, and Mackenzie’s father who is never mentioned but may also have abandoned his responsibilities (though a dozen other scenarios also come to mind).

Three bad mothers, one potentially bad father.

Based on the tenor of this article, and my previous writings, you may suspect I am going to say something to the effect of “women should never be allowed near children!”

No. A thousand times no.

Most mothers are good women. Maybe not great, maybe not perfect, but struggling to do their best.

Children need their mothers. Their best chance at life is to be raised by their mother and father. Conversely, when the mother goes wrong, terrible things happen.

And so similarly - equally - children need their fathers. The previous generations with their failed experiment into fatherless households have been one long testament to that fact.

And as I mentioned earlier, the abuse and trauma experienced by the child creates the violence of the adult, man or woman.

The abusive and negligent meth mothers were probably - not definitely, but probably - from backgrounds of abuse and trauma themselves. Few stable, successful, well-adjusted people turn to meth: it is the refuge of people whose life is so horrific it impels them to flee, into drugs or alcohol or psychosis.

This is the cycle of violence. Bad parent, who abuses and traumatises the child, who grows into the bad parent.

To break that cycle, we need to do two things, both of which are the opposite of what we currently do.

Firstly, we need to hold adults accountable. It is the only way to stop the transmission of violence into the next generation. We currently only do that for men. We need to hold women accountable.

We need to call out poor maternal behaviour and insist that women do better. As I have said before, many people can do better for their kids.

Yes, take into account ‘mitigating factors’, but put stopping child abuse front and centre.

The opposite happened here, with an addicted and abusive mother getting custody despite the efforts of the father, and in turn creating another damaged, addicted and dangerous young woman. We need to stop making excuses for mothers. Excuses for the epidemic of maternal violence and neglect.

And we need to support parents trying to be present and positive for their children. We currently only do that for women, and we actively prevent men from being in their children’s lives through the courts. That needs to change.

As do the one-sided social services around children that almost always assume a ‘mother-and-child’ dynamic and offer little if any assistance to fathers.

As does the gynocentric attitude of celebrating and promoting single motherhood.

Most of all, we need to change our blind acceptance of a system that puts the best interests of children behind those of their mothers.