Rachel Shoaf’s case captured global attention, and now, she has been denied parole for the third time.
In 2014, Shoaf and her friend Shelia Eddy were both sentenced and jailed for the 2012 murder of their close friend Skylar Neese.
Skylar was like many other 16-year-olds growing up in suburban America in 2012. She went to school, got good grades, had a part-time job at a fast-food restaurant and hung out with her friends. After finishing school and university, Skylar wanted to become a lawyer.
However, Skylar went missing on July 5, 2012, from her family’s West Virginia home, and Shoaf and Eddy both joined the search, putting up missing-person posters and telling Skylar’s parents, Dave and Mary, that they’d gone for a late-night drive but dropped Skylar home just after midnight.
But in early 2013, Shoaf broke down and confessed that she and Eddy drove Skylar to the nearby woods and stabbed her to death. Shoaf then led police to Skylar’s makeshift grave.
Shoaf told police she and Eddy killed Skylar because they “just didn’t like her” but it was later revealed that Shoaf and Eddy were in a relationship and thought Skylar was going to expose them. So, they decided to silence her permanently.
Shoaf, now 30, was jailed for 30 years while Eddy, also 30, received a life sentence. Shoaf was denied parole for the third time in June 2026.
Inside the Teenage Mind
Following Shoaf’s third parole denial, New Idea spoke to clinical & forensic psychologist Dr Carollyne Youssef about the case, particularly the mentality behind how adolescent drama can escalate to murder.
“There is no single psychological pathway that explains how adolescent conflict can escalate to serious violence, or the plan to commit a serious offence, such as murder,” Dr Youssef tells us.
“Most teenage disagreements, even those involving intense emotions, betrayal, or social conflict, resolve without anyone being physically harmed. It is therefore important not to assume that ordinary adolescent drama is itself a precursor to violent behaviour.”
“From a forensic psychology perspective, serious acts of violence typically emerge from a convergence of factors rather than one isolated event. These may include unresolved interpersonal conflict, escalating hostility, distorted thinking, poor emotional regulation, group dynamics that reinforce harmful decisions, and, in some cases, a gradual desensitisation to the idea of violence.”
“When conflict remains unresolved, and individuals become increasingly preoccupied with revenge or eliminating what they perceive to be the source of their distress, the risk of harmful behaviour may increase.”
Dr Youssef says that while warning signs are “always context-dependent and should never be viewed in isolation”, signs that may warrant concern can include “making credible threats of violence, expressing a persistent desire to seriously harm someone, becoming fixated on revenge, talking about or planning violent acts, attempting to recruit others into harming someone, rehearsing or preparing for violence, or showing a marked loss of empathy for the intended victim”.
“While none of these behaviours necessarily mean that violence will occur, they should be taken seriously, particularly when several are present together or are increasing in frequency or intensity,” she adds.
Australian vs American legal systems
While Dr Youssef notes that serious youth violence often stems from a “complex interplay” of factors rather than a single “emotional” trigger, she points out that how such crimes are handled legally can depend on where they occur.
In particular, the Shoaf case may have played out differently on Australian soil, given that local youth justice systems place a much stronger focus on rehabilitation.
“In Australia, youth justice places a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, recognising that adolescents are still undergoing significant neurological, psychological, and social development,” she explains.
“As a result, age and developmental maturity are important considerations during sentencing, alongside the seriousness of the offence, their level of responsibility, prospects for rehabilitation, and the need to protect the community.”
The weight of a confession
Relating to her confession, Dr Youssef shares how offenders can decide to confess due to the “psychological weight” of having committed such a serious crime.
“Feelings of guilt, remorse, or internal conflict may eventually outweigh the perceived benefits of remaining silent,” she says.
“In other cases, practical considerations such as changing dynamics with a co-offender, mounting evidence, or advice received during the legal process may also influence the decision to confess.
“Without a direct assessment, however, it is not possible to determine what ultimately motivated Ms Shoaf’s confession.”
