Kathleen Folbigg was convicted in 2003 of murdering three of her children, and of manslaughter in the death of her fourth. Folbigg maintained her innocence and said the children had died of natural causes over a decade, from 1989-1999.
In 2019, an initial inquiry into the case reaffirmed Folbigg’s guilt. But in 2022, a second inquiry led by a former chief justice found new evidence suggested two of the children had a genetic mutation that may have caused their deaths.
Folbigg was released from prison in June this year after being pardoned.
“I am grateful that updated science and genetics has given me answers as to how my children died,” an emotional Folbigg told reporters outside a criminal appeals court in Sydney.
“However, even in 1999, we had legal answers to prove my innocence. They were ignored. And dismissed,” she said. “The system preferred to blame me rather than accept that sometimes, children can and do die suddenly, unexpectedly, and heartbreakingly.”
Bit of a useless article. Other than some basics it doesn’t even include what her children died of or what evidence they used to convict her. Kinda important since the whole point is the wrongful conviction and how it’s now overturned.
More details here.
Basically she had written in her diary about her enduring feelings of guilt over the deaths of her children, which is what formed the base of the original case against her. Prosecutors argued that the children were probably smothered, despite there being no physical evidence for that.
A recent enquiry heard new evidence that at least 2 of her children carried a genetic defect that could potentially have caused their deaths, which coupled with the circumstancial nature of the evidence used in the original conviction was enough the NSW governor to pardon her under reasonable doubt. That pardon lead to a trial in the criminal court of appeals which have now acquitted her of the charges.
What parent DOESNT feel guilty over the death of their children?
They are always going to be plagued by doubt, what if, etc etc.
Hell, my grandmother lost an adult son to cancer like 20 years ago and she still gets hit by episodes of guilt over not magically noticing/doing something different/outliving him/etc.
What a fucking ridiculous bullshit reason to convict her.
The legal system does shit like that all the time.
Lie detectors are fake yet used to get false confessions. Eyewitness testimony is one of the highest forms of evidence yet humans are noticeably terrible at remembering details especially in traumatic events. Word choice matters to the point of one misspoken word could cast doubt yet most people aren’t deliberately thinking about their word choice.
The legal system expects people to operate like they’ve been in the legal system for years and that’s just not how it works.
Thank you.
Edit: That’s a much better article.
It says she was pardoned - at least in the US, that’s different from having a conviction overturned.
She was pardoned in June and has subsequently has been acquitted in the criminal court of appeals.
I am of the firm belief she killed her children and she has taken advantage of people close in her life to advocate for her freedom.
Her ex-husband, the father of the children who died, doesn’t believe she is innocent either.
I’d encourage anyone to read her diaries and conclude they were the reflections of a healthy individual.
My opinion isn’t popular but I’ll die on this hill.
How could anyone be healthy after having four of their children die?!
There is reasonable doubt that she killed the children based on the available evidence as determined by legal and medical experts.
Your opinion doesn’t matter at all.
Yeah it doesn’t matter but he’s allowed to express it so what good does it telling him that it doesn’t matter and downvoting him to hell?
Humans learn behavior through trial and error and learning from others. Maybe this will be a valuable experience regarding how they come to choose their opinions and how they choose to express them, maybe not. Who knows? We’ll keep doing our part to let others know when certain opinions are intolerable or unrealistic and they can use that information as they will, if they want. Being allowed to express something doesn’t mean they are correct nor immune to criticism 🤷♀️
“What we believe shapes who we are. Belief can bring us salvation or destruction. But when you believe a lie for too long, the truth doesn’t set you free. It tears you apart.”
Sounds like a quote from Planescape:Torment.
Actually it’s from the TV series Altered Carbon.
Second season gave us Anthony Mackies ass, but I still prefer RoboCops first season.
This is a really excellent take, written with thoughtfulness and without scorn. Nice one @[email protected] 😊
I hadn’t heard of this case but I googled the diary entries and at first pass they do seem very damming - no unlike Lucy lettsby’s notes. But the testimony from multiple experts is pretty clear that they are not confessions but the tangled thoughts of someone suffering from multiple child bereavements. Of course she wasn’t in her right mind, but that doesn’t mean she killed them.
Joanna Garstang, a consultant community paediatrician and designated doctor on a child death review panel in Birmingham, reviewed Folbigg’s diaries and submitted an expert witness report to the inquiry, released publicly on Tuesday.
“Much of my clinical work involves the investigation of unexpected child deaths, regularly working alongside police,” Garstang wrote. “In my opinion, the expressions of self-blame and guilt in Ms Folbigg’s diary fit with those described in the literature or that I have witnessed in my clinical and research practice. I do not consider them true confessions of guilt.”
Garstang said each of those comments was an “expression of self-blame in keeping with published literature” about bereaved parents. “Ms Folbigg is blaming herself for the deaths, she may be considering that her stress caused the deaths. This is in keeping with published literature and not of concern.”
Counsel assisting the inquiry, Sophie Callan, SC, foreshadowed last week that two psychiatrists and a psychologist would also give evidence this week about Folbigg’s diaries, none of whom was expected to say the diaries contained expressions of criminal guilt.
Being unhealthy is neither a crime nor evidence of a crime.
Slightly related; I’ve always loved this quote from Aneurin Bevan, former health minister who established the NHS in the UK:
“Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.”
