Kathleen Folbigg

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
122,628
Location
South East, UK
Had a quick search to see if this case had been discussed here before but could find a thread.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...ks-for-first-time-about-infants-death/9906008

..... Convicted of killing her four children, Australia's worst female serial killer, Kathleen Folbigg, speaks for the first time exclusively to Australian Story, as her legal team fights for a judicial review of her case. A fresh forensic opinion argues natural causes are a plausible explanation for their deaths....

Seems somewhat akin to the tragic case of Sally Clark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark?wprov=sfla1).
 
A journal article on the case

Here is a link with some more information, and the Clark case is mentioned. "The case of Kathleen Folbigg: how did justice and medicine fare?" Sharmila Betts & Jane Goodman-Delahunty (2007) Australian J Forensic Sciences 39(1):11-24.
 
Hmm.
The comparison with the Clark case are interesting. Basically the prosecution failed to produce positive forensic evidence and based it's case on the statistical unlikelihood of four natural/accidental deaths.
She has some distinguished expert support in the persons of Cordner and Orde.

Hopefully the review will be more than just a placatory exercise.
 
She was convicted and her appeal failed. Her diary entries were damning. She’s in the right place.
 
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is a fact that my client killed those children. It is also a fact that my client is a natural phenomenon. Therefore, justice demands that you return a verdict of death by natural causes. Thank you all. The defense rests."
 
Darat said:
Had a quick search to see if this case had been discussed here before but could find a thread.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...ks-for-first-time-about-infants-death/9906008

..... Convicted of killing her four children, Australia's worst female serial killer, Kathleen Folbigg, speaks for the first time exclusively to Australian Story, as her legal team fights for a judicial review of her case. A fresh forensic opinion argues natural causes are a plausible explanation for their deaths....

Seems somewhat akin to the tragic case of Sally Clark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark?wprov=sfla1).
Click to expand...

I just read about this yesterday. The article strongly pointed to her being guilty of nothing but bad luck. I would like to know more. Are her diary entries available to read? I'll do some googleing.
 
lionking said:
It’s not only the admissions of her hurting her children that are chilling, it’s the lack of empathy and love for them. It’s almost they were inanimate objects to her. Whicjh, of course, they ended up becoming.
Click to expand...

Exactly the impression I got. Even going so far as to say that this one would survive because she was prettier than the last one. As if that is the only reason to try and bond with a child instead of killing it.

ETA: wasapi, same for me. I completely accept that some families have rare genetic disorders and things like that could happen. But her entries remove all doubt for me as to what the disorder was.
 
Last edited:
kali1137 said:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/diary-of-mum-accused-of-killing-her-four-babies-20030406-gdgk1d.html
Click to expand...

wasapi said:
Thank you. Interesting reading. And after reading her dairy, any thought of her possibly being innocent, vanished for me.
Click to expand...

OK, she admits she has lost it several times. But where is the confession that she actually killed any of her children in the diary? I could not find it. All I could find was that she thought she was a poor mother.
 
comments from a pathologist

Professor Cordner said, "The findings cannot rule out smothering in one or more of the cases, but especially in the case of Laura, not only is there an acceptable natural cause of death easily visible microscopically, it is important that there are neither general nor specific signs of compression of the face present," he said.

"If the convictions are to stand, they must do so without the support of forensic pathology, and in Laura's case at least, against the forensic pathology view." Link to ABC news. There are also comments about myocarditis.
 
kali1137 said:
Exactly the impression I got. Even going so far as to say that this one would survive because she was prettier than the last one. As if that is the only reason to try and bond with a child instead of killing it.

ETA: wasapi, same for me. I completely accept that some families have rare genetic disorders and things like that could happen. But her entries remove all doubt for me as to what the disorder was.
Click to expand...

Have a look at the infamous case I linked to in my opening post, tragically multiple infant deaths can and do occur in a single family with no one to blame.

And as Chris points out above - to me what makes this case stick out is that we now know that for at least one of the claimed murders the cause of death was not what she was accused of in court.

To me that is more than enough to lower the conviction to below a reasonable doubt.
 
I will absolutely take a look at the case you linked first chance I get, though I have heard of parents losing multiple children to genetic disorders. So you feel that her diary entries were inspired by just guilt at not being the mother she thought she should be?
 
My mother was involved with a family court case years ago where the mother was accused and convicted of horribly abusing her child, to the point of breaking bones. It was only when he continued breaking bones while in foster care that it was discovered that he had a rare disease. She was exonerated but the process took years. That's a lot of damage done to a family and all they got from the state was a sympathetic shrug.
 
Darat said:
Have a look at the infamous case I linked to in my opening post, tragically multiple infant deaths can and do occur in a single family with no one to blame.

And as Chris points out above - to me what makes this case stick out is that we now know that for at least one of the claimed murders the cause of death was not what she was accused of in court.

To me that is more than enough to lower the conviction to below a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignored her diary entries.
 
lionking said:
Only if you ignored her diary entries.
Click to expand...
I am still waiting on an answer to my question.
rjh01 said:
OK, she admits she has lost it several times. But where is the confession that she actually killed any of her children in the diary? I could not find it. All I could find was that she thought she was a poor mother.
Click to expand...

Also there was a book published called When the Bough Breaks by Matthew Benns (not to be confused with a movie of the same name). It does say the diary was an critical piece of evidence.
 
Its not exactly a confession, but it’s close to it. It’s at the very least strong circumstantial evidence which, when combined with the improbability of death from natural causes, is enough for a safe conviction in my view.
 
lionking said:
Its not exactly a confession, but it’s close to it. It’s at the very least strong circumstantial evidence which, when combined with the improbability of death from natural causes, is enough for a safe conviction in my view.
Click to expand...
You are the sort of juror who would vote to convict simply because she was charged.

The diary entries show only that she suffered a lot of guilt over her children. Who wouldn't when your children die on you - whether you had a hand in their deaths or not? Without some corroborating evidence (of which there is none) you can't convict.
 
psionl0 said:
You are the sort of juror who would vote to convict simply because she was charged.

The diary entries show only that she suffered a lot of guilt over her children. Who wouldn't when your children die on you - whether you had a hand in their deaths or not? Without some corroborating evidence (of which there is none) you can't convict.
Click to expand...

Nonsense in two ways. Your characterisation of me is absolutely incorrect.

And of course a conviction can occur due to circumstantial evidence. It happens all the time, and it happened in this case.

Did you actually read the diary entries? You can’t seriously think they only show guilt.
 
lionking said:
Did you actually read the diary entries? You can’t seriously think they only show guilt.
Click to expand...
Yes. I read the actual words and not between the lines.

I saw sentences like:
"My guilt for how responsible I feel for them all haunts me".
"What sort of mother am I, have been? A terrible one, that's what it boils down to".
"I think this baby deserves everything I can give her. Considering I really gave nothing to the others".

When you read those sentences (assuming that you actually read the diary) you probably saw nothing but "I murdered my children".
 
lionking said:
Nonsense in two ways. Your characterisation of me is absolutely incorrect.

And of course a conviction can occur due to circumstantial evidence. It happens all the time, and it happened in this case.

Did you actually read the diary entries? You can’t seriously think they only show guilt.
Click to expand...
We no longer need to read it as you did and said no confession (see the quote below). If there was no confession then the diary entries do not prove guilt. Improbable causes do happen. Imagine something literally a one in a million chance that four children in one family die of natural causes. But if there are a million families with four children there is a very good chance that in one of those families all four children dies. How should the mother of those children feel? Maybe guilt ridden and doubt of her ability to be a mother and wondering if she had something to do with their deaths and hoping that next time would be better? Oh dear that is the diary.


lionking said:
Its not exactly a confession, but it’s close to it. It’s at the very least strong circumstantial evidence which, when combined with the improbability of death from natural causes, is enough for a safe conviction in my view.
Click to expand...

As for circumstantial evidence, that is up to the jury to decide if it is enough to convict.
See this for more information https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/why-cant-some-juries-convict-on-circumstantial-evidence
 
lionking said:
Thank you. We do agree. The jury of lionkings did so decide.
Click to expand...
ftfy.

The primary evidence was a diary where she expressed her feelings of guilt. Obviously no parent would feel guilty over the deaths of their children unless they actually did the deed.
 
psionl0 said:
ftfy.

The primary evidence was a diary where she expressed her feelings of guilt. Obviously no parent would feel guilty over the deaths of their children unless they actually did the deed.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry? Your personal attacks aside, a jury, not comprised of me, decided on guilt. And guilty she is. And in jail she remains.
 
lionking said:
I’m sorry? Your personal attacks aside, a jury, not comprised of me, decided on guilt. And guilty she is. And in jail she remains.
Click to expand...
That ftfy only meant that the jurors had the same attitude that you do. She was charged with murder and she recorded her feelings in a diary. GUILTY!
 
lionking said:
Only if you ignored her diary entries.
Click to expand...
That doesn't really make sense. The new evidence is (apparently I'm not an expert forensic pathologist) clear that for at least one of the claimed murders the child was not murdered. So regardless of whatever she wrote in her diary that conviction shouldn't stand. And if one of the causes of death was wrong then reliance on the diaries for conviction is a judicially unsafe approach.
 
Darat said:
That doesn't really make sense. The new evidence is (apparently I'm not an expert forensic pathologist) clear that for at least one of the claimed murders the child was not murdered. So regardless of whatever she wrote in her diary that conviction shouldn't stand. And if one of the causes of death was wrong then reliance on the diaries for conviction is a judicially unsafe approach.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. The diaries provided deciding circumstantial evidence. The latest evidence doesn’t prove one death was not a murder. I’m really surprised that you assert this.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
It makes perfect sense. The diaries provided deciding circumstantial evidence. The latest evidence doesn’t prove one death was not a murder. I’m really surprised that you assert this.
Click to expand...
How do you get that? The reports are clear stating the pathology evidence does not support a death by smothering and provides another explanation for cause of death.
 
Can someone point me to the bits i the diary that are a slam-dunk confession?

The diary I was expecting due to the nature of this thread was not at all the one that I actually read. I think I've missed something.
 
3point14 said:
Can someone point me to the bits i the diary that are a slam-dunk confession?

The diary I was expecting due to the nature of this thread was not at all the one that I actually read. I think I've missed something.
Click to expand...
No. Because there are none. My evidence is this quote below.


lionking said:
Its not exactly a confession, but it’s close to it. It’s at the very least strong circumstantial evidence which, when combined with the improbability of death from natural causes, is enough for a safe conviction in my view.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for this:

rjh01 said:
No. Because there are none. My evidence is this quote below.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
Its not exactly a confession, but it’s close to it. It’s at the very least strong circumstantial evidence which, when combined with the improbability of death from natural causes, is enough for a safe conviction in my view.
Click to expand...


Death by natural causes isn't an improbability though. It's a certainty. It's absolutely, nailed on going to happen to someone, somewhere.
 
A heap of trolling in this thread. How many deaths due to SIDS in the US? 4000 a year. How many cases of confirmed SIDS of 4 children in one family? Zero.

Put your skeptical hats on. Sure, an elephant could have fallen from a plane and killed these kids. SIDS? Of all four? Given the lack of empathy of Folbigg and her diary entries, what do you reckon? Bad luck? I have a couple of bridges for sale.

The trial was well prosecuted. A jury found her guilty without any proof of jury tampering or malfeasement. What do we have countering this? A forensic data miner after a pay day.

Give me a break.
 
lionking said:
A heap of trolling in this thread. How many deaths due to SIDS in the US? 4000 a year. How many cases of confirmed SIDS of 4 children in one family? Zero.

Put your skeptical hats on. Sure, an elephant could have fallen from a plane and killed these kids. SIDS? Of all four? Given the lack of empathy of Folbigg and her diary entries, what do you reckon? Bad luck? I have a couple of bridges for sale.
Click to expand...


But this sort of thig really is going to happen.

There are seven billion people on the planet and who knows how many billion interactions there are every day. The utterly improbable is going to happen. It's a nailed on certainty. That's just what happens with extremely large number of random events.


The trial was well prosecuted. A jury found her guilty without any proof of jury tampering or malfeasement. What do we have countering this? A forensic data miner after a pay day.
Click to expand...

No. Countering this is the presumption of innocence combined with evidence that brings into great doubt that the last child was murdered.

On top of that we have the diary of a woman already feeling guilty and suffering, at a guess, serious post natal depression. I would imagine that almost everyone who has lost children blames themselves.

Give me a break.
Click to expand...


Why? There's no cause to give you a break. You can take a break by not posting or you can post and have your ideas questioned with no break at all.

What makes you think you deserve a break?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom