The curious case of Kathleen Folbigg

a_unique_person

Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
48,871
Location
Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Folbigg


A mother who's four children all died young. There was no cause of death found but the "death cluster" was enough to get her convicted of murder, along with some ambiguous entries in her diary.


Now scientists claim that two of the deaths could be attributed to a rare genetic disorder that has only recently been discovered.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Folbigg


A mother who's four children all died young. There was no cause of death found but the "death cluster" was enough to get her convicted of murder, along with some ambiguous entries in her diary.


Now scientists claim that two of the deaths could be attributed to a rare genetic disorder that has only recently been discovered.
Other than the unqualified blathering by the justifiably disgraced Meadow, and the fairly irrelevant journal, was there any actual evidence? Four suffocations without a trace is highly unlikely
 
Other than the unqualified blathering by the justifiably disgraced Meadow, and the fairly irrelevant journal, was there any actual evidence? Four suffocations without a trace is highly unlikely

To be clear Professor Meadow did not give evidence in this trial.

I wonder what your qualification is to say that four suffocations without a trace is highly unlikely? There are usually no abnormal post mortem findings in asphyxiated infants. The post mortem cannot easily distinguish between SIDS and asphyxia.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-007-0020-7
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513401/
 
To be clear Professor Meadow did not give evidence in this trial.

I wonder what your qualification is to say that four suffocations without a trace is highly unlikely? There are usually no abnormal post mortem findings in asphyxiated infants. The post mortem cannot easily distinguish between SIDS and asphyxia.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-007-0020-7
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513401/
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
"Meadows Law" was a central plank of the prosecution. It was, and is, garbage. Meadows pronouncements on probability was torn apart by actual statisticians, most notoriously in the Sally Clarke. I suggest you read Hill's debunking of Meadows incompetence.
 
Other than the unqualified blathering by the justifiably disgraced Meadow, and the fairly irrelevant journal, was there any actual evidence? Four suffocations without a trace is highly unlikely

Well, I wouldn't dismiss the journal as irrelevant. Some of the entries I've seen fall somewhere between troubling and suspicious. That being said, the lack of other forensic evidence, combined with the possible medical explanation, would appear in my opinion to place this well within the realm of reasonable doubt.
 
Well, I wouldn't dismiss the journal as irrelevant. Some of the entries I've seen fall somewhere between troubling and suspicious. That being said, the lack of other forensic evidence, combined with the possible medical explanation, would appear in my opinion to place this well within the realm of reasonable doubt.
I'm rather dubious about the journal. While some of the entries are odd they're more suggestive of the guilt of a parent who has lost children. There is absolutely nothing like a direct admission and many of the entries suggest a living mother.

I agree the case never approached "beyond reasonable doubt" level.
 
Tried. Appeal. Judicial review. Appeal against judicial review. All against Folbigg. I feel far more sorry about the dead children than her.
 
...I feel far more sorry about the dead children than her.

I doubt anyone feels any differently. Still, it's important to ensure the judicial system is working properly. For the record, I suspect there's a decent chance she's guilty. But not to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion upon which the criminal court system is based.
 
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
"Meadows Law" was a central plank of the prosecution. It was, and is, garbage. Meadows pronouncements on probability was torn apart by actual statisticians, most notoriously in the Sally Clarke. I suggest you read Hill's debunking of Meadows incompetence.

So you fail to respond to my pointing out that your claim that asphyxia in infants would have left evidence at post mortem was not evidence based. My question about your expertise in the area to justify your opinion is unanswered. instead you try and divert the discussion to a completely different case.

I am not sure you understand "Meadows Law", it is not garbage, I am not sure 'actual statisticians' are good experts on child death? I also suspect you are not familiar with the Sally Clarke case. But that is a compeletely different issue, so sticking to this case, if Professor Meadow was quoted in this case, it is not his fault if what he said was misunderstood.
 
So you fail to respond to my pointing out that your claim that asphyxia in infants would have left evidence at post mortem was not evidence based. My question about your expertise in the area to justify your opinion is unanswered. instead you try and divert the discussion to a completely different case.

I am not sure you understand "Meadows Law", it is not garbage, I am not sure 'actual statisticians' are good experts on child death? I also suspect you are not familiar with the Sally Clarke case. But that is a compeletely different issue, so sticking to this case, if Professor Meadow was quoted in this case, it is not his fault if what he said was misunderstood.
:rolleyes:
Good grief more nonsense.
Yes "Meadows Law" is garbage. It's been debunked numerous times, specifically by Ray Hill (an actual mathematician). Do some research for yourself.
 
There was some reasonable doubt there was a genetic fault with the girls, too. The research just isn't as far advanced as the male research.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Folbigg

A mother who's four children all died young. There was no cause of death found but the "death cluster" was enough to get her convicted of murder, along with some ambiguous entries in her diary.

Now scientists claim that two of the deaths could be attributed to a rare genetic disorder that has only recently been discovered.
A couple of things to consider besides no actual evidence she caused the deaths:

From Wiki:
They pointed out that no physical evidence could link Folbigg to murder; it was an entirely circumstantial case with very little consensus among the scientific experts who testified at trial.

How does that say there was more evidence of guilt than not? Maybe Oz has a different standard for reasonable doubt? :rolleyes:

What kind of doctors don't do careful followup of a woman who lost one previous child, let alone 2, or even more concerning a woman who lost 3 previous kids? Was there a plan? A home health nurse to watch the baby(s) when they were sleeping? A heart or breathing monitor?

If there was some kind of genetic issue suspected, that should be testable in the parents or one or more of the kids depending on the availability of autopsy specimens.

This is a sad situation on so many levels.


Other than the unqualified blathering by the justifiably disgraced Meadow, and the fairly irrelevant journal, was there any actual evidence? Four suffocations without a trace is highly unlikely
At best. His opinion does not stand up to any real degree of scrutiny and should have been abandoned long ago.

The curse of "celebrity expert" again.
:rolleyes:
Good grief more nonsense.
Yes "Meadows Law" is garbage. It's been debunked numerous times, specifically by Ray Hill (an actual mathematician). Do some research for yourself.
What are the odds of 4 SIDS cases in one family? I dunno, what are the odds of 4 infant deaths in one family being misdiagnosed? Higher odds for the latter I'd wager.

And did any of the pediatricians not notice this was a seriously high risk family? And if they did, what did they do about it?


I wouldn’t. This is a victory for a well managed PR campaign.

The possibility that a genetic fault could possibly have caused death is not enough for reasonable doubt in my view.
Who paid for this PR campaign? She spent 20 years in jail, hardly a victory when all the evidence was circumstantial. :rolleyes:
 
I took a look at the other thread. They should probably be merged.

From Wiki:
Trial
... The prosecution alleged Folbigg murdered her four children by smothering them during periods of frustration.[9] Their case relied on the improbability of all four children dying of natural causes, citing the now-dubious Meadow's law, a maxim attributed to British paediatrician Roy Meadow: "One sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, until proven otherwise."[6]

And what does Wiki say about Meadows?
Samuel Roy Meadow (born 9 June 1933)[1] is a British retired paediatrician infamous for facilitating several wrongful convictions of mothers for murdering their babies.
Fits my stereotype of an older doctor who should have retired a decade or so before he did.

Back to the main Wiki article:
Petition for pardon
On 4 March 2021, a petition signed by more than 100 eminent scientists, including Dr. Carola Garcia de Vinuesa,[18] was published by the Australian Academy of Science, calling for the NSW Governor to pardon Folbigg, including scientific and medical explanations for each of the deaths. On the 5th June 2023 - Kathleen Folbigg has been granted an unconditional pardon.[19]

Cause of death
Genetic evidence published in November 2020 showed that at least two of the children had genetic mutations that predisposed them to sudden cardiac death.[20] The researchers concluded that the CALM2 mutation carried by Kathleen and her two girls altered their heart rhythm, predisposing them to sudden unexpected death possibly precipitated by their intercurrent infections (respiratory tract infection in Sarah; myocarditis in Laura) and/or by medications such as Laura's pseudoephedrine.[6]

The other two children, Caleb and Patrick, each carried two potentially lethal genetic mutations in the gene BSN (Bassoon Presynaptic Cytomatrix Protein), which is linked to early onset lethal epilepsy in mice,[21] with one mutation inherited from their mother and the second one likely inherited from their father Craig.[6] None of the four showed signs of smothering in the autopsy.[21]

Sources
6) CNN. Cable News Network. Archived from the original on 20 March 2021. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
18) Schwartz, Oscar (9 December 2021). "4 Dead Infants, a Convicted Mother, and a Genetic Mystery". Wired. Retrieved 23 January 2021.
19) "Nobel Laureates and leading scientists call for Kathleen Folbigg pardon". Australian Academy of Science. 4 March 2021. Retrieved 28 March 2021.
20) Vinuesa, Carola Garcia de. "Kathleen Folbigg's children likely died of natural causes, not murder. Here's the evidence my team found". The Conversation. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
21) "Kathleen Folbigg: Could science free Australian jailed for killing babies?". BBC News. 11 March 2021. Retrieved 20 March 2021.

I fail to see any PR campaign here other than arguing for the science.
 
You can roll your eyes all you want. Many criminal cases are decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Let me try this again with the emphasis I intended instead of the emphasis you focused on:

"She spent 20 years in jail, hardly a victory when all the evidence was circumstantial. :rolleyes:"
 
Last edited:
Let me try this again with the emphasis I intended instead of the emphasis you focused on:

"She spent 20 years in jail, hardly a victory when all the evidence was circumstantial. :rolleyes:"

I would not worry too much. Most people reading your posts in this thread will know you are right on this issue.
 
Isn't most evidence circumstantial?

Direct evidence is almost always eyewitness evidence, which is notoriously unreliable. Aside from that, what are some other examples of direct evidence?

Blood, DNA, fingerprints, murder weapons, and so on...
 
A good start. Hopefully an actual reversal of the verdict will follow.
 
I don't see much substantial evidence of any sort in this case. The case seems to rest on it being improbable that all four children could die of natural causes (which is not true if they do in fact carry potentially lethal genetic mutations) and some entries in diaries that indicate vague feelings of guilt or responsibility. Parents who lose children feeling that it was in some way their fault even if they are not responsible is not particularly unusual.
 
There was some reasonable doubt there was a genetic fault with the girls, too. The research just isn't as far advanced as the male research.

An unintended pun? :sdl:

Not fair I know I just got a kick out of seeing it. Plenty of male gendered members in this thread recognize the scientific/medical evidence.

Here's NPR's take: An Australian mother jailed 20 years is pardoned and freed because of new evidence
Evidence discovered in 2018 that both daughters carried a rare CALM2 genetic variant was one of the reasons that the inquiry was called....

Bathurst has conducted the second inquiry into Folbigg's guilt, initiated by a petition that said it was "based on significant positive evidence of natural causes of death" and signed by 90 scientists, medical practitioners and related professionals.
Hardly a PR campaign.


SIDS is a diagnosis of exclusion allowing a number of diagnoses which are not SIDS to be diagnosed as SIDS anyway. The 4 kids in this case didn't seem to have the same illness. Seeing it claimed multiple times in this thread that there were 4 SIDS deaths bugged me. And it turned out there were not 4 cases of SIDS just like I posted above.


From Wiki CALM2:
Mutations in CALM2 are associated with cardiac arrhythmias.[6] In particular, several single-nucleotide polymorphisms of CALM2 have been reported as potential causes of sudden infant death syndrome. Due to their heritability, CALM2 mutations can affect multiple children in a family,[7] and the discovery of the deadly consequences of these mutations has led to challenges against the murder convictions of mothers of multiple deceased infants


Novel Calmodulin (CALM2) Mutations Associated with Congenital Arrhythmia Susceptibility
Background
Genetic predisposition to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias such as in congenital long-QT syndrome (LQTS) and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) represent treatable causes of sudden cardiac death in young adults and children. Recently, mutations in calmodulin (CALM1, CALM2) have been associated with severe forms of LQTS and CPVT, with life-threatening arrhythmias occurring very early in life. Additional mutation-positive cases are needed to discern genotype-phenotype correlations associated with calmodulin mutations.
Long QT is one of those arrhythmias that sadly results in kids dying after being hit in the chest during sports like baseball. If you jolt the heart when it is in the QT phase you can cause it to fibrillate. The persons can be saved if properly resuscitated in the field.

The clinical severity among subjects in this series was generally less than that originally reported for CALM1 and CALM2 associated with recurrent cardiac arrest during infancy.

Twenty years ago medicine wasn't advanced enough to have recognized arrhythmias in these infants but I still find considerable fault with the pediatricians to not have instituted some kind of follow-up with this family.

And yeah, not only do mothers feel guilt, everyone was telling this mother she was guilty. It's not a sign of guilt no matter what she wrote in her diary in the depressed state she must have been in.

You note, lionking your incredulity that 4 deaths in one family was likely. Are you aware of the statistics on false confessions in court cases?

Also you said
lk said:
Well she is still guilty. She’s been released but the convictions still stand.
when she was actually pardoned.


So now what are the odds the other 2 kids died of SIDS vs some other genetic arrhythmia that went undiagnosed? That's some pretty bad luck for a family, 2 SIDS deaths and 2 genetic-based deaths.

Even if we didn't know if the boys had a different anomaly, would the conviction be doubtful if one could only say 2 SIDS deaths in one family? Do those odds suggest maternal guilt?


I should like to point out one more thing that needs saying. Anyone remember "refrigerator moms" that supposedly caused autism and homosexuality?

Why we like to blame parents (mostly moms) for whatever is ailing their kids
Not a new blame game
Of course, as Washington, D.C., child psychiatrist (and young mom) Dr. Justine Larson points out in a recent guest blog for Scientific American, blaming moms for their children’s medical conditions is nothing new. “Historically, parents have tended to be blamed even by medical professionals when there is a set of symptoms not fully understood by science,” she notes.

Women and blacks often get the raw end of the medical deal which is one reason it really bugs me when I see it.


ETA the original research (posted above as well) into the mother's and kids' genomes in this case. It's pretty conclusive, not just "possible": Infanticide vs. inherited cardiac arrhythmias
Whole genomes or exomes of the mother and her four children were sequenced. ...

This study identifies a novel and functional calmodulin variant (CALM2 G114R) present in a mother convicted of infanticide and her two female children.

Biochemical and electrophysiological studies of the G114R variant show that it has deleterious effects on calcium binding and regulation of the two pivotal calcium channels involved in cardiac excitation contraction coupling, CaV1.2 and RyR2, in a similar manner to that of the pathogenic G114W and N98S variants.

Given the biophysical and functional impact of the CALM2 G114R variant, we consider the variant likely precipitated the natural deaths of the two female children (Child 3 and 4).

The two male children (Child 1 and 2) carried biallelic rare missense variants in BSN, a gene shown to cause early onset lethal epilepsy in mice when deleted.
 
Last edited:
Also you said when she was actually pardoned.

What on earth are you on about? The convictions still stand. She’s still a convicted murderer. In fact I understand that a condition of the pardon was that no further legal action will occur.
 
What on earth are you on about? The convictions still stand. She’s still a convicted murderer. In fact I understand that a condition of the pardon was that no further legal action will occur.
Given I don't believe exoneration can be granted, in this case a pardon is essentially saying not guilty. That is the reason it was granted.

But you are digging your heels in, claiming she's still guilty of murder. Care to address the new evidence?
 
Given I don't believe exoneration can be granted, in this case a pardon is essentially saying not guilty. That is the reason it was granted.

But you are digging your heels in, claiming she's still guilty of murder. Care to address the new evidence?

Firstly, convictions can be quashed by superior courts.

I’m stating a fact. The convictions still stand.
 
Firstly, convictions can be quashed by superior courts.

I’m stating a fact. The convictions still stand.
Because heaven forbid you admit there is new evidence that you should look at. I notice you dodged that inconvenient fact.

Quashing said conviction is still in order but that depends on if she has the time, energy and finances to keep going. And most importantly if she has the willpower. Twenty years in jail when your kids died of natural causes and you are now pardoned would be the end of it for a lot of us.

It would depend on if I'd spent those 20 years fighting for justice or whether I'd spent them coming to terms accepting my unfortunate and undeserved fate.


Come on lionking, just admit there is new evidence that should be considered. You can still be smug about whatever position you held until recently even if a number of us didn't agree. But now is the perfect time to simply reconsider.
 
Last edited:
Because heaven forbid you admit there is new evidence that you should look at. I notice you dodged that inconvenient fact.

Quashing said conviction is still in order but that depends on if she has the time, energy and finances to keep going. And most importantly if she has the willpower. Twenty years in jail when your kids died of natural causes and you are now pardoned would be the end of it for a lot of us.

It would depend on if I'd spent those 20 years fighting for justice or whether I'd spent them coming to terms accepting my unfortunate and undeserved fate.

Firstly, I knew about the possible genetic disorder. It’s been well publicised here. Secondly there is no evidence the kids died of natural causes.
 
Firstly, I knew about the possible genetic disorder. It’s been well publicised here. Secondly there is no evidence the kids died of natural causes.
Darn. I was going to say see my edit, but this answers the heels-dug-in question, you aren't capable of considering new science based medical evidence.

If not that, what evidence would it take for you to reconsider?
 

Back
Top Bottom