The curious case of Kathleen Folbigg

Skeptic Ginger said:
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?
Click to expand...

If the diary evidence didn’t exist, that would support her innocence. They exist and I agree with the prosecution interpretations that they were virtual admissions of guilt. Of course she and her supporters are now saying they were a “cry for help”. Saying that a daughter died “with a bit of help” doesn’t sound like a cry for help.
 
lionking said:
she and her supporters are now saying they were a “cry for help”. Saying that a daughter died “with a bit of help” doesn’t sound like a cry for help.
Click to expand...
Says the armchair psychologist.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Anyone remember "refrigerator moms" that supposedly caused autism and homosexuality?
Click to expand...
This case is different. She caused epileptic seizures and cortical blindness, a respiratory tract infection, and myocarditis.

Some people argue that since the victims showed no signs of asphyxiation that means she must be innocent. But they are ignoring all the other ways she could have killed them. The clever bitch murdered at least two of her children by cunningly passing her genes onto them. And she would have gotten away with it too, if she hadn't virtually admitted to it in her diary.

As for the other two deaths, the method she used on them was even more cunning. You see, the chances of 4 children in one family dying of natural causes is a million to one. So she arranged to be that millionth case, by having 4 kids right after 999,999 other families had 4 kids that didn't die!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
quadraginta said:
No, no, no, no, and so on.

Every one of those is circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...


Then we are defining it differently regardless of what Wiki defines it as.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying the standards are different in Australia, 'cause the Wiki article pretty accurately reflects the concept in the U.S.?

Basically, 'direct' evidence is what someone sees of the crime and is willing to testify to in court. Pretty much everything else is 'circumstantial' because it is one or more steps from someone having witnessed it.
 
quadraginta said:
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying the standards are different in Australia, 'cause the Wiki article pretty accurately reflects the concept in the U.S.?

Basically, 'direct' evidence is what someone sees of the crime and is willing to testify to in court. Pretty much everything else is 'circumstantial' because it is one or more steps from someone having witnessed it.
Click to expand...

This is an off topic discussion I'm not interested in. Who cares about a semantics argument what is the, I dunno, the technical definition of direct evidence? I don't.

Maybe someone else will engage you.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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?
Click to expand...
Without wanting to put words into lionking's mouth, that's not what he actually said.
He stated the conviction stands, which it does.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's also no significant evidence of any homicidal act, certainly not enough to sustain a conviction. No doubt Folbrigg's lawyers will be working to quash the conviction.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is an off topic discussion I'm not interested in. Who cares about a semantics argument what is the, I dunno, the technical definition of direct evidence? I don't.
Click to expand...


Fine with me. You're the one who introduced the subject. Twice. It certainly seemed important to you at the time.

And it isn't a "semantics argument" at all. It is an important distinction which responds directly to your insinuation that the conviction was flawed because "all the evidence was circumstantial".

Maybe someone else will engage you.
Click to expand...


Or not. I don't see anyone else disagreeing with me (or the Wiki article, which is more to the point.)
 
quadraginta said:
Fine with me. You're the one who introduced the subject. Twice. It certainly seemed important to you at the time.

And it isn't a "semantics argument" at all. It is an important distinction which responds directly to your insinuation that the conviction was flawed because "all the evidence was circumstantial".
Or not. I don't see anyone else disagreeing with me (or the Wiki article, which is more to the point.)
Click to expand...
In both of those posts in which I said all there was was circumstantial evidence I also said AND the conviction was flawed because the main circumstantial evidence was probability of 4 SIDS deaths in one family.
You can see my posts for why I concluded that but in essence it was more likely a misdiagnosis.


You are doing the same thing lionking did, picked out the "circumstantial evidence" part of my post and missed the actual point.
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
Without wanting to put words into lionking's mouth, that's not what he actually said.
He stated the conviction stands, which it does.
Click to expand...
And these were the words in his mouth:
She’s still a convicted murderer.
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't mean he believes she was a murderer, only that she had a conviction but in multiple posts he said he still believes she was guilty. He's focused on her diary as the evidence.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Maybe he didn't mean he believes she was a murderer, only that she had a conviction but in multiple posts he said he still believes she was guilty. He's focused on her diary as the evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah? And?

I find it highly amusing when some of the most highly opinionated people on this forum accuse me of having opinions.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
[snip]


You are doing the same thing lionking did, picked out the "circumstantial evidence" part of my post and missed the actual point.
Click to expand...


Okay.

Just an observation; If the fact that the evidence being circumstantial was as inconsequential and irrelevant to your point as you say. perhaps it would have been more clear if you had not pointed it out as often as you did, and with such apparent emphasis.
 
lionking said:
Yeah? And?

I find it highly amusing when some of the most highly opinionated people on this forum accuse me of having opinions.
Click to expand...
Follow along, all conversation is paraphrased:

Quad: [discussion of circumstantial evidence, cites my posts]
Ginger: I was talking about 4 cases of SIDS in one family being unreliable evidence, not all circumstantial evidence per se.
[more posts]
[overlapping discussion about what being pardoned means]
Cat:That's not what lionking said, he said she was convicted, not that she was guilty
Ginger: Nope, he said she was guilty regardless of the pardon​

Now addressing your, "so": So you don't seem to be considering how common false confessions are and the new science-based evidence that has come to light.

If there were only 2 SIDS deaths in one family would you consider that proof the kids were murdered?
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Okay.

Just an observation; If the fact that the evidence being circumstantial was as inconsequential and irrelevant to your point as you say. perhaps it would have been more clear if you had not pointed it out as often as you did, and with such apparent emphasis.
Click to expand...
Not sure where I emphasized it when I noted in several posts that IMO "4 SIDS deaths" keeps being repeated in the thread when that was more likely a misdiagnosis than a fact.

However, that's fine. I will strive to be more clear in the future.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Follow along, all conversation is paraphrased:

Quad: [discussion of circumstantial evidence, cites my posts]
Ginger: I was talking about 4 cases of SIDS in one family being unreliable evidence, not all circumstantial evidence per se.
[more posts]
[overlapping discussion about what being pardoned means]
Cat:That's not what lionking said, he said she was convicted, not that she was guilty
Ginger: Nope, he said she was guilty regardless of the pardon​

[snip]
Click to expand...


Interesting rendition. Some of the interpretations are ... rather curious, and there appear to be a few omissions. Left out for brevity, no doubt.

More specifically, my part in the exchange began when lionking made a post about 'circumstantial evidence' in general, prompted by a post of yours which seemed to suggest its unreliability. I asked lionking a question, again about circumstantial evidence in general.

You chose to respond to my post with a list of evidence examples which you erroneously believed to not be circumstantial.

I disagreed with your examples and provided a citation to support my view.

Your response was to disregard that citation.

This is a good place to mention that up to this point in the exchange I had not, as you claim above, cited any of your posts with the exception of the one you directed to me, which was also concerning the subject of circumstantial evidence in general.

I could go on, but I think the gist here is obvious.

I could also provide citations for my recollection of the exchange, but I know that you don't care about such things. You told me so in almost so many words.
 
Do we have an emoji for everyone talking past everyone here?

I clarified what I meant and admitted my part in mis-communicating.

I am not now and was not then interested in a semantics discussion on the definition of circumstantial evidence. Did I not give you sufficient kudos for your supporting citation? Sorry, it was unintended.

Things I am now and was then interested in was lionking's continued assertion the woman murdered her children despite new evidence coming to light.

Aren't skeptics supposed to at least consider new evidence when it is scientifically valid and when it contradicts our past conclusions?

Is this thread about new evidence in a specific trial? Yes

Is it about the definition of circumstantial evidence? No

Why are you bothered by this?
 
quadraginta said:
I'm not.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Clearly you are:
A mite irked, perhaps, by your inability to describe the exchange with anything approaching candor. But I suppose I should not be surprised.
Click to expand...
That's not the issue.

I was never talking about circumstantial evidence in general. You misread my posts, lionking misread them, ... my bad, obviously.


From my first post in the thread:
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.
Click to expand...

My 3rd post after a longer one addressing the new 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.
Click to expand...

Had I known people would insist on focusing on the 2nd half of that last sentence I'd never have included it.

Why are you still miffed here?

Anyway, whatever...
 
calmodulin

Orphia Nay said:
...but I did find an article on the science behind her pardon.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06...d-rare-genetic-mutation-in-folbiggs/102406772
Click to expand...

"The inquiry heard of an example in a family where five children inherited a mutant calmodulin gene from their mother, four had cardiac arrests or died suddenly, but the fifth child and the mother had no symptoms."

And, "Professor Peter Schwartz from Italy told the inquiry the combination of CALM2 and REM2 mutations was like "lighting the fuse in a barrel of dynamite" in Sarah and Laura. "

I don't have a position regarding Mrs. Folbigg's factual innocence or guilt, but this article helped me understand the background.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
"The inquiry heard of an example in a family where five children inherited a mutant calmodulin gene from their mother, four had cardiac arrests or died suddenly, but the fifth child and the mother had no symptoms."

And, "Professor Peter Schwartz from Italy told the inquiry the combination of CALM2 and REM2 mutations was like "lighting the fuse in a barrel of dynamite" in Sarah and Laura. "

I don't have a position regarding Mrs. Folbigg's factual innocence or guilt, but this article helped me understand the background.
Click to expand...
From the link

One team concluded the calmodulin gene mutation in Kathleen, Sarah and Laura was "likely" to cause disease while the other team found that its significance was "uncertain".

Former chief judge of the District Court Reginald Blanch, who led the 2019 inquiry, preferred the expertise and evidence of the latter team, and concluded that the evidence "reinforced" Ms Folbigg's guilt.

This is not entirely surprising as judges will commonly sidestep language, science, and reason to reinforce a conviction. They are trained this way.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
From the link

One team concluded the calmodulin gene mutation in Kathleen, Sarah and Laura was "likely" to cause disease while the other team found that its significance was "uncertain".

Former chief judge of the District Court Reginald Blanch, who led the 2019 inquiry, preferred the expertise and evidence of the latter team, and concluded that the evidence "reinforced" Ms Folbigg's guilt.

This is not entirely surprising as judges will commonly sidestep language, science, and reason to reinforce a conviction. They are trained this way.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the generic mutation is the slam dunk some are painting it to be. I also haven’t seen a convincing refutation of the dairy entries.
 
lionking said:
I don’t think the generic mutation is the slam dunk some are painting it to be. I also haven’t seen a convincing refutation of the dairy entries.
Click to expand...
I was interested in how the judge could take a possible negative to cast aspersions to the point of probable guilt on the defendant.
Not sure if my meaning is completely clear but I will have another go if necessary.
 
lionking said:
I don’t think the generic mutation is the slam dunk some are painting it to be. I also haven’t seen a convincing refutation of the dairy entries.
Click to expand...
Generic mutation, did you mean genetic?

They found it in another family that also had 4 pediatric deaths. Did you take the time to look at the science of just how this mutation interrupts the calcium channel causing the heart to fibrillate. I mentioned that already.

What kind of refutation of the diary do you need? Have you looked?

https://innocenceproject.org/false-confessions/

28% of exonerations involved false confessions.


Ingenious experiments have shown how standard police questioning applies psychological pressure.
After 20 years in prison, he was released on parole, but he never could shake the stigma of the conviction. Attorneys from several organizations worked for more than a decade to clear him. They produced facts that contradicted the confession and showed evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. But for the Bronx District Attorney's Office, Burton's confession outweighed all other evidence; after all, who would admit to a crime they did not commit? Finally, last summer Burton's attorneys brought in Saul Kassin, a psychologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City who is one of the world's leading experts on interrogation.
Click to expand...

Then there was Barry Laughman, a man with the mental capacity of a 10-year-old, who in 1987 confessed to raping and murdering an elderly neighbor after police falsely told him they found his fingerprints at the scene. After his confession, the police disregarded all other evidence. Neighbors who offered alibis for Laughman were told they must be mistaken. His blood was type B, but the only blood at the crime scene was type A. So the forensic expert proposed a novel theory: that bacterial degradation could have changed the blood type from B to A. Laughman spent 16 years in prison until DNA evidence finally cleared him. (Kassin later testified when Laughman sued the state.)
Click to expand...
The jury told this woman she did it.

Internalized false confessions
This paper examines false confessions, and in particular the
misunderstood typology of “coerced-internalized” false confessions.
These confessions are made by individuals who falsely confess, but truly
believe in their guilt despite objective evidence to the contrary. ...
Click to expand...
It's not hard to recognize why a convicted mother might come to believe she committed a crime she didn't commit.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I don’t think the generic mutation is the slam dunk some are painting it to be. I also haven’t seen a convincing refutation of the dairy entries.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. It casts reasonable doubt. And the diary entries had to be interpreted in a very specific way in order for one to conclude that Ms Folbigg actively murdered her children.
 
psionl0 said:
Yes it is. It casts reasonable doubt. And the diary entries had to be interpreted in a very specific way in order for one to conclude that Ms Folbigg actively murdered her children.
Click to expand...

You are right. Here is the link to the diary entries. I cannot find any statement that says that she killed anyone. Admit to being a poor mother, yes, but so are many other mothers.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/diary-of-mum-accused-of-killing-her-four-babies-20030406-gdgk1d.html

She deserves compensation. She should never have been convicted in the first place.
 
rjh01 said:
You are right. Here is the link to the diary entries. I cannot find any statement that says that she killed anyone. Admit to being a poor mother, yes, but so are many other mothers.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/diary-of-mum-accused-of-killing-her-four-babies-20030406-gdgk1d.html

She deserves compensation. She should never have been convicted in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree. The bits the prosecution might have used sound more like a woman feeling guilty for laying the baby wrongly and causing SIDS.
 
rjh01 said:
You are right. Here is the link to the diary entries. I cannot find any statement that says that she killed anyone. Admit to being a poor mother, yes, but so are many other mothers.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/diary-of-mum-accused-of-killing-her-four-babies-20030406-gdgk1d.html

She deserves compensation. She should never have been convicted in the first place.
Click to expand...
And perhaps another Royal Commission to examine the circumstances of the conviction. Even in 2003 the case against her was paper thin.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I agree. The bits the prosecution might have used sound more like a woman feeling guilty for laying the baby wrongly and causing SIDS.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Somewhat related to the guilt sometimes displayed by parents with autistic children who blame their 'bad genes'.
 
Interesting article on Science.

How a geneticist led the effort to free a mother convicted of killing her kids.
and an earlier piece there: Mothers damned by statistics

There is no medical evidence that Folbigg’s children were murdered. Her case rests partly on the vanishingly small chance that unexplained medical tragedy would strike the same family four times. Like some other infanticide cases, it parallels the murder convictions of doctors and nurses based on suspicious clusters of patient deaths. As those cases show, seemingly common-sense statistical assumptions can mislead—with horrifying consequences.
Click to expand...
 
lionking said:
I don’t think the generic mutation is the slam dunk some are painting it to be. I also haven’t seen a convincing refutation of the dairy entries.
Click to expand...
The genetic evidence doesn't have to be a 'slam dunk', just produce a reasonable doubt.

Similarly, a 'convincing refutation' of the diary entries is not required. A plain reading doesn't produce 'slam dunk' evidence of guilt, so there is reasonable doubt there too.

Reasonable doubt is all that is needed to return a verdict of 'not guilty'. I have been on juries with far more damning evidence than this case, where the majority of the jury was unconvinced.

What's disturbing about this case is that there is no direct evidence that she killed her children, just innuendo and supposition. No jury should have believed that this was even close to beyond reasonable doubt. And neither should you.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
... What's disturbing about this case is that there is no direct evidence that she killed her children, just innuendo and supposition. No jury should have believed that this was even close to beyond reasonable doubt. And neither should you.
Click to expand...
And it shows the damage supposed experts can inflict with their own biases. The convincing expert in this case has been discredited. I wonder if there is anyone else languishing in jail due to his testimony.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And it shows the damage supposed experts can inflict with their own biases. The convincing expert in this case has been discredited. I wonder if there is anyone else languishing in jail due to his testimony.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Hopefully Beal is struck-off for her fallacious testimony.
 
lionking said:
I don’t think the generic mutation is the slam dunk some are painting it to be.
Click to expand...
The actual experts, like Vinuesa, disagree with you.

lionking said:
I also haven’t seen a convincing refutation of the dairy entries.
Click to expand...
Have you looked for one?
A combination of prosecutorial cherry-picking and grief are a very plausible explanation to me, and experts in grief. Like the ones that disn't appear at the farcical trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom