• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kathleen Folbigg

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
125,721
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom