Kathleen Folbigg

[lionking]

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.

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.

 

[psionl0]

Did you actually read the diary entries? You can’t seriously think they only show guilt.

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".

 

[rjh01]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

Thank you. We do agree. The jury did so decide.

 

[psionl0]

Thank you. We do agree. The jury of lionkings did so decide.

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.

 

[lionking]

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.

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.

 

[psionl0]

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.

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]

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!

Yup. You have finally got it.

 

[Darat]

Only if you ignored her diary entries.

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.

 

[lionking]

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.

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.

 

[psionl0]

The latest evidence doesn’t prove one death was not a murder. I’m really surprised that you assert this.

I get it. The onus is on the accused to prove that they are not guilty of murder.

 

[lionking]

I get it. The onus is on the accused to prove that they are not guilty of murder.

Stupid post. Where have I said this?

 

[Darat]

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.

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.

 

[3point14]

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.

 

[rjh01]

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.

No. Because there are none. My evidence is this quote below.

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.

 

[psionl0]

Stupid post. Where have I said this?

In the post that I quoted: "The latest evidence doesn’t prove one death was not a murder". That's as clear a reversal of the onus of proof as any I have ever seen.

 

[3point14]

Thanks for this:

No. Because there are none. My evidence is this quote below.

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.

Death by natural causes isn't an improbability though. It's a certainty. It's absolutely, nailed on going to happen to someone, somewhere.

 

[lionking]

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]

Just to add, Nicholas Cowdery is probably the most respected DPP in Australia.

 

[3point14]

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.

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.

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.

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?