• 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

3point14 said:
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.




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.




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?
Click to expand...

Wow. Utterly ignoring every point I made. The probability of four SIDS cases means nothing?
 
lionking said:
Wow. Utterly ignoring every point I made. The probability of four SIDS cases means nothing?
Click to expand...


I thought I addressed that. Let me try again:


What do you think the odds are of four cases of SIDS in the same family?

Do you think it's impossible?

If it's not impossible, then it's a gross improbability.

There are seven billion people on the planet, gross impossibilities happen all the time, it's a certainty.
 
And again, show how the jury got this wrong. The onus is on those claiming a miscarriage of justice.
 
3point14 said:
What do you think the odds are of four cases of SIDS in the same family?
Click to expand...

Pretty much zero. Certainly enough for a jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I’m certain you know how trials work. Absolute, uncontravertable guilt is not the measure.
 
lionking said:
Pretty much zero.
Click to expand...


That would be not actually zero? So a very tiny chance? Vanishingly small?

Certainly enough for a jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Once a jury has completed its deliberations do you believe that, at that point, nobody should question the verdict at which they have arrived?

Or do jury's sometimes get it wrong?

I’m certain you know how trials work. Absolute, uncontravertable guilt is not the measure.
Click to expand...

I know. The measure is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and with a 'presumption of innocence'.


Given the way odds work, as described above and the doubts over the death of the last child, I'd say there's enough here to warrant the discussion you're so keen to dismiss.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...


I would suggest it you that is not doing that, new facts have come to light but you are simply dismissing them.
 
3point14 said:
Given the way odds work, as described above and the doubts over the death of the last child, I'd say there's enough here to warrant the discussion you're so keen to dismiss.
Click to expand...

Which doubts? One media-hungry person after a payday or a jury which no doubt went to great lengths to decide this case?

Did you miss that Folbigg’s appeal failed? Appeals are held to decide points of law distant from the emotion of a trial. Sometimes wrong jury decisions occur and appeals incorrectly fail, but not often. And not in cases like this. I think you need much more than the doubts of one forensic examiner.
 
lionking said:
Wow. Utterly ignoring every point I made. The probability of four SIDS cases means nothing?
Click to expand...

Of course it means something but as the case of Sally Clark shows we have to be very careful in interpreting what those types of statistics means. Plus the new evidence is that one of the deaths was not caused by smothering so you are "at best" down to the probability of three SIDS cases in one family.

You seem to be of the mind that we should simply ignore the forensic evidence in this case.
 
Darat, what do you think of the odds of four SIDS deaths and reasonable doubt? Because this is what the whole justice system is about, not a hunch that something is remotely, vanishingly remotely, not right.
 
lionking said:
Which doubts? One media-hungry person after a payday or a jury which no doubt went to great lengths to decide this case?
Click to expand...

Isn't how miscarriages of justice are normally brought to light? One individual going at it like a dog with a bone when all others have decided it's done and dusted? (Have you met Rolfe?)

You do know that your argument above, encouraging me to dismiss the evidence, not because of the evidence itself, but because of the source, is a complete fallacy, don't you?



Did you miss that Folbigg’s appeal failed? Appeals are held to decide points of law distant from the emotion of a trial. Sometimes wrong jury decisions occur
Click to expand...

Absolutely

and appeals incorrectly fail, but not often.
Click to expand...

How often?


And not in cases like this.
Click to expand...

What makes you think cases like this are immune from errors in appeal? What other cases fall into this category?

I think you need much more than the doubts of one forensic examiner.
Click to expand...

Maths. That's what you need. An understanding of the nature of probability and very large numbers.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
You seem to be of the mind that we should simply ignore the forensic evidence in this case.
Click to expand...

No. I’m not ignoring forensic evidence. There was heaps presented at the trial. I’m discounting one opinion from someone looking for a payday and/or publicity.
 
Okay, let’s try this again. Where is the preponderance of evidence warranting a re-trial or pardon?

And, not this has any great relevance, I have supported the re-examination of many cases on this forum where the process has appeared dodgy. I simply don’t see this here. One dissenting opinion against a long and involved trial and appeal? Not good enough
 
lionking said:
And again, show how the jury got this wrong. The onus is on those claiming a miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

We can't, jury deliberations are confidential. All we can do is show problems with the prosecution case.

From what I can tell the prosecution case was based on there being 4 "unexplained" deaths that the prosecution claimed were caused by her smothering the children and her diary entries.

The new evidence is that there were only 3 "unexplained" deaths and those three deaths do not show any signs of smothering.

That to me seems to very much undermine the prosecution case.
 
Darat said:
We can't, jury deliberations are confidential. All we can do is show problems with the prosecution case.

From what I can tell the prosecution case was based on there being 4 "unexplained" deaths that the prosecution claimed were caused by her smothering the children and her diary entries.

The new evidence is that there were only 3 "unexplained" deaths and those three deaths do not show any signs of smothering.

That to me seems to very much undermine the prosecution case.
Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity. Probably the weakest of all logical fallacies.
 
lionking said:
Okay, let’s try this again. Where is the preponderance of evidence warranting a re-trial or pardon?
Click to expand...

Are you intent upon discussing this only within the framework of the legal system? Do we (as opposed to the courts) have to have the preponderance of evidence before we can have the discussion?

Do we have to limit ourselves only to trial evidence and not review anything that might have been disallowed by the judge?

Hell, do there have to be 12 of us?

Because I don't think we need to limit ourselves to any of the above.


And, not this has any great relevance, I have supported the re-examination of many cases on this forum where the process has appeared dodgy. I simply don’t see this here. One dissenting opinion against a long and involved trial and appeal? Not good enough
Click to expand...


For the verdict to be considered unsafe? Or simply for us here to have a discussion about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom