The curious case of Kathleen Folbigg

[a_unique_person]

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.

 

[catsmate]

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

 

[a_unique_person]

No other evidence that I know of.

 

[Planigale]

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/

 

[catsmate]

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/

"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.

 

[a_unique_person]

A more appropriate name could have been Meadows Conjecture.

 

[catsmate]

A more appropriate name could have been Meadows Conjecture.

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.

 

[Stellafane]

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.

 

[catsmate]

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.

 

[lionking]

Tried. Appeal. Judicial review. Appeal against judicial review. All against Folbigg. I feel far more sorry about the dead children than her.

 

[Stellafane]

...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.

 

[Planigale]

"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.

 

[Planigale]

A more appropriate name could have been Meadows Conjecture.

 

[a_unique_person]

Folbigg had been kept separate from the rest of the prison population but was attacked last year when moved to a new prison.

 

[catsmate]

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.

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.

 

[rjh01]

An earlier thread on the same topic http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331350

 

[a_unique_person]

To be pardoned.



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-14/kathleen-folbigg-inquiry-gene-mutation/101970372


A genetic mutation was found that can kill babies, but it only affects boys. So, reasonable doubt.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-14/kathleen-folbigg-inquiry-gene-mutation/101970372


My guess at this. Her first two boys dying of this broker her and she killed the two girls because she was not mentally competent. I would still pardon her though.

 

[lionking]

I would still pardon her though.

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.

 

[Orphia Nay]

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

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.

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.