Kathleen Folbig has been called many names in Australia such as 'baby killer', 'witch' and 'Australia's worst mother'.
However, Kathleen, who spent 20 years in prison for killing her four children, was acquitted of all these charges today by the New South Wales Supreme Court.
In her acquittal on Thursday, the court said the evidence used to convict Kathleen Folbig was 'unreliable'.
In June this year, 56-year-old Kathleen was released after being pardoned by the state government, but by then she had already served 20 years in prison. After the acquittal by the Supreme Court, Kathleen said: 'The system preferred to blame me rather than accept that children sometimes die suddenly, unexpectedly and in heartbreaking ways. .'
Folbig welcomed the court's decision but said evidence of his innocence had been "ignored and dismissed" for decades.
His lawyers said after the acquittal that his conviction was the worst in Australian judicial history, showing how he was convicted in 2003 on unreliable evidence.
It was a case that created a frenzy in the media around the world and the world also saw Catherine Folbig's husband testifying against his wife in the trial.
The case is seen as one of the worst examples of injustice in Australian history.
His legal team will now seek compensation for him, but it is not yet known how much this amount will be.
Reconsideration of original sentence
Kathleen Folbig has always claimed to be 'innocent'. The fact is that he has lived a very miserable and troubled life since his childhood.
Before her second birthday, Kathleen's mother was stabbed to death by her father. In the following few years, he spent his childhood in the homes of one relative and sometimes another relative. He was then raised by a New South Wales couple.
This is an incident that prosecutors later used against Kathleen Folbig during her infanticide trial to argue that she had been abused or exposed to violence since childhood.
In 2003, he was sentenced to 40 years in prison for the murders of his children Sarah, Patrick and Laura, as well as the attempted murder of his first son, Caleb.
All four of his children died suddenly between 1989 and 1999. The children were aged between 19 days and 18 months. Prosecutors allege that Kathleen strangled him to death.
One of their children, Caleb, died in his sleep in 1989, suffering from laryngomalacia, a condition that causes breathing difficulties.
Patrick, who suffered from cortical vision (blindness) and epileptic seizures, died shortly after the seizure. Sarah and Laura both died of respiratory infections.
Kathleen's sentence was reduced to 30 years on appeal against the 40-year sentence, and she received no relief in subsequent appeals. During the re-inquiry of the case in 2019, only the evidence used to convict them was given more weight.
However, in June this year, a fresh inquiry chaired by Judge Tom Bathurst concluded that there was reasonable doubt about the allegations against Kathleen Folbig.
New scientific evidence led to the realization that their children could have died of natural causes due to incredible genetic defects.
The research was led by Carola Venosa, Professor of Immunology and Genomic Medicine at the Australian National University. They first launched an investigation into the case in 2018 amid growing concerns from medical experts.
After sequencing Kathleen's DNA, Professor Vanessa and her team created a genetic map, which they used to identify the mutated gene. The most important of these mutations was present in two of his daughters, called CALM2 G114R.
Surprisingly, research has revealed that it occurs in one in every 35 million people, and can cause serious heart diseases.
This is because the CALM G1142R genetic mutation can interfere with the circulation of calcium units in cells, which can eventually stop the heart beating.
Professor Vanessa's team's research also revealed that two of her children, Caleb and Patrick, had a different genetic mutation linked to epilepsy. The results showed that their children were more likely to die from heart disease in childhood.
A new revelation and other flaws
This was around the time Kathleen had one of her daughters, Laura, dying.
From his home, he had called the ambulance emergency service and told that 'my baby is not breathing.'
Speaking to an ambulance operator, she said, "I have already had three children die suddenly." The recording was later played against her during her trial.
Laura's death meant that Folbig and her husband Craig Folbig had lost all their children, their fourth child to die.
Her husband was initially arrested for investigation. Soon after his arrest, he started telling the police against his wife, on the basis of which the police's suspicions grew and they started building a case against him.
He began handing over his wife's personal diaries as well as helping her testify against him.
During the 2019 re-inquiry of the case, he (the husband) refused to provide his DNA sample. Mr Folbig's lawyers say he remains convinced of his ex-wife's guilt.
The prosecution's main argument in the 2003 trial was that it was unlikely that so many of Kathleen's children had died by accident.
In his reasoning, he referred to a legal concept known as 'Meadow's Law' which is now infamous.
The principle is named after Roy Maddow, who was once considered Britain's most eminent paediatrician. But after wrongful convictions in cases relying on his doctrine, the principle no longer holds any significance in the judicial system.
Emma Cunliffe is a law professor at the University of British Columbia who has written a book examining Miss Folbig's case. From its inception, she says, Maddow's law "has faced enormous challenge from medical research" and has "always conflicted with the principle that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the state." on.'
Cunliffe explains that "in Commonwealth countries, the practice of blaming mothers based on suspicion of the pattern of child death in a family, more or less completely died out after 2004."
This was not the only flaw in Folbig's trial. The evidence used by the prosecution was entirely circumstantial, relying on references from Folbig's personal diaries and which were never examined by a psychologist or psychiatrist during the trial, that he had a mother who It can be shown as a person who is deranged and whose mental state is not right.
In a passage from her diary, which she wrote shortly after the birth of her daughter Laura in 1997, "One day (she) will leave." Others did it, but it wouldn't go as well as them. This time I am ready and know what I have to do to take care of myself.
Such things written in the diary were termed as 'confessions of guilt'. But at a 2022 inquiry into the case, psychiatrists and mental health experts rejected the notion.
NSW Attorney-General Michael Daly announced Folbig's pardon this week, saying: 'After reviewing the diary entries, the evidence showed that they were the writings of a depressed mother, who had each child's death. blames himself for, as distinct from admitting that he killed or otherwise harmed them.'
Professor Cunliffe argues that Folbig's conviction in 2003 was based mainly on 'false patriarchal thinking' and 'stereotypes about women'.
"When a mother is suspected of harming children in a criminal case, the notion of being a good mother becomes much more narrow, so behaviors that are seen as mundane become suspect," she says. goes.'
Professor Cunliffe added that prosecutors used 'discriminatory reasons' to portray Folbig as an unfit mother, to frame her as the killer.
"They pointed to the fact that she was going to leave Sarah with the family on Saturday mornings to work at a part-time job to earn more money for the household," he says. There is evidence that she did not love Sarah, did not want to take care of her and therefore could have killed Sarah.'
'Sleep in peace for the first time in 20 years'
In a video statement after her release, Folbig said she was "grateful" for the pardon, but she would "always grieve" for her four children. And will miss them.
His first night out of jail was spent eating pizza with his oldest friend Tracy Chapman, who had led a campaign to free Folbig.
Her friend Chapman later told reporters that she "slept in a real bed." He has actually said that he slept properly for the first time in 20 years.
As for the impact of the case, experts say Folbig's acquittal highlights how slow Australia's legal system is to respond to new scientific discoveries.
The Australian Academy of Sciences said in a statement that "the question must now be asked: How do we build a system where complex and sophisticated science can more easily inform the justice system?"
0 Comments