Currently in jail for the murder of her children, could Kathleen Folbigg be innocent?
CRIME EXPERT AMANDA HOWARD REVEALS HOW A POTENTIALLY INNOCENT MUM WAS CONVICTED
One is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, according to Britain’s most renowned paediatrician, Professor Roy Meadow. The statement formed the basis of his book,
ABC of Child Abuse.
His ‘equation’ set legal precedence, meaning any case with two or more child deaths in a single family were to be treated as murder. By his calculations, two or more infant deaths in a single family is statistically impossible – and for many years most agreed.
Internationally, there have been four cases of multiple deaths within a family that saw mothers sent to prison for the death of their children, using Meadow’s law as proof of their guilt. Three English mothers, Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings were convicted of murder
– as was Australian mum, Kathleen Folbigg.
The then 36-year-old was jailed in 2003 for the murders of her four children between 1989 and 1999.
But in 2003, Meadow’s standing as an expert on infant death came into question. It was proven that the opposite of his rule is, in fact, true – a family who has suffered one infant death has a statistically higher chance of further deaths.
As a result, Meadow was struck from the medical register and no longer allowed to practice medicine. In England, the repercussions were instant. The three English mothers were all pardoned and freed in 2003. Folbigg remains the only mother still in prison and continues her fight.
Fifteen years after the other three were released, Folbigg received the opportunity of a judicial inquiry that, according to the Attorney General, was due to “doubt” concerning the evidence leading to Folbigg’s convictions.
Knowing the other mothers were released, Folbigg felt confident about her own release. After meeting with her new legal team, she explained how she felt in a letter to me, saying: “I was a little numbed by it all, lots of info to take on board, but left it feeling a teeny weeny bit hopeful in the end. Dangerous, but a nice feeling.”
She later let another word escape her mind, excited that a “pardon” could be the outcome.
At the inquiry, Folbigg’s diary entries about her children were also once again brought in as part of the investigation. The diary entries were what convicted Folbigg in the eyes of most of those who have followed the case.
When I spoke to Folbigg during one of our chats, I asked her about the interpretation of specific entries, such as when she said daughter Laura would “leave me like Sarah did” and “I know I was short-tempered and cruel sometimes to her, and she left, with a bit of help”. She responded at length.
“I was cruel to her, I admit – thoughts of frustration over how to help her when she was incessantly crying, as babies sometimes do,” Folbigg said.
“Not harmful thoughts, but thoughts of leaving. Then guilt at even leaving the room, let alone walking
outside. All originating from total and utter exhaustion, feelings of abandonment by my husband and extreme pressure of the picture I had of having me to be the perfect mother, wife and person. My utter, inconsolable guilt, and not being able to save her siblings or even see something wasn’t quite right. My mind was scrambling for an excuse or reason, a justification for all of my failings as a mother and the pressure from the others already gone.”
Yet, away from Meadow’s Law and her diary, medical evidence raises further questions about Folbigg’s guilt. So much so that it has garnered the attention of many international genetic and paediatric experts, who have attempted to provide proof of her innocence in the deaths of her children.
During the judicial enquiry, a team of geneticists were asked to investigate the deaths of the Folbigg children to see if a genetic cause could be found to account for the deaths.
Two of the children were found to have heart abnormalities that, in addition to respiratory infections they both had at the time of their deaths, were “reasonable explanations for their deaths”.
The analysis concludes that all four of the children suffered from conditions that directly contributed to their deaths.
Interestingly, the Attorney General closed the inquiry before the team could submit their report, and so the inquiry found that there was no reasonable doubt about her guilt regarding multiple deaths of children in a single family.
Essentially, 20 years after it had been discredited, the Attorney General continued to believe in Meadow’s Law and Folbigg’s conviction remains upheld.