Author Topic: Kathleen Folbigg: innocent or guilty?  (Read 545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Kathleen Folbigg: innocent or guilty?
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2021, 08:28:AM »
If losing one child is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, how about four..https://youtu.be/fAcEQpGiV5w

What, exactly, is the evidence that she killed any of these children?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: Kathleen Folbigg: innocent or guilty?
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2021, 02:41:PM »
What, exactly, is the evidence that she killed any of these children?
Well it's always difficult in cot death cases when there's no confession from the mother. The investigations have to rule out non-accidental causes such as smothering, which cause symptoms such as bleeding in the lungs, cyanosis (Sally Clarke case), bruising etc. In Kathleen Folbigg's case the diaries assumed an importance almost as an admission of guilt:

It was the Crown case that the entries contained virtual admissions by Ms Folbigg of her guilt for the deaths of
Caleb, Patrick and Sarah, as well as admissions by her that she appreciated she was at risk of causing, similarly,
the death of Laura. The defence suggested that the diary entries reflected normal reactions, not only of grief,
but of shame, guilt and responsibility, though not in the sense contended for by the Crown.


I find the answers given by Ms Folbigg in examination and crossexamination before me, in which she gave
explanations as to the meaning of various diary entries, to be simply unbelievable. I am satisfied the diary
entries were written by a reasonably intelligent woman in plain language, carrying their plain meaning. The
attempts by Ms Folbigg to explain away the diary entries as saying one sentence did not follow from another
sentence, and that they were just “random thoughts”, cannot be accepted.


Further, I find that Ms Folbigg was untruthful to the police during her interview and in the evidence she gave
before me:
a. I do not accept her evidence that she did not have any concerns about her diary entries. Evidence in the
Inquiry from the listening devices, which was not tendered at trial, demonstrates her interest in preventing
the content of her diaries being seen. Moreover, the entry in which she hopes a diary “doesn’t come back
to bite me like my 97 one has” shows she understood very well the danger her diaries presented to her.8
b. In her interview with police in July 1999, Ms Folbigg said she had not written in a diary since May and
had thrown all of her diaries out. When Ms Folbigg was told after her interview that the police intended
to execute a search warrant on her premises, she immediately said that she did have a new diary that
she had bought the day before (which was found to have an entry from July 1999). This completely
contradicts what she had just said in the interview and demonstrates an ability to think quickly in an attempt to avoid suspicion.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2021, 02:46:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: Kathleen Folbigg: innocent or guilty?
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2021, 02:58:PM »
Findings in respect of each of Ms Folbigg’s convictions
Manslaughter of Caleb Gibson Folbigg
69. On the medical evidence in isolation, I find that there was no reasonable possibility that an infection or a genetic
disorder was responsible for Caleb’s death.
70. Taking into account the non-medical evidence, including the diary entries made by Ms Folbigg and her lies and
obfuscation, and the tendency and coincidence evidence, I find that the only conclusion reasonably open is that
Ms Folbigg smothered Caleb.
71. I have no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Ms Folbigg for the manslaughter of Caleb Gibson Folbigg on
20 February 1989.
Malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm upon Patrick Allen Folbigg
72. On the medical evidence in isolation, I find that it was reasonably possible that Patrick’s ALTE was caused by
a single asphyxial event on 18 October 1990, with a cause other than one attributable to a respiratory or a
recognised neurological condition. For clarity, by “asphyxial”, I mean an event leading to obstruction of his
airways. There was no reasonable possibility that an infection or a genetic disorder was responsible for Patrick’s
ALTE.
73. Taking into account the non-medical evidence, including the diary entries made by Ms Folbigg and her lies and

. Taking into account the non-medical evidence, including the diary entries made by Ms Folbigg and her lies and
obfuscation, and the tendency and coincidence evidence, I find that the only conclusion reasonably open is that
Ms Folbigg smothered Caleb.
71. I have no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Ms Folbigg for the manslaughter of Caleb Gibson Folbigg on
20 February 1989.
Malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm upon Patrick Allen Folbigg
72. On the medical evidence in isolation, I find that it was reasonably possible that Patrick’s ALTE was caused by
a single asphyxial event on 18 October 1990, with a cause other than one attributable to a respiratory or a
recognised neurological condition. For clarity, by “asphyxial”, I mean an event leading to obstruction of his
airways. There was no reasonable possibility that an infection or a genetic disorder was responsible for Patrick’s
ALTE.
73. Taking into account the non-medical evidence, including the diary entries made by Ms Folbigg and her lies and
obfuscation, and the tendency and coincidence evidence, I find that the only conclusion reasonably open is that
Ms Folbigg deliberately obstructed Patrick’s airways which resulted in his ALTE.
74. I have no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Ms Folbigg for the malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm upon
Patrick Allen Folbigg on 18 October 1990.
Murder of Patrick Allen Folbigg
75. On the medical evidence in isolation, I find that it was possible that Patrick’s death was attributable to
encephalopathy in his brain in the sense that the encephalopathy caused a seizure, which in turn caused death.
I also find that it was reasonably possible that Patrick’s death was caused by an asphyxial event, by which I mean
an event leading to obstruction of his airways, and which in context was some obstruction from a cause other
than a seizure. Th

5. On the medical evidence in isolation, I find that it was possible that Patrick’s death was attributable to
encephalopathy in his brain in the sense that the encephalopathy caused a seizure, which in turn caused death.
I also find that it was reasonably possible that Patrick’s death was caused by an asphyxial event, by which I mean
an event leading to obstruction of his airways, and which in context was some obstruction from a cause other
than a seizure. There was no reasonable possibility that an infection or a genetic disorder was responsible for
Patrick’s death.479
Chapter 9: Conclusions on review of convictions
76. Taking into account the non-medical evidence, including the diary entries made by Ms Folbigg and her lies and
obfuscation, and the tendency and coincidence evidence, I find that the only conclusion reasonably open is that
Ms Folbigg smothered Patrick.
77. I have no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Ms Folbigg for the murder of Patrick Allen Folbigg on
13 February 1991.
Murder of Sarah K
« Last Edit: March 21, 2021, 03:00:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13429
Re: Kathleen Folbigg: innocent or guilty?
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2021, 03:03:PM »
Murder of Sarah Kathleen Folbigg
78. On the medical evidence in isolation, I find that it is reasonably possible that Sarah’s death was caused by an
asphyxial event, by which I mean an event leading to obstruction of her airways, including smothering. There
was no reasonable possibility that an infection or a genetic disorder was responsible for Sarah’s death.
79. Taking into account the diary entries made by Ms Folbigg and her lies and obfuscation, the evidence of
Mr Folbigg indicating Ms Folbigg’s fraught relationship with Sarah, and the tendency and coincidence evidence,
I find that the only conclusion reasonably open is that Ms Folbigg smothered Sarah.
80. I have no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Ms. Folbigg for the murder of Sarah Kathleen Folbigg on 30 August 1993.

Murder of Laura Elizabeth Folbigg
81. On the medical evidence in isolation, I find that it is a reasonable possibility the myocarditis found in Laura’s
heart at autopsy was fatal. It is also reasonably possible that her death was caused by an asphyxial event, by
which I mean an event leading to obstruction of her airways, including smothering. There was no reasonable
possibility that an infection or a genetic disorder was responsible for Laura’s death.
82. Taking into account the rarity of myocarditis as a cause of death in children of Laura’s age, the diary entries
made by Ms Folbigg, her lies and obfuscation, the evidence of Mr Folbigg indicating the difficulties Ms Folbigg
was having with Laura, and the tendency and coincidence evidence, I find that the only conclusion reasonably
open is that Ms Folbigg smothered Laura.
83. I have no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Ms Folbigg for the murder of Laura Elizabeth Folbigg on
1 March 1999.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2021, 03:04:PM by Steve_uk »