By LUCY ORMONDE
Caleb Folbigg was just 19 days old when he died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) – or ‘cot death – in 1989.
Patrick Folbigg was next. He was eight months old when he died from a suspected epileptic fit in 1991.
Sarah Folbigg was 10 months old when she died, also from SIDS, two years later.
And then there was Laura.
Laura Folbigg survived the longest out of any of the Folbigg children. She was 19 months old when she died on March 1, 1999. The coroner ruled it was myocarditis, a inflammation of the heart, that killed Laura without warning one night while she was sleeping.
All four children were found by their mother, Kathleen, who woke her husband Craig screaming when she discovered her babies were not breathing.
After initial investigations, each of the children’s deaths were deemed to be natural. But after Laura’s death in 1999, authorities began to get suspicious.
And it was enough for a 12-person jury to find Kathleen Folbigg guilty of three counts of murder and one count of manslaughter, following a seven-week trial in 2003.
Folbigg, 46, is currently serving a maximum 30 year sentence at NSW’s Silverwater Jail.
But the question everyone is asking today is whether the courts got it wrong; they’re asking whether it’s possible that Kathleen has been wrongly convicted.
This question was the focus of Channel 9’s 60 Minutes program last night.
Top Comments
I have read the entire court transcripts of this trial, and the publicly available parts of Folbigg's diary, and Folbigg's guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt. What we have here though, is not reasonable doubt. The best light I can caste on this misleading article is that it reflects a human need to avoid the horrible truth that a mother might be able to kill without remorse. This report willfully misuses the (outdated) term "SIDS" (sudden infant death syndrome) as if it is a medical explanation of a death rather than simply meaning an unexplained or unknown cause of death in infancy. We know that tragically there are (as yet) medically unexplained natural causes of death in infancy, but this fact does not mean that all unexplained infant deaths are natural. Lessons should be learnt from the Waneta Hoyt case.
Whether an"unknown" cause of death is interpreted as natural or unnatural is down to circumstantial evidence in the case (as in fact most real life homicide cases are). Because there are known to be natural causes of sudden unexplained death in infancy, it is typical that a natural death is assumed unless there are other reasons to be suspicious. In Kathleen Folbigg's case, the earlier deaths were assumed natural , while the evidence present by the final death firmly suggested otherwise.
Because in the past SIDS had been often misinterpreted in the legal system as a definitive cause, the term that is now used is Sudden Unexplained Death in Infancy. The author of this article has avoided that much clearer term, perhaps because she wants us to believe that there was a firm earlier explanation, or a conflict with the later verdict, (when there simply wasn't).
Please read the court transcripts if you want to get some real perspective on this case.
but thats what they are saying, that evidence shown at court was wrong - statistics quoted by those who arent statisticians, that are wrong, references to dr roy meadows, who has been struck off the medical register for his misleading information; coroners changing their opinion, but not changing their findings; new medical advances showing that multiple cot deaths do happen (& the term i believe would be used as it is the most understood by the general public & what was used in the trial). her diaries dont actually have a confession either - they do show that she was depressed & show the mother guilt that any mother would feel if their child died - could i have done something different? a juror who investigated information that had been withheld from the jury.
all of it put together shows a reasonable doubt
Hearing that the Jury on this case was lead to believe that it was unheard of that four child deaths in one family could be attributable to SIDS makes me think that the prosecution knew they had this one in the bag. Who would believe such a claim? There are many cases of multiple sids deaths happening in one family. As many as 8 in one case. Aside from all that, the case was heavily reliant on a diary and a medical expert who's theory has been disproven and shown to be negligible. Where is the scientific evidence outside the ramblings in a baby-brain burden mother and the expert witness? Guilty or not, there must be a judicial review. What ever ones feelings about the guilt proven here, a review would be fitting given the size of the possible injustice.
Wow, you seriously have no idea what your talking about do you. there are not multiple cases of 4 babies or more dying from sids in the one family. The case your talking about were 8 babies died, the mother was found guilty of murdering them. she admitted suffocating 4 of them and said she wasn't sure what happen to the others. You seriously don't have a clue.