Australia’s Greatest Miscarriage of Justice? (Part 2/2) | Forensic Files

Our episodes deal with serious and often distressing incidents. If you feel at any time you need support, please
contact your local crisis center. For suggested phone numbers for confidential support and for a more
detailed list of content warnings, please see the show notes for this episode on your app or on our website.
Today's episode involves crimes against children and won't be suitable for all listeners.
The police listened on as Craig Folbigg expressed his belief that maybe he had killed their four children.
Kathleen asked why he would think such a thing. Craig told her to think about it. Every
time they'd had a child, it had driven a wedge between them, and the best way he
could get Kathleen's attention was to get rid of the kids. He presented a scenario in which he
waited until Kathleen went to sleep in the middle of the night and then got up to kill the children.
With Laura, he waited until Kathleen went outside and then sneaked in through the front door without her ever knowing
he was there. "Who had anything to gain out of them not being around?" Craig asked before
answering, "Me." Kathleen told Craig that he was being ridiculous. Craig clarified that he was suggesting a
hypothetical, but that such a case against him was just as feasible as the one the police were building against
Kathleen. Referring to Detective Bernie Ryan, Craig said, "All I'm trying to show you is the
futility of the [ __ ] he's going on. Kathleen said she was scared and told Craig never to mention such a thing
again. It's bad enough Detective Ryan is going for one of us, she said. I'm not having him going after you.
Craig told Kathleen it was Detective Ryan who had first planted the idea in his head that the children had been
murdered, adding, "I don't want him going after you for something you didn't do.
I know you didn't do it like you know I didn't do it." But Craig's support for Kathleen was too
late. The police had already started to compile evidence that suggested to them that Craig's reported suspicions were
right all along. Detectives working the Folbigg case put together a preliminary brief of
evidence. It contained the medical histories of the four Folbigg children as well as
transcripts of Kathleen's police interview and copies of her diaries. Then they got to work seeking expert
opinions. It quickly became clear that the majority of experts strictly adhered to
Meadow's law. When it came to the unexplained death of an infant, one was a tragedy, two was suspicious, and three
most likely pointed to murder. After reviewing the case, one police psychologist concluded,
"If natural causes are eliminated, then in my opinion, Kathleen Folbigg became angry and frustrated with her children's
crying and need for constant attention to a point where it overwhelmed her, and she lost control and consciously ended
the lives of each child. The brief of evidence was also sent to Dr. Susan Beal, a pediatrician from
Adelaide's Women's and Children's Hospital, who had studied SIDS for more than 30 years and was considered one of
Australia's leading experts in the field. As far as Dr. Beal was aware, there had
never been more than three SIDS-related deaths in a single family anywhere in the world.
The only such occurrences had a later been revealed to be homicide. She also agreed with Dr. Allan Cala that
the deaths of Caleb and Sarah Folbigg shouldn't have been classified as SIDS. Not only weren't they in the right age
bracket, but they had also both been found sleeping on their backs. 80% of SIDS deaths occur when the infant
is lying on their stomach. In Patrick's case, Dr. Beal didn't believe that epilepsy had caused his
first apparent life-threatening event or ALTE. In babies as young as Patrick, epileptic
fits were typically caused by another disease, which would be detectable in an EEG brain scan or at autopsy.
Furthermore, it would be rare for the first epileptic fit to cause the level of brain damage that Patrick had
sustained. As for Laura, Dr. Beal didn't think the myocarditis played a role in her
unexplained death, either. Like Professor Hilton, she believed that Meadow's Law must be applied to the
Folbigg children, and that it was most likely that all four of them had been suffocated, telling Detective Ryan,
"I have no hesitation in saying I believe that all four children were murdered by their mother."
Detective Ryan flew to the United States to meet with the Dr. Janice Ophoven, a pediatric forensic pathologist who
specialized in mothers who kill their children. Years of research had taught her that
the number one cause of deaths in infants living in developed countries wasn't disease, but physical injury
typically inflicted by a caregiver. After reviewing the Folbigg case file and examining tissue samples taken from
the four children, Dr. Ophoven ruled that none of their deaths could be attributed to SIDS.
She stated that SIDS is not a hereditary problem and that, quote, "The statistical likelihood that four
children could die from SIDS is in excess of one in a trillion." As the children had all been growing
normally and their autopsies identified no sign of disease, Dr. Ophoven believed
that all four of them had been suffocated by the last person to see them alive, Kathleen Folbigg.
Dr. Allan Cala submitted his final autopsy report for Laura, listing her death as undetermined and stating it was
possible that all four children were deliberately smothered. He pointed out that it would be
relatively easy for an adult to smother an infant or small child using their hand, a soft toy, or a pillow without
leaving a trace. Dr. Cala's report concluded, "The possibility of multiple homicides
in this family has not been excluded." Opinion was also sought from UK pediatric pathologist and SIDS
specialist Professor Peter Berry, who said he was not aware of any other case where four infants from the same family
had died of unexplained natural causes. He pointed out that Caleb's autopsy had revealed signs of hemosiderin, or
repeated bleeding, in his lungs. Combined with Kathleen's diary entry from the night Caleb died, in which she
enthusiastically wrote, "Finally asleep." Professor Berry believed it was possible that Caleb had not only been
smothered to death, but also smothered on a previous occasion from which he was able to recover.
He also agreed that it was unlikely that Patrick Salty was caused by an epileptic
seizure. Instead, he thought Patrick might have been suffocated to the point of brain
damage. As for Sarah, if he viewed her death in isolation, Professor Berry agreed he
could put it down to SIDS. But knowing what he knew about her siblings, and the alleged tension
between Kathleen and Sarah on the night that she died, he had his misgivings. In regards to Laura, he said the level
of myocarditis in her heart was extensive enough to cause sudden death, but there wasn't damage to her actual
heart muscle as one would expect if myocarditis was responsible. He pointed out that myocarditis was also
commonly found in individuals who died from other causes, such as traffic accidents or suffocation.
Professor Berry concluded, "I am unable to rule out that Caleb, Patrick, Sarah, and possibly Laura
Folbigg were suffocated by the person who found them lifeless. And I believe that it is probable that
this was the case." It took the investigation team months to compile their brief of evidence.
By late 2000, nearly 2 years after Laura's death, Detective Ryan finally felt confident enough to submit the
preliminary brief to the director of public prosecutions. The DPP would decide if there was enough
to charge Kathleen Folbigg with murdering her children. To his disappointment, the answer was
no. The DPP felt there wasn't sufficient evidence to secure a conviction and recommended the case be handed over to
the coroner for a full coronial inquiry instead. Detective Ryan was undeterred. At the end of the day, the decision to
proceed with charges lay with him. And after devoting years of his life to the case, he was convinced that Kathleen was
guilty. Determined to get justice for the innocent and defenseless Folbigg siblings and put a serial killer behind
bars, Detective Ryan discussed the case with the Deputy State Coroner and a Crown Prosecutor.
They agreed there was enough evidence to at least charge Kathleen with Laura's murder.
Detective Ryan was convinced that if he could just get Craig back on his side, there would be enough to proceed with
all four murder charges. And he had an idea of how he could do it. While the investigation had continued
slowly behind the scenes, Craig and Kathleen split up for good in mid-2000. Kathleen was already living with her new
boyfriend, a builder she'd met at the gym. If there was any chance of convincing
Craig to withdraw his support for Kathleen and admit that he'd lied when retracting his original police
statement, the time was now. On April 19, 2001, Detective Ryan visited Craig at work and placed him
under arrest for hindering the investigation into his children's deaths. Faced with this, Craig admitted he was
telling the truth when he initially went to the police to voice his suspicions about Kathleen.
He stood by the story that he'd woken up about half an hour before Sarah's dead body was discovered to find that she and
Kathleen weren't in their beds. Craig said that Kathleen's stories about the children simply didn't add up.
Referring to his last interaction with Laura, he said, "How could I kiss a perfectly gorgeous
little baby goodbye and half an hour later be confronted with that child dead?" In the year and a half since
flip-flopping on his allegations against Kathleen, Craig had felt deeply ashamed
of himself. "I've lived with the shame of coming and changing that story," he said.
"I've felt that I couldn't protect those children in life and I certainly didn't
protect them in death." With Craig back on their side and agreeing to testify against Kathleen,
the detectives were finally ready to make their move. That afternoon, they went to Kathleen
Folbigg's flat and knocked on the door. When she answered, Detective Ryan looked
her in the eyes and said the words he'd been working for years to bring to fruition.
"Kathy, you are under arrest for murdering your four children. Do you understand?"
33-year-old Kathleen Folbigg was charged with four counts of murder and remanded
without bail. The media quickly picked up on the story and the news sent shockwaves through the
local community, particularly for Kathleen's new boyfriend, Tony. He'd fallen head over heels in love with
Kathleen and envisioned them getting married and having a family together. He couldn't fathom that the warm and a
loving woman he knew could be responsible for such a horrific allegation. The press published some of the most
damning expert opinions from the police statement of facts, including Dr. Opitz's belief that the odds of all four
Folbigg children dying of unexplained natural causes was one in a trillion. Accompanied by the excerpts from
Kathleen's diary in which she compared herself to her murderous father, it didn't take long before she was
considered guilty in the court of public opinion. If the court of law also found Kathleen
guilty, it would make her one of the most prolific female serial killers in Australian history.
But the press had to be careful. Kathleen's case was quickly likened to that of Lindy Chamberlain, a Queensland
mother who was accused of killing her newborn daughter Azaria in 1980, as covered in episode 136 of Casefile.
Lindy steadfastly maintained that Azaria had been taken by a dingo. However, the media painted her in such a
negative light that it played a significant role in what turned out to be Lindy's wrongful conviction and one
of the worst miscarriages of justice in Australian legal history. A month after her arrest, Kathleen
applied for bail again. The prosecution still had a long road ahead to prepare their case for trial,
and she wanted to live with Tony and resume her job as a waitress while she prepared her defense.
The judge agreed to release Kathleen on $8,000 bail, citing the fact that she had no other children and therefore
didn't present a threat to anyone else. Tony helped secure her bond, convinced that Kathleen was innocent, and that
once this whole fiasco was behind them, they could move on with building a life together.
While Kathleen was out on bail, the months passed as the prosecution team continued building their case against
her. In addition to the expert opinions and circumstantial evidence provided by her
diary entries and witness statements, they established a 10-point list of what's known as coincidence evidence.
This is a type of circumstantial evidence that shows that two or more similar events occurring in similar
circumstances are too improbable to have happened by chance. The list highlighted that all four of
the Folbigg children died suddenly and unexpectedly while at home during a period of sleep.
Prior to each death, or in Patrick's case his autopsy, each child had appeared perfectly normal and healthy.
All of the deaths occurred while Kathleen was the only adult at home or awake. She was the one to discover each of them
during what she claimed to be a normal check of their well-being. Three of these checks just so happened
to have occurred on her way back from the toilet, and all literally within minutes of the child stopping breathing.
In each incident except for Laura's death, Kathleen didn't offer any assistance. She didn't even lift the
children out of their beds. Kathleen was bolstered by support from Tony and a group of faithful friends,
many of whom had known her since childhood. They didn't believe the allegations against her for a second.
Among them was Kathleen's foster sister, Lee, her trustworthy protector. Or so she thought.
While Lee had fiercely defended her sister since the beginning, in the years since Laura's death, she'd had numerous
conversations with Detective Bernie Ryan. Over time, her opinion had started to change.
Reflecting on events, Lee realized there had been instances where Kathleen's behavior was questionable.
In January 1998, when Laura was 5 months old and still using the apnea monitor, Lee and her family had gone to stay with
the Folbiggs. One day, Laura was napping inside while everyone else was out in the pool.
Lee felt a migraine coming on and went inside to lie down. To her great surprise, the apnea alarm
went off twice. Despite its loud, high-pitched noise, neither Kathleen or Craig responded to
it. When Lee mentioned it to Kathleen later on, she seemed indifferent and simply
said she hadn't heard it. Another time, when Laura was 17 months old, the Folbiggs went to Melbourne to
stay with Lee and her family for Christmas. One day, while feeding Laura in her high
chair, Kathleen was in a bad mood, complaining that she wasn't getting enough sleep.
When Laura refused to eat, Kathleen lost her temper and yanked the toddler out of
the high chair by her arm. Lee had been alarmed. Not only did she think it was totally
uncalled for, she had never seen this side of her sister's personality. She caught another glimpse of it on
Christmas Eve, when Laura was too excited to sleep and Kathleen once again lost her temper and overreacted.
Lee had also been alarmed when Kathleen told her that she'd once disciplined her
puppy by kicking him down the stairs. Eventually, like Kreg Folbigg before her, Lee turned against Kathleen and
contacted the police to change her statement. But, Kathleen was none the wiser. The two sisters remained in regular
contact, with Lee agreeing to record their phone conversations and act as a witness for the prosecution while
feigning ongoing support. On Friday, May 24, 2002, more than a year after her arrest, Kathleen Folbigg
officially entered her plea of not guilty to all four murder charges. She was committed to stand trial in the
Supreme Court the following year. Six months later, she was hit with an additional charge of maliciously
inflicting grievous bodily harm in relation to Patrick's faulty. Kathleen pleaded not guilty to this
charge as well. It had been a challenging time for Kathleen's defense team, who was so
convinced of her innocence that New South Wales senior public defender Peter Zahra had agreed to work the case pro
bono. The defense applied to have the cases for each of the Folbigg children tried
separately so that the jury could judge each of their deaths as a standalone case without knowing about their
siblings. The application was denied on the grounds that when considered separately,
there could be plausible natural causes for the death of each child. It was only when all four cases were
examined together and the coincidence evidence was considered that the case for murder became apparent.
But, there was one piece of good news for the defense. Something huge had happened in the time since Kathleen's
arrest. In England back in 1996, an 11-week-old boy named Christopher Clark had died
unexpectedly in his sleep. Two years later, his 8-week-old brother Harry suffered the same fate.
Both cases were initially recorded as SIDS, but the boy's mother, Sally Clark, became suspected of having smothered
them. She was ultimately charged with murdering both of her children. Renowned pediatrician Professor Roy
Meadow testified at Sally's trial, presenting his theory that one sudden infant death in a family is a tragedy,
two is suspicious, and three is murder unless proven otherwise. Meadow said that the odds of both
Christopher and Harry, who'd been born into an affluent non-smoking family, dying from SIDS was one in 73 million.
According to Professor Meadow, two SIDS deaths in a single family was so rare he
would only expect it to occur once every 100 years. He said there was a better chance of
someone placing an 80-1 outsider bet on the Grand National horse race and winning four years in a row.
Based in part on Professor Meadow's evidence, Sally Clark was found to guilty and sentenced to life in prison,
which she unsuccessfully appealed in 2002. On her second appeal in early 2003, it
emerged that during the autopsy for Sally's younger son Harry, he had tested positive for a bacterial infection that
could have been fatal. The pathologist who performed Harry's autopsy didn't disclose his findings to
either of the legal teams, and it therefore hadn't been presented at Sally's trial.
Furthermore, serious questions had been raised about the statistics put forward by Professor Meadow, with the Royal
Statistical Society saying his figures were false. A professor of mathematics had reviewed
SIDS statistics against homicide statistics, and concluded that although instances of double SIDS are very rare,
double murder is even rarer. Statistically speaking, it was actually twice as likely for two children from
one family to die from SIDS than it was for a mother to kill two of her babies. The appellate judges reviewing Sally's
case found that Christopher and Harry's deaths should not have been tried together.
They also found that the statistical information put forward by Professor Meadow was clearly inadmissible and
should never have been allowed in evidence, as it misled the jury. Sally Clark was subsequently released
from prison in January 2003 and had her conviction overturned. With the just months until Kathleen's
trial was scheduled to begin, this was positive news for her legal team. If Professor Meadow's statistics were
unreliable, then Dr. Opoven's scathing opinion that there was a one in a trillion chance of four children from
the same family dying of SIDS was essentially meaningless. The judge ruled Dr. Opoven's conclusion
inadmissible at Kathleen's trial, despite it having already been widely published in the media.
Meanwhile, the defense asked for extra time while they sought further information from overseas about a
potential correlation that was starting to emerge as a result of Sally Clark's appeal.
It had been hypothesized that particular genetic mutations might lead to an increased risk of SIDS or even cause
SIDS. The judge adjourned the case temporarily to give the defense time for further
testing, but with no further developments emerging, it was time for Kathleen to face the
music. By the time Kathleen Folbigg's murder trial commenced in the New South Wales
Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, Craig Folbigg was engaged to another woman and surrounded by loved ones and
supporters. The now 35-year-old Kathleen, on the other hand, was essentially alone.
Her foster mother, with whom she had a strained relationship, was siding with Craig, despite the two not getting along
in the past. Her foster sister had turned on her, and one of her closest friends was unable to
travel to Sydney to testify on her behalf due to health concerns about her own pregnancy.
Kathleen had also ended her relationship with Tony to focus on the trial, despite
his firm belief that she was innocent. Instead, Kathleen relied on support from a Salvation Army court chaplain named
Major Joyce Harmer, who had kindly agreed to look after her while the trial was underway.
The prosecution was led by Senior Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, a formidable figure in the New South Wales legal
world, who had secured convictions against high-profile killers such as Ivan Milat, covered in episode 109 of
Casefile, and Kathleen, Lane covered in episode 300 of Casefile. In his opening address, Tedeschi told
the jury they were to consider two possibilities. Either Kathleen Folbigg had deliberately
intended to kill her children by smothering them during a flash of anger, hatred, and resentment,
or she deliberately intended to render them unconscious or put them to sleep by smothering them so she could sleep or
have a moment to herself. He made it clear that regardless of which situation was correct, either
possibility constituted murder. Tedeschi said that Kathleen had a very low threshold for stress and resented
the restrictions her children put on her life, particularly when it came to sleep, exercise, and her social life.
She also resented Craig for not providing what she considered to be adequate help.
Tedeschi told the jury that Kathleen was, quote, constantly preoccupied to an exaggerated degree with her weight gain,
and that this was partly due to the fact that her children stood in the way of her going to the gym as often as she
would have liked. Tedeschi and his team wanted the detail of Kathleen's dark family history to
argue that she had inherited murderous traits or mental illness from her father.
But the judge had forbidden anything about her father's crimes from being mentioned, as it could lead to unfair
prejudice. Instead, the prosecution's case relied on three major factors: the medical
evidence, the coincidence evidence, and Kathleen's diary entries. After presenting the 10 points of
coincidence evidence to the jury, Tedeschi said there was only one way to explain the similarities between the
deaths of Caleb, Patrick, Sarah, and Laura, and that was that Kathleen Folbigg was responsible for each one.
He read 40 of her diary entries in court, telling the jury they showed the frustration Kathleen felt with her
weight gain, her exhaustion, her moods, her lack of toleration for her babies, and her inability to control her actions
when around them. These entries were proof in Tedeschi's eyes that Kathleen was involved in each
death and carried guilt about each one. They also demonstrated her belief that she'd finally changed when Laura was
born only for this to unravel when the same frustration she'd suffered with the other children had gotten the better of
her. Tedeschi closed arguments for the prosecution by telling the jury that Kathleen Folbigg had been unable to cope
with the demands of parenthood. She was so obsessed with her own wants, needs, and desires that she eventually
resolved her frustration by killing her children. Kathleen Folbigg did not kill or injure
her children to get attention for herself or in a state of profound depression, Tedeschi declared.
She killed them because she couldn't stand their crying and the demands they made on her life.
Kathleen's lawyer, Peter Zahra, told the jury that there was no evidence Kathleen
had ever abused or mistreated her children. In fact, she had always advocated for
their health and well-being. Even those who were testifying against her said she had been a loving mother
who had taken good care of her kids. As for the suggestion that Kathleen was motivated to kill so she could get on
top of her weight, Zahra pointed out that Kathleen hadn't even joined a gym until 5 months after Sarah, her third
child, had passed away. Countering the prosecution's position, Zahra said that each of the children's
deaths could be explained by a natural medical condition. Caleb had a floppy larynx, Patrick had
epilepsy, Sarah had a congested displaced uvula, and Laura had a myocarditis. Zahra argued that in the face of these
medical conditions, the coincidence evidence presented by the prosecution was meaningless.
Given that Kathleen was her children's primary carer, and it was her responsibility to get up in the night to
care for them, it made sense that she was the one to have found them moribund or lifeless.
There was also nothing suspicious about the fact that the children had died while in their beds, as this is a common
factor for most children who die from unexplained causes. While it was true that Craig Folbigg had
been the one to administer CPR for Caleb, Patrick, and Sarah, Kathleen hadn't hesitated to perform CPR on Laura
when Craig wasn't there to help. As for the diary entries, Zahra urged the jury to draw on their own
experiences and consider that Kathleen was actually using her journals to work through her completely reasonable and
normal feelings of grief, shame, and guilt. He said she had used them to ask hypothetical what if questions, using
words that were never intended for anyone else's eyes. The prosecution presented their case
over several weeks, with Craig Folbigg the first witness to take the stand. Kathleen appeared emotionless as Craig
spoke of his deep love for his children and shared some of his negative memories
of Kathleen's mothering skills. He spoke about the growl she regularly made during moments of frustration and
the aggression she had shown towards Laura on the morning she died. Speaking about the day the police came
to arrest him for hindering the investigation, Craig said that was the moment he decided to tell the truth.
He vehemently denied that revenge had been a motivating factor. For the differing statements he'd made
to the police over the years, Craig was granted indemnity against being prosecuted for perjury. Although the
defense was quick to point out his lies. Peter Zahra reminded Craig that he had been recorded telling Kathleen that he
had initially gone to the police because he was so full of hate, spite, and anxiety that he wanted to ruin her life
like she did his. Zahra also asked Craig about a previously recorded conversation in
which he told a friend that if he had even the slightest inkling that Kathleen had killed the children, he probably
would have killed her himself. Craig told another friend that Detective Bernie Ryan had planted some [ __ ] in
his head during one of the lowest points of his life. He'd shared his view that it angered the
detective when people spoke about what a good mother Kathleen had been. On the stand, Craig claimed he didn't
recall these remarks and agreed that he could have been lying at the time. Kathleen's lawyer replied,
"You see, Mr. Folbigg, it is now becoming increasingly difficult to tell when you lie and when you don't."
With the jury left to ponder whether Craig Folbigg genuinely believed that Kathleen had murdered their children or
was simply seeking revenge for her having left him, Craig's allegations that Kathleen was occasionally rough
with her children were backed up by testimony from Kathleen's foster sister, Lee Brown.
Although in cross-examination, Lee conceded she had only ever seen Kathleen lose her temper with Laura twice and
that she hadn't been forthcoming with this information until many years after the fact.
The medical and forensic experts who testified for the prosecution all agreed that they had never heard of another
case in which three or more sudden unexplained infant deaths had occurred naturally within a single family.
They were required to give evidence about the death of each child individually, and while the autopsy
findings for each one differed slightly, each of the experts agreed that it was possible Kathleen had deliberately
smothered her children. Kathleen chose not to take the stand in her own defense, which meant the only
time the jury heard from her was when the video of her one and only police interview from July 1999 was played to
the court. When it came to the point of the interview where Detective Ryan had asked
Kathleen point blank if she had killed her children, Kathleen became hysterical and had to be removed from the dock.
She was taken to hospital and sedated while proceedings were adjourned for the day.
The only other time she showed any emotion was during testimony from pathologist Dr. Allan Cala when a video
was played of a happy, healthy Laura playing by the pool on the day before she died.
Dr. Cala said that based on the footage, it was quite unlikely that Laura had died of myocarditis.
At this point, Kathleen covered her head in her hands and broke down in tears. The defense took just three days to
present their case. Without access to the genetic information they'd been seeking from
overseas, their strongest testimony came from Professor Roger Byard, an internationally acclaimed SIDS expert
from Adelaide's Forensic Science Centre. Byard said the video of Laura proved nothing.
While she might have looked happy and healthy, it was impossible to tell from the footage whether she had a fever or
any other symptoms that could be attributed to myocarditis. He cited another case where a young girl
had played a game of basketball and had swam 40 m in a pool before dying of myocarditis.
While the level of Laura's myocarditis might have been moderate, Professor Biard said,
"It was the sort of inflammation I have seen in a number of cases of sudden death in children."
As for Caleb, Patrick, and Sarah, he said there was no evidence that any of them had been smothered and reminded the
jury they were not dealing with absolutes. He didn't think the hemosiderin found in
Caleb's lungs was significant either. A study he'd conducted had revealed the presence of hemosiderin in 20% of all
SIDS cases. Although Professor Biard admitted under cross-examination that he didn't know of
any other case where four children from the same family all died suddenly and unexpectedly from four different natural
causes. Testimony was heard from three of Kathleen's friends from the gym who had
witnessed her being a loving and caring mother to Laura. Under cross-examination, however, they
each admitted that they hadn't been close enough to Kathleen to know much about her marriage or private life.
The prosecution said this rendered their testimony meaningless and further proved
that the only real insight into how Kathleen really felt was through her diaries.
In summing up for the prosecution, Tedeschi said that while he couldn't disprove the possibility that Caleb,
Patrick, Sarah, and Laura had died from the various natural causes put forward by the defense,
he also couldn't disprove the possibility that pigs might one day fly. "If you look at what the defense is
suggesting," Tedeschi stated, "not in isolation, but in totality, there has never ever been before in the
history of medicine that our experts have been able to find any case like this. It is preposterous.
It is not a reasonable doubt. It is fantasy." The judge acknowledged the emotional
nature of the 7-week trial, telling the jury, "It is unlikely to imagine a more tragic
series of events happening to a single family. You must not judge this case with your
heart, but with your heads." The jury left to deliberate and were called back in the following afternoon.
The general assumption was that they would request more time to consider their verdict.
It therefore came as a surprise to everyone in the packed courtroom when they announced that they were ready to
give their decision on all five charges. Tension hung thick in the air when the foreperson was asked how they found
Kathleen Folbigg in relation to the murder of her firstborn son, Caleb. Their answer was unexpected.
Not guilty. As those in the gallery tried to maintain their composure, the foreperson was asked how they found
Kathleen in relation to Caleb's manslaughter. Guilty, came the reply. Relief washed over Craig and his family,
while Kathleen appeared to be in a state of shock. For the charge of causing grievous
bodily harm to Patrick, the jury also found Kathleen guilty. For Patrick's murder,
guilty. Sarah's murder, guilty. Laura's murder, guilty. Craig and his loved ones looked on in
stunned disbelief. Many of them broke down in tears, while Lee Brown let out a shout.
The relatively stony demeanor Kathleen had maintained for a majority of the trial crumbled in an instant.
She burst into tears, her whole body shaking as she slumped down in her seat, unable to stand.
Kathleen's only supporter, Major Joyce Harmer, was given permission to help. Quietly, she put her arm around Kathleen
and half carried her out of the dock and towards the holding cells downstairs. Outside court, Craig Folbigg faced the
hordes of reporters to deliver a message to the members of the jury. Through tears, he said,
"My most humble thanks go to 12 people who I have never formally met, who today share the honor of having set four
beautiful souls free to rest in peace." While Kathleen awaited her sentencing, she was kept in solitary confinement.
Word of her conviction quickly spread, and the officials feared for her safety due to the level of hatred from the
other inmates. Anytime she was taken from her cell, she was protected by guards on all sides.
She barely ate, fearful that her food had been poisoned. Although Kathleen strongly maintained
her innocence, the public backlash against her was fierce, and she quickly earned the undesirable title of the most
hated woman in Australia. Nobody could understand how a mother could do such a thing to not one, but
all four of her children, and expect to get away with it. The question the public wanted answered
was why would someone continuously go through the strain of pregnancy and childbirth if they knew they couldn't
handle the pressure of parenthood? The fact that Kathleen's father had killed her mother became a hot topic in
the media with many questioning the role that genetic and environmental factors could have played in Kathleen's crimes.
She was examined by various psychiatrists who also reviewed her government records to try to find a
logical explanation for why she had killed her children. It was revealed that the first few years
of Kathleen's life had not started well. After her mother was killed, 18-month-old Kathleen became a ward of
the state and went to live with her maternal aunt and her husband. The couple soon noticed that Kathleen
displayed some troubling behavior. They said she was aggressive, had difficulty learning acceptable manners,
and seemed preoccupied with her genitals. A medical officer assessed Kathleen and
concluded that she had likely been sexually abused by her father when she was a baby and was, quote, "a very
disturbed little girl." Kathleen's aunt was unable to care for her, so she was put into a foster family
who went on to raise her as their own. Kathleen's foster parents said she was happy and well-adjusted, but Kathleen
found her foster mother to be excessively controlling, socially isolating, and at times violent.
Sometimes she hit Kathleen with a wooden spoon or a belt. Despite this, Kathleen felt she
inherited many positive traits from her foster mother, too. She went on to do relatively well at
school, and although she didn't have many friends growing up, she formed some lasting friendships in her adolescence
that she cherished into adulthood. It was only as a teenager that she discovered the truth about her parents
and was left to deal with the complex feelings this raised. Constant clashes with her foster mother
prompted her to move out of home at the age of 17 and she met Craig Folbigg shortly after.
One of the psychiatrists who assessed Kathleen ahead of her sentencing believed that the first few years of her
life had impacted her ability to form emotional attachments. In turn, this contributed to her
inability to care for or protect her own children. Opposing the opinion of another
psychiatrist, he didn't believe Kathleen had a diagnosable personality disorder,
but that she was a deeply tormented and disturbed woman who struggled with depression, feelings of rejection, and a
low self-esteem, all of which stemmed from her first few years of life. The neglect and abuse she'd endured as a
young girl also explained her emotional detachment and what was viewed as her inappropriate grieving process after
each of her children's deaths. The psychiatrist said these negative feelings were evident in Kathleen's
diary entries, which provided the only real insight into her state of mind. The various mental health professionals
who had dealt with Kathleen also noted that she spoke of the children as though she had nothing to do with their deaths.
One psychiatrist thought she could be disassociating from the traumatic crimes or had repressed them completely.
Another concluded, "I am sure we will never know why Kathleen did it." When Kathleen's sentencing took place 5
months after her trial in October 2003, Justice Graham Barr agreed that Kathleen's early life provided an
insight into her state of mind as an adult. In his view, the stress Kathleen experienced raising her own children was
heightened because she was psychologically damaged and barely coping. He accepted that she was generally a
good mother, but that her mental state left her unable to ask for help when she felt herself struggling with the demands
of sick, willful, or disobedient children. Justice Barr didn't think the deaths were premeditated, but that they'd
occurred once Kathleen was pushed beyond her ability to manage. He said she would always present a
danger to any children in her care, and it was unlikely she'd ever admit the truth about her crimes.
Acknowledging the potential harm Kathleen faced in prison, Justice Barr recommended that she be held in solitary
confinement 22 hours a day. And with that, he delivered his sentence. For the murders of her four children,
Kathleen Folbigg would spend 40 years in prison with a non-parole period of 30 years.
Outside court, Craig Folbigg avoided the media throngs eager to put this horrendous chapter of his life behind
him and move on. Kathleen's lawyer had one final message to deliver to the waiting press.
Mrs. Folbigg has asked me to say that she is innocent of these charges. She did not kill her children or harm
them in any way. For Kathleen's foster sister, Lee, the sentencing came as a relief.
If Kathleen's crimes had taught her anything, it was that other unexplained infant deaths should be examined more
carefully by law enforcement and forensic specialists. She called on the press to make sure
someone was giving a voice to those who couldn't speak for themselves. So scathing was Lee's opinion of
Kathleen that she'd even handed over a private letter to the press that Kathleen had written to her from prison
while awaiting sentencing. The letter had been published on the front page of the Daily Telegraph
newspaper. In it, Kathleen voiced her disbelief that Lee had turned against her, saying
it wasn't fair that she was being compared to her father when she'd actively fought against having any
connection to him. She said any personality trait she had inherited came from her foster parents,
just like Lee's had, and none of them were capable of murder. Kathleen accused Lee of purposely lying,
deceiving, and manipulating her during the four years it had taken the police to build a circumstantial case against
her. She said that nobody had any right to interpret the meaning of her diary entries, saying it was, quote,
"A sad day when a mother can be put away for merely being a normal mother who wrote down her emotions, anxieties, and
frustrations in bloody books. The diaries are not literal, definitely not a window to my brain," Kathleen
wrote. "How ridiculous. They were a place for me to offload and then what my hands and move on.
Lee, I know my failures and have taken responsibility for them, but I will not be forced to take responsibility for
something I have not done. I have no more energy to battle with people who won't hear.
Try to imagine your life being spread out, ripped to pieces, examined, opinions cast, character assassinated,
your every word, action, thought doubted. And you're told you don't know yourself.
Add to that becoming the most hated woman alive. I now live with that every day.
I endure all of this knowing that vindication will one day be mine. While Kathleen Folbigg came to terms
with her new reality, in the aftermath of Sally Clark's wrongful conviction in England, a review was ordered into a
number of other cases where Professor Roy Meadow had provided evidence for the prosecution.
Subsequently, three other women who'd been convicted of murdering their children had their convictions
overturned and were released from prison. Among them was Angela Cannings, a mother
of four who had been found guilty of smothering two of her babies. In the review of Angela's case, the
appellate judge was scathing of Meadow's law. He said that two or more sudden unexplained infant deaths in a single
family certainly warranted an explanation, but that great care must be taken to not simply assume the infants
were deliberately killed. The judge stated, "If murder cannot be proven, the conviction cannot be safe.
In a criminal case, it is simply not enough to be able to establish even a high probability of guilt.
Unless we are sure of guilt, the dreadful possibility always remains that a mother, already brutally scarred by
the unexplained death or deaths of her babies, may find herself in prison for life for killing them when she would not
be there at all. In our community and in any civilized community, that is abhorrent.
Kathleen's legal team used Angela's case as one of the grounds of their first appeal against her conviction, while
also arguing that the various charges against her should never have been tried together.
The appeal was rejected with the judges finding that Kathleen's case differed from Angela's in multiple ways, and that
enough evidence had been presented at Kathleen's trial to uphold her conviction.
Although they did agree that her 40-year sentence was excessive and reduced it to
30 years with eligibility for parole after 25. Kathleen filed a second appeal in 2007
on the grounds that her trial had miscarried by way of juror misconduct. Over the years, it had emerged that one
of the jurors on Kathleen's trial had been fascinated by a comment that Craig Folbigg made during his testimony.
Recalling the conversation in which he told Kathleen that he'd given her diary to the police, Craig said Kathleen had
asked him what was written in it. He'd told her, "Oh, there was that thing about being
your father's daughter." As this particular diary entry had been ruled inadmissible at the trial, the
jurors didn't know what Craig was talking about. One of them was curious enough that they
Googled Kathleen's name when they got home and discovered that she was the daughter of a convicted murderer, a
detail they then shared with the other jurors. This was a major no-no, as the jurors
were forbidden from conducting any external research while the trial was underway.
It also turned out that another juror had conducted their own research pertaining to how long an infant's body
would stay warm for after they died. Kathleen's second appeal was also rejected, with the prosecution
successfully arguing that the jurors knowing about Kathleen's father could have actually helped her case.
Despite everything that had been printed in the media that essentially inferred Kathleen had been born to kill, the
prosecution said that if anything, this detail would have elicited sympathy from
the jurors. Kathleen appealed to have her case heard by the High Court, but this was
rejected, too. With her appeal avenues exhausted, she was forced to accept her new reality as
Australia's worst-known female serial killer. But despite public opinion, Kathleen
never faltered in her claim of innocence. In the letter she'd written to Lee while
awaiting sentencing, Kathleen had said, "I don't like being hated, so why would I do something that ensures I am?
This is the last time I'll state I did not kill my children." Unbeknownst to Kathleen, she wasn't the
only one who refused to accept this. Dr. Emma Cunliffe is an Australian professor of law who spent her PhD
researching the ways in which the legal process, medical knowledge, and expectations of motherhood work together
when a mother is charged with killing a baby who died under mysterious circumstances.
As she looked into various case studies, she realized that over the years most of
the accused women had either had their charges acquitted, their convictions overturned, or evidence against them
thrown out completely. All of them, that was, except for Kathleen Folbigg. Professor Cunliffe was particularly
struck by the testimony from medical experts at Kathleen's trial who said they weren't aware of any other cases
where more than three children in a single family had died from unexplained natural causes.
When she looked into the medical research available at the time of Kathleen's trial, she found at least
eight other such cases. In the wake of Sally Clark's appeal in the UK, even more cases had emerged.
Furthermore, in Laura Folbigg's autopsy, Dr. Allan Cala had noted that she was suffering from myo carditis at the time
of her death. How then, Professor Cunliffe wondered, had he testified that it was unlikely
that she had died of myo carditis? She couldn't understand how Dr. Cala had reached the conclusion that each of the
Folbigg children had been smothered, particularly when some of Dr. Cala's colleagues had also examined the slides
of Laura's heart tissue and thought the level of myo carditis was significant enough to cause death.
Notably, none of those experts had been called to give evidence at Kathleen's trial.
Then there was the issue of Kathleen's diaries, which the prosecution had posited were as good as having, quote, a
machine to look into Kathleen's mind. While Professor Cunliffe agreed that the diaries were shocking and even
distressing to read, she began researching the reactions of mothers who had unexpectedly lost a child.
She found that self-blame and guilt were very common, especially when the death was sudden and unexplained.
Professor Cunliffe found it odd that no expert evidence about maternal grief and
bereavement had been submitted at Kathleen's trial. She also believed that many of the
submissions made by the prosecution were based on what she described as misogynistic stereotypes about
self-sacrificial mothering. For example, they had suggested that Kathleen wanting to leave Sarah with a
family member so she could exercise at the gym or work part-time was evidence that she couldn't cope as a mother.
Nothing was said about the benefits that exercise, financial independence, and social relationships had on postpartum
women. The more Professor Cunliffe learned, the more she believed that Kathleen's
diaries were evidence of a woman who was struggling with grief and trying desperately to regain some form of
control. It sounded to her like Kathleen blamed herself for her children's deaths
because she believed it was her responsibility to protect them from harm. Over time, her entries showed that she
became superstitious, almost to a point of obsession about controlling every detail of their upbringing.
And most importantly for Professor Cunliffe, at no point did she ever write that she had harmed any of her children
in any way. Professor Cunliffe's findings were published in 2011 in a book titled
Murder, Medicine, and Motherhood with the conclusion that Kathleen Folbigg had been wrongfully convicted.
By this point, Kathleen had spent eight years behind bars. Publication of the book propelled her
case back into the spotlight with others coming forward to voice their support and call for the case to be re-examined.
The problem was Kathleen had already exhausted her avenues of appeal. For her case to be reviewed, the New
South Wales Attorney General would have to order an official inquiry. The possibility that Kathleen could be
innocent gained even more traction after Professor Cunliffe voiced her concerns in a segment about the case on popular
current affairs program 60 Minutes. This was countered by an appearance from Kathleen's foster sister, Lee Brown, who
was unwavering in her belief that Kathleen was guilty and told the reporter that she believed Kathleen
deserved to die for what she did to her children. Professor Cunliffe's findings caught the
attention of various eminent lawyers who agreed there were some serious questions
about Kathleen's conviction. This led to the case being reviewed by a group of law students from the
University of Newcastle's Legal Centre, who scrutinized the trial transcripts and examined the similar British cases
that had been sullied by the now debunked Meadow's Law. While the debunking of this theory had a
positive impact on many wrongfully accused women, the damage it had caused was irreparable.
In 2007, Sally Clark, the British mother who was acquitted of killing her two babies, died of acute alcohol poisoning,
having never recovered from the trauma of her ordeal. The deaths of Caleb, Patrick, Sarah, and
Laura Folbigg were independently reviewed by Professor Stephen Cordner, the former director of the Victorian
Institute of Forensic Medicine, who was widely considered to be Australia's leading forensic pathologist.
After spending an entire year on the case, Professor Cordner was bewildered by the fact that it had never been
explicitly stated during Kathleen's trial that there had been no physical evidence to the possibility that the
children had been smothered or killed by any means. This was particularly poignant in
Laura's case. As Laura was old enough to have fully erupted teeth, if she had been
smothered, Professor Cordner would have expected to see tooth marks on the inside of her mouth.
Instead, there were absolutely no signs of asphyxia or compressions to her face,
and no evidence of a struggle expected in a toddler of that age. However, the level of myocarditis was
significant enough that in Professor Cordner's view, most forensic pathologists would feel comfortable to
rule at the cause of Laura's death. He also found it completely reasonable to attribute Caleb and Sarah's deaths to
SIDS. While he couldn't determine what had caused Patrick's ALTE, he was confident
that his eventual death was, quote, "an unsurprising consequence of the state he was left in following the
ALTE." Professor Cordner put his findings in a 125-page report that was peer-reviewed and
supported by a number of international experts who further debunked the theory that two or more infant deaths should be
treated as homicides. They agreed with Cordner when he concluded, quote, "There is no forensic pathology evidence
to suggest that the Folbigg children were deliberately smothered or killed. In my view, it is wrong on the forensic
evidence available in this case to conclude that one or more of the Folbigg children are the victims of homicide.
There is no merit in forcing certainty where uncertainty exists. If the convictions in this case are to
stand, I want to clearly state there is no pathological or medical basis for concluding homicide.
The findings are completely compatible with natural causes." In 2013, the Newcastle Legal Centre
officially took on Kathleen's case pro bono and announced that they would be seeking an inquiry into her conviction.
In addition to Cordner's report, they had Kathleen's diary entries studied by a clinical psychologist who was scathing
of the prosecution's interpretation of them as being confessions to the alleged crimes.
Just like Dr. Emma Cunliffe had suggested, the psychologist believed the diary entries proved that Kathleen was
no different from many other postpartum mothers in that she felt isolated and sometimes depressed and worried about
her marriage and physical appearance following childbirth. Kathleen's diary entries suggested to
the psychologist that she interpreted her feelings of stress, irritability, and exhaustion as evidence of poor
mothering. She then equated her reaction to motherhood as the reason that her children had died.
The psychologist found it significant that Kathleen had never once mentioned having harmed any of the children or
even wanting to harm them. Why hold this information back in a diary that she didn't expect anyone else
to ever read? The psychologist concluded that the prosecution using the diaries as
evidence was misleading and unsupported by psychological literature on maternal adjustment.
Despite everything that had emerged from Sally Clark's appeal in the UK, Kathleen's defense team had not called
any experts to testify that theories such as Meadow's law had been discredited. Kathleen's new legal team had the case
reviewed by a British professor of mathematics who provided evidence for the Clark case.
He called Meadow's law complete nonsense and concluded that the jury in Kathleen's case had been misled by
expert statements about the rarity of multiple SIDS in a single family. While multiple SIDS cases were indeed
rare, the professor pointed out that statistically speaking, there were far more instances of multiple SIDS than
there were of multiple infant murders. With such a large number of women giving birth each week, he concluded it was
inevitable that there would be instances of multiple unexplained deaths in the one family.
A long-running study in the UK had actually shown that families who had lost one child to SIDS had an increased
chance of losing a second baby to SIDS. With the jury in Kathleen's case being told there were no recorded instances of
three or more SIDS in the one family, the professor said this had essentially left the jury incorrectly believing that
homicide was the only explanation for the deaths of the four big children. With all of this new evidence coming to
light, in May 2015, Kathleen's legal team announced that they had signed a petition calling for her convictions to
be reviewed by the New South Wales Attorney-General. For Kathleen Folbigg, this news couldn't
have been more welcome. By this point, she had served 12 years of her sentence, two of them in
solitude, and she'd never wavered from her position that she was innocent. The truth was that, like many other new
mothers, Kathleen had struggled with the identity shift that comes with being a parent.
While she had loved Craig deeply in the early years of their marriage, she grew to resent the fact that the overnight
parenting duties always fell to her. Craig was, and always had been, an incredibly deep sleeper.
Once his head hit the pillow, he was out for the count until morning, and he joked that a bomb could go off without
waking him. None of the babies' cries ever woke him, leaving Kathleen to deal with the nights
alone. As someone who had always been a big sleeper herself and didn't like to stay
up late, the lack of sleep or time to herself really took its toll on Kathleen. Because of this, establishing
predictable routines with each of the children's bedtimes was important to her. She found it frustrating that Craig
didn't seem to take this seriously, and instead interpreted her as being somewhat neurotic and overly
controlling. It wasn't just the lack of sleep that bothered Kathleen. Shortly after Patrick died, she found
Craig in what looked like a romantic embrace with one of her friends. Years later, after Sarah was born, she
suspected that Craig might be interested in other women. Craig had also made some comments about
Kathleen's weight gain over the years, which contributed to her own self-consciousness.
It was around this time that their relationship reached rock bottom, with Kathleen feeling severely insecure,
unattractive, and rejected by Craig. While she first started exercising as a means to lose weight, she grew to love
the other benefits that exercise gave her. Going to the gym wasn't the vain obsession that the prosecution had
depicted, but a way to keep her mental health in check. It had always bothered Kathleen that
such a big deal was made about her going back to the gym just days after Laura died.
After all, Craig had gone back to work at the same time, and nobody had batted an eye at that.
Then there was the scrutiny about her perceived lack of emotion following her children's deaths.
When Kathleen was a child, her foster mother often reacted negatively anytime Kathleen was in a bad mood.
She therefore grew up believing that she had to keep any negative emotions in check because she didn't want to inflict
them on other people. In reality, the deaths of all four of her children had devastated Kathleen.
She had simply chosen not to wallow in her grief and to do her best to get on with life.
After she was suspected of killing her children, she detached herself from the situation, a coping mechanism she'd
learned when she entered the foster system as a three-year-old. It also helped her survive in prison,
where she was the target of hatred and violence from other inmates. The diaries were a way for Kathleen to
unload her darkest feelings without burdening anyone else. She didn't use them to record feelings
of joy or contentment, even though these were emotions she experienced regularly.
Assuming that no one else would ever read them, she had just jotted her thoughts down as they poured out of her
without taking time to explain. It was a way to purge her negative emotions, as well as try and figure out
what was going on in her life. For example, the comment that Sarah had left with a bit of help was a reference
to God or some kind of higher power having already taken her two sons. Kathleen believed in karma and fate, and
at the time of writing the diaries, she thought it was possible that her deceased children could communicate with
one another. When she wrote that she couldn't have handled another child like Sarah and
that Laura had saved her life by being different, she was simply reflecting on this belief.
Her entry about wanting Sarah to shut up and one day she did wasn't an admission
of guilt, but merely an observation. As for the comment that she was most scared about being left alone with the
baby, this wasn't because she presented a threat to them. It was because she was
petrified of finding them dead. Kathleen was adamant that if she had killed the children, there would be no
room for misinterpretation as she would have used her diaries to try and figure out why she'd done such a thing.
If she was guilty, she would have either confessed or taken her own life. Given how young the babies had been when
they died, Kathleen had very little to remember them by. The longer she spent in prison, the more
distant those memories became. She did what she could to maintain her sanity while serving her sentence,
keeping her head down to avoid poor treatment from other inmates, and leaning on the friendships she still had
in the outside world. Kathleen welcomed anyone who wanted to help her case, and with the petition to
the Attorney General being filed, she was hopeful that her side of the story would finally be believed.
But, the petition languished for years as Kathleen and her legal team waited with baited breath for news.
With nothing appearing to be happening, in August 2018, the case was covered for
the second time by ABC's Australian Story. Not only did the segment present expert
evidence suggesting that Kathleen had been wrongfully convicted, it also featured interviews with Kathleen by way
of phone calls from prison with her strongest supporter, a childhood friend named Tracy Chapman.
It was the closest thing Kathleen had ever made to a public appearance and gave her the chance to explain her side
of the story for the first time. Within days of the episode airing, the New South Wales Attorney General held a
press conference to announce that a full inquiry would be held into Kathleen Folbigg's convictions.
While this was excellent news for Kathleen and her supporters, there were even bigger things brewing.
There had always been questions about whether the Folbigg children had a genetic mutation that could explain
their deaths, and recent advancements in medical technology meant such testing was finally possible.
By studying the DNA of Kathleen, Craig, and their four children, comprehensive genetic testing known as whole genome
sequencing had the power to unequivocally reveal whether the children had a genetic abnormality that
could explain why they died. In October 2018, Kathleen provided a saliva sample and a buccal swab to a
team of scientists, along with her comprehensive medical history. Genome sequencing was conducted on the
sample, and in early December, the data was given to two leading immunologists, Professor Carola Vinuesa and Dr. Teodor
Arsov. They both sat down to examine the data individually, curious to see if they
arrived at the same conclusion. Eventually, they both looked up from their computers at the same time and
exclaimed in astonishment, "Calm 2." Calmodulin 2, more commonly known as Calm 2, is a crucial calcium binding
protein that helps control human heart function, especially the electrical signals that keep the heartbeat steady.
Both Professor Vinuesa and Dr. Arsov noted that Kathleen Folbigg carried a mutation to this gene that had never
been seen before. Such a mutation would prevent the channels that normally allow calcium to
enter and exit the heart from closing properly. As a result, calcium could build up and
cause the heart to stop beating. Other known mutations of the Calm 2 gene had been found in patients who suffered
from long QT syndrome, a heart rhythm disorder where the heart's electrical system takes too long to recharge
between beats. It can be triggered during exercise, emotional distress, or during sleep.
Symptoms of long QT syndrome can include fainting, seizures, heart palpitations,
and even sudden death, particularly in young patients. While the CALM2 mutation seen in
Kathleen was novel, other known mutations to the gene had been associated with sudden death in infants.
While Kathleen was not known to have long QT syndrome, her medical history did show instances of fainting in the
past, including after completing a swimming race and moments of stress. This indicated that she had an irregular
heartbeat. The next step was to see if Kathleen had passed this genetic mutation onto any of
her children. Craig Folbigg refused to provide a DNA sample of his own and was not legally
compelled to do so, but DNA samples from the Folbigg children could be obtained from preserved tissue samples, and in a
groundbreaking achievement, from their neonatal heel prick tests that were taken at birth.
Comprehensive genetic sequencing of the children's DNA provided a startling revelation.
Both Sarah and Laura Folbigg shared the same novel CALM2 mutation as Kathleen. A mutation that had the potential to be
fatal. The inquiry into Kathleen Folbigg's conviction commenced in the Lidcombe Coroner's Court in March 2019,
4 years after Kathleen's legal team first petitioned for it. The aim of the inquiry was to re-examine
the original evidence presented at trial in light of the new research and developments that had emerged since then
to see if Kathleen's case should be referred to the court of criminal appeal. In addition to a review of the medical
and scientific evidence relevant to the case, Kathleen was also given the opportunity to testify about her
incriminating diary entries for the first time. However, the inquiry's commissioner,
former District Court Chief Judge Reginald Blanch, denied the request for any psychological evidence to be
presented relating to the diaries, stating that a psychiatrist's view of the meaning of the diary entries would
be of no use. Craig Folbigg, who had gone on to have a child with his new wife, was strongly
against the inquiry. Outside court, his brother John gave a statement on behalf of the family,
saying, "As a family, we welcomed Cathy, loved her, supported her. We, along with the public, have endured
this process to discover the truth regarding the deaths of our dear Caleb, Patrick, Sarah, and Laura.
What has been most devastating has been that, in the end, the answer lay with Kathleen.
We kept our thoughts regarding her actions, her supporters' vitriolic outbursts, and our pain and our grief
about not only the loss of our four beautiful babies, but the loss of this part of our family group to ourselves.
This chapter unfolding now, we feel, was unnecessary and most definitely unwelcome.
However, we have endured it to ensure the justice that Caleb, Patrick, Sarah, and Laura received in 2003.
With numerous hearings held over the following 3 months, hopes were high for Kathleen and her supporters when Judge
Blanch released his 550-page report in July 2019. But much to their dismay, Blanche found
that the evidence relating to the calm two gene mutation wasn't compelling. Evidence had been presented at the
inquiry from a team of scientists who opposed Professor Vinuessa's findings on the grounds that no calmodulin deaths
had ever been recorded in sleeping infants. Judge Blanche subsequently concluded
that the science was too new and the mutation had not been proven to be harmful.
Furthermore, only Laura and Sarah had the mutation, meaning it couldn't be explained in all four of the children's
deaths. Blanche stated, On the evidence before the inquiry, I find that there is no reasonable
possibility that any of the four big children had a known or recognized pathogenic or likely pathogenic genetic
variant which caused their deaths or Patrick's faulty. In Blanche's view, it was Kathleen's
diary entries that still provided the most compelling non-medical evidence for her guilt.
He denounced the explanations she gave as to the meaning of the most incriminating entries, calling them
unbelievable and untruthful. Blanche was satisfied that the prosecution had interpreted the diary
entries correctly at the 2003 trial. Judge Blanche ultimately concluded there was no reasonable doubt about Kathleen's
guilt and that if anything, the new evidence presented during the inquiry only reinforced the original verdict
rather than undermining it. He concluded, It remains that the only conclusion reasonably open is that somebody
intentionally caused harm to the children and smothering was the obvious method.
The evidence pointed to no person other than Ms. Folbigg. Judge Blanch's decision caused outrage
amongst the scientific community, particularly for Professor Vinué sa. She found it bewildering that the
writings of a grief-stricken mother could be given more weight than the calm 2 mutation, which her team believed
presented a 90% probability of infant cardiac death. Concerned that inquiry had ignored the
available science and hadn't taken her genetic evidence seriously, Professor Vinué sa went straight to the Australian
Academy of Science to ask for help. The Academy reviewed the case before announcing their support for Kathleen.
It wasn't their aim to prove whether or not she was innocent. They simply wanted
to make sure that the science was being taken seriously, and in this instance, they didn't believe it was.
In a story for the Australian National University, Professor Vinué sa said, "The problem was the judge was trying to
weigh the genetic evidence with the diary evidence, and the science was complex, perhaps too complex to be
heard. I thought, how can we have a legal system that has difficulty understanding
complex science? There's something wrong with this process. Science has not been heard or
understood. Kathleen's life depended on the science being fully understood." In October 2019, Kathleen's legal team
applied to have a judicial review conducted of Blanch's report. They argued that he had demonstrated
apprehended bias in various aspects of his conduct and had failed to properly consider the fresh genetic evidence
submitted. They were particularly concerned that he had denied a psychological interpretation of Kathleen's diaries,
with one of Kathleen's lawyers telling the Sydney Morning Herald, "Blanche isn't a psychiatrist, he's not
a mother, and he hasn't lost four children. But, he still felt able to interpret
Kathleen's words and why she wrote them." Determined to prove the potential dangers of the CALM2 mutation, Professor
Vinuessa enlisted the help of a team of 27 leading international scientists who began conducting lab tests, heart cell
studies, and comparisons with other known deadly calmodulin mutations. Their studies confirmed that the CALM2
mutation seen in Laura and Sarah Folbigg was just as damaging as other known calmodulin variants that had been known
to kill children from cardiac arrhythmias. Not only could it cause sudden death,
but it could be triggered by infections such as myocarditis. Although it wasn't the main focus of
their research, the international team also discovered that Caleb and Patrick Folbigg carried a rare mutation of the
gene known as BSN, which is known to cause early-onset lethal epilepsy in mice. This was significant given Patrick's
epilepsy diagnosis, and while further research needed to be done in this regard, Professor Vinuessa said that it
highlighted that a single unifying cause of death in the four children was not needed to explain what happened.
Speaking about the genetic mutation to investigative journalist Quinton McDermott for his comprehensive book on
the case titled Meadow's Law, prominent molecular biologist Professor John Shine
explained that the Folbigg girls were incredibly unlucky to have inherited the CALM2 mutation.
Shrine stated, "If you have four people randomly running around the earth, the chance of
all four being hit by lightning are incredibly slim. However, if each of the four is given a
very large lightning rod that they carry around, their chances increase significantly.
It's a bit like that. Once the mutation occurs in a family, then your chance of suffering the
similar thing are 50%. Incredibly high." A peer-reviewed paper on the findings was published in the highly respected
medical journal Europace, which led to even more support from the scientific community.
In early March 2021, a petition was submitted to the governor of New South Wales, which was signed by over 100
eminent scientists and clinicians, including two Nobel Prize winners. The petition argued that Judge Blanch's
findings in the 2019 inquiry were counter to the scientific and medical evidence that now exists.
The petition ultimately stated that all four of the Folbigg children had likely died from natural causes, that the
evidence used to convict Kathleen was outdated, and that a miscarriage of justice had therefore occurred.
In what was one of the strongest scientific interventions in any criminal case in Australian history, the petition
called for Kathleen Folbigg to be pardoned. Given the new evidence and global pressure, the New South Wales Attorney
General ordered a second, more comprehensive inquiry be conducted into Kathleen's conviction, with focus on the
newly available genetic evidence, as well as the psychology, psychiatry, and other evidence relevant to Kathleen's
diary entries. The inquiry was led by former Chief Justice Tom Bathurst with evidence
presented over three separate hearings between November 2022 and February 2023. Final submissions were then presented in
April. The new scientific evidence on the calm 2 mutation was presented with various
experts agreeing the mutation could have caused fatal arrhythmias in Sarah and Laura Folbigg.
Just like in Kathleen's trial and in the 2019 inquiry, numerous experts also agreed that it was reasonable to believe
that Laura could have died from myocarditis. As for Patrick, a pediatric neurologist
said it was extremely unlikely that his lti had been caused by smothering. Instead, she thought it was likely
caused by a then unexplained epileptic disease that resulted in progressive neurological dysfunction and his
eventual death. Although there still wasn't a clear cause of death for Caleb, it was
presented that if his three siblings had died from natural causes, then the coincidence evidence that helped secure
Kathleen's manslaughter conviction against him was essentially relying on the long since discredited Meadow's Law.
In regards to Kathleen's supposed rage towards her children, counsel assisting submitted that caution should be taken
not to idealize mothers as being universally patient, nurturing, and kind. A study was presented of 63 Finnish
mothers who described experiencing various forbidden feelings in motherhood, the most frequent being
fatigue, rage, anger, aggression, and guilt. Independent psychologists and linguists
rejected the theory that Kathleen's diaries were evidence of guilt or akin to a confession, instead reinterpreting
them as expressions of grief. Judge Bathurst was scheduled to hand down a report into his findings later in
the year, but on May 30, 2023, he phoned the Attorney General to advise that he had already formed a firm view about the
matter and suggested that instead of waiting months for him to write his full report, he would provide a brief summary
with these recommendations in just a few days time. On Monday, June 5, 2023, Kathleen was
going about her day at the Clarence Correctional Facility when she was suddenly told to pack her things and
that a prison van was waiting outside. Judge Bathurst had agreed that there was enough evidence to indicate a reasonable
possibility that at least Patrick, Sarah, and Laura had all died from natural causes.
He didn't accept Craig's version of events from the night Sarah died, nor did he agree that the evidence had
established Kathleen was anything but a caring mother for her children. He also agreed with the psychological
evidence put forward that Kathleen's diary entries weren't admissions of murder, but the words of a quote,
"grieving, depressed, and traumatized mother feeling guilt at the unexplained deaths of her four children."
With these factors in mind, he said that the coincidence evidence that the prosecution case relied on at Kathleen's
trial fell away and concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to Ms. Folbigg's
guilt. After two decades of being labeled one of Australia's worst female serial
killers, the New South Wales Attorney General publicly declared that Kathleen be unconditionally pardoned.
He announced, "I am glad that our legal system in New South Wales contains provisions that
allow for the continual pursuit of truth and justice. This is a day of high emotions.
There are no winners from this story. It's a terrible story of four lives lost, of a grieving father, and a woman
who's been incarcerated when she shouldn't have been for 20 years. I think we all have to put ourselves in
Ms. Folbigg's shoes and let her now have the space she needs to get on with her life."
The pardon wasn't just excellent news for Kathleen, but for the scientific community as a whole.
The team of scientists and lawyers who'd supported Kathleen over the years was ecstatic.
Having been offered very little funding by the Attorney General's office or Legal Aid, a spokesperson for the group
said, "The result today brought together the science through the endeavors of our
great scientists with huge support from the Australian Academy of Science and the philanthropists who have committed
their skills and their financial resources in an extraordinary way. Without that, I don't think this would
be possible." The chief executive of the Australian Academy of Science pointed out that
Kathleen's case would have enormous implications for the Australian justice system, saying,
"The question must now be asked, how do we create a more science-sensitive legal
system, bringing to bear new, complex, and emerging science routinely, every day, and not just in exceptional
circumstances?" While news of the pardon was a major triumph for Kathleen's supporters, no
one was more ecstatic than Kathleen. Unable to fully wrap head around what was happening, she was escorted from
prison to the Coffs Harbour home of her best friend, Tracy Chapman, who had stood by her side all these years.
Kathleen knew exactly how she wanted to spend her first night of freedom, soaking in the bath, eating a T-bone
steak, and spending quality time with friends without the limitations of a prison visit.
But, the vindication of her pardon didn't eradicate decades of trauma. Tracy told reporters,
"I know the past 20 years have been horrific for Kathleen, not least for the pain and suffering she has had to endure
following the loss of her four children. They were gorgeous children. They are all missed every day."
Craig Folbigg released a statement via his lawyer saying that his view about Kathleen's guilt had not changed
whatsoever. He reminded the public that despite the pardon, Kathleen hadn't been acquitted,
and her convictions were still in place. She might be free, but in Craig's eyes,
that didn't mean she was innocent. Much had been made in the media about Craig's allegations over the years.
As journalist Quentin McDermott observed in his book, Meadows Law, "At the heart of the evidence given by
Craig were the negative observations he made about Cathy's mothering skills. This was rich considering how little
help he himself gave her at home." Five months later, in November 2023, Bathurst handed down his extensive
619-page report into the findings of the inquiry. He said the evidence demonstrated that
Kathleen was a loving and caring mother who sometimes got angry and frustrated with her children, which was nothing out
of the ordinary for primary caregivers. He found that the evidence, {quote} provides no support for the proposition
that she killed her four children. Bathurst referred Kathleen's case to the Court of Criminal Appeal with the
general assumption that her conviction would be quashed. And on Thursday, December 14, 2023,
it was. A panel of appellate judges reviewed Judge Bathurst's report and unequivocally agreed with his findings,
declaring that all five convictions against Kathleen be formally quashed. It was the news Kathleen Folbigg had
been waiting 20 years to hear. Gathered in the courtroom with her lawyers, friends, and supporters, it was
a joyous scene as the unexpected news sunk in. Even some of Kathleen's lawyers were
unable to hold back their tears. Outside court, Kathleen's voice trembled as she told the gathering reporters,
"I hope that no one else will ever have to suffer what I have suffered. My children are here with me today, and
they will be close to me for the rest of my life. I love my children, and I always will."
While the acquittal was a major victory for Kathleen, it also served as a tragic
reminder of all that she had lost. Despite all the years that had passed, her children were never far from her
mind. In prison, she kept a photo of Caleb, Patrick, Sarah, and Laura in her cell
and spoke to them every day. Cleared of any involvement in their deaths, those few photos were the only
physical reminders she still had, with Craig claiming to have scattered the children's ashes in the ocean.
Craig Folbigg died of a sudden heart attack in 2024, still convinced of Kathleen's guilt.
His lawyer released a statement on his family's behalf saying the past few years had taken an enormous toll on
Craig. He was graciously remembered by those who knew him as a private man who always
maintained his dignity despite the extreme hardship he faced. For Kathleen, Craig's death was one
final blow, eradicating the possibility that the two could ever restore a sense of harmony between them.
She released a statement via her lawyer which said, "There were only two people on this
earth who knew what it felt like to lose Caleb, Patrick, Sarah, and Laura. My condolences go to the loved ones
Craig leaves behind." In August 2025, the New South Wales government offered Kathleen Folbigg $2
million in compensation for her 20-year wrongful imprisonment. Kathleen called the offer a slap in the
face. Not only had she lost the best years of her life, but adjusting to life in the
outside world had been a major struggle. She faced ongoing issues with her mental
health, and so much had changed in the years since she was incarcerated, particularly in regards to technology,
that she had to learn to live in society all over again. Having not worked for decades, she also
missed out on the opportunity to earn superannuation. All Kathleen wanted was to live
comfortably with financial security, be able to afford her ongoing mental health
treatment, and to repay the legal team who had so generously worked pro bono for her cause for many years.
When asked how much compensation she thought she should be given, Kathleen told reporters she couldn't put a number
on it. The New South Wales Attorney General, Michael Daley, refused to meet with
Kathleen or issue a formal apology. Although he has denied allegations that this is because of his personal belief
that Kathleen is guilty. Addressing Daley at a budget estimates hearing, Greens MP and spokesperson for
justice, Sue Higginson, said, "Daley is just another man continuing the cycle of injustice and inhumanity in
Kathleen Folbigg's life. He knows what happened to Ms. Folbigg was wrong, but he refused to look Kathleen in the
eye. He didn't bother asking anyone what she needs to avoid financial destitution, and he knows full well she
can't afford years of court battles with the New South Wales government. Our entire ex gratia payment process is
extremely flawed. Men in suits in smoky back rooms get to unilaterally decide what happens to
women who are victims of grave injustice inflicted by errors of the state. It just shouldn't be this hard to get
the Attorney General to care about justice and to care about women who are victims of injustice.
Imagine what Kathleen must be feeling having been wrongfully imprisoned for 20 years, losing four children, and now
being ignored by the man who is supposed to embody justice in this state." Kathleen Folbigg's wrongful conviction
continues to be compared to that of Lindy Chamberlain. Both were grieving mothers whose
parenting and seemingly sullen reactions to their children's deaths were put on trial ahead of the concrete evidence
against them, calling into question society's views of motherhood and the role misogyny plays when women are
accused of harming their children. One of Kathleen's supporters compared the two cases to Quintin McDermott while
Kathleen was still fighting for freedom and stated, "What struck me was that we haven't
learned a thing." In August 2025, Kathleen told reporters for the ABC that if she's awarded
further compensation in the future, she would like to help people with cases similar to hers and bring genetic
testing to the forefront of evidence. She would also like to support other women who have lost their children.
With all the time that has passed since the deaths of Caleb, Patrick, Sarah, and
Laura, Kathleen said she no longer balks at talking about them, stating, "They deserve the respect of being
spoken about."

[Part 2 of 2] As police looked into the deaths of Caleb, Patrick, Sarah and Laura Folbigg, they were introduced to Meadows Law – the theory that one infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious, but three is murder. With suspicion mounting against Kathleen Folbigg, years of investigation eventually led to a legal outcome that no one could have ever seen coming.

CREDITS Narration – Anonymous Host Research & writing – Elsha McGill Production & music – Mike Migas Audio editing – Anthony Telfer

SOCIAL LINKS

Website https://www.casefilepodcast.com Facebook https://www.facebook.com/casefile Twitter https://twitter.com/case_file Instagram https://www.instagram.com/casefilepodcast Patreon https://www.patreon.com/casefile Casefile Presents https://casefilepresents.com

RESOURCES

Brief Summary

Kathleen Folbigg was wrongfully convicted of murdering her children; new genetic evidence led to her pardon after 20 years in prison.

Key points

Expert Opinions. Experts agree that the deaths of the Folbigg children are likely homicides, not SIDS.
Detective Ryan's Determination. Detective Ryan is convinced of Kathleen's guilt and pushes for charges despite initial setbacks.
Public Outcry. Kathleen's arrest sends shockwaves through the community, especially for her new boyfriend.
The Judge's Warning. The judge cautions the jury to remain objective amidst the emotional case.
Kathleen's Conviction. Kathleen Folbigg is found guilty of murdering her four children, shocking the courtroom.
Kathleen's Sentencing. Kathleen Folbigg is sentenced to 40 years in prison for the murders of her children.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

"I believe that it is probable that this was the case.".

Professor Berry's conclusion about the children's deaths.

9:28WatchApr 11, 2026

Tension

85/ 100High tension

More from Casefile

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.