A Long Awaited Enquiry !

The name Kathleen Folbigg creates mixed emotions in public minds.  Folbigg (51) was found guilty by a NSW Supreme court jury in 2003 of the murder of three of her infant children and the manslaughter of the fourth.  She was sentenced to a thirty year prison sentence with a twenty-five year possible parole release date.   The children's deaths occurred at Singleton between 1989 and 1999.  She has served fifteen years of that sentence.

The New South Wales Attorney General has announced a new enquiry into her conviction and this has delighted her support group.  Her conviction aroused a great deal of controversy because the inquest into the death of her children revealed no evidence that they were smothered, as the prosecution alleged.  In the mind of many people it was the sheer improbability of four deaths from natural causes occurring in the one family that sealed her guilt.

This new enquiry will be headed by the former chief judge of the District court, Reg Blanch and will focus on evidence relating to multiple child deaths in one family attributed to natural causes. Medical science is forever making further progress and this enquiry will examine newly discovered causes of child death which might be applicable to this case.

It seems unlikely that Kathleen Folbigg will be granted bail and the enquiry will probably take twelve months. It is quite possible that the enquiry may not make any decision or the case could be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal.  The important thing is that this unusual case of deaths from undetermined causes is to be reviewed in the light of what is known today.  Some legal minds believe that justice was not served because clear evidence of guilt was not presented to jurors.

In the last fifteen years we have learned of possible toxic contamination from products that were formerly thought to be quite safe.  The contamination from fire fighting foam comes to mind.  No doubt this enquiry will examine what changes have occurred in the Singleton district that could possibly have intruded into the wellbeing of small children living in that area.  While it is unusual for four deaths in the one family, it is not impossible.

It also raises the task of the judge in such matters.  The judge is the arbiter of what is legal in the presentation by both the prosecution and the defence and without any sort of evidence to decide guilt the jury had to make up their minds according to their evaluation of probability.   It is quite possible in similar circumstances today a judge may abort a trial on the grounds that insufficient evidence exists for it to continue.

It would be a travesty of justice if a woman spends fifteen years in prison for a crime she did not commit.  One of the planks of justice is that it is better for many guilty ones to go free than a single innocent person to suffer prison for something they did not commit.