PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Meadow’s Law: "One sudden infant death (SIDS) is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is a murder until proved otherwise" is a comment by UK paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, and known as Meadow’s Law. It was an expert opinion he gave for the prosecution in criminal cases. The professor didn’t give evidence in the prosecution of Kathleen Folbigg. But the professor was wrong and his error led to the conviction of parents who had lost their children, then their reputation and their liberty. Erroneous expert: One of Meadow’s cases was that of solicitor Sally Clark, convicted in 1999 for smothering her baby sons Christopher and Harry. Clark was sentenced to six years in prison, and released after the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction in 2003. The court found Meadow’s expert evidence was "erroneous and misleading".Tom Utley wrote in the UK Daily Telegraph in 2005 that the turning point in Clark’s trial was when Meadow said "with all the authority of his knighthood and his professorial chair, that the odds against two natural cot deaths occurring in a single middle-class family were 73 million to one". The accurate figure, according to Britain’s General Medical Council, is 77 to one."
-----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Kathleen Folbigg: Could medical advances set her free?" by reporter Crime Editor Duncan McNab, published by 7News on May 8, 2019. (Duncan McNab is an award-winning investigative journalist, television producer and the author of 11 books, mainly about crime. Back in the day, he wa
GIST:
"The inquiry into the 2003 convictions of Kathleen Folbigg has resumed
in Sydney this week. One of the key issues is the medical evidence that
in part led to her conviction. It
may be the contrast between what was state of the art at the time of
the conviction, and what recent advances bring to the case. The
recent history of medical expertise has been a bit of a roller coaster,
particularly when the case involves the sudden death of little
children. Meadow’s Law: "One
sudden infant death (SIDS) is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is
a murder until proved otherwise" is a comment by UK paediatrician
Professor Sir Roy Meadow, and known as Meadow’s Law. It was an expert
opinion he gave for the prosecution in criminal cases. The professor
didn’t give evidence in the prosecution of Kathleen Folbigg. But
the professor was wrong and his error led to the conviction of parents
who had lost their children, then their reputation and their liberty. Erroneous expert:
One of Meadow’s cases was that of solicitor Sally Clark, convicted in
1999 for smothering her baby sons Christopher and Harry. Clark was
sentenced to six years in prison, and released after the Court of Appeal
quashed her conviction in 2003. The court found Meadow’s expert
evidence was "erroneous and misleading".
Tom
Utley wrote in the UK Daily Telegraph in 2005 that the turning point in
Clark’s trial was when Meadow said "with all the authority of his
knighthood and his professorial chair, that the odds against two natural
cot deaths occurring in a single middle-class family were 73 million to
one". The accurate figure, according to Britain’s General Medical Council, is 77 to one. Contradiction with law:
Sally was 42 years old when she died. The inquest found the cause of
her death was accidental "acute alcohol intoxication". Not
only was the professor proven to be statistically incorrect - there
were families who suffered multiple losses - but the notion of "murder
until proved otherwise" sharply contradicts our criminal law where an
offence has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. An investigator
might strongly and sensibly suspect murder, but they must deliver the
evidence to prove it. Case of Kathleen Folbigg: In
May 2003, Kathleen Folbigg was convicted for killing her four babies,
Caleb, Patrick, Sarah and Laura – aged from 19 days to 19 months. The
children died between 20 February 1989 and 1 March 1999, at night and in
their cots. "Unidentified natural causes" was the initial belief for
the cause of each baby’s death. Part
of the prosecution case was that "there (had) never been recorded a
family such as this where four children died of natural causes, either
from the same natural cause or from different natural causes, and there
(had) never been three or more deaths in one family recorded from SIDS".
The
trial judge found the defence argument for "natural explanations for
the deaths" were "unimpressive in the light of the whole of the
evidence". The judge noted, "the evidence
showed that natural but unexplained death was rare in the community and
that there was no demonstrated genetic link to explain multiple deaths
in a single family". Folbigg petition: Folbigg has maintained
her innocence. In 2015, she sought a review of her conviction – with all
other avenues of appeal exhausted, this is probably her last chance. In
August 2018, an inquiry was announced, noting "it appears that there is
a doubt or question as to part of the evidence in the proceedings
leading to the conviction of Kathleen Megan Folbigg... (which) concerns
evidence as to the incidence of reported deaths of three or more infants
in the same family attributed to unidentified natural causes". What the inquiry will do:
The inquiry, headed by Reg Blanch QC, a former Judge and NSW Director
of Public Prosecutions, began in March 2019. The hearing resumed on
April 29 with evidence from Kathleen Folbigg. Among
Blanch’s tasks is to hear expert evidence on the possible causes of
death, new research or medical advances, and "any new research or
literature concerning the inc little
children. Meadow’s Law: "One
sudden infant death (SIDS) is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is
a murder until proved otherwise" is a comment by UK paediatrician
Professor Sir Roy Meadow, and known as Meadow’s Law. It was an expert
opinion he gave for the prosecution in criminal cases. The professor
didn’t give evidence in the prosecution of Kathleen Folbigg. But
the professor was wrong and his error led to the conviction of parents
who had lost their children, then their reputation and their liberty. Erroneous expert:
One of Meadow’s cases was that of solicitor Sally Clark, convicted in
1999 for smothering her baby sons Christopher and Harry. Clark was
sentenced to six years in prison, and released after the Court of Appeal
quashed her conviction in 2003. The court found Meadow’s expert
evidence was "erroneous and misleading".
Tom
Utley wrote in the UK Daily Telegraph in 2005 that the turning point in
Clark’s trial was when Meadow said "with all the authority of his
knighthood and his professorial chair, that the odds against two natural
cot deaths occurring in a single middle-class family were 73 million to
one". The accurate figure, according to Britain’s General Medical Council, is 77 to one. Contradiction with law:
Sally was 42 years old when she died. The inquest found the cause of
her death was accidental "acute alcohol intoxication". Not
only was the professor proven to be statistically incorrect - there
were families who suffered multiple losses - but the notion of "murder
until proved otherwise" sharply contradicts our criminal law where an
offence has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. An investigator
might strongly and sensibly suspect murder, but they must deliver the
evidence to prove it. Case of Kathleen Folbigg: In
May 2003, Kathleen Folbigg was convicted for killing her four babies,
Caleb, Patrick, Sarah and Laura – aged from 19 days to 19 months. The
children died between 20 February 1989 and 1 March 1999, at night and in
their cots. "Unidentified natural causes" was the initial belief for
the cause of each baby’s death. Part
of the prosecution case was that "there (had) never been recorded a
family such as this where four children died of natural causes, either
from the same natural cause or from different natural causes, and there
(had) never been three or more deaths in one family recorded from SIDS".
The
trial judge found the defence argument for "natural explanations for
the deaths" were "unimpressive in the light of the whole of the
evidence". The judge noted, "the evidence
showed that natural but unexplained death was rare in the community and
that there was no demonstrated genetic link to explain multiple deaths
in a single family". Folbigg petition: Folbigg has maintained
her innocence. In 2015, she sought a review of her conviction – with all
other avenues of appeal exhausted, this is probably her last chance. In
August 2018, an inquiry was announced, noting "it appears that there is
a doubt or question as to part of the evidence in the proceedings
leading to the conviction of Kathleen Megan Folbigg... (which) concerns
evidence as to the incidence of reported deaths of three or more infants
in the same family attributed to unidentified natural causes". What the inquiry will do:
The inquiry, headed by Reg Blanch QC, a former Judge and NSW Director
of Public Prosecutions, began in March 2019. The hearing resumed on
April 29 with evidence from Kathleen Folbigg. Among
Blanch’s tasks is to hear expert evidence on the possible causes of
death, new research or medical advances, and "any new research or
literature concerning the incidence of reported deaths of three or more
infants in the same family attributed to unidentified natural causes". New science, new questions:
The
inquiry brings to mind the notorious "shaken baby" case of the
19-year-old UK born nanny Louise Woodward, convicted for the 1997 death
of her young charge, eighteen-month-old Matthew Eappen. On appeal, the
conviction for second-degree murder was reduced to manslaughter and she
was released after serving 279 days. A lead prosecution witness was
medical expert Dr Patrick Barnes. A
decade after the conviction, Barnes said: "The science we have today
could, in fact, have exonerated Louise. There is certainly, in
retrospect, reasonable doubt." Louise Woodward now lives in Britain with
her husband and young daughter. What next for Folbigg? Submissions to
the Inquiry are open until the end of May.
Should
Blanch QC believe there is reasonable doubt of Folbigg’s guilt, he can
refer his findings to the Court of Appeal to consider having the
convictions quashed.
The entire story can be read at:
The entire story can be read at:
https://7news.com.au/news/
Read the related ABC News story by reporter Quentin McDermott story "Kathleen Folbigg did not have psychiatric illness, expert finds," at the link below; "
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Read the related ABC News story by reporter Quentin McDermott story "Kathleen Folbigg did not have psychiatric illness, expert finds," at the link below; "
There is "no evidence" convicted baby-killer Kathleen Folbigg
has a psychotic illness, severe mood disorder or any other brain injury
consistent with homicidal conduct, a consultant psychiatrist has found. Key points:
Dr Michael Diamond, who describes himself as "experienced in providing psychiatric and psychological profiles of individuals who are involved in dangerous conduct", assessed Folbigg for a judicial inquiry into her convictions for killing her four children. Folbigg is serving a minimum 25-year sentence after being found guilty in 2003 of three counts of murder, one count of manslaughter and one count of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. Dr Diamond's report was made public online today. It claims a medical officer working for the NSW Department of Community Services had, early in Folbigg's life, "considered it likely" she had been sexually abused by her father.
Folbigg's father Thomas Britton murdered her mother when Kathleen was 18 months old. "My assessment of Ms Folbigg is that she has features that are consistent with those seen in abused children and are described diagnostically as features consistent with a diagnosis of Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," Dr Diamond said in the report.
Folbigg blamed supernatural powers for taking the lives of three of her children, telling the inquiry last week, there were "things going on beyond my control".
Margaret Cunneen SC, representing Folbigg's former husband Craig at the inquiry, asked her about a diary entry from April 30, 1996, in which she wrote: "I worry that my next child will suffer my psychological mood swings like the others did. I pray I'm prepared and ready mind wise for this next one." Ms Cunneen asked: "At one end of your mood swings, I would suggest to you, was such anger with your children not doing as you wanted, usually sleeping, I'd suggest to you, that you took it into your own hands and smothered them?" "No," Ms Folbigg replied. In his written report, Dr Diamond reviewed Folbigg's previous psychiatric assessments by Dr Yvonne Skinner, Dr Bruce Westmore, and Dr Michael Giuffrida, all of whom assessed her around the time of her trial in 2003. "Dr Skinner ... looked at Ms Folbigg's psychiatric history overall and quite correctly excluded major psychosis, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or any other severe brain injury or psychiatric condition that could account for Ms Folbigg being implicated in the deaths of her children on the basis of the presence of those disorders," Dr Diamond said. He criticised the report by police psychologist, Rozalinda Garbutt, prepared during the investigation in 2000 which misinterpreted her "distressing emotions" to admissions of guilt and responsibility. "Ms Garbutt's assessment appears to have occurred in the absence of comprehensive psychological assessment of Ms Folbigg," he said.
"The interpretation ... is, at best, misunderstood." Much of Folbigg's evidence to the inquiry last week related to her diaries, which were used to convict her at her 2003 trial. During questioning last week, it was put to Folbigg that she had deliberately gotten rid of her diaries or hidden them. In his report, Dr Diamond said he asked her about the diaries and records that "she made no effort to hide her diaries because she simply viewed them as part of her life and not as something dangerous or secret".
"I asked her specifically if she left her diaries out in order for her husband to find what she had written.
Dr Diamond wrote in his report that when he spoke to Ms Folbigg in prison "she questioned why she was even on the planet". "She said the feelings of the guilt of surviving appeared in her diaries.
"She said she blamed herself for everything that had happened.
"She said she expressed her search for answers by constantly self-blaming and looking for answers so that she could make things better."
Dr Diamond was asked to examine Ms Folbigg by her legal team and his report was tendered last week on the final day of the inquiry.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/kathleen-folbigg-did-not-have-psychiatric-illness-expert-finds/11065634Dr Michael Diamond, who describes himself as "experienced in providing psychiatric and psychological profiles of individuals who are involved in dangerous conduct", assessed Folbigg for a judicial inquiry into her convictions for killing her four children. Folbigg is serving a minimum 25-year sentence after being found guilty in 2003 of three counts of murder, one count of manslaughter and one count of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. Dr Diamond's report was made public online today. It claims a medical officer working for the NSW Department of Community Services had, early in Folbigg's life, "considered it likely" she had been sexually abused by her father.
Folbigg's father Thomas Britton murdered her mother when Kathleen was 18 months old. "My assessment of Ms Folbigg is that she has features that are consistent with those seen in abused children and are described diagnostically as features consistent with a diagnosis of Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder," Dr Diamond said in the report.
"It is inevitable that Ms Folbigg has been affected by the trauma of her early childhood experiences so as to reflect this in her personality.
"Her personality functioning is based on creating an external picture of wellbeing. "She has the advantage of being physically attractive and intelligent."She has probably conducted herself in relation to others in a manner that has avoided criticism, humiliation and judgment particularly in her adolescence and early adult years."
Folbigg blamed supernatural powers for taking the lives of three of her children, telling the inquiry last week, there were "things going on beyond my control".
Margaret Cunneen SC, representing Folbigg's former husband Craig at the inquiry, asked her about a diary entry from April 30, 1996, in which she wrote: "I worry that my next child will suffer my psychological mood swings like the others did. I pray I'm prepared and ready mind wise for this next one." Ms Cunneen asked: "At one end of your mood swings, I would suggest to you, was such anger with your children not doing as you wanted, usually sleeping, I'd suggest to you, that you took it into your own hands and smothered them?" "No," Ms Folbigg replied. In his written report, Dr Diamond reviewed Folbigg's previous psychiatric assessments by Dr Yvonne Skinner, Dr Bruce Westmore, and Dr Michael Giuffrida, all of whom assessed her around the time of her trial in 2003. "Dr Skinner ... looked at Ms Folbigg's psychiatric history overall and quite correctly excluded major psychosis, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or any other severe brain injury or psychiatric condition that could account for Ms Folbigg being implicated in the deaths of her children on the basis of the presence of those disorders," Dr Diamond said. He criticised the report by police psychologist, Rozalinda Garbutt, prepared during the investigation in 2000 which misinterpreted her "distressing emotions" to admissions of guilt and responsibility. "Ms Garbutt's assessment appears to have occurred in the absence of comprehensive psychological assessment of Ms Folbigg," he said.
"The interpretation ... is, at best, misunderstood." Much of Folbigg's evidence to the inquiry last week related to her diaries, which were used to convict her at her 2003 trial. During questioning last week, it was put to Folbigg that she had deliberately gotten rid of her diaries or hidden them. In his report, Dr Diamond said he asked her about the diaries and records that "she made no effort to hide her diaries because she simply viewed them as part of her life and not as something dangerous or secret".
"I asked her specifically if she left her diaries out in order for her husband to find what she had written.
"She said it was not intended for her diaries to be read by others."Writing her diaries 'was simply a way of getting things out'."
Dr Diamond wrote in his report that when he spoke to Ms Folbigg in prison "she questioned why she was even on the planet". "She said the feelings of the guilt of surviving appeared in her diaries.
"She said she blamed herself for everything that had happened.
"She said she expressed her search for answers by constantly self-blaming and looking for answers so that she could make things better."
Dr Diamond was asked to examine Ms Folbigg by her legal team and his report was tendered last week on the final day of the inquiry.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
