GIST; "The final oral submissions to the inquiry will be held over the next three days in Sydney.
From Wednesday, presiding judicial officer Tom Bathurst KC will hear from representatives of several parties – including Folbigg – in relation to evidence presented in November 2022 and February this year.
Folbigg was convicted in a 2003 jury trial for killing her four children over a 10-year period. She is serving a 30-year sentence and will be eligible for parole in 2028.
She has persistently declared her innocence, and with all other avenues of appeal exhausted, ‘governor’s inquiries’ have been specially convened to hear her case. The first, held before Reg Blanch KC in 2019, didn’t exonerate her.
The second – currently taking place – was convened on the back of petitioning from 90 eminent scientists seeking an avenue to hear fresh genetic evidence that emerged around the time of the 2019 inquiry.
Among those who gave evidence at this latest inquiry are members of the international research group whose study suggests a mutation to one of Folbigg’s calmodulin-coding genes – known as CALM2 G114R – was passed onto her daughters Sarah (died 10 months) and Laura (19 months).
Their research suggests cardiac arrythmia – an irregular heartbeat – may result from the mutation, and explain circumstances surrounding their deaths.
Other geneticists and cardiology experts have questioned the degree of pathogenicity – or likelihood to cause disease – of the G114R variant.
What have we learnt in the second Folbigg inquiry?
As well as critiques of the research which prompted this inquiry, experts in sudden infant death syndrome such as Professor Peter Fleming have suggested post-mortem reports taken at the time of the children’s deaths do not indicate foul play.
Separately, paediatric neurologist and now federal parliamentarian Monique Ryan presented evidence related to epilepsy in Patrick (eight months), suggesting complications from the condition explain his sudden death.What happens next?
Bathurst will evaluate this evidence in deciding whether Folbigg’s convictions are still supported. If he believes there to be a reasonable doubt as to Folbigg’s guilt, he could refer the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal to consider quashing her sentence.
Those findings are likely to be presented via a final report. The Blanch inquiry took about two months to hand down its findings, but Dr Xanthé Mallett, a criminologist who has closely followed Folbigg’s case, suspects this inquiry will make its decision far quicker.
“I think it’s going to be a lot sooner [than two months],” Mallett tells Cosmos.
She suspects a quicker resolution as counsel assisting the inquiry has already indicated the “effect of the evidence” heard in November and February may cast doubt over her convictions, both in-hearing and potentially in submissions provided to Folbigg.
“There are a number of things that can happen: the convictions can be found to be ‘safe’ [but] that, I think, is unlikely given the counsel assisting has already clearly stated there are grounds to suggest there could be reasonable doubt.”
While the role of counsel assisting an inquiry is, in part, to establish facts relating to the matter at hand, the judicial officer – Bathurst – will be of his own mind when making findings.
Like others, including the Australian Academy of Science, Mallett hopes one outcome of the Folbigg inquiry will be a greater consideration of new science in judicial matters.
Academy calls for law reform in wake of Folbigg inquiries
“I’ve been slowly pushing for a criminal case review commission, which is what they’re called in other countries,” Mallett says.
“[In the UK] it’s been very successful, it’s independent of the criminal justice system, which it absolutely should be.”
The Law Council of Australia also supports such review mechanisms. In February its president Luke Murphy told Cosmos, “The Law Council’s long held position is that a new mechanism for post-conviction review at the Commonwealth level is required.”
“To that end, the Law Council has previously recommended that a Commonwealth Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is independent of the Executive Government, should be established.
“The Law Council considers that an independent, objective, statutory body, which is removed from the trial process and the court system, would be better placed to conduct the inquiry into whether and when a matter should be able to be referred back to the appeal court to balance the competing demands of finality of outcomes in the justice system and accuracy of outcomes.”
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
