No she is not.
Perhaps mr Mathews might like to read the trial transcripts and diary entries made by Kathleen. This might allow him to make better more informed comments rather than these somewhat ill informed comments as in this article.

I am aware of the ramifications of the Folbigg case. The conviction was based legally on circumstantial evidence. There was never any factual evidence ie confessional, dna, fingerprint evidence, eyewitness of actual murder, forensic evidence that conclusively proved Kathleen Folbigg murdered her children. She was not caught red-handed in the act of murder. The evidence that was offered by The Crown was all circumstantial evidence (which includes the diary entries.) It is similar evidence that convicted Lindy Chamberlain, Angela Cannings and a lot of other women. The Australian legal system is based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No matter how you want to twist the evidence to suit the propostion of guiilt there is a reasonable doubt. That doubt is magnified when you study the ramifications of SIDS and juxtapose it with the British cases. I do not know whether Kathlenn Folbigg murdered her children or not simply because I was not there at the time of her children's death - and apparently there wasn't any other material witness either or otherwise the Crown would have called them to give evidence. There is legal reasonable doubt when the Folbigg case is compared to the three British cases I outlined. That is the point I am making. Those three cases have set legal precedent of which Kathleen Folbigg is entitled to use as a basis for appeal against her conviction. cheers bernie matthews

if you suffer a mental depression are you a murderer look at the woman with the handicap child and was let off i dont think she did and i dont think she didnt i dont like the way the auther has pushed breast feeding or the fact that only she could hear the first or any other kid cry its the mums instinct to sleep light be a mum and see what it is like wether you handle it or not there is help if you want it the key words there are if you want it... i dont like eye for eye situations and murderers should be dealt with but who knows the other side there is two sides to every story and benifit of the doupt should always be given she looks guilty so lock her up lindy chamberlin looked guilty and wasnt kathleen obviously want well where is dad or so called hubby u cant be ignorant to some one that long i think he is just as guilty to have not helped her or told some one what was going on it was a bit late to come forward. if you ask me he new more than he wants to let on and to scared to come forward they are both weak cowards kids dont ask to be born and it takes two parents that are together to look after them where the hell was he it just doesnt sit right to me

THE POLICE DONT CARE ABOUT JUSTICE AS LONG AS THEY GET A CONVICTION. EVEN IF THE PERSON CHARGED IS TOTALLY INNOCENT!

Kathleen Folbigg is innocent. I refer to the Lindy Chamberlin and Jonathan Manly cases Read His book "ENEMIES WITHOUT CAUSE". It's on the library shelves. Also the cases in England of Cannings and Clarke. They were convicted charged and found guilty of murdering their children. Now it has since been discovered that the opinion of the so called pinhead academic was misleading and their cases have now been overturned both have been released from prison. SO SHOULD KATHLEEN FOLBIGG BE RELEASED FROM PRISON NOW!

You stupid stupid people Don't you know how to read, This woman duped everyone around her and all with the unwitting help of the authorities who were all to quick to assist her in her cover up by calling each childs death SIDS. The term SIDS ends all questioning, ends all doubt that may be directed at the parent/carer.SIDS is not an actual disease.

As to the husband, poor bastard, he was duckshoved from person to person in his quest to find answers to the loss of his children, maybe they died from this or maybe it was that fancy being told that over and over again and to make matters worse not once did any one in authority offer him any reason for him to then doubt his wife or suspect her involvement in the childrens deaths. No, this poor bastard was confronted with this possibility by finding her diary.It must have been the biggest kick in the guts any one could have gotten. Imagine, reading that your wife, these childrens mother actually hated them, couldn't stand the sight nor sound of them, only wanted them to shut up,and one day they did.(sic)

One day Sarah left....with a bit of help(sic). What else could that have meant, she didn't move out, she didn't go to live with any one else, she wasn't taken away by anyone alive, NO, she died, died whilst being cared for by her mother, while her father slept at the other end of the house, poor bastard. Do us all a favour, become more informed before you comment or make accusations or opinions.

Here's an opinion, 30 years behind bars for Kathleen with a chance after that of rejoining society. Calab, Patrick, Sarah, Laura, no life at all, still doesn't seem even.
Mathew 7_6

hey mathew like you we are entitled to an opinion and no one deseves to be called stupid not even kathleen yes she is not a good person and i still think it would be good to hear her side of the story being a single mum myself and i dont have a mental problem but raising kids isnt an aesy job and they can stress you out its sad that some mums dont cope there is help their and she should have gone and got it i think as the husband and father he should have seen that she was repressing her feelings and should have told someone so they could all help her no its not fair he doesnt know how or why the babies died till he read the diary but come on he lived with her he had to see somthing wasnt rite with her after a couple of kids died the poor little babies they dont ask to be born and it is both parents responabilty to they are safe regardless take your blinkers off plz and try both side i dont like wot she did and there is no punishment good enough for her but i dont his ignorance to it all either he is dad for christ sake

The main point that has been stated in this article is that two sets of 'experts' argue over whether these children died of SIDS or not. It has to be remembered that Kathleen did not give the judgment on what caused her children's deaths but rather the medical community did. What has been neglected in this trial are other possibilities to the children's deaths than what have been presented. There are thousands of rare genetic diseases other than SIDS that do and can cause certain and often sudden concurring ailments in growing children. The medical fraternity has to also always be on guard; because a certain situation does not have a name does not mean that it does not exist. (surely the first thing on everyone's mind would have been what is the medical explaination here?)

Rather than exhausting a medical solution (which was never provided in the Folbigg case) a small time country cop (bernie ryan) comes up with his own hypothesis and sets out to prove it. Using very circumstantial evidence.
As he stated on abc,s Australian Story, "DET. INSP. BERNIE RYAN: The more people who are negative to me, the more cranky I'll get and the more determined I'll get. If what I believe in is right... I'll not give up."

Anyone who has suspected anyone else of doing anything wrong will know that once you get an idea in your head you can find evidence to prove your case. This is called circumstantial because it does not connect to any connective evidence.

The diary evidence is a good example. Anyone that has suffered grief knows that in order to cope with it, we go through a process. Part of that process is self blame. It is a normal human attribute and it is widely documented.

Now, if you are searching for someone to blame as Bernie Ryan was, how would your perception see these normal human attributes?

The small snippets of diary evidence taken from 3 years of diary writing do not suggest anything other than normal human feelings written down as a matter of expression, normal to diary writing.

There are no details of a crime, there are just expressions of guilt, desire to understand and honest expression of feelings.

The angle of a view determines this evidence as worthy not the truth behind it.

"a small time country cop (bernie ryan) comes up with his own hypothesis and sets out to prove it. Using very circumstantial evidence."

Very circumstantial evidence
#1; All 4 children's bodies were discovered by their mother.
#2; All four had only just died when 'discovered' as all were still
warm and resuscitation attempted.
#3; National and international experts having spent decades studying
infant deaths state that the odds of 4 seemingly
healthy siblings dying with no natural cause of death
determined is one in a trillion.
#4; Autopsies on all four children failed to identify a
cause of death.
#5; Expert pathologists testified that the smothering of an infant
is virtually undetectable in an autopsy.
#6; Her own diary references indicate that she was unable to cope,
lost her temper, and made many references alluding to it
being her fault that the children died.

All circumstantial, of course, and I can't be bothered going into all the other "circumstantial" evidence...her husband going to the police with his own doubts, Kathleen's seemingly rapid recovery from the grief etc. So, 4 children are dead, no apparent cause of death and all of the above being CIRCUMSTANTIAL, it doesn't warrant investigation???? Thank god for "a small time country cop (bernie ryan) comes up with his own hypothesis and sets out to prove it. Using very circumstantial evidence."

Very circumstantial evidence

#1; All 4 children's bodies were discovered by their mother.
Circumstantial
Craig Folbigg rarely spent time with his children.

#2; All four had only just died when 'discovered' as all were still
warm and resuscitation attempted.
Circumstantial.
Most mothers would be around their children.

#3; National and international experts having spent decades studying
infant deaths state that the odds of 4 seemingly
healthy siblings dying with no natural cause of death
determined is one in a trillion.

This is less than circumstantial.
The international "expert" at the centre of this claim is Sir Roy Meadow. His theory of the "one in a trillion" was used in the Folbigg case and it was directly related to sids. He was medical advisor for many high profile cases in the UK recently:

"Disturbing similarities between the case of Kathleen Folbigg and that of Sally Clark (nb. Other Meadows cases Trupti Patel, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony, Margaret Smith, Julie Ferris, Maxine Robinson) using "Meadows law" one cot death is tragic, two suspicious, three murder." The Attorney-General in England is reviewing more than 250 cases where a parent may have been wrongly convicted. In other words, Professor Meadows evidence has been totally discredited. There is a furore in England, but no mention in Australian press?" -indi media

The British government did an enquiry in 'Meadows Law' and found it to be not usable in law because it is in fact false and misleading. Many women who were charged with killing their children have been released after this enquiry.

We know that in genetics certain diseases or conditions can arrise, One only has to do a search on such diseases to realise as well as SIDS there are many other disease that cause genetic situations that do create symptoms like those found in the Folbigg children. Hard to find in news reports when we look at the children's medical records we see they suffer from illnesses known to a few very rare genetic diseases. They almost always died after feeding also showing that there maybe a relationship between food tolerance and genetic symptoms.

#4; Autopsies on all four children failed to identify a
cause of death.

Circumstantial: This says nothing except the doctors do not know the cause.

#5; Expert pathologists testified that the smothering of an infant
is virtually undetectable in an autopsy.
circumstantial
If you look at the autopsy reports there is a lot that the coroner expresses.
The children's reports didn't just show a natural dead child. There were all kinds of weird things wrong. A lot of the conditions are known symptoms of certain genetic diseases.
What i think the expert pathologists stated in the trial is that they could not determine how the children died but they could not rule out suffocation. Certainly, scarring on the lungs is an indicator of suffocation and I think there were indications of that in the autopsy (From memory I think they actually did only one autopsy) However, breathing difficulties in food related genetic diseases is very common. I think it was Calib who spent two days in the hospital before he died and most of the children had fits of illness.

So when you look at all this evidence it is still very circumstantial. There is a very flimsy motivational cause presented and the case can be argued either way. There is no solid evidence in this case.

#6; Her own diary references indicate that she was unable to cope,
lost her temper, and made many references alluding to it
being her fault that the children died.

I write similar things in my diary. Perhaps the NSW police should arrest me? We all have times where we find it hard to cope. We all lose our temper and when someone close to us dies we all feel guilt.

All circumstantial, of course, and I can't be bothered going into all the other "circumstantial" evidence...her husband going to the police with his own doubts, Kathleen's seemingly rapid recovery from the grief etc. So, 4 children are dead, no apparent cause of death and all of the above being CIRCUMSTANTIAL, it doesn't warrant investigation???? Thank god for "a small time country cop (bernie ryan) comes up with his own hypothesis and sets out to prove it. Using very circumstantial evidence."

I agree it warrents investigation and indeed not enough investigation was done. He didn't investigate as a police officer should do. He had made up in his own mind what had happened (and he is not an expert) and he went off and sought the information to prove he was right.

Kathleen Folbigg could be a very bad serial killer or she could be a grieving mother condemned. On the basis of the evidence presented one would have to be very cold to condemn her so easily. It was not to long ago that ‘expert’ witnesses gave evidence at Lindy Chaimberlain’s trial. Any one with an understanding of the law knows that the prosecution does get over zealous and they do present ‘experts’ who have little relation to the case. This is common practice. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. I suppose time will tell it's own story...

My point is; There seems to be an awful lot of 'circumstantial' evidence and as such, warrants investigation. Bernie Ryan neither tried, or convicted Kathleen. The DPP tried her, a twelve member jury convicted her. Ryan was merely the messenger. The international expert in the "one in a trillion" claim was, in fact, Dr. Janice Ophoven, her opinion is backed by pathologist Dr Linda Norton. In a similar case in America, Waynetta Hoyt lost 4 babies, all were put down to SIDS. When it was established that SIDS is not genetic, Hoyt was questioned and confessed to murdering her children. Of course, Hoyt is NOT Kathleen Folbigg, but then Kathleen Folbigg is NOT Lindy Chamberlain.

"Most mothers would be around their children." I disagree. My niece lost a baby to SIDS. It occured in the middle of the night, my niece was asleep, and woke to find her baby had died several hours earlier. He was cold. None of the Folbigg children ceased breathing or died whilst being attached to the monitor.

I agree 100% that an investigation should have taken place and it was the duty of the police officer to do so. I remember from the "family story" piece that when Bernie Ryan went to the dpp about the case they advised him that there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So he started the proceedings without the consent of the dpp?

The "one in one trillion" scenario presented by the experts was in fact associated with SIDS based assumption that assumed that SIDS is not hereditary. A mathematical assumption. It does not relate to actual statistics because if you look at the incidences of these types of cases they are much, much more prevalent. In fact scientists proved last year (after she was convicted) that there is at least one form of SIDS that is hereditary (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=3415)

One problem I have with this evidence is that it automatically assumes that the children died of SIDS. Kathleen Folbigg never diagnosed her children with SIDS. Medical examiners did.

There are many genetic diseases that are wrongly diagnosed as SIDS because they are extremely rare genetic disorders that are not investigated much in Australia let alone in a small country town. The first thing that the doctor with suspicions or any one else involved should have done was extensive genetic testing on the children and on the parents. They should have done this not to prove or disprove her guilt but rather because it is their responsibility to do so. Only by systematic study of genetic disease can cures be found. Presuming innocence in this scenario we cannot blame Kathleen because she did not do the diagnosis. Her doctor failed in diagnosis. The children were found on their back, this is not consistent with SIDS. There were indicators that this was not a standard SIDS case.

There are many families in the world that have suffered the loss of more than one child, three four and more. The one in one trillion scenario would not make sense. All these people would be regarded as guilty under such an assumption. Research done in the Uk on the coni program suggests that there is a lower likely hood:

"There were two families who lost two CONI infants in addition to the index case. In one, there were three homicides. In the other, twins died 6 weeks apart. The death of the first twin was classified as SIDS after investigations; the respiration monitor of the second twin failed to ring and the coroner recorded an open verdict. Another CONI death (enquiries declined) occurred in a family of several children in which there had previously been two sudden unexpected deaths in infancy; all three deaths were registered in categories usually classified as SIDS. From registration data of the 5229 families, we identified a further six families who had lost three infants before participating in the CONI scheme. Of these, one family was reported to have had three cases of SIDS and the other five at least one explained death. All six families had a CONI infant that survived. In addition, in the period after January, 2000, another family that was lost to the study has had a second death on the CONI programme; after extensive investigation all three deaths remained unexplained. Thus, in these ten families there was one triple homicide and four families who all apparently had three cases of SIDS."

see the full medical journal report here: http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa

(must register to read the journal article)

see Washington Post for brief review: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37567-2004Dec30.html

So we see that in fact there are a lot more serial killers out there walking free or that some members of the medical establishment have got the "one in one trillion" scenario horribly wrong.

However, the main point I would like to present at this stage is why weren’t autopsy's done on the first three children? and why didn't the autopsy on the last child include genetic determinations. One reason could be because Australia does not have the research capabilities to do so.

One case in the US recently involved finding a child who, after having been found dead had blood in her eyes and brain hemorrhage, The mother was charged with manslaughter. She had obviously shaken her baby to death was the conclusion. It is a sensible conclusion.
After genetic testing it was found that the child did have a rare regressive genetic disorder that did produce those symptoms and the mother released from prison. The lesson learnt here is don't automatically assume. The loss of a child could perhaps be described as the greatest pain one could experience emotionally (as no doubt you can testify). To automatically assume that one is guilty of killing their child under such situations could only therefore, if found to be unjust, be one of the most barbaric acts one could impact on another human being. I'd rather give at least a benefit of a doubt (which the law is supposed to give anyway. Should not, under such circumstances extensive tests be done before even starting to consider the worst?

I don't know if Bernie Ryan did his research into other possible causes but certainly no evidence provided in court suggests he did. One thing for sure. If Dr. Janice Ophoven was on the case she would have demanded metabolic test before providing support for the defense.
I'm sure she would have made interesting conclusions on the autopsy reports as well as previous medical history. (why wasn't a medical history report done on Folbigg's heredity family?)

My second point would be even if no genetic metabolic disorder was found does that conclusively mean murder? Rare diseases are only found through investigation. Each year scientists find new genetic disorders. Every pathologist would have to conclude that there are genetic disorders that have yet to be found but yet still exist.

Kathleen Folbigg maintains her innocence even after investigation, trial and also perhaps offers by the dpp for lenient sentence as is norm. Hoyt pleaded guilty almost immediately after investigation. That is evidence and that is strong. The conclusions drawn between Lindy Chamberlain is that both were charged by small town police forces and both cases lacked substantial evidence. Both were drawn into public hysteria based on week premises that were encouraged by the police and prosecution. "her mother was killed by her father"....
Both proclaimed their innocence. The difference between the numbers of children involved though is evident.

I don't know if she is guilty or not, only she knows that for sure. However, I do believe she deserves a fair go just like any other Australian. Execution by media is just not good enough. It just comes across as a modern day witch hunt. Proper and systematic investigation needs to be given in such cases and no stone left unturned.

i think either way whether she is guilty or not there is no worse punishment than losing a child ,so even if she is innocent im sure she would feel to much pain to care where she is spending it!

Kathleen Folbigg is innocent!
Guess what - TRIAL BY MEDIA! - just like Lindy Chamberlain. Maybe people should think before making some comments - ever actually read the diaries? Read of something taken out of context? How bout this... her diary actually said "Sarah has left us, with a little help, it wont happen again". Leave out 1 short line & it changes the whole thing eh? To those who think they know - there were autopsies on Patrick, Sarah & Laura - showing - SURPRISE SURPRISE - an elongated epiglottis.

Guess what else people? If you dont have the money for a proper defence - watch out - you could be just like Kathy - Legal Aid doesnt give a damn about you.

All you people who've posted comments - how many of you who are judging kathy as guilty have met her - keep your comments to yourself unless you know what your talking about!

Megan, aka Megz, you poor misguided soul. Do not for one minute allow Kathleen to use you as a pawn as she does everyone she can con.
You have never personally read the infamous diaries so please spare us with trying to qoute them.As for trial by media as per lindy chamberlain, this is just another over zealous way to cast the blame from herself to others for her situation.The media were quite bland in their reporting of this womans foul deads.Oh By the way, having been one of the few allowed to actually study the diaries of Kathleen at lenght, i can say beyond reproach that the entry you refer to actually reads as follows:- Sarah left, with a bit of help(.full stop)(this part was underlined)(new sentence) This must never happen again.(sic) If you would like to know the context of this entry it was where she was refering to her fears of her new child suffering the fate of it's siblings. So Megz, it is you who should get your story straight. Didn't your Magazine article stir up enough sympathy for you or Kathleen?
Mathew7_6

Well mathew, have u ever actually met kathy, or craig, or caleb, patrick, sarah or laura? i want to know where you think i was trying to stir up sympathy for myself by going public in an article for kathy? i was trying to show a total miscarriage of justice - have u ever heard of "beyond REASONABLE doubt?" - there is reasonable doubt in kathy's case. have u ever had a conversation with craig over the years when he explained the medical problems behind the deaths - HE explained, not kathy...
if you've read the magazine article in woman's day, surely you read that sarah had already had an episode where she stopped breathing some weeks b4 she died - where's your excuse for this when it happened while a friend was babysitting - how did kathy do that - by remote control?
wake up 2 yourself & realise that there's a hell of alot that's not known by you & other people... im not blaming any1 else - this was an extreme tragedy...
yes, as i said in the article, i feel guilty that i couldnt be on the stand for kathy - i KNOW that she would not be in gaol if i'd been able to get my say, but Legal Aid refused a video link up because of the cost.
i watched kathy - and craig - with those kidz over the years. i dont know what craig's agenda in this situation is, as he is as aware of kathy's innocence as i am (or was 8 months after Laura died when he visited my house with kathy - many months after he handed in the diaries). did he mention that on the stand - of course not - there's many other things he didnt mention either, but i'l save those for some1 worthy of hearing them.... & that's not you

i am not misguided in my opinion - u r in yours

Megz, you really are a silly little foot soldier aren't you.
Have not changed a bit from your teanage years, oh how your Father must feel knowing you came from his loins.Sorry i digressed for a moment. How about doing us all a favour and read the transcripts of all of Kathleens appeals and court appearances, i am sure you will find them to be quite informative, unlike Kathleens memories of everything that has transpired, never forget that she could not even remember her childrens birth dates let alone their faces these transcripts are readable over the net. just visit www.austlii.edu.au and search her name and they will pop up.Please post another post ASAP
or do we need to wait till you chat things over with Kathleen.

This comment is directed to Matthew6_7. I do not want to make a comment on whether Kathy is guilty or not, but if I were, it would be MY opinion, which can not be wrong, as it is an opinion. You too are also entitled to your own opinion, as is your right, But NOTHING gives you the right to make derogitory comments about anyone elses opinion. Calling someone stupid, or a silly little foot soldier is NOT your place. Kindly keep these kind of statements to yourself.

There are only 2 people who know if Kathy is guilty or not, and that is GOD and Kathy herself, and no matter what the courts say in regard to this case, Kathy will face her true retribution or redemption when she faces St. Peter and not before.

Besides all of this, calling names is a little childish don't you think.

Sorry if you dont understand sarcasm perfectnobody.Did your mate megz ask you to jump in cause it was getting to uncomfortable for her.Oh and by the way, your opinion is rightly your opinion as where those of the twelve jury members who after having heard ALL THE FACTS in the case where of the unanimous opinion that she was guilty. Same goes for the three appeallant judges of the supreme court and the three judges of the high court all opinions based on FACTS. GUILTY.
Also GOD will judge her at the end of her mortal days, but she will never meet him as she will go straight to HELL for her foul deads.

You know Mathew, human nature is an amazing thing, don't you think. I find it so typical that when people have no true comment to make they always seem to fall back on sarcasm as an excuse. Trust me sunshine, as an educated person with an IQ (at a guess) considerably higher than yours, I can recognise sarcasm, and you weren't (in my opinion) using it.

This is the last posting that I am going to make because I really do have better things to do with my time, than argue with you. I personally would prefer to argue in person. Megz thinks you might be a journalist, but I don't agree ( your grammer lets you down).

Kathy will face her day of true judgement when the time comes.

Have a nice day.

P.S. My very sarcastic daughter says .... put a mirror at the end of your bed and .... wake up to yourself

well, mathew7-6, put in your place there a bit, eh - no witty reply?.... but i digress...

i would have thought that a journalist would have to research his stories - esp when writing a book... therefore, as you never spoke to kathy, myself, or any of her many friends that stand by her you have not fully researched your topic, but of course, fully researched doesnt lead to as good a story does it? In fact why ruin a good "story" with the truth!

*in response to your post of 24/12/04 - such a kick in the guts finding those diaries, that even though he & kathy were separated at the time he handed them in, they still reconciled for quite some time after his discovery of the diaries - visiting my house on christmas morning of 1999, craig was full of plans for the future for them - does this sound like the actions of a man devastated by what he felt his wife had done to his children?

*as for the diaries themselves, reading the exerpts in the trial transcripts came across to me as a mother in a bind of depression that was ignored by her other half (gee, i noticed the ignoring of kathy by craig myself over the 10 years that i spent with them) her only escape a FEW HOURS A WEEK at the gym in an attempt to help stop her "loving" husband's roving eyes & other body parts.(Funnily, these few hours a week were blown all out of proportion, as though she spent more time at the gym than the people who worked there). I think kathy's only wrong was writing down the thoughts that alot of mother's have, she also had the guilt of "could she have done something else to stop this tragedy?", not a guilt of actually committing a crime

Megan, How's this for investigating. You lived at Mayfield when you where first married you then moved to Wallsend. You grew up in Kotara.Your father was a maths teacher who taught Craig Folbigg at one time.You walked out on your first Husband.You dumped your eldest son on his door step very recently.I will not discuss Kathleen any further as you seem to be unable to access the trial transcripts or rather won't, until you do please refrain from comment

Well, that just proves that your research abilities are real great - as only 2 of 5 points you listed are correct. If that is the way you researched your book on Kathy, it proves to me that most of your book could be, and probably is, wrong. Trial transcripts mean nothing, as the jury weren't given the opportunity to hear all sides of the story.
Apart from that, your reply has NOTHING to do with Kathy - which is what this forum is for - not for your childish prattling.
Since you know so much about me, maybe you should ring me so I can fill you in on all the facts - face to face

still waiting on that phone call matthew.... by the way - iv read the transcripts & the exerpts of the diaries, & anything else iv been able to lay my hands on.... & im still of the same opinion... which, bcoz its not the same as yours, u obviously consider it 2 b wrong.... if u met with me & other friends of kathy's maybe u would see past the lies & exaggerations u have been told

Hi guys i know this is a little late for the last lot of comments but i am doing an assignment on female killers. Kathryn Knight and Kathleen Folbigg, and from what i have read on kathleen i think she may have been guilty of killing those beautiful babies.

It seems that 'matt' was copping a bit on this topic but i tend to agree with all his comments. I think that people have been blinded with the fact that she is a woman and people are viewing this as "no mother could kill four beautiful babies" when women kill all the time. Kathleen had as per the book "when a bough breaks" a short temper and the babies simply impinged upon her time and moods. the mere fact that after the deaths of two she inisted on keeping on having children just shows you that she obviously did not grieve for this loss.

Believe me, what you may read in that book is TOTALLY one sided... her temper is & was no worse than any other frazzled mother, & as for her kidz impinging on her time (i assume this relates to her gym visits & going out) who begrudges a mother a break - and really, how long does it take to do a workout.... if she spent 5 hours a WEEK at the gym - is that so bad? & its not like she went out dancing on her own - her "loving" husband was at her side
please think b4 making such a comment as knowing that she obviously didnt grieve 4 her kidz.... i was there... i saw her grief.... and.... y arent u judging craig as harshly - kathy hardly got pregnant on her own & was not the one in that relationship pushing for more children

Believe me, what you may <snip> her own & was not the one in that relationship pushing for more children
Posted by Megz, Monday, 18 September 2006 9:32:35 AM

Hi Megz,

I worked with Craig and Danny, who you would know, no doubt if you knew the Follbigs, I do not understand the comments quoted above about Craig, he was never on trial for any of the childrens deaths, I attended Sarahs funeral, I saw Craigs greif, and some from Kath also, having lost my first daughter to SIDS, and seeing my ex wifes emotion and comparing that to Kath may or may not be a good example, so I wont, but at some stage or other, seeing as how all the appeals processes that saw Lindy C get a new trial have been exhausted, that there is, no matter how much you or Kath want to protest her innocence, the greater probability that Kath killed those kids than didnt, Kath would have had ample oportunity to explain diary entries, at the time of trial, no doubt, and some of them are far more revealing than you want to let on, sickening when you compare them to the poem written by my ex, when our baby died.

Kath had ample oportunity to seek help, she even said as much in saying in her diary that she would wake Craig, when she was pregnant with Laura, if she felt that way again....
more to come.......

It is very honourable that you are standing by Kath, I must say, but I still dont see the relevance to the fact that it takes two to make a baby, are you trying to blame Craig in some way? You have also alluded to Craig having "wandering eyes"(and other body parts) yet Craig also struck me as a good father and husband, this is called distraction, taking away from the facts, Craigs faithfulness to Kath was never mentioned at trial, so why bring it up here unsubstantiated.

You also claim the book to be one sided, no more one sided than your veiws are, and in the end, none of the evidence was "thrown out of court", Kath was still found guilty.

Im sure Kath is grateful for a friend like yourself, but there are trees behind that forest your veiwing

Regards

I am a survivor of post-natal depression and can understand the frustration of a crying baby and the feelings of hopelessness, despair amongst other things. But i have just finished reading the book " When the bough breaks " and my heart was in my mouth on most diary entries that this monster that she falsely believed to herself was a mother?? A mother protects her babies not extinguishes them of their lives. I believe this woman ( as i cannot even begin to write her godforsaken name ) will never admit to her guilt because she has blocked it all out. Come on people,four dead babies in one family? If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck well it has to be a duck. I feel for the father Craig and wish him well, to hopefully have a family and need not worry that they will be killed off because of their intrusion on the so-called mother's (scoff)!! life. This monster of a woman will face another hearing beyond this world, and be assured, they will not be so lenient. Also why not put her in with the normal population of prisoners and see if she can defend herself as innocently as her children did?
I would like to say that anyone who has an opinion on this woman's innocencethat they should read the above mentioned book first and then if they still think she is innocent, check in with an optometrist.

Just one question to all the people who have commented on this subject!
Which one of you is God!
I have read alot on this case I dont know if she did or if she didnt so how the hell can you know!
I know you must be GOD or kathleen!
Australia has a little thing called reasonable doubt with no physical evidence there is reasonable doubt
My own mother lost a child to a disease I am glad you lot never read her diaries or else myself and my brother would never have been born!
as my poor tormented mother would be doing a life sentence
If her husband suspected that she had harmed her infants why the hell did he help her have more!

Just one question to all the people who have commented on this subject!
Which one of you is God!
-
No one is playing god, just people commenting on a contraversial case, the fact some of knew those involved, only adds to the conjecture
-
I have read alot on this case I dont know if she did or if she didnt so how the hell can you know!
I know you must be GOD or kathleen!
Australia has a little thing called reasonable doubt with no physical evidence there is reasonable doubt
-
the fact some here try to turn this into a kick Craig Folbigg, rather than concentrating on the facts of the case, doesnt make sense
-
My own mother lost a child to a disease I am glad you lot never read her diaries or else myself and my brother would never have been born!
-
self blame works a lot differently to "with a little help", there is always an "if" factor, if I did this, if I did that, suggest you read the diary transcripts, and compare to your mums......

55 These are some of the entries-

18 June 1996 ...I’m ready this time. And I know Ill have help & support this time. When I think Im going to loose control like last times Ill just hand baby over to someone else. Not feel so totally alone, getting back into my exercise after will help my state of mind & sleeping wherever possible as well. I have learnt my lesson this time.

22 June 1996 ...I watched a movie today about schizophenia, wonder if I have a mild curse of that. I change moods really quickly. In my most dangerous mood I’m not nice to be around & always want to be anywhere, but where I am.

24 June 1996 ...Haven’t lost that maternal instinct. Emma seemed at peace with my presence. Maybe I shouldn’t be as worried as I was feeling. I had a thought that my own baby wouldn’t bond with me. Craig will have to do all the work?(x3) Still. Craig’s reaction was a typical hand it to the woman – she knows what to do, truley hope that changes with (indecipherable) Ill need all the support I can get if possible.

16 July 1996 Sometimes I feel life is a film scene, just practiced and rehearsed, each actor, perfect & surreal, times I don’t fit in the play, have never fit, but keep attempting to anyway for fear of being isolated & alone. Times – I feel alone anyway no matter who Im with.

Hi everybody
3 months ago I gave birth to my son. Since my friend lost her baby last year due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), I was aware and alert of this issue
I found out the product named NANI appeared in the mediquipped .com website this product, Received full certification from the European Economic Community's Medical Devices Directive. This product is very simple to use and mostly efficient This device is very convenient and it provides me and my husband with complete confidence. I recommend this product to any new and old mother giving birth.
http://dsguide.stores.yahoo.net/babymonitors-nanny.html
Be safe guys!!

sarah142@walla.com

Hi, I read your post 2 weeks ago and I bought one those Nani Monitors for my baby and it really gives confidence. Thank you.