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!