In a groundbreaking development, Kathleen Folbigg, a woman previously labeled “Australia’s worst female serial killer,” has been pardoned after fresh evidence emerged suggesting her innocence in the deaths of her four infant children. Ms. Folbigg spent two decades behind bars, convicted of killing her sons Caleb and Patrick, as well as her daughters Sarah and Laura, over a span of ten years. However, a recent inquiry presented scientific findings indicating that the children may have died of natural causes.
Described as one of Australia’s most significant miscarriages of justice, Ms. Folbigg has steadfastly maintained her innocence throughout the years. In 2003, she received a 25-year prison sentence for the murders of three of her children and the manslaughter of her first son, Caleb. The deaths occurred between 1989 and 1999, with prosecutors alleging that she had smothered the infants.
Previous appeals and a 2019 inquiry failed to provide grounds for reasonable doubt, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence from Ms. Folbigg’s original trial. However, the recent inquiry, led by retired judge Tom Bathurst, prompted prosecutors to accept the possibility of reasonable doubt due to new research on gene mutations associated with the children’s deaths.
On Monday, New South Wales Attorney General Michael Daley announced that Judge Bathurst had firmly concluded that there was reasonable doubt regarding Ms. Folbigg’s guilt in each offense. As a result, the NSW governor granted her a full pardon and ordered her immediate release from prison. While the unconditional pardon does not invalidate her convictions, the decision to quash them will be left to the Court of Criminal Appeal if Judge Bathurst chooses to refer the case—a process that could take up to a year.
If her convictions are ultimately overturned, Ms. Folbigg may seek compensation from the government, potentially receiving a settlement similar to that granted to Lindy Chamberlain, who was awarded $1.3 million in 1992 for her wrongful conviction over her daughter’s death. Advocates argue that Ms. Folbigg’s case surpasses that of Ms. Chamberlain, given the length of her imprisonment and the scientific evidence supporting her innocence.
The case has shed light on the need for a legal system that is more sensitive to scientific advancements. Ms. Folbigg’s 2003 trial relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, particularly her diaries, which expressed her struggles with motherhood. However, no physical evidence of smothering or injuries to the children was presented during the trial. At the recent inquiry, experts highlighted the implausibility of four children from the same family dying of natural causes before the age of two.
Notably, immunologists discovered that Ms. Folbigg’s daughters, Sarah and Laura, shared a genetic mutation linked to sudden cardiac death. Furthermore, her sons Caleb and Patrick possessed a different genetic mutation associated with sudden-onset epilepsy in mice. Professor Carola Vinuesa, who led the research team from the Australian National University, described the decision to pardon Ms. Folbigg as a “beautiful moment” that could offer hope to other women facing similar circumstances.
The case of Kathleen Folbigg has reignited the conversation about the intersection of science and the legal system, with calls for reforms that make the law more “science sensitive.” Her lawyer, Rhanee Rego, emphasized the immense suffering inflicted upon Ms. Folbigg and the need to prevent such injustices from happening again.
With her release from prison, Ms. Folbigg can finally begin to rebuild her life, supported by friends who have been involved in her long-running campaign for freedom. The future remains uncertain as the case proceeds to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but this development represents a significant turning point in a decades-long saga of tragedy and controversy.
