[ad_1]
CNN
Kathleen Folbigg was released from prison in June, 2023 after serving 20 years of her sentence.
Brisbane, Australia
CNN
—
An Australian woman’s two decades in prison after being wrongly accused of killing her four children was overturned on Thursday, as her lawyers called for legal reform and “severe ” compensation.
Kathleen Folbigg was pardoned and released in June on the recommendation of retired judge Tom Bathurst, who re-examined all the evidence presented at her trial in 2003 and found “reasonable doubt” in her guilt.
But clearing his name requires an official decision by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeals, and on Thursday a group of judges agreed that all charges should be dismissed, ending a national the judgment is most imperfect.
Outside court, an emotional Folbigg thanked supporters who worked tirelessly to convince the NSW government and legal system that new scientific evidence warranted serious scrutiny of his beliefs.
“The time it took to see the outcome of this day is so many people,” said Folbigg, standing next to his lawyers and close friends. “I hoped and prayed that one day I would be able to stand here and have my name cleared.”
Folbigg was jailed in 2003 on three counts of first degree murder and first degree involuntary manslaughter after the deaths of her four children over a decade starting in 1989.
No physical evidence was presented that he killed them, but the jury believed that the possibility that all four died of natural causes was the possibility of murder. Some passages in his diary were also interpreted as admissions of guilt.
As recently as 2019, an investigation into his charges found “no reasonable doubt” that he committed the crimes. But another study began in 2022 when scientists found a previously unknown mutant gene in his two daughters that could be fatal.
The evidence provided a specific explanation for the children’s deaths, which raised “reasonable doubt” about his beliefs, and was enough to convince a judge to recommend his pardon.
Folbigg’s first child Caleb died in 1989, followed by Patrick in 1991, Sarah in 1993 and then Laura in 1999.
The first three deaths were caused by Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), a term used when babies under 1 die for no apparent reason.
At 18 months, Laura was the longest-lived of Folbigg’s children, and police began investigating after the medical examiner labeled her cause of death “undetermined.” He was tried and convicted because newspaper headlines called him “Australia’s worst serial killer.”
For many years, Folbigg also languished in prison despite the release of similar cases in the UK that also relied on “Meadow’s law,” the false term pushed by defamation of British children Roy Meadow one of the sudden deaths in a family is an accident, two are suspected and the third is murder.
On Thursday, Chief Justice Andrew Bell said the appeals court judges agreed with Bathurst’s findings that “lots and lots of new scientific evidence” outweighed the evidence heard in his judgment. They also found that his diaries, when looking at the whole story supported by new psychological and psychological information, are “not conclusive evidence of guilt.”
Outside court, Folbigg’s lawyer, Rhanee Rego, said Folbigg’s lawyers would now seek compensation, which he predicted would be “huge”.
“I’m not ready to put a number on it, but it will be more than any other big payment made before,” he said.
But more importantly, they are urging all Australian states to create an independent body for review, such as the Criminal Case Review Commission, to prevent abuse of justice in the future.
“An innocent woman who suffers can and should be recognized and become a great force to improve our laws,” said Rego.
Anna-Maria Rabia, CEO of the Australian Academy of Science, voiced the call for an independent review commission on all national authorities.
“Here in New South Wales, we have just seen the crushing of Kathleen Folbigg’s charges after 20 years in prison. “If the reform of the law does not lead to a case like this, I am not sure what will happen,” he said.
“It is time for Australia to review its legal system to ensure that science can be better understood, especially with the rapid changes in scientific research and technological advances.”