Who wants to be a unpaid crime blog reporter/contributer?


Not real journo’s who still have a job, maybe cadets (but not good for resume…mmm)

Maybe old school scribes who wish they could stay in the game!

How about folks like me with no relevant qualifications but gives a toss about the crimes in their communities?

The pay-off is a verdict like today GBC cowardly wife killer.

People like me? You relate to how I write?

Hey cant spell well, 2 finger typer…So am I YES…Our stuff gets checked before we post.

Sounds like you?

GOOD keep reading

This site has had massive coverage lately (I cover non famous crimes too)

I’m thinking along the lines of a Co-ordinator in each state

That co-ordinator runs that states crimes and has authors who get the stories up.

What do you think?

Sound good, bad, troublesome, confusing?

All I want is to give the best coverage of what is going on in our communities.

The community expectations has/have?  outgrown my skills honestly…

Each state, minimum deserves better coverage. The good people email me why haven’t you covered this rape, or that kidnapping, or the death of a cousin in my indigenous community.

You could help us!

About these ads

GBC Trial Day 19.5 (the weekend)


Something to get the chat going for the weekend

 

Baden-Clay murder trial: Large crowds in court evidence of a healthy legal system, top barrister says

11/07/14

Gerard Baden-Clay

The murder trial of Gerard Baden-Clay has seen a ticketing system introduced to prevent overcrowding

The high level of public interest in the Gerard Baden-Clay trial is nothing out of the ordinary, and in fact makes for a healthy legal system, a top barrister says.

The former real estate agent’s murder trial attracted crowds to the Brisbane Supreme Court, with extra courtrooms opened for people who queued day after day to gain entry, and a ticketing system introduced to prevent overcrowding.

The Department of Justice and Attorney-General says these special arrangements for large-scale trials are made to ensure openness and transparency in the justice system.

This transparency is key to keeping Australia’s legal apparatus – everyone from police to barristers and judges – held to account, says Ken Fleming, QC.

Mr Fleming was the defence barrister for former Bundaberg surgeon Jayant Patel and has worked as a United Nations prosecutor on international war crimes trials.

“Everyone should be held accountable for what they’re doing, and the open scrutiny of it is a very important thing,” he said.

“You just can’t have things going on behind closed doors, because that engenders fear of the unknown.”

Mr Fleming says the “whole delivery of justice” depends on high levels of public interest, because people can see and understand the process.

Seeing mystery unravel part of appeal, barrister says

The courts are not, however, in danger of turning into another form of entertainment – rather, they always have been.

“You only have to think about the French Revolution and the guillotining in the forecourt of the Notre Dame,” Mr Fleming said.

Although some people may attend just to see a mystery unravel, he believes many also have a genuine interest in watching the ins and outs of the legal process.

There might be some prurient interest as well, but I think that’s not the major reason people are there.

Ken Fleming, QC

“You only have to look at some of the British television programs to see how we love a good murder mystery,” he said.

“There might be some prurient interest as well, but I think that’s not the major reason people are there.

“They just have a genuine interest in what’s going on.”

Glen Cranny, a defence lawyer and partner at Gilshenan and Luton Lawyers, also believes a high level of public interest is healthy for the criminal justice system generally.

“People might come for any number of reasons, and some might come for mawkish reasons,” he said.

“Nevertheless, I think the benefits of having an open and transparent system … far outweigh any perverse interest some people may get out of such proceedings.”

Public pressure witnesses face may discourage some: lawyer

Publicity and public interest in a case can also encourage other complainants or witnesses to come forward and give evidence, where they may have otherwise been unaware or not confident enough.

Rolf Harris‘s case in England, for example, involved people who were coming forward as complainants once they, I think, had the courage that there were protections and systems in place for their story to be told,” Mr Cranny said.

But this benefit has a flip-side: that very publicity could make people apprehensive about revealing their story.

“I think there is a tipping point where some people might think they could do without their face or name being splashed on TV as a witness, or as a complainant,” Mr Cranny said.

“They would be happy to be involved in the process in a low-key way, but don’t want to be engaged … in anything that might in some way feel like a circus to them.”

Reputational issues should also be factored in, especially when a person’s conduct, while lawful, may not hold them in a good light.

“We’ve seen in a recent high-profile case … a lot of focus on extra-marital affairs and so on,” Mr Cranny said.

“There are people who are involved in those relationships, who haven’t broken the law, but have become very prominent just through their personal lives.”

Mr Fleming says that while public interest could make some people “a bit reluctant”, he had not seen any evidence of public attendance impacting on witnesses.

“It is on display and in a sense it’s theatre,” he said.

“But once people are resigned to the fact that they will be giving evidence, I don’t think too much stands in their way.”

Opening additional courtrooms and keeping the public away from “where the action is happening” also means witnesses are only faced with a very small and confined audience in the main court, Mr Fleming said.

All previous threads and history including trial can be found clicking on link below http://aussiecriminals.com.au/category/gerard-baden-clay/

List of Trial Witnesses as they appear here

ANY EVIDENCE LIKE PHOTOS, VIDEO OR DOCUMENTS THE COURT RELEASES TO THE PUBLIC WILL BE PUBLISHED in the GBC Documents Page

Brisbane Supreme Court Justice John Byrne has asked a jury to retire to consider a verdict in the trial of Gerard Baden-Clay.

Kathleen Folbigg-triple child killer, writing to allan jones


I had this wicked witch listed under a thread on High profile Convictions or somewhere a long time ago but when I read an article where she was writing to Media heavyweight Alan Jones like a giggling immature school girl I though it all needs to be dragged back to reality.

She murdered her infant children. Could of got away with it too. Have a read and let me know what you think. To get the current gist, here is the article I am talking about, followed by what this person has done ( I refuse to call her a mother)

IT IS A MUST READ AND A REMINDER WE MUST ALL BE VIGILANT

MATTHEW BENNS

January 20, 2014

 CONVICTED child killer Kathleen Folbigg has written heartfelt letters from inside jail to her new “friend”, broadcaster Alan Jones.

‘Different and separate from some of the worst criminals I have lived with’. Folbigg wrote this of herself to Alan Jones.

‘Different and separate from some of the worst criminals I have lived with’. Folbigg wrote this of herself to Alan Jones.

“Something I’ve always prided myself on over the years is always being different and separate from some of the worst criminals I have lived with,” she tells him in letters from her Silverwater Jail cell.

Jones believes the case against Folbigg is flawed and has backed a University of Newcastle Legal Centre bid for a judicial inquiry into her case this year.

“She writes a letter and I reply. We try to keep these peoples’ spirits up. It is an awful thing tobe locked away if you are innocent,” the 2GB broadcaster said.

He released the letters to The Daily Telegraph to highlight the “injustice” of the case against her. “Everyone needs someone to love them, don’t they?” he said.

“Surely we have an obligation to see that justice has been properly administered,” added Jones, who believes scientific evidence against Folbigg has been discredited.

But in a fresh twist, Jones called The Telegraph yesterday to say that, despite having visited Folbigg in jail and vigorously campaigning for a review of her case, he himself was not sure she was innocent.

Folbigg was sentenced in 2003 to 40 years, reduced to 30 on appeal, for the murder of three of her young children and the manslaughter of one between 1989 and 1999. She has served 10 years.

In the letters, Folbigg tells Jones how she has taken up painting and is looking forward to living in a granny flat in her best friend’s house in the country. She also talks about fellow inmates in the notorious high-protection child-killer wing of the jail. They include Kristi Abrahams, who killed her daughter Kiesha, 6, and Keli Lane, whose baby Tegan has never been found.

“I so don’t like being associated even in general with (the) likes of them. They are guilty and seriously not very nice women with many issues,” she says.

Folbigg clings to memories of her life before jail. “I have hung on to my 35 years of life (even as traumatic as it was) to any of the years that I would ever spend in here.

“Hung on to, a typical basically normal lifestyle. And even suffering so much death, disappointment and grief, it was a normal work, exercise, partner, home life. No drugs, no alcohol, no vices or excesses. So that makes me quite different to everyone in here. LOL,” she writes.

And then in a moment of reflections she adds: “Guess ‘normal’ is extremely suggestive isn’t it? Oh well, I hope you understand my jabbering on, on some level. Ha! LOL.”

She talks about hoping a judicial inquiry will have a “snowball” effect. “Of course my rational/logical side of me says ‘no guarantees’ and doubts about the success of it all are ever present. Especially as another week, another month, another year roll by. But that (is) to be human isn’t it? Full of hopes, dreams, doubts, determination. LOL. I have certainly come to discover that people care Alan.

“And it’s been quite refreshing. People say they care but actions don’t show it. The group of people I now include in my life, that’s including you too Mr, have undoubtedly shown me their hearts/minds and colour of their souls. LOL. Can’t ever ask for better than that in your life,” she writes.

Folbigg is relying on the team from the University of Newcastle Legal Centre gaining a judicial inquiry. Researchers also have argued she is the last serial child killer to remain in jail after the work of British serial child killer expert Sir Roy Meadow was discredited.

Appeal a disgusting ridiculous joke-Folbigg’s sister Lea Bown.

Appeal a disgusting ridiculous joke-Folbigg’s sister Lea Bown.

But Folbigg’s sister Lea Bown said the appeal was “a disgusting ridiculous joke. She has been found guilty by 12 jurors and there is no way those children died by anything other than her hand”.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Her Father’s Daughter – The Kathleen Folbigg Story

Against All Odds

When Kathleen Megan Marlbourough left school in 1982, she was 15. Like many kids her age with a limited education, she worked at several low-paying jobs before marrying at age 20. Her husband, Craig Folbigg, was a steel worker. He was 25. They settled in Mayfield, a suburb of Newcastle, Australia’s sixth-largest city an hour’s drive north of Sydney.

Within a year, Kathleen was pregnant. She gave birth to their first child a son, Caleb, in February 1989. At the time of his birth Caleb was described as full term and healthy.

Five days later Kathleen took him home. One morning while feeding him, Kathleen noticed that Caleb was having difficulty breathing and took him back to the hospital where doctors diagnosed him as having a lazy larynx.

At 8 p.m. on February 19, 1989, Kathleen put Caleb in his crib to sleep. At 2:50 a.m. the next morning, Craig Folbigg was awoken by his wife’s screams. Running to the sunroom where the baby slept, Craig saw Kathleen standing over the crib screaming, my baby, something is wrong with my baby.

Caleb Folbigg was dead at just 20 days old.

The official cause of death was listed as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) or cot death.

Seven months later, Kathleen was pregnant again. She gave birth to another son, Patrick, in June 1990.

On October 18, 1990, Kathleen put Patrick to bed. Craig looked in on him at 10 p.m., and he appeared to be sleeping peacefully. At 3:30 a.m. the next morning he was again awoken by Kathleen’s screams.

According to the police statement, He rushed into Patrick’s room and saw his wife standing over Patrick who was lying in his cot. Mr. Folbigg picked up the baby and noted faint, laboured breathing. He commenced resuscitation until the ambulance arrived. Patrick regained consciousness, but was (later) found to now have epilepsy and be blind.

Patrick survived, but not for long.

On the morning of February 13, 1991, Kathleen called Craig at work, and, according to the police statement, said: It’s happened again. Craig left work and arrived home just as the ambulances came. Patrick was taken to hospital, but was dead on arrival.

An autopsy was conducted and the cause of death was an acute asphyxiating event resulting from an epileptic fit.

Following Patricks death, the Folbiggs moved to Thornton, a town northwest of Newcastle.

A year later, Kathleen was pregnant again. In October 1992, a daughter Sarah was born.

All seemed well until 11 months later when Sarah caught a cold and was having trouble sleeping.

By 1:30 a.m. the next morning Sarah was dead.

This time, according to the police report, Craig was awoken by Kathleens screams and saw her standing in the doorway of their bedroom. Sarah was lying in bed, motionless.

Her death was officially attributed to SIDS.

After Sarah’s death they relocated to Singleton in Hunter Valley, a popular wine producing area north of Newcastle.

The couple spent two years there before Kathleen became pregnant for the fourth time. Their second daughter, Laura, was born in August 1997.

Laura was apparently healthy when Kathleen brought her home three days later. Unlike her siblings, Laura’s breathing and sleep patterns were monitored closely for several weeks after her birth, just to be sure.

All was well until 19 months later when Laura caught a cold.

Kathleen gave her medication but at 12:05 p.m. on March 1, 1999, she called an ambulance after Laura allegedly stopped breathing. According to the official report, two ambulance officers arrived to find Kathleen performing CPR on her daughter on the breakfast bar. They examined Laura and found that she was not breathing and had no pulse.

As before, an autopsy was conducted but, unlike the others, the coroner considered Laura too old to have succumbed to SIDS, recorded her cause of death as undetermined, and ordered a police investigation.

Damning Evidence

When Detective Sergeant Bernard Ryan was assigned to investigate Laura Folbigg s death, he could have looked at the case as just one more tragic cot death. But, following the coroners finding, he decided to consider all the possibilities.

Detective Ryan began his investigation routinely by interviewing Kathleen and Craig Folbigg. When he learned that Laura was the fourth child to have died in a similar fashion, however, his suspicions grew.

Then the case took an unexpected turn. Kathleen, who had left her husband after Laura’s death, had moved out without taking many of her possessions. While Craig was cleaning up, he made an unpleasant discovery.

In a bedside drawer he found her diaries, whose contents, he later told the court, made him want to vomit. He took them to the police.

He told police that he had the odd suspicion,” but after finding the diaries his suspicions became horribly real.

Detective Ryan learned that Kathleen had been keeping diaries most of her life, but had thrown most of them away. The ones Craig found obviously had been overlooked.

Her entries indicated a woman torn by mixed emotions. On one hand, she wanted children to prove she could do it, just like other women could, and described the feeling of having a child growing inside her and being impatient for the birth: We’re all waiting, little one, when will you come?

On the other hand, she wrote about the frustrations of being a mother, including her inability to breast feed despite numerous, fruitless attempts with each child.

She also wrote about the resentment she felt after each birth when the attention shifted away from her to the new baby, describing it as a feeling of abandonment just like she had experienced as a child, where she was in a family but never felt like part of it.

She wrote about her wild mood swings and how she watched fish swim in a tank to try and calm herself: I don’t know, how do I conquer this? Help is what I want.

Her writings also disclosed her innermost fears. She worried that Craig would leave her. She felt threatened when he teased her about her weight, and wrote about how she couldn’t deal with his perpetual flirtations. At one point, when he rejected her advances because of her pregnancy, she wrote, Craig’s roving eye will always be of concern to me.

Must lose extra weight or he will be even less in love with me than he is now. I know that physical appearance means everything to him, she wrote.

When she was pregnant with Laura, she wrote: On a good note, Craig said last night he accepts that I’m not going to be skinny again. That’s wonderful, but I know deep in my heart he wants his skinny wife back.

Time after time she wrote about her weight and Craig’s preoccupation with it. Got to start changing my life and becoming a hot-looking energetic mother for my daughter and a sexy wife for my husband.

An entry on November. 13, 1996, indicated the isolation she felt, even from her own family. Why is family so important to me? She wrote. I now have the start of my very own, but it doesn’t seem good enough. I know Craig doesn’t understand. He has the knowledge and stability and love from siblings and parents, even if he chooses to ignore them. Me I have no one but him. It seems to affect me so. Why should it matter? It shouldn’t.

Once, she was home alone when a storm struck. She wrote how she was torn between wanting Craig home to comfort her and then not wanting him there because of how bad he makes her feel: I actually relish in the fact he has a weight problem now. All the years of him tormenting me have come back to get him.

Another entry searched for identity: Thirty years. The first five I don’t really remember, the rest, I choose not to remember. The last 10-11 have been filled with trauma, tragedy, happiness and mixed emotions of all designs. If it wasn’t for my baby coming soon, I’d sit and wonder again what I was put on this earth for. What contribution have I made to anyone’s life?

Other entries seem more sinister. She wrote how stress made her do terrible things and spoke of flashes of rage, resentment and hatred toward her children.

The diaries also indicate that she had no control over her depression and feelings of resentment. She wrote about wanting to wake her husband and ask for help.

One entry marked 9:45, Wednesday, June 11, 1997 reads: My brain has too much happening, unstored and unrecalled memories just waiting. Heaven help the day they surface and I recall. That will be the day to lock me up and throw away the key. Something I’m sure will happen one day.

Some entries spoke specifically about her treatment of her children: I feel like the worst mother on this earth. Scared that she [Laura] will leave me now. Like Sarah did. I knew I was short-tempered and cruel sometimes to her and she left. With a bit of help.

She’s a fairly good-natured baby – thank goodness, it has saved her from the fate of her siblings. I’m sure she’s met everyone and they’ve told her, don’t be a bad or sickly kid, mum may, you know, crack. They’ve warned her – good.

Other entries showed some remorse: My guilt of how responsible I feel for them all, haunts me, my fear of it happening again, haunts me.

When I think I’m going to lose control like last time I’ll just hand baby over to someone else … This time I’m prepared and know what signals to watch out for in myself. Changes in mood etc.

Faced with this damning, though circumstantial evidence, Sergeant Ryan began to build a case against Kathleen Folbigg. From the time he started the long process of interviews and depositions to compile a chain of evidence, Ryan was often warned by doctors that he faced an uphill battle proving his case in court.

But as he dug into Kathleen’s past, Ryan also uncovered a terrible secret.

My Father’s Daughter

On a December evening in 1969, Thomas John Britton confronted Kathleen Mary Donavan outside her home in the Sydney suburb of Annandale and stabbed her 24 times.

They had been living in a de facto relationship, and had an 18-month-old daughter.

At the trial six months later, a woman who witnessed the murder gave evidence against Britton. She testified that after brutally murdering Donavan, Britton had knelt down and kissed her saying: I’m sorry, darling. I had to do it. Allegedly he then turned to the witness and said, I had to kill her because she’d kill my child.

Britton was convicted of murder and sent to prison. The child was sent to a church orphanage. Twelve years later, Britton was released and deported to the United Kingdom.

The little girl stayed in the orphanage until she was three. At that time Kathleen Megan Marlbourough was adopted by a foster family who lived in the Newcastle suburb of Kotara.

Kathleen was an adult before she met her half-sisters and learned the truth about her parents.

On October 14, 1996, with three of her children already dead, Kathleen made a disturbing diary entry that indicated how the tumultuous events of her childhood had affected her: Obviously I am my father’s daughter. It was to be her undoing.

The Trial

Detective Ryan took two years to assemble a case that prosecutors could try with a good chance of a conviction.

On April 19, 2001, Kathleen Megan Folbigg was arrested at her home, taken into custody, and charged with murdering her four children.

During her bail hearing at Maitland Local Court, Police prosecutor Daniel Maher told the court that the prosecution would show evidence from Folbigg’s own diaries, technical evidence from pathology experts, and testimony from her estranged husband to prove that Folbigg had killed her children.

While each child’s individual death had not raised much concern, Maher told the court, their collective deaths could only be attributed to suffocation.

He said the circumstances surrounding the deaths were not consistent with sudden infant death syndrome or cot death. This included the fact that each child was found face up, they were still warm when found and in two cases there were signs of life.

He also cited medical evidence from the United States, given by forensic pathologist Dr. Janice Ophoven that showed the chances of cot death being responsible were a trillion to one.

What that means is this is the only case that has occurred in the world. It’s just not likely.

He also told the court that Folbigg did not appear to grieve after each childs death.

Extensive tests had ruled out the possibility that the children suffered fatal genetic or viral disorders, he told the court.

While admitting that the diary entries were circumstantial, Maher argued that they contributed to her partial admission of guilt.

Brian Doyle, Folbiggs defence council, told the court the deaths were a coincidence adding, Every one of the children was in fact ill in their lifetime before their death.

He told the court that the medical experts the prosecution would call as expert witnesses had come to their conclusions after being supplied with Mrs. Folbigg’s diaries and other statements. So what we have got at the end, wholly and solely, is coincidences, he said.

After hearing submissions, Magistrate Richard Wakely refused bail and ordered Folbigg be held in custody to await trial.

During the two-month trial at Darlinghurst Supreme court in Sydney, the prosecution led by Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, Q.C., presented strong evidence that portrayed Folbigg as a woman preoccupied with her own life and looks, more interested in going to the gym and nightclubs than looking after her own children.

Focusing on the same evidence presented at the bail hearing, Tedeschi made the assertion that Folbigg had a low stress threshold and killed her four children by smothering each of them over a 10-year period because she could no longer deal with the day-to-day responsibility of being a mother.

Tedeschi also criticized Professor Hilton, the pathologist who had conducted Sarah’s post mortem examination. He had been wrong to attribute Sarah’s death to SIDS when he was aware of the family history, the prosecutor said.

He told the court that because of Hiltons finding a full police investigation or coronial inquiry was never called.

The court also heard that the chances of Laura dying of SIDS were extremely low because during her life she was exhaustively investigated, monitored and had lived beyond the SIDS danger period.

To support this theory, the prosecution called Dr.Christopher Seeton, the doctor in charge of the sleep investigation unit at Sydney’s Westmead Children’s Hospital. Seeton told the court that Laura’s risk of dying from SIDS compared with other children was infinitely perhaps less than average, which is 1 in 1,000.

The crown also asserted that Folbigg avoided investigation because none of the children had shown signs of abuse so the matter was never reported to the Department of Child Services for attention.

The defence, led by lawyer Peter Zahra, refuted the claim and based their argument on the fact that the children had all been sick prior to their deaths.

To strengthen this argument, Zahra called Professor Roger Byard, a forensic pathologist who told the court that it was possible the children died from suffocation and medical problems relating to each of the four children could explain their deaths in isolation.

Considered an expert on cot deaths, Byard added: But the fact that there are all the other deaths in the family makes me less certain … I say undetermined because of the circumstances.

Asked in cross-examination whether it was possible the children had died from deliberate suffocation, Byard answered: It was a possibility, but declined to draw a stronger conclusion as he had not examined the death sites and the deceased children himself.

When questioned regarding the deaths of Patrick from epilepsy and Sarah from the heart disease, myocarditis, Professor Byard, said there was nothing in the pathology to show Patrick died of epilepsy, and added that only one child per year in Australia ever died of myocarditis.

Tedeschi shifted his attention to the incriminating diary entries claiming that they showed Kathleen Folbigg as deeply resentful of the intrusion her children had on her own life, in particular on her sleep, her ability to go to the gym, and her ability to socialize including going out dancing.

He drew attention to the fact that Folbigg was worried about her weight, telling the court: She was constantly preoccupied to an exaggerated degree on her weight gain due, in part, to the fact she couldn’t get to the gym because of her children,” he said.

He called witnesses to attest to the fact that Folbigg showed no obvious reaction to the deaths of her four children.

A hospital nurse described her as detached, and Deborah Grace, Folbiggs neighbour gave evidence that Folbigg was straight-faced after Laura’s death. There were no tears in her eyes. There was nothing, she told the court.

Folbiggs foster sister was also called and told the court that Folbiggs demeanour changed suddenly at Laura’s funeral from crying to being a totally different person. She was happy, laughing, enjoying a party.

During the presentation of evidence Folbigg remained calm, almost cool but during the fourth week of the trial she broke down as a video recording of her 1999 interview with police was played for the court. Crying uncontrollably, Folbigg attempted to leave the courtroom but was restrained by court staff and conveyed to a nearby hospital where she was sedated. The trial was delayed for several days while she recovered. When it resumed, Craig Folbigg was called to give evidence against his former wife.

In his testimony, he related the details of each baby’s death and described the terrifying growl that Kathleen would produce when she got frustrated with the children. He also told the court how Kathleen had pinned Laura to her high chair and attempted to force-feed her before dumping her on the floor with the words, “Go to your fucking father.” Several hours later, Laura was dead.

Two months after the trial began and the evidence presented, the lawyers for both sides completed their closing statements and the judge directed the jury to retire to consider their verdict. They returned in less than eight hours and told a hushed courtroom that they had reached a verdict. They found Kathleen Megan Folbigg guilty of murdering her four children.

As the verdicts were read, Folbigg broke down and cried and at one point turned toward her sister in the public gallery before slumping forward with her head in her hands.

She was taken to Mulawa Women’s Detention centre where she was placed in protective isolation, as women in prison take a very dim view of women who kill children, especially their own.

The following August she was returned to court to hear Justice Graham Barr officially sentence her to 40 years in prison with a non-parole period of 30 years.

Interviewed outside the court, Craig Folbigg dissolved into tears telling reporters, My humble thanks go to 12 people whom I have never formally met, who today share the honour of having helped set four beautiful souls free. Free to rest in peace finally.

Following the sentencing, Kathleen Folbiggs lawyers also made a brief statement indicating that they would begin working on an appeal at the first opportunity.

Betrayal

Several weeks after the trial, Folbigg wrote a scathing letter to the Sydney Morning Herald expressing her anger at the decision. It took four years to come up with a totally circumstantial non-factual, hearsay case, she wrote.

I now face being the most ‘hated’ woman around at the moment and death threats are a real consideration.

On the subject of her diaries she wrote: It’s a sad day when a mother can be put away for merely being a normal mother, who wrote down her emotions, anxieties and frustrations in bloody books.

She also defended herself against claims her demeanour was aloof and unemotional.

I didn’t have the choice to be any other way, she wrote. I would not have been useful in my own defence. The day may come where it is time to release it all, but till my battle is done in clearing my name and reputation, that day is not yet.

She also lashed out at her former husband saying he had betrayed her.

I have already suffered greatly at the hands of Craig and his capability to deliver with his tongue and his quite amazing ability to turn simple into exaggerated and extravagant tales.

Looking for Answers

Following the trial, Melbourne University Associate Professor Anne Buist, an expert in post-birth psychiatric disorders, told reporters that genetic predisposition, along with the loss of her mother at a young age, could have led Kathleen Folbigg to murder her children. We know her father killed her mother, so we know there is potentially a genetic issue there, she said.

Professor Buist also discussed the issue of neglect or emotional abuse of young children. A lot of studies have shown this can affect your development very significantly, she said. Both your brain development, your actual structural biological development if it starts early enough, as well as development at the level of not having a good parenting model, self-esteem.

Leading Sydney forensic psychiatrist Rod Milton, who gave evidence at Ivan Milats Backpacker Murder trial also agrees that the genetic implications of the case could not be rejected. We can’t discount what the father said If I let her (mother) live she would have killed the kid’.

I mean, it might be true, and that raises the genetic issue . . . that maybe there’s some sort of genetic tendency. We’re in the land of not knowing, but to exclude it would be folly. The obvious genetic implications can’t be rejected.

I think she must have lacked empathy for them, otherwise I don’t see how she could have killed them,” he said.

When asked if he thought Folbigg was mad or bad, he answered, she certainly wasn’t mad. Whether she was bad is in the judgment of others and not for me to say.

When asked if it would be possible to rehabilitate her, he said, the idea of her being released while still of child-bearing age is one that doesn’t inspire much confidence.

According to the U.S. National Centre for Health Statistics, infant homicides are classified as deaths purposefully inflicted by other persons on children less than one year old.

Studies from the same source also indicate that homicide is the leading cause of injury deaths among infants under one year of age in the United States and is the 15th leading cause of infant mortality from all causes.

In Australia, the Australian Institute of Criminology reports similar statistics: More infants under the age of one year are murdered each year in Australia than die in either motor traffic accidents, accidental poisonings, falls or drowning. Between 1989 and 1993 an average of 27 children aged under 15 were murdered each year in Australia. Almost two thirds of these children were aged five or less. Around half of all children killed by assault were under one year of age.

In a controversial article in Australia’s New Weekly magazine, Judy Wright, a criminologist at the Australia Institute of Public Safety in Melbourne, revealed the findings of her own investigation which she says shows that women are getting away with murder.

Her 1990 study revealed difficulties in prosecuting mothers that kill their children because a mother’s role is revered in society. Her study also indicates that when women are brought to trial for killing their children they mostly rely on mental disorders as their defence, she said. It’s all due to beliefs that no sane woman could be capable of wanting to kill her own child.

We look for explanations to say those mothers who kill must be sick not bad, just mad. Though we rather not think about it, women are capable of killing for the same reasons as men anger, revenge and power, she said.

To reach her findings, Wright examined hundreds of autopsy reports, coroner’s findings, Victorian Police homicide statistics and Supreme Court files as she investigated the deaths of seventy-four children between 1978 and 1990. She discovered that more than half had been murdered by their mothers, and in 11 cases women killed more than one child. Children had been drowned, set alight, stabbed, and suffocated and one baby had even been thrown out of a window by its mother who was furious at her partner for paying attention to their dog.

There were other deaths where mother’s sketchy explanations sounded suspicious, and 16 where the cause was undetermined. Many weren’t charged with murder, though there were clearly elements of rational planning in the offences. Those who were charged received lenient sentences after arguing they were traumatized, and others were given probation. Most were considered unwell and were treated accordingly.

As a result of her research, Wright also believes that many homicides have been falsely attributed to SIDS.

It’s a tragic excuse because it really devalues the pain of parents who genuinely lose children to SIDS she says.

Allan Cala, the forensic pathologist who voiced his suspicions after conducting an autopsy on Laura Folbigg agrees saying that homicide, accidental death and illness should be fully explored before reaching a diagnosis of SIDS.

He also believes that many pathologists give SIDS as the cause on death certificates to spare parents the trauma of a coronial inquest.

This may have also been the case for Kathleen Folbigg had it not been for her habit of writing down her innermost thoughts as without the damning evidence they contained she may never have been convicted or even brought to trial.

Even more disturbing is that at the time her case went to trial she was considering getting married a second time. She may have even considered having more children.

yesterdays paper

yesterdays paper

Here is an interesting addition, posted today on a sympathetic friend and blogger of Kathleen, called Alana House, who has a blog which can be found here. She is described as follows

Alana House is a blogger, mum and chook enthusiast (the live kind, not the fried kind, though she rather likes that too). Long, long ago she was a feature writer at Cosmopolitan magazine, where Mia Freedman sent her on crazy assignments to be a Dyke On A Bike at Mardi Gras and a judge at Miss Nude Australia. She went on to become editor of Woman’s Day magazine for five years. During her lunch breaks, she created and edited a series of children’s cookbooks: The ABC of Kids’ Cooking, The Nursery Rhyme Cookbook, Easy Kids’ Party Food, Easy As 1,2,3 and Fun Food. Follow her on Twitter (erratically) at twitter.com/AlanaHouse Visit Alana’s blog at housegoeshome.com

When Kathy met Alan (Jones) … In jail

By Alana House

January 20, 2014

unverified person TBA, Kathleen Folbigg and Alana House

unverified person TBA, Kathleen Folbigg and Alana House

After a decade of bone-crushing isolation and fear inside her cell at Silverwater Jail, there have finally been tantalizing glimmers of hope for my former school friend Kathleen Folbigg … and those who feel she didn’t receive a fair trial when she was convicted of murdering three of her children and the manslaughter of a fourth.

Among them is the decision by The University of Newcastle Legal Centre to work on a submission seeking a judicial inquiry into her case.

Another was the surprise appearance in the prison visitors’ room one afternoon of radio host Alan Jones that was revealed in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph.

Kathy told me during my last visit to the jail that knew something was afoot when a buzz of excitement swept through the prison guards and an unusually large number of them suddenly decided they were needed in the visitors’ area.

She sat on her usual pink metal stool, bolted to the floor. To her surprise, Alan walked into the room and sat opposite her on one of the visitors’ blue metal stools, also bolted down.

The mutual friends who had arranged the meeting procured snacks of Mars Bar Pods and Kettle Chips from the junk food machines in the hallway and placed them in plastic bowls on the little bolted-down metal table in front of them, like some Tim Burton-style nightmare version of a fairy toadstool picnic.

Kathy wore a white canvas jumpsuit, secured with an electrical cable tie at the neck, and a pair of ugly, green Dunlop sneakers. Alan wore his signature sports jacket and a broad smile.

They chatted for over an hour and she was charmed by his open attitude towards her plight.

For the 10 years prior her only visitors have been a handful of friends and a dedicated group of Salvation Army members who offer support.

Kathy had become resigned to being branded a cold-blooded child killer who deserved to be locked away for 26 years.

Having Alan visit – and offer his very public support on the cover of yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph – is a sign that the tide of public opinion may finally be turning.

Alan told journalist Matthew Benns (who previously wrote a book called “When The Bough Breaks” that actively condemned Kathy as a murderer) that after reading academic lawyer Emma Cunliffe’s book “Murder, Medicine and Motherhood” about the court case: “I am persuaded that the expert evidence is not convincing at all.”

Alan’s public support is a powerful thing. Liberal powerbroker Michael Kroger, for example, told ABC’s Lateline after the 1998 federal election that he knew who to thank for the Howard government’s narrow victory: his friend Alan Jones.

Alan has a loyal and trusting radio following. He speaks out and people listen, they believe.

Alan notes to Benns: “Having met the woman I find her a very courageous woman and an outstanding person who faces this injustice with great dignity.”

There are many, many issues that I vehemently disagree with Alan Jones upon. There are many, many things that he’s said in the past that I find distasteful. His views on Julia Gillard and her father dying of shame being a disturbing case in point.

(UPDATE: And his decision this morning to release private letters from Kathy to The Daily Telegraph distressed me – Kathy will be mortified and disappointed. How can he not realise how much more difficult he has made her life behind bars?)

But his words about Kathy yesterday were spot on.

I can never imagine having her courage. Prison is a terrible place full of terrifying people and, as Alan notes: “Society collectively should be concerned if a woman’s lying in jail, convicted for (killing) four children, if she didn’t do it.”

When Kathy finally steps outside those prison walls – whether in one year or 15 – she will have nothing. No home, no money, no family. She has lost them all. The Salvos promise someone will be there to meet her when she is freed. But then what? How does she successfully re assimilate into society after being incarcerated for so long, when she’s hated by so many?

I’ve written blogs about Kathy and the vitriol they inspire is fascinating:

“She murdered her little babies after she snapped when they wouldn’t stop crying. She’s a cold, evil and manipulative woman who deserves to rot in jail.”

“She was cruel and evil. I shudder to think of what those poor little babies went through.”

“This woman killed her kids. There are no ifs or buts. She’s a cold-blooded killer. End of story.”

But it’s not the end of the story for me. My world isn’t so black and white. The possibility an innocent woman has been jailed haunts me.

I think I would go mad, locked away for so long, the world believing I murdered my own children. But Kathy is strong, she always has been. She believes her difficult past has helped her survive prison, without it she might have gone mad.

And now she needs to remain strong and not let her hopes get too wild. Because while a wave of public support, a visit from Alan Jones and a campaign by The University of Newcastle Legal Centre are thrilling developments there’s still a long and fraught battle ahead before a judicial inquiry is even countenanced, let alone successful.

But I look forward to visiting her in a few short weeks, hugging her tight and hoping her barrister gets that miracle chance to prove whether justice was indeed done. Time will tell alana, something those kids never got…

Below is a PDF of all court judgements in one document.

R v Folbigg ALL judgements

Federal Election – 7th September, 2013


It would be nice to have Free Speech, Rupert Murdoch:

Wait a minute

As quoted on Youtube:

The TV networks appear to be allowing Rupert Murdoch to again manipulate how people think and vote as he allegedly has an agenda.

New technology, the media and criminal trials – Let's talk about it


Here is an interesting article folks that I found that comes at a time when the media and the internet are colliding with the long-held protocols of the old school legal system of the last century, who needs to catch up with who I wonder?

Where are we headed with blogs like this? the instant twitter commentary from courtrooms, the insatiable thirst for the information, good bad or ugly. You all know I am a believer of  Major Trials being telecast to those who want to and indeed need to watch them. Just like some have an interest in Question Time in Parliament and some do not. make it available, what is there to hide?

By Peter Gregory

July 06 2012

Are we now behind the times?

On an overseas crime website was the personal and criminal history of a man known to the Victorian public.

At the time, he was before the courts on a serious charge. The trial judge had warned jurors not to look up the internet, because they were to return a verdict only on the evidence they saw or heard in the courtroom.

Put simply, the judge’s warning was part of delivering a fair trial. If accused of crime, you are judged by a jury of your peers.

They base their decision on the material presented to them in the courtroom. Almost always, that means no reference to the previous convictions of the person on trial, or neighbourhood gossip about a case, or the wise pronouncements of media commentators.

The legal system’s assumption is that jurors, not being trained as lawyers, will find it harder to put aside prejudicial information. If you were a juror on a rape trial, and learned that the accused person had been convicted (separately) of rape six months earlier, what would you think about this case?

“Guilty,” said one student when this question was posed during a seminar some years ago. That is why jury members are told not to follow media reports, do their own research, or talk to their families about the case. They are also instructed to be wary of social media, like Twitter or Facebook.

“If your family is like mine, everyone will have an expert opinion,” one judge would say at the start of a Supreme Court trial.

“You can blame me. If they ask about the evidence, you can say the judge told you that you are not allowed to discuss it.”

Journalists would get very nervous about their court stories, fearing they might be fined or worse if they revealed information that the courts believed was likely to be prejudicial.

In one case, five media organisations were fined a collective $670,000 after reporting that a man arrested over three New South Wales murders in 1989 had confessed. The reports were likely to interfere with the administration of justice, it was found.

These were simpler times when a big worry for publishers was the potential to mix up the conservative court story written for local audiences with a more comprehensive account prepared for interstate editions.

If the Victorian jury was protected from prejudice, all was well. If a stuff-up occurred, media lawyers were sent to court to apologise.

More than 20 years later, safety and conservatism sound like foreign concepts.

The crime website which featured the Victorian suspect was not the worst by any means. True, its advertisements for criminal-related merchandise, including DVDs, calendars and magazines, was distracting, but his segment was a fairly sober summary of his court appearances, material from interviews and legal debate about his future.

Numerous other websites talk about criminals and killers. Some are moderate and feature court decisions. Others appear to follow the “hang ‘em high” school, practised with or without a trial.

Still wary of the legal process, mainstream media websites monitor or ban comments being made about court-related stories.

Inflammatory remarks can raise difficulties for many institutions which have embraced social media and the internet to engage with the public.

Bond University professor Mark Pearson recently analysed problems with the Queensland Police Facebook site, which was flooded with hard-nosed commentary following a high-profile arrest.
“I fear it will not be long before a savvy defence lawyer seizes the opportunity to use such prejudicial commentary as grounds for appeal, perhaps resulting in a trial being aborted at great public expense or even a verdict quashed,” he told The Australian newspaper.

So, what can the courts do?

Last month, the New South Wales Criminal Court of Appeal allowed a media challenge to court orders that would have forced news websites to remove thousands of archived stories about a conspiracy to murder trial. The Sydney Morning Herald said the court upheld the argument that the orders were futile because “vast swathes of information on the internet are essentially beyond the court’s control”.

“It is something of an irony that the (media organisations)…are, on one view, the only people against whom an order could properly have been made,” the court said in its published judgment.

While NSW law might let prosecuting authorities seek suppression orders over prejudicial material published online by local media, that permission could not validly apply to the world at large.

Suppression orders might cover material on internet sites beyond the control or awareness of local publishers.

Imagine the SMH finding all the international crime websites, and persuading them to take down some of their murder summaries because an Australian prosecutor was worried about them.

A Law Council of Australia committee, of which this writer is a member, outlined some other problems in a submission made to the Federal Government.

The media and communications committee said information could not be effectively censored or removed once it was available online. Material was often republished or cached on other sites. Monitoring archives for past publications would be costly and a significant exercise, and in many cases would have little practical effect, the committee argued.

Removing mainstream material might also bump the relevant information contained on less reputable websites up the search engine list for determined researchers.

“Suppression and non-publication orders that that operate to censor or remove historical reports by mainstream media organisations can lead to (the other) websites being elevated in lists of search results carried out, for instance, on the names of accused persons, and thus perversely increase the risk of prejudice to forthcoming trials,” the committee said.

If censoring the media does not work, the focus returns to juries. Jurors can be fined for looking up the internet during trials, if they decide to ignore judges’ warnings.

On its website, the Judicial College of Victoria has quoted court decisions describing jury members as “robust and responsible”, not “fragile and prone to prejudice”. But it warns that the availability of internet databases posed new problems for protecting jurors from prejudicial information.

Could that mean sequestering the jury – staying at hotels, not at home – for the whole trial, to keep it away from outside influences? Would that happen at all trials, or just the ones that attracted massive media attention?

One of the court decisions suggested keeping juries together during the proceedings would protect the open court principle and avoid prejudice. The accommodation costs in a long hearing, and the associated pressure to avoid mistrials, would be very likely to create their own problems.

What are your thoughts readers?