Case 338: The Folbigg Children (Part 2/2)

I had heard of this case but didn’t know much about it. I thought these two episodes were very compelling and heart wrenching. Really enjoying the work the team has put out this year so far!

Anything less than an acquittal based on the evidence presented would have set the wrong precedent. Meadow’s “law” should never have been the foundation of the prosecution’s argument. There was a lot of blind faith placed in statistical analysis that nobody in that court room seemed to understand. It seems now, the court is ill-equipped to understand expert psychiatric analysis. Their conclusions that the diary entries are irrelevant, just venting from the unknowable mind of a grieving mother, are as lacking in scientific rigor as Meadow’s law. Expert analysis by the geneticists was more compelling, but still only amounted to the thinnest shred of plausibility to establish reasonable doubt. Their findings could just as easily have bolstered the argument for manslaughter. The lack of physical evidence to suggest smothering was one of the defense’s strongest arguments. Taking into account their rare genetic disorders, it becomes more plausible that Kathleen could have accidentally killed her children without leaving physical evidence. Based on her own written words and the circumstances of each child’s death, I am personally convinced of her guilt, but agree the prosecution failed to properly establish their case.

Brilliant as per usual 🙏thanks to the casefile team your the best

Episode description checks out. Well written. Harrowing to experience, I imagine, even without the extra trauma of public scrutiny on top of everything.

These long formats just don't hit the same. I miss the old Casey. Come back home murder toy, promise I wont hurt you.

I think Kathleen folbigg and her husband must’ve been Mussolini & his paramour in a past life. Because the trauma they’ve experienced is unimaginable & undeserved

Wonderfully told. I have a toddler and I feel so terrible for Kathleen. I would have murdered that husband lol. Brilliant work from the scientists who came together at the end.

Wow. Goosebumps during the genetic testing analysis. So well-told, Casefile! I'm assuming the sister never swayed from her opinion? Just awful

Well told - I hadn’t followed the latest part of the story, having moved from Australia. Thanks Casey and the team!

There isn’t a mother among us who can’t fully appreciate and empathise with her feelings whilst severely sleep deprived and not receiving adequate support from her partner and children’s father. Bless Kathleen, this is SUCH a harrowing and gut wrenching case. Very well told and delivered Casefile team 👏

I’m hearing lines repeated at the beginning of the story — three so far and I’m two minutes in. Almost like Casey’s takes were left in. Anyone else?

Genetic screening is still a privilege many can't afford and as Kathleen's own mutation shows, it's constantly evolving. My heart goes out to all the families that suffer this kind of impossible loss.

Explaing Roy Meadows BS testimony at the Sally Clark trial: His claim was that as there is one chance in 73 million that a pair of siblings would die of SIDS (a disputed claim in itself) then there was only one chance in 73 million that Sally Clark didn't murder her children. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that there is something wrong with this claim, but most would not be able to explain why. Meadows should have been asked to provide the probability that two siblings would have been murdered by a parent, a question I doubt he would have known the answer to. This episode stated it was only half that of SIDS, but for the sake of simplicity, assume it is the same, ie. one in 73 million. The defence lawyer should have said to Meadows, "As there is only one chance in 73 million that two siblings would be murdered by a parent, by your logic does that not mean that there is only one chance in 73 million that Ms Clark is GUILTY?" That should have been enough to illustrate that there was something very wrong with his reasoning ... they were in court because the cause of death had been reduced to one of two possibilities, SIDS or murder, and yet the probability of one of those possibilities arising is only two in 73 million. A simpler example: If I roll a die without showing you, you would state that the probability of it being a 6 is one in six. But if I told you that it was either a 5 or a 6, and you knew I never lied, that probability would now be one in two. We know the other 4 possibilities didn't happen. In this case, the other 72,999,998 possibilities cover all the other possibilites ... mainly surviving past infancy, but also other possible causes of death. They are the same as the dice rolls 1 to 4 which were excluded. What remains of the 73 million possibilities is one chance of SIDS and one chance of murder, so the probability that she killed her children is one in two, far less than "beyond reasonable doubt". But as double SIDS is apparently twice as likely as double murder, that probability is only one in three. The general principle: The question that needed to be answered: "What is the probability that Sally Clark is a murderer given that her children died. Roy meadows was falsely using another question as a proxy for this question: "What is the probability that the children would die of SIDS given that Ms Clark was not a murderer". These are wildly different questions with wildly different answers. Roy Meadows was supposed to be an expert. It makes you wonder how many other innocent people have been put away based on "expert" testimony. What checks are made in court regarding the expertise of a witness.

slay, professor Cunliffe

We have been hanging out for today, yay yay yay