1
00:00:01,880 --> 00:00:04,880
Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.

2
00:00:05,360 --> 00:00:08,039
Speaker 1: Detective sy aside of life the average person is never

3
00:00:08,119 --> 00:00:11,080
Speaker 1: exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop.

4
00:00:11,560 --> 00:00:14,040
Speaker 1: For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.

5
00:00:14,440 --> 00:00:16,200
Speaker 1: That's what I did for a living. I was a

6
00:00:16,200 --> 00:00:20,560
Speaker 1: homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,

7
00:00:20,600 --> 00:00:23,120
Speaker 1: I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.

8
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:26,400
Speaker 1: The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories

9
00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:28,760
Speaker 1: from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw

10
00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:31,440
Speaker 1: and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some

11
00:00:31,600 --> 00:00:34,640
Speaker 1: of the content and language might be confronting. That's because

12
00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:37,640
Speaker 1: no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.

13
00:00:38,159 --> 00:00:40,320
Speaker 1: Join me now as I take you into this world.

14
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:49,000
Speaker 1: This is Part two of my chat with Quintin McDermott.

15
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:51,840
Speaker 1: Quentin is the author of a book called Meadows Law,

16
00:00:52,159 --> 00:00:57,760
Speaker 1: which is about the death of Kathleen Folbig's four children, Calib, Patrick, Sarah,

17
00:00:57,800 --> 00:01:01,680
Speaker 1: and Laura. In Part one, spoke about Kathleen's conviction for

18
00:01:01,720 --> 00:01:04,560
Speaker 1: the manslaughter of Calib and the murders of the other

19
00:01:04,600 --> 00:01:07,720
Speaker 1: three children. In Part two, we talk about the fight

20
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:11,000
Speaker 1: that led to Kathleen being released from prison and her pardon.

21
00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:13,680
Speaker 1: I think you'll be shocked by what you learn about

22
00:01:13,720 --> 00:01:18,760
Speaker 1: one of the most controversial criminal cases in Australian history. Quentin,

23
00:01:19,000 --> 00:01:21,720
Speaker 1: Welcome back, Thanks Gary, it's good to be here, have

24
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:24,800
Speaker 1: a bit of a break, refreshed our refreshed our brains

25
00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:30,039
Speaker 1: on this matter. And yeah, it is complex and I

26
00:01:30,120 --> 00:01:33,440
Speaker 1: think it's something that we talk about this case, that's

27
00:01:33,480 --> 00:01:36,480
Speaker 1: one of the most controversial, high profile cases we've had

28
00:01:36,520 --> 00:01:39,240
Speaker 1: in the country. And I don't think that's overstating that

29
00:01:39,600 --> 00:01:43,440
Speaker 1: the stakes were very high and the hopefully lessons are

30
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:48,000
Speaker 1: learned from what occurred and things can be improved. We

31
00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:52,720
Speaker 1: left part one and we got in our own inevitable way.

32
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:55,240
Speaker 1: We explained how it got to the point where Kathleen

33
00:01:55,240 --> 00:01:59,200
Speaker 1: Fobbick was charged with the murder of four children. The

34
00:01:59,280 --> 00:02:03,680
Speaker 1: trial trial rent for seven weeks. It resulved in her

35
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:08,160
Speaker 1: being convicted for murder of the three children, yes, and

36
00:02:08,320 --> 00:02:13,200
Speaker 1: manslaughter of the Caleb, the first child. Do you want

37
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:17,000
Speaker 1: to tell us the trial, your view and the trial

38
00:02:17,320 --> 00:02:18,200
Speaker 1: that occurred.

39
00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:20,919
Speaker 2: Yes, so just very broad brush.

40
00:02:21,160 --> 00:02:27,440
Speaker 3: My view of the trial is that the defense was deficient.

41
00:02:27,840 --> 00:02:31,240
Speaker 3: To be blunt in one sense, it's very unfair of

42
00:02:31,280 --> 00:02:34,120
Speaker 3: me to be saying this because her senior council, Peter Zara,

43
00:02:34,280 --> 00:02:38,320
Speaker 3: and indeed junior council have since passed away, and so

44
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:42,280
Speaker 3: I've been in writing this book. I've been unable obviously.

45
00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:43,880
Speaker 1: To talk to give them the right.

46
00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:47,840
Speaker 3: But one interesting a couple of interesting things about the

47
00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:50,359
Speaker 3: trial and the defense I think are the are these

48
00:02:50,520 --> 00:02:55,600
Speaker 3: that first of all, there was only one medical expert

49
00:02:55,639 --> 00:02:59,120
Speaker 3: witness appearing for the defense, and there were multiple medical

50
00:02:59,120 --> 00:03:02,919
Speaker 3: experts appearing for the prosecution. Now, part of this may

51
00:03:02,919 --> 00:03:05,920
Speaker 3: have been down to the resources that were available for

52
00:03:06,000 --> 00:03:08,839
Speaker 3: the defense. You know, she was being defended by Peter Zara,

53
00:03:08,880 --> 00:03:10,400
Speaker 3: who was the senior public defender.

54
00:03:11,520 --> 00:03:12,600
Speaker 2: It was legal aid, and.

55
00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:19,160
Speaker 3: So obviously their resources were not considerable, and that I

56
00:03:19,200 --> 00:03:22,440
Speaker 3: think presented real challenges to the defense prior to the

57
00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:26,720
Speaker 3: trial in amassing the evidence they wanted to present. And

58
00:03:26,760 --> 00:03:29,200
Speaker 3: then the second thing is that only very recently, when

59
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:33,800
Speaker 3: I was researching the book, did I discover that almost

60
00:03:33,800 --> 00:03:37,560
Speaker 3: certainly Peter Zara, her senior council, believed that she was guilty.

61
00:03:38,120 --> 00:03:47,600
Speaker 3: Now this was a really remarkable revelation. He had a

62
00:03:47,680 --> 00:03:52,400
Speaker 3: kind of private conversation following a law conference seminar with

63
00:03:53,480 --> 00:03:59,200
Speaker 3: a clinical psychologist, Char Milerbett's doctor, Char Milibets, where she

64
00:03:59,400 --> 00:04:03,560
Speaker 3: said to him, you know, mister Tsara, clearly this was

65
00:04:03,600 --> 00:04:06,920
Speaker 3: a horrible miscarriage of justice. I'm paraphrasing, and she said,

66
00:04:07,600 --> 00:04:10,560
Speaker 3: you wouldn't think that if you'd read the diaries. So

67
00:04:10,640 --> 00:04:14,680
Speaker 3: that's that's, you know, that's that's one remarkable aspect I

68
00:04:14,720 --> 00:04:15,560
Speaker 3: think of the trial.

69
00:04:16,920 --> 00:04:21,960
Speaker 1: Kathleen didn't give evidence at her trial. My understanding, that's correct. Again,

70
00:04:22,080 --> 00:04:26,240
Speaker 1: that's you know, it doesn't surprise. It seems to be

71
00:04:26,560 --> 00:04:29,120
Speaker 1: the thought within the legal fraternity. It's very unwise to

72
00:04:29,160 --> 00:04:32,160
Speaker 1: put put an accused person in the witness box because

73
00:04:32,200 --> 00:04:34,800
Speaker 1: it opens them up to all sorts of cross examination.

74
00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:38,240
Speaker 1: Do you think she might have been better served just

75
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:41,159
Speaker 1: and this is you know, two outsiders looking in. Do

76
00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:43,520
Speaker 1: you think she might have been better served in hindsight

77
00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:46,720
Speaker 1: to explain what the diaries were about? Because in isolation,

78
00:04:47,480 --> 00:04:49,760
Speaker 1: a lot of people and you touch on the fact

79
00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:54,159
Speaker 1: that even her defense might have drawn some strong inferences

80
00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:56,200
Speaker 1: from the diary. Do you think it would have served

81
00:04:56,240 --> 00:04:58,080
Speaker 1: a better to get in there and explain what the

82
00:04:58,120 --> 00:04:59,159
Speaker 1: diary was all about.

83
00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:02,960
Speaker 3: Gary, My sense of it is that in terms of

84
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:05,120
Speaker 3: her psychological state at the time. She was in no

85
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:08,800
Speaker 3: fit state, quite frankly, to give evidence and to be

86
00:05:08,800 --> 00:05:12,320
Speaker 3: cross examined by Mark Tdeski, who, and I mean this

87
00:05:12,440 --> 00:05:15,840
Speaker 3: in a flattering way if you liked mister Tedesky, I think,

88
00:05:15,839 --> 00:05:18,479
Speaker 3: would have kind of torn her apart in the witness box.

89
00:05:18,520 --> 00:05:21,559
Speaker 3: And indeed she kind of recognized this herself, I think,

90
00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 3: but she also went on later to regret the fact

91
00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:29,320
Speaker 3: that she hadn't given evidence. My kind of primary beef,

92
00:05:29,400 --> 00:05:31,960
Speaker 3: if you like, with the defense is that they didn't

93
00:05:32,000 --> 00:05:36,520
Speaker 3: cast the net wide enough to find psychological and psychiatric

94
00:05:36,640 --> 00:05:40,080
Speaker 3: experts who could have given evidence about the diaries and

95
00:05:40,160 --> 00:05:44,560
Speaker 3: given an entirely different interpretation to the interpretation given by

96
00:05:44,600 --> 00:05:49,599
Speaker 3: the prosecution. So, for example, in one case, in relation

97
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 3: to one diary entry, mister again I'm paraphrasing, but mister

98
00:05:55,040 --> 00:05:58,000
Speaker 3: Tedesky essentially said, what could she possibly mean by this

99
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:02,200
Speaker 3: other than I killed children or I killed this child.

100
00:06:02,400 --> 00:06:06,200
Speaker 3: Now Never, at any point in any of her diary

101
00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:11,360
Speaker 3: entries anywhere did she ever admit to any agency in

102
00:06:11,960 --> 00:06:14,960
Speaker 3: killing harming, let alone killing any of the children. She

103
00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:21,040
Speaker 3: never admitted in her diaries to harming the children physically. Okay,

104
00:06:21,480 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 3: I think that would have had a big effect on

105
00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:26,719
Speaker 3: the jury. And I just don't believe, to be frank

106
00:06:27,520 --> 00:06:30,240
Speaker 3: that Peter Zara hit back hard enough on this, and

107
00:06:30,279 --> 00:06:31,800
Speaker 3: I think that one of the reasons for that, as

108
00:06:31,800 --> 00:06:36,000
Speaker 3: I say, is because deep down they actually believed that

109
00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:37,239
Speaker 3: the diaries were damning.

110
00:06:37,720 --> 00:06:42,000
Speaker 1: Okay, it makes for a complex situation, doesn't And we're

111
00:06:42,040 --> 00:06:44,320
Speaker 1: talking in the very matter of fact way. But the

112
00:06:44,360 --> 00:06:48,600
Speaker 1: trauma associated when I've said about Kathleen going into the

113
00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:53,960
Speaker 1: witness box, she's lost four children. Regardless of how that's happened,

114
00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:57,000
Speaker 1: there's trauma associated with that. I don't care who you are.

115
00:06:57,279 --> 00:07:00,520
Speaker 1: She's been charged with a charged with murdering the four children.

116
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:04,080
Speaker 1: Looking at I think the media were doing their job.

117
00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:08,040
Speaker 1: The worst female serial killer and the camera, everything that

118
00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:12,520
Speaker 1: goes into play play there. So the stakes were very high.

119
00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:17,160
Speaker 1: The trial went for seven weeks, she was convicted. I

120
00:07:17,240 --> 00:07:22,200
Speaker 1: think she was sentenced to initially forty years thirty years

121
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:25,000
Speaker 1: on the bottom. They appealed the sentencing and I think

122
00:07:25,040 --> 00:07:27,320
Speaker 1: it was reduced to thirty years twenty five years on

123
00:07:27,320 --> 00:07:30,680
Speaker 1: the bottom. That was where we're at. Can you take

124
00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:34,080
Speaker 1: up the case from there, because for all intents and purposes,

125
00:07:34,160 --> 00:07:37,720
Speaker 1: that could have been the last that we heard of Kathleen.

126
00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:40,800
Speaker 1: She would stay in jail, But that's so far from

127
00:07:40,800 --> 00:07:44,120
Speaker 1: the case. What were the things that started to turn

128
00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:47,520
Speaker 1: it round where people believed believed her innocence and people

129
00:07:47,560 --> 00:07:49,640
Speaker 1: started fighting for the justice.

130
00:07:50,280 --> 00:07:53,600
Speaker 3: Can I just preface if I may, sorry, there is

131
00:07:53,640 --> 00:07:56,880
Speaker 3: one other aspect of the trial that needs to be mentioned,

132
00:07:56,880 --> 00:08:00,600
Speaker 3: which is indeed the forensic evidence. So the forends evidence

133
00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:03,640
Speaker 3: in the trial, essentially to cut it, to cut it

134
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:08,760
Speaker 3: to its most basic element, was that you can smother

135
00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:14,080
Speaker 3: an infant without leaving any physical trace. And kind of bizarrely,

136
00:08:14,120 --> 00:08:16,800
Speaker 3: in my opinion, and this all relates to Meadows law,

137
00:08:17,200 --> 00:08:20,880
Speaker 3: that if there is no physical trace of smothering, which

138
00:08:20,920 --> 00:08:24,840
Speaker 3: there wasn't certainly no definite traces of physical smothering in

139
00:08:24,840 --> 00:08:27,800
Speaker 3: any of the four cases, that is of itself or

140
00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:31,360
Speaker 3: of any other means of killing them, that is, of

141
00:08:31,360 --> 00:08:35,880
Speaker 3: itself evidence that they were smothered. Now to me, that

142
00:08:36,000 --> 00:08:39,240
Speaker 3: is almost Kafkai esque, but that essentially was what happened

143
00:08:39,240 --> 00:08:39,800
Speaker 3: in the trial.

144
00:08:39,920 --> 00:08:44,680
Speaker 1: So just try and paraphrase that that if there's no

145
00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:47,880
Speaker 1: evidence of the child Moon smothered, that could be evidence

146
00:08:47,880 --> 00:08:49,880
Speaker 1: of the fact that the child was smothered because there

147
00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:51,480
Speaker 1: is no physical evidence of the child.

148
00:08:51,760 --> 00:08:53,640
Speaker 3: Well, I suppose there are two parts to it. Is

149
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:56,000
Speaker 3: there any evidence that they were killed by any other means?

150
00:08:56,200 --> 00:09:03,199
Speaker 3: The answer is no. Is there a substantial evidence or

151
00:09:03,400 --> 00:09:06,160
Speaker 3: that you know or is the likelihood of four children

152
00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:10,839
Speaker 3: dying financial causes so unlikely that they must have been murdered. Well,

153
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:14,000
Speaker 3: if there is that, then they must have been smothered.

154
00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:18,160
Speaker 3: And what adds to this argument, if you like, is

155
00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:21,640
Speaker 3: the fact that infants can be smothered without leaving any

156
00:09:21,640 --> 00:09:25,400
Speaker 3: physical traits, and therefore she smothered them. Now, Mark Tadesky

157
00:09:25,559 --> 00:09:28,800
Speaker 3: at the trial gave various kind of scenarios as to

158
00:09:28,960 --> 00:09:31,120
Speaker 3: why she might have or how she might why she

159
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:34,600
Speaker 3: might have smothered them. One of them was that she

160
00:09:34,760 --> 00:09:37,880
Speaker 3: might have smothered each of them in turn. She might

161
00:09:37,920 --> 00:09:40,120
Speaker 3: have suffocated each of them in turn in order to

162
00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:43,400
Speaker 3: get them to go to sleep, okay, as opposed to

163
00:09:44,080 --> 00:09:46,880
Speaker 3: killing them in a rage. That was another alternative scenario,

164
00:09:46,880 --> 00:09:50,080
Speaker 3: that she flew into a rage on each occasion and

165
00:09:50,120 --> 00:09:53,200
Speaker 3: she smothered them. And I think, I mean they knew

166
00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:56,720
Speaker 3: about a case in the United States there of a

167
00:09:56,760 --> 00:10:02,720
Speaker 3: babysitter who would use this suff vocation technique, allegedly in

168
00:10:02,840 --> 00:10:05,680
Speaker 3: hundreds of cases where she was babysitting children and she

169
00:10:05,720 --> 00:10:08,679
Speaker 3: would smother, she would suffocate them, you know, temporarily to

170
00:10:08,720 --> 00:10:12,600
Speaker 3: put them to sleep. And then most unfortunately, she had

171
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:15,800
Speaker 3: actually killed a couple of children, and she confessed to

172
00:10:15,840 --> 00:10:18,720
Speaker 3: this and was charged, And so that was one scenario.

173
00:10:18,760 --> 00:10:21,680
Speaker 3: But again it's the whole basis for this was that

174
00:10:22,200 --> 00:10:25,080
Speaker 3: you can smother an infant without leaving any physical evidence,

175
00:10:25,280 --> 00:10:28,319
Speaker 3: and therefore that the means by which she killed them

176
00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:31,160
Speaker 3: must have been smothering. Now, in the case of Laura,

177
00:10:31,520 --> 00:10:35,959
Speaker 3: that was in fact highly unlikely because once a child

178
00:10:36,360 --> 00:10:41,080
Speaker 3: of Laura's age is attacked in this way, they are

179
00:10:41,120 --> 00:10:43,800
Speaker 3: going to struggle, and they have teeth, and the teeth

180
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:46,200
Speaker 3: are going to leave marks, almost certainly on the inside

181
00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:49,040
Speaker 3: of the mouth. And in Laura's case, at her autopsy,

182
00:10:49,080 --> 00:10:51,280
Speaker 3: doctor Carla found no evidence of this. He found no

183
00:10:51,360 --> 00:10:54,880
Speaker 3: evidence that she had been smothered or that there were

184
00:10:54,920 --> 00:11:00,840
Speaker 3: teeth marks inside her mouth indicating a struggle. So really

185
00:11:00,920 --> 00:11:05,920
Speaker 3: the active evidence, if you like, for smothering was non existent,

186
00:11:06,320 --> 00:11:10,080
Speaker 3: so that in effect reversed the burden of proof to

187
00:11:10,160 --> 00:11:14,719
Speaker 3: make it incumbent on the defense to prove that they

188
00:11:14,720 --> 00:11:16,120
Speaker 3: had died from natural causes.

189
00:11:16,320 --> 00:11:19,520
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, once she was convicted, who were the people

190
00:11:19,520 --> 00:11:23,920
Speaker 1: that still believed in Kathy, Like you had had people

191
00:11:23,960 --> 00:11:26,840
Speaker 1: campaigning on the outside. Who were the people of significant

192
00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:29,880
Speaker 1: people that were fighting to get this weather overturned.

193
00:11:30,440 --> 00:11:34,080
Speaker 3: Well, it was essentially her closest friends. I mean, you know,

194
00:11:34,280 --> 00:11:38,560
Speaker 3: I think one, I can't imagine how hard it must

195
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:42,240
Speaker 3: have been for Kathy at the trial, because you know,

196
00:11:42,840 --> 00:11:46,400
Speaker 3: her own foster mother was kind of sitting with Craig

197
00:11:46,720 --> 00:11:51,600
Speaker 3: Folbig's family. Craig himself had turned against her. He was

198
00:11:51,640 --> 00:11:54,720
Speaker 3: an absolutely key witness for the prosecution, and I would

199
00:11:54,760 --> 00:11:59,600
Speaker 3: surmise that his evidence was crucial in the jury reaching

200
00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:03,240
Speaker 3: the Verden. They did so her own husband and they

201
00:12:03,240 --> 00:12:05,800
Speaker 3: were still married at the time of the trial. So

202
00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:10,400
Speaker 3: Craig had turned against her, and really the only person

203
00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:14,200
Speaker 3: she had on her side was this Salvation Army major

204
00:12:14,960 --> 00:12:20,640
Speaker 3: who Joyce Harmer, who was amazing, and Joyce's husband, Hilton,

205
00:12:21,440 --> 00:12:23,199
Speaker 3: who took care of her during the trial, and I

206
00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:26,600
Speaker 3: think shielded her from the worst of the media. But

207
00:12:26,760 --> 00:12:29,640
Speaker 3: so she was kind of bereft and then for various reasons,

208
00:12:29,679 --> 00:12:32,880
Speaker 3: certainly her two closest friends were unable to attend the trial,

209
00:12:33,360 --> 00:12:36,320
Speaker 3: and so she was literally on her own apart from

210
00:12:36,360 --> 00:12:40,240
Speaker 3: Joyce Harmer's support. And then after the trial, really it

211
00:12:40,280 --> 00:12:44,120
Speaker 3: was Tracy Chapman and Meghan Donoghan and you know, one

212
00:12:44,160 --> 00:12:47,320
Speaker 3: or two other close friends who were kind of there

213
00:12:47,360 --> 00:12:48,079
Speaker 3: to support her.

214
00:12:48,520 --> 00:12:49,360
Speaker 2: There was an.

215
00:12:49,240 --> 00:12:54,880
Speaker 3: Initial appeal, where as you mentioned, her sentence was cut

216
00:12:54,920 --> 00:12:57,680
Speaker 3: from forty years to thirty years with a twenty five

217
00:12:57,800 --> 00:13:02,320
Speaker 3: year kind of minimum period in prison, which incidentally would

218
00:13:02,360 --> 00:13:04,880
Speaker 3: have meant that she would not even if she was

219
00:13:04,920 --> 00:13:07,240
Speaker 3: granted parole, she would not be granted parole for another

220
00:13:07,280 --> 00:13:10,839
Speaker 3: three years from now until twenty twenty eight. But then

221
00:13:10,880 --> 00:13:13,960
Speaker 3: after that there was a second appeal. What happened was

222
00:13:14,120 --> 00:13:17,040
Speaker 3: it was discovered that during the trial, a member of

223
00:13:17,040 --> 00:13:19,840
Speaker 3: the jury, well let me go back to the beginning.

224
00:13:19,920 --> 00:13:26,439
Speaker 3: During the trial, this infamous or famous line she wrote.

225
00:13:26,440 --> 00:13:29,160
Speaker 3: Obviously I am my father's daughter was ruled in admissible,

226
00:13:30,440 --> 00:13:34,920
Speaker 3: but when Craig was giving evidence, whether intentionally or unintentionally,

227
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:39,920
Speaker 3: he dropped into his evidence the fact that he had

228
00:13:40,000 --> 00:13:43,400
Speaker 3: read this line in her diary. It was a kind

229
00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:50,520
Speaker 3: of egregious, you know, flouting of the ruling of it inadmissibility.

230
00:13:49,760 --> 00:13:53,600
Speaker 1: And that worthing of what she said, I am my

231
00:13:53,679 --> 00:13:56,600
Speaker 1: father's daughter. It looks like I'm my father's daughter. Forget

232
00:13:56,600 --> 00:13:59,679
Speaker 1: the exact words, given the fact that her father had

233
00:13:59,760 --> 00:14:03,040
Speaker 1: murdered her mother, and the inference being fairly strong and

234
00:14:03,559 --> 00:14:07,280
Speaker 1: probity against against her in that.

235
00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:10,040
Speaker 3: Regard, exactly well it was it was It was deemed

236
00:14:10,040 --> 00:14:13,440
Speaker 3: by I mean Petersarrap quite rightly put forward the argument

237
00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:16,760
Speaker 3: that it was enormously prejudicial to for the jury to

238
00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:19,760
Speaker 3: be told about this line that she had written, because

239
00:14:19,760 --> 00:14:22,400
Speaker 3: they would automatically assume that what she was, as you say,

240
00:14:22,480 --> 00:14:25,400
Speaker 3: what she was referring to was the fact that her

241
00:14:25,600 --> 00:14:29,000
Speaker 3: her father had murdered her mother. But as I say,

242
00:14:29,280 --> 00:14:32,920
Speaker 3: it was ruled in admissible, and then Craig Folbig mentioned

243
00:14:32,920 --> 00:14:36,080
Speaker 3: it in his evidence, and then they came down with

244
00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:40,720
Speaker 3: the guilty verdict. And then after the trial, after she

245
00:14:40,720 --> 00:14:43,920
Speaker 3: she had been convicted, of course, the media went wild.

246
00:14:44,160 --> 00:14:47,000
Speaker 3: They were finally allowed to report this line that she

247
00:14:47,040 --> 00:14:50,000
Speaker 3: had written in her diary, and and and the media

248
00:14:50,240 --> 00:14:56,320
Speaker 3: I think universally interpreted the line she had written as

249
00:14:56,400 --> 00:14:59,200
Speaker 3: being a kind of an admission that she had killed

250
00:14:59,200 --> 00:15:03,360
Speaker 3: her children. She of course, later gave a very different

251
00:15:03,440 --> 00:15:06,960
Speaker 3: explanation for why she'd written it. She said, Look, all

252
00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:09,440
Speaker 3: I was saying there essentially was, you know, my dad

253
00:15:09,480 --> 00:15:12,800
Speaker 3: was a loser, and you know my life has kind

254
00:15:12,800 --> 00:15:15,760
Speaker 3: of gone to shit basically, and you know I've turned

255
00:15:15,760 --> 00:15:17,560
Speaker 3: out to be a loser as well. You know, that

256
00:15:17,680 --> 00:15:21,480
Speaker 3: was her explanation for it. But for the second appeal,

257
00:15:22,400 --> 00:15:25,240
Speaker 3: this was one of the grounds of appeal that that

258
00:15:25,240 --> 00:15:29,280
Speaker 3: that there'd been a clear breach of the rules by

259
00:15:29,320 --> 00:15:33,440
Speaker 3: a member of the jury and therefore essentially that there

260
00:15:33,440 --> 00:15:36,080
Speaker 3: should be a retrial. And I think what was interesting,

261
00:15:36,080 --> 00:15:39,040
Speaker 3: what I found interesting was that the appeal the Crown

262
00:15:39,200 --> 00:15:44,080
Speaker 3: argued that you know, when this information went back into

263
00:15:44,080 --> 00:15:47,440
Speaker 3: the jury room, it would have elicited sympathy from the

264
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:48,560
Speaker 3: other members of the jury.

265
00:15:48,920 --> 00:15:50,880
Speaker 2: Now I personally find that absurd.

266
00:15:51,120 --> 00:15:54,240
Speaker 1: Look, we're talking hypothetically if that's what happened, but I

267
00:15:54,840 --> 00:15:57,800
Speaker 1: don't think I'm not picturing the jury room going sympathy.

268
00:15:57,840 --> 00:15:59,560
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, ah, right, we've cracked the.

269
00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:03,560
Speaker 3: Case exactly so, and so I find that to be

270
00:16:03,640 --> 00:16:08,600
Speaker 3: frank an extraordinary decision of the Appeal Court, the Court

271
00:16:08,600 --> 00:16:09,320
Speaker 3: Criminal Appeal.

272
00:16:09,800 --> 00:16:12,320
Speaker 1: How did it get to the point where they were inquiries?

273
00:16:13,200 --> 00:16:16,520
Speaker 3: Okay, so I'll kind of flash forward, if you like.

274
00:16:16,600 --> 00:16:23,400
Speaker 3: In twenty and eleven, Emma Cunliffe, who is Australian, a

275
00:16:23,480 --> 00:16:26,840
Speaker 3: legal academic, she's now a professor, but who had moved

276
00:16:26,840 --> 00:16:30,480
Speaker 3: to Canada. She started looking at this case. She was

277
00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:33,120
Speaker 3: actually I think looking at the case of Linda Chamberlain

278
00:16:33,160 --> 00:16:38,320
Speaker 3: at the time, but as she describes it, she realized

279
00:16:38,800 --> 00:16:43,240
Speaker 3: when she started researching Lindy's case, in Kathleen's case, that

280
00:16:43,280 --> 00:16:46,440
Speaker 3: there were all these other mothers in the UK in particular,

281
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:52,560
Speaker 3: who had been convicted on largely on the basis of

282
00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:55,080
Speaker 3: Meadows law or to a great extent on the basis

283
00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:57,600
Speaker 3: of Meadow's law, but who had since been acquitted, and

284
00:16:57,640 --> 00:17:02,160
Speaker 3: the only mother who had not been acquitted or on

285
00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:06,320
Speaker 3: appeal was Kathy. Okay, So she started looking at the case,

286
00:17:06,359 --> 00:17:11,840
Speaker 3: and she's quite clear in conceding that she started off

287
00:17:11,920 --> 00:17:14,520
Speaker 3: with the view that Kathleen Folbey had.

288
00:17:14,359 --> 00:17:15,160
Speaker 2: You know, was guilty.

289
00:17:16,040 --> 00:17:18,880
Speaker 3: And she also is very clear in saying that when

290
00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:22,480
Speaker 3: she started reading her diaries she was very troubled by them.

291
00:17:22,720 --> 00:17:25,720
Speaker 1: Yeah. I found that found that very interesting because that

292
00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:31,240
Speaker 1: was her initial reading the diaries. She saw something sinister there,

293
00:17:31,480 --> 00:17:33,760
Speaker 1: but then she changed the view on it.

294
00:17:34,000 --> 00:17:37,359
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right, and I think that I think I

295
00:17:37,359 --> 00:17:39,879
Speaker 3: think a lot of people have, probably including myself, I

296
00:17:39,880 --> 00:17:42,760
Speaker 3: have gone through that kind of process of reading some

297
00:17:42,800 --> 00:17:45,120
Speaker 3: of the entries in the diaries, you know. The most

298
00:17:45,119 --> 00:17:47,600
Speaker 3: famous one of which is apart from my father's daughter,

299
00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:50,280
Speaker 3: is probably the one where she says that Sarah, you know,

300
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:52,920
Speaker 3: left with a bit of help, with a bit of help,

301
00:17:53,000 --> 00:17:55,640
Speaker 3: and you think, oh my god, what is she saying here?

302
00:17:56,359 --> 00:17:56,560
Speaker 1: Now.

303
00:17:56,960 --> 00:18:00,640
Speaker 3: Her explanation for that has always been, and can persistently

304
00:18:00,760 --> 00:18:03,320
Speaker 3: actually since the very earliest days, has always been that

305
00:18:03,359 --> 00:18:05,040
Speaker 3: what she meant by that was that she left with

306
00:18:05,080 --> 00:18:09,399
Speaker 3: some kind of divine or you know, supernatural help. It's

307
00:18:09,440 --> 00:18:12,719
Speaker 3: a kind of semi religious kind of idea that she

308
00:18:12,800 --> 00:18:15,040
Speaker 3: was taken from me by God or however you want

309
00:18:15,080 --> 00:18:15,960
Speaker 3: to express it, or.

310
00:18:15,880 --> 00:18:20,199
Speaker 2: A higher power. But Emma, in.

311
00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:26,639
Speaker 3: You know, not uniquely was very troubled by that, and

312
00:18:26,680 --> 00:18:29,000
Speaker 3: I think may will have thought that she was guilty.

313
00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:30,439
Speaker 3: But the more she looked into the case, and in

314
00:18:30,480 --> 00:18:33,960
Speaker 3: particular the more she deconstructed the trial itself, the more

315
00:18:34,000 --> 00:18:38,600
Speaker 3: convinced she became that Kathleen was innocent. And so she

316
00:18:38,680 --> 00:18:41,320
Speaker 3: wrote this book, which was a kind of seminal book

317
00:18:41,440 --> 00:18:45,200
Speaker 3: really about the case which was published in twenty eleven Murder,

318
00:18:45,280 --> 00:18:50,479
Speaker 3: Medicine and Motherhood that was read by, amongst other people,

319
00:18:51,600 --> 00:18:57,720
Speaker 3: a close friend of Kathy's, Helen Cummings in Newcastle, and.

320
00:18:57,960 --> 00:18:59,480
Speaker 2: She approached.

321
00:19:00,359 --> 00:19:05,920
Speaker 3: Isabel Reid who who is a barrister in Newcastle. Isabelle

322
00:19:05,960 --> 00:19:10,080
Speaker 3: read then got other lawyers involved, and so round about

323
00:19:10,080 --> 00:19:13,879
Speaker 3: that time twenty eleven twenty twelve, lawyers in Newcastle and

324
00:19:13,920 --> 00:19:18,680
Speaker 3: indeed the University of Newcastle's Legal Center got involved, did

325
00:19:18,680 --> 00:19:21,440
Speaker 3: a lot more research the Legal Center into the case

326
00:19:21,520 --> 00:19:27,760
Speaker 3: and the transcripts and everything else. And eventually in twenty

327
00:19:27,880 --> 00:19:33,000
Speaker 3: fifteen a petition was put together and it was sent

328
00:19:33,280 --> 00:19:38,520
Speaker 3: to the then Attorney General of New South Wales, gabrielle Upton,

329
00:19:41,440 --> 00:19:45,200
Speaker 3: you know, calling for a judicial inquiry into her case. Now,

330
00:19:45,280 --> 00:19:48,880
Speaker 3: one of the key aspects of that petition, in my opinion,

331
00:19:49,240 --> 00:19:51,840
Speaker 3: the most crucial aspect of it, the most crucial element

332
00:19:51,880 --> 00:19:56,399
Speaker 3: of it was an enormous report which was written by

333
00:19:56,640 --> 00:20:00,760
Speaker 3: the esteemed forensic pathologists, Professor Stephen Cordner, and he'd spent

334
00:20:00,840 --> 00:20:05,800
Speaker 3: over a year reviewing the forensic evidence in the case,

335
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:09,000
Speaker 3: and his very clear conclusion was that there were natural

336
00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:11,359
Speaker 3: cause of death for all four children, and there was

337
00:20:11,400 --> 00:20:15,639
Speaker 3: no evidence whatsoever that she had been smothered, and not

338
00:20:15,680 --> 00:20:19,960
Speaker 3: only that, there was actually robust evidence that Laura had

339
00:20:19,960 --> 00:20:24,760
Speaker 3: not been smothered because she didn't have any injuries exactly exactly.

340
00:20:27,200 --> 00:20:30,200
Speaker 3: So this was presented in I think it was may

341
00:20:30,280 --> 00:20:34,240
Speaker 3: Or June twenty fifteen, to the then Governor of New

342
00:20:34,240 --> 00:20:37,400
Speaker 3: South Wales, and then passed on to the Attorney General,

343
00:20:37,480 --> 00:20:44,320
Speaker 3: gabrielle Upton, and then Mark Speakman, her successor as Attorney General,

344
00:20:44,359 --> 00:20:49,479
Speaker 3: came on board. And then following on from that, in

345
00:20:49,640 --> 00:20:53,600
Speaker 3: twenty seventeen, I became involved in well, I should in fairness,

346
00:20:53,680 --> 00:20:57,959
Speaker 3: I should add that after Emma Cunliffe's book was published,

347
00:20:58,200 --> 00:21:01,480
Speaker 3: sixty Minutes did a store about her case, and they

348
00:21:01,560 --> 00:21:07,920
Speaker 3: interviewed Emma Cunliffe, and you know, bravoed sixty Minutes, who

349
00:21:07,960 --> 00:21:10,119
Speaker 3: actually followed the case right the way through pretty much

350
00:21:10,160 --> 00:21:14,080
Speaker 3: to the very end, and consistently argued that there were

351
00:21:14,119 --> 00:21:19,600
Speaker 3: reasons to doubt her guilt. So they did that. But

352
00:21:19,760 --> 00:21:24,160
Speaker 3: then in twenty eighteen I was working at Australian Story

353
00:21:24,960 --> 00:21:29,520
Speaker 3: and I produced a story, an episode, a long longer

354
00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:33,479
Speaker 3: than usual episode for Australian Story about Kathy's case, and

355
00:21:33,520 --> 00:21:36,280
Speaker 3: one of the things I guess there were two important

356
00:21:36,320 --> 00:21:41,280
Speaker 3: elements of that story. One of them was that I decided,

357
00:21:42,480 --> 00:21:45,359
Speaker 3: after reading as much of the evidence as I could,

358
00:21:45,400 --> 00:21:49,000
Speaker 3: that there was a clear conflict between what Professor Cordener

359
00:21:49,359 --> 00:21:52,000
Speaker 3: had said, which was that there was no forensic evidence

360
00:21:52,160 --> 00:21:55,359
Speaker 3: to suggest that they'd been murdered, and what doctor Alan

361
00:21:55,480 --> 00:21:59,960
Speaker 3: Carla had said, which was supporting the view that awful

362
00:22:00,080 --> 00:22:07,200
Speaker 3: children had indeed been smothered. And I was able entirely

363
00:22:07,240 --> 00:22:12,760
Speaker 3: independent forensic pathologist called Dr Matthew ord who incidentally was

364
00:22:12,800 --> 00:22:17,240
Speaker 3: based in Canada along along with Emma Cunliffe, was suggested

365
00:22:17,280 --> 00:22:19,600
Speaker 3: to us as someone to approach, and I approached him

366
00:22:19,600 --> 00:22:21,520
Speaker 3: and I said, look, would you be prepared to do

367
00:22:21,560 --> 00:22:26,000
Speaker 3: two things to kind of review Stephen Cordner's report, And

368
00:22:26,080 --> 00:22:28,840
Speaker 3: he doctor ord had nothing whatsoever to do with the

369
00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:30,960
Speaker 3: case prior to that, which I thought was a good thing.

370
00:22:31,760 --> 00:22:36,680
Speaker 3: And secondly, if we can arrange for the slides of

371
00:22:37,160 --> 00:22:40,800
Speaker 3: Laura's heart tissue to be delivered to you, will you

372
00:22:40,840 --> 00:22:44,040
Speaker 3: examine them and kind of tell us what you think?

373
00:22:44,119 --> 00:22:46,359
Speaker 3: And I didn't know what his conclusions would be. He

374
00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:49,760
Speaker 3: might have he might have said he agreed to do this.

375
00:22:49,840 --> 00:22:51,879
Speaker 3: But he might have said, look, I don't agree with

376
00:22:52,040 --> 00:22:57,120
Speaker 3: Professor Cordner's report, and I think that the myo choditis

377
00:22:57,560 --> 00:23:00,600
Speaker 3: that Laura was suffering from that I agree with Carla

378
00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:02,480
Speaker 3: that it was only patche and mild. He might have

379
00:23:02,560 --> 00:23:06,280
Speaker 3: said that. In the event, he said that broadly, he

380
00:23:06,359 --> 00:23:09,800
Speaker 3: agreed with everything Professor Corden had written in his report,

381
00:23:10,040 --> 00:23:12,000
Speaker 3: and he thought that there was a very clear case

382
00:23:12,080 --> 00:23:15,439
Speaker 3: of my arcaditis which could have caused Laura's death. The

383
00:23:15,480 --> 00:23:18,399
Speaker 3: phrase he used at one point he qualified it. He

384
00:23:18,400 --> 00:23:22,359
Speaker 3: said that didn't that didn't prevent the possibility that she

385
00:23:22,520 --> 00:23:25,440
Speaker 3: might have killed Laura. But he said that in his opinion,

386
00:23:25,560 --> 00:23:30,600
Speaker 3: this was, to quote, an eminently fatal case of my acaditis.

387
00:23:31,400 --> 00:23:35,400
Speaker 3: Now I was kind of, at one level stunned by this,

388
00:23:35,480 --> 00:23:39,159
Speaker 3: because I thought, well, my god, you know, if this

389
00:23:39,440 --> 00:23:42,680
Speaker 3: entirely independent forensic pathologist is saying this is an eminently

390
00:23:42,720 --> 00:23:45,480
Speaker 3: fatal case of my arcaditis, why was she ever convicted?

391
00:23:46,000 --> 00:23:48,879
Speaker 3: And after he said this, I came back and I

392
00:23:48,920 --> 00:23:53,200
Speaker 3: spoke to I interviewed Nicholas Cowdrey, who was, of course

393
00:23:53,359 --> 00:23:57,520
Speaker 3: the Director of Public Prosecutions when Kathleen was put on trial,

394
00:23:58,040 --> 00:24:00,919
Speaker 3: and interestingly, he said a couple of things in relation

395
00:24:01,080 --> 00:24:04,159
Speaker 3: to the pigs might fly quote he said, well, you know,

396
00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:05,920
Speaker 3: that's not what I would that's not how I would

397
00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:10,720
Speaker 3: have presented it. But in relation to this, he said, well,

398
00:24:11,080 --> 00:24:13,040
Speaker 3: you know, even if this went to the Quarter of

399
00:24:13,080 --> 00:24:16,480
Speaker 3: Criminal Appeal and she was found not guilty, she was

400
00:24:16,480 --> 00:24:22,840
Speaker 3: acquitted of her conviction of murdering Laura, that wouldn't necessarily

401
00:24:22,880 --> 00:24:27,119
Speaker 3: mean that the other convictions couldn't stand. And I found

402
00:24:27,119 --> 00:24:30,399
Speaker 3: that absurd. I'm sorry as well, because it was the

403
00:24:30,440 --> 00:24:36,600
Speaker 3: coincidence evidence that helped drink and case. So so we

404
00:24:36,680 --> 00:24:42,920
Speaker 3: then put this story to air in August twenty eighteen,

405
00:24:43,359 --> 00:24:44,439
Speaker 3: and I.

406
00:24:44,440 --> 00:24:45,280
Speaker 2: Think it's interesting.

407
00:24:45,320 --> 00:24:48,680
Speaker 3: You know, I'm sure you've found this Gary in life

408
00:24:48,680 --> 00:24:52,480
Speaker 3: as well as in investigations and so on. Timing is everything,

409
00:24:53,040 --> 00:24:56,040
Speaker 3: so you know, I pay tribute, as I say, to

410
00:24:56,640 --> 00:24:59,480
Speaker 3: sixty minutes, and there were one or two other great

411
00:24:59,560 --> 00:25:02,719
Speaker 3: journalists who had written articles and so on prior to

412
00:25:02,720 --> 00:25:05,600
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen, saying you know, there are questions need to

413
00:25:05,640 --> 00:25:07,760
Speaker 3: be raised about this case, but I think the timing

414
00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:12,040
Speaker 3: of this was critical of our Australian story and one

415
00:25:12,080 --> 00:25:15,640
Speaker 3: of the other things that Nicholas Cowdrey said on camera

416
00:25:16,280 --> 00:25:19,520
Speaker 3: was he said that he believed that the delay in

417
00:25:19,600 --> 00:25:22,119
Speaker 3: deciding on the petition, which by then was more than

418
00:25:22,160 --> 00:25:27,320
Speaker 3: three years, was an inordinate delay, some exceptional. And nine

419
00:25:27,400 --> 00:25:33,160
Speaker 3: days later Mark Speakman got up and said, okay, we're

420
00:25:33,160 --> 00:25:36,600
Speaker 3: going to have an inquiry into her convictions. And it's

421
00:25:36,640 --> 00:25:40,679
Speaker 3: interesting that the key point that he said the inquiry

422
00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:46,919
Speaker 3: would consider was this whole question of whether there had

423
00:25:47,080 --> 00:25:50,800
Speaker 3: ever been other cases of three or more deaths of

424
00:25:50,800 --> 00:25:55,040
Speaker 3: infants in a family, you know, from natural causes. And

425
00:25:55,560 --> 00:25:59,040
Speaker 3: all of the medical experts who gave evidence at her trial,

426
00:25:59,160 --> 00:26:01,520
Speaker 3: at Cathy's trial, had said they'd never heard of a

427
00:26:01,560 --> 00:26:06,080
Speaker 3: case like that, and then you know, Mark Tdeski himself

428
00:26:06,080 --> 00:26:09,240
Speaker 3: had kind of emphasized that by saying pigs might fly,

429
00:26:10,000 --> 00:26:14,240
Speaker 3: and so the jury it became very, very apparent. And

430
00:26:14,280 --> 00:26:16,680
Speaker 3: Emma Cunliffe pointed this out in her book that there

431
00:26:16,680 --> 00:26:19,040
Speaker 3: were of course other cases where three or more children

432
00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:21,880
Speaker 3: had died from natural causes, and so this was one

433
00:26:21,880 --> 00:26:23,480
Speaker 3: of the one of the one of the points that

434
00:26:23,840 --> 00:26:26,159
Speaker 3: we raised on Australian Story, and it was one of

435
00:26:26,200 --> 00:26:31,760
Speaker 3: the one of the probably the key point that Mark

436
00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:36,679
Speaker 3: Speakman raised and announcing this first inquiry.

437
00:26:35,560 --> 00:26:38,280
Speaker 1: Had taken that information into the jury room and that

438
00:26:38,280 --> 00:26:43,560
Speaker 1: that's what they've been presented with. It's when when you

439
00:26:43,600 --> 00:26:45,879
Speaker 1: break it down, it's still complicated, but at the time

440
00:26:45,960 --> 00:26:49,520
Speaker 1: I can just imagine all these things coming into play.

441
00:26:50,560 --> 00:26:54,560
Speaker 1: The inquiry was an inquiry was ordered, so there was

442
00:26:54,680 --> 00:26:56,760
Speaker 1: I think there was two inquiries. Wasn't it that there

443
00:26:56,760 --> 00:26:57,120
Speaker 1: were too?

444
00:26:57,240 --> 00:26:58,280
Speaker 2: There were two inquiries?

445
00:26:58,320 --> 00:27:00,520
Speaker 3: And can I just mention one other credit cool thing

446
00:27:00,560 --> 00:27:06,880
Speaker 3: about the petition. Apart from Professor Cordner's extensive and exhaustive report,

447
00:27:07,160 --> 00:27:10,840
Speaker 3: there was also a report by a British mathematician, Professor

448
00:27:10,960 --> 00:27:14,760
Speaker 3: Ray Hill, who had given evidence, as it happens at

449
00:27:15,119 --> 00:27:21,159
Speaker 3: or presented evidence to Sally Clark's successful appeal. And for

450
00:27:21,240 --> 00:27:24,720
Speaker 3: me this was a kind of epiphany. And essentially what

451
00:27:24,840 --> 00:27:28,119
Speaker 3: he said was that you know, while the chances of

452
00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:34,119
Speaker 3: four children in a family dying from natural causes made

453
00:27:34,440 --> 00:27:36,920
Speaker 3: you know it's a rare event, the chances of all

454
00:27:36,960 --> 00:27:41,760
Speaker 3: four children being killed is much rarer. And he actually

455
00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:46,840
Speaker 3: produced some statistics. He said that his own rough estimates,

456
00:27:46,880 --> 00:27:50,000
Speaker 3: which he had published in a paper, was that single

457
00:27:50,040 --> 00:27:56,000
Speaker 3: cot deaths outweigh single infant murders by seventeen to one.

458
00:27:56,520 --> 00:28:00,920
Speaker 3: Double cot deaths outweigh double infant murders by about nine

459
00:28:00,960 --> 00:28:05,040
Speaker 3: to one, and triple cot death that way, triple murders

460
00:28:05,040 --> 00:28:09,119
Speaker 3: by about two to one. So you know, the whole

461
00:28:09,280 --> 00:28:12,439
Speaker 3: basis really for the kind of for meadows law and

462
00:28:12,480 --> 00:28:15,200
Speaker 3: for the prejudice. If you like that I have three

463
00:28:15,320 --> 00:28:17,199
Speaker 3: or more children die in a family, it has to

464
00:28:17,200 --> 00:28:21,880
Speaker 3: be homicide. Was based on a faulty statistical assumption.

465
00:28:22,480 --> 00:28:26,960
Speaker 1: The statistical analysis could be flipped to work against it exactly.

466
00:28:27,000 --> 00:28:31,840
Speaker 1: So basically explains that it's with all the experts that

467
00:28:31,920 --> 00:28:35,239
Speaker 1: you get in and you mentioned mentioned earlier, and I

468
00:28:35,280 --> 00:28:37,760
Speaker 1: just want to read it out when we talk talk

469
00:28:37,800 --> 00:28:41,240
Speaker 1: about confirmation bias from from your book, an extract from

470
00:28:41,360 --> 00:28:45,640
Speaker 1: from your book, Doctor Cunliffe has made the made this

471
00:28:45,920 --> 00:28:49,880
Speaker 1: comment on the basis of doctor Carla's evidence. And I

472
00:28:49,920 --> 00:28:53,080
Speaker 1: recall when you said information was passed on, passed on

473
00:28:53,120 --> 00:28:55,640
Speaker 1: to another expert when you were doing the research, and

474
00:28:55,680 --> 00:28:58,600
Speaker 1: you were very careful not to provide too much information.

475
00:28:58,960 --> 00:29:01,080
Speaker 1: I just read this out there. They'll open up some

476
00:29:01,160 --> 00:29:06,000
Speaker 1: discussion there. Doctor Cunliffe made this assessment. Cognitive science, she explained,

477
00:29:06,440 --> 00:29:08,680
Speaker 1: shows that when someone believes that there is a likely

478
00:29:08,760 --> 00:29:12,760
Speaker 1: explanation of a phenomenon that they are observing, they are

479
00:29:12,800 --> 00:29:16,720
Speaker 1: more likely than evidence that supports that conclusion and less

480
00:29:16,800 --> 00:29:21,000
Speaker 1: likely to notice evidence that can test their conclusion. That

481
00:29:21,200 --> 00:29:23,920
Speaker 1: is what leads to the definition of confirmation bias. I've

482
00:29:23,920 --> 00:29:27,040
Speaker 1: always had, and I'm talking in a general sense here,

483
00:29:27,720 --> 00:29:32,600
Speaker 1: issues and concerns when it might be the prosecutor. We

484
00:29:32,640 --> 00:29:35,680
Speaker 1: go to an expert, an independent expert, because they're a

485
00:29:35,720 --> 00:29:38,960
Speaker 1: medical person or a scientist or whatever, and they can

486
00:29:39,000 --> 00:29:42,760
Speaker 1: be totally objective. But we say, we've got all this information,

487
00:29:42,920 --> 00:29:46,320
Speaker 1: can you test this and provide this information and give

488
00:29:46,400 --> 00:29:49,520
Speaker 1: us a report back. I think there's contamination time and

489
00:29:49,560 --> 00:29:56,440
Speaker 1: time again when experts are providing providing their expert expert

490
00:29:56,480 --> 00:30:01,800
Speaker 1: opinion based on what information have provided to them. Okay,

491
00:30:02,760 --> 00:30:06,960
Speaker 1: the first inquiry always evidence that we've explained and contained

492
00:30:07,000 --> 00:30:09,280
Speaker 1: in your book, the overwhelming evidence that you would think

493
00:30:09,320 --> 00:30:13,360
Speaker 1: would carry carry some favor at the inquiry, which was

494
00:30:13,400 --> 00:30:17,520
Speaker 1: headed up by Justice Blanche I believe that's right, but

495
00:30:18,000 --> 00:30:18,920
Speaker 1: that was rejected.

496
00:30:20,200 --> 00:30:22,920
Speaker 3: Yes, so, look, it was a very in some ways.

497
00:30:23,240 --> 00:30:25,240
Speaker 3: A lot of the evidence presented at the inquiry was

498
00:30:25,280 --> 00:30:29,760
Speaker 3: extremely complex. You know, the neurological evidence and other evidence.

499
00:30:31,560 --> 00:30:37,040
Speaker 3: But I supposed to cut to the chase the first

500
00:30:37,120 --> 00:30:41,040
Speaker 3: inquiry that there were several kind of important hearings that

501
00:30:41,080 --> 00:30:44,280
Speaker 3: took place. One of them was indeed, with four I

502
00:30:44,280 --> 00:30:48,200
Speaker 3: think it was forensic pathologists, including doctor Carla and including

503
00:30:48,200 --> 00:30:54,640
Speaker 3: Professor Cordner, where broadly speaking, the forensic pathologists all agreed

504
00:30:55,080 --> 00:30:59,800
Speaker 3: that yes, there were plausible or possible natural cause of

505
00:30:59,800 --> 00:31:04,400
Speaker 3: death for all four children. But Gail Finesse, who was

506
00:31:04,400 --> 00:31:09,040
Speaker 3: the senior council assisting the inquiry, asked them, you know,

507
00:31:09,840 --> 00:31:13,960
Speaker 3: you know, is it possible that these children, despite the

508
00:31:14,000 --> 00:31:15,880
Speaker 3: fact that they may have died from natural course, is

509
00:31:15,920 --> 00:31:18,600
Speaker 3: it possible that these children were smothered? And of course

510
00:31:18,640 --> 00:31:21,160
Speaker 3: each of them had to say, well, yes, it's conceivable.

511
00:31:21,360 --> 00:31:26,560
Speaker 3: So that was one part of the evidence. And then

512
00:31:26,600 --> 00:31:29,440
Speaker 3: a second part of the evidence was this extraordinary kind

513
00:31:29,480 --> 00:31:37,400
Speaker 3: of revelation that there was fresh genetic evidence demonstrating that

514
00:31:38,480 --> 00:31:42,880
Speaker 3: Kathleen Folbig and her two daughters, Sarah and Laura, were

515
00:31:42,920 --> 00:31:49,240
Speaker 3: all suffering from a cardiac genetic mutation, which, in the

516
00:31:49,320 --> 00:31:55,760
Speaker 3: view of the leading geneticists who uncovered this was potentially

517
00:31:55,800 --> 00:31:59,640
Speaker 3: faithal okay, that it was likely pathogenic. Now that there

518
00:31:59,680 --> 00:32:03,480
Speaker 3: was an enormous argument. Essentially, at the inquiry about this,

519
00:32:03,600 --> 00:32:06,720
Speaker 3: there were there were kind of clinicians on the other

520
00:32:06,800 --> 00:32:15,320
Speaker 3: side who were deeply skeptical about this, But the geneticis

521
00:32:15,320 --> 00:32:20,719
Speaker 3: the immunogeneticist, Professor Corolla of INUSA, who made this discovery,

522
00:32:22,240 --> 00:32:26,840
Speaker 3: was equally clear that in her opinion, this you know,

523
00:32:27,040 --> 00:32:31,200
Speaker 3: raised reasonable doubt about you know, her convictions, and that

524
00:32:31,320 --> 00:32:35,400
Speaker 3: maybe they had maybe this genetic mutation had indeed triggered

525
00:32:35,400 --> 00:32:38,800
Speaker 3: the deaths of Sarah and Laura. And the basis on

526
00:32:39,400 --> 00:32:41,880
Speaker 3: the theory that she was putting forward, essentially, if I

527
00:32:41,880 --> 00:32:44,920
Speaker 3: can kind of put it crudely, is that both Sarah,

528
00:32:46,080 --> 00:32:50,240
Speaker 3: who had an infection before she died, and Laura, who

529
00:32:50,280 --> 00:32:54,560
Speaker 3: had my arcaditis, that this triggered this genetic mutation which

530
00:32:54,680 --> 00:32:59,560
Speaker 3: essentially causes arrhythmias in the heart and can be fatal.

531
00:32:59,760 --> 00:33:02,360
Speaker 3: But at that stage, at the first inquiry, it was

532
00:33:02,400 --> 00:33:05,600
Speaker 3: still at a very theoretical point.

533
00:33:05,360 --> 00:33:09,200
Speaker 1: Because this is science. The genetic science is something that's

534
00:33:09,240 --> 00:33:12,000
Speaker 1: evolved after the conviction.

535
00:33:11,760 --> 00:33:14,000
Speaker 2: Of Cafe totally, that's right.

536
00:33:14,080 --> 00:33:16,400
Speaker 1: So this is new science. This is new science.

537
00:33:16,400 --> 00:33:18,560
Speaker 3: It couldn't have been carried out in you know, genetic

538
00:33:18,600 --> 00:33:21,480
Speaker 3: science was in its infancy. Essentially in two thousand and three,

539
00:33:21,960 --> 00:33:23,720
Speaker 3: those tests could not have been carried out in two

540
00:33:23,760 --> 00:33:27,000
Speaker 3: thousand and three. It was only you know, fifteen years

541
00:33:27,040 --> 00:33:29,959
Speaker 3: later that they that they could be carried out. And

542
00:33:30,000 --> 00:33:35,960
Speaker 3: it was a remarkable scientific feat actually to enable those

543
00:33:36,280 --> 00:33:38,720
Speaker 3: tests to be carried out on the heel prick cards and.

544
00:33:39,520 --> 00:33:43,280
Speaker 1: Other just explained that the hill prick cards what when

545
00:33:43,720 --> 00:33:47,920
Speaker 1: children are born, a blood sample is taken from the child,

546
00:33:48,000 --> 00:33:49,680
Speaker 1: and that's what they relied.

547
00:33:49,440 --> 00:33:53,560
Speaker 3: Upon, exactly certain. Yeah, that's right. So it was a

548
00:33:53,560 --> 00:33:57,920
Speaker 3: remarkable feat. They established that Kathy, as I say, had

549
00:33:58,000 --> 00:34:00,640
Speaker 3: this genetic mutation, carried it past it onto.

550
00:34:00,520 --> 00:34:01,320
Speaker 2: Her two girls.

551
00:34:01,360 --> 00:34:07,360
Speaker 3: Craigfoldbig and most unfortunately refused to give a DNA sample

552
00:34:07,440 --> 00:34:11,280
Speaker 3: which could have aided the scientists considerably, and he refused

553
00:34:11,320 --> 00:34:15,239
Speaker 3: to do this. But be that as it may, so

554
00:34:15,360 --> 00:34:19,600
Speaker 3: that there was this fresh genetic evidence which pointed to

555
00:34:19,600 --> 00:34:23,080
Speaker 3: the possibility, at least the possibility that two of the

556
00:34:23,160 --> 00:34:28,520
Speaker 3: children had died from this genetic cause. And then the

557
00:34:28,800 --> 00:34:32,400
Speaker 3: next element in the first inquiry, which was highly significant,

558
00:34:33,239 --> 00:34:37,440
Speaker 3: was Kathy agreeing to give evidence herself about the diary

559
00:34:37,600 --> 00:34:40,319
Speaker 3: entries she had written and what they meant.

560
00:34:40,520 --> 00:34:42,800
Speaker 1: And that's what we talked about that before. She didn't

561
00:34:42,800 --> 00:34:45,279
Speaker 1: give evidence to the troll about that, so this is

562
00:34:45,480 --> 00:34:47,520
Speaker 1: the inquiry. She said, yes, I'll.

563
00:34:47,280 --> 00:34:50,719
Speaker 3: Do that, that's right. And she had actually talked about

564
00:34:50,719 --> 00:34:54,160
Speaker 3: some of the diary entries on the Australian story. So,

565
00:34:54,520 --> 00:34:58,479
Speaker 3: you know, because we had recorded conversations that she had

566
00:34:58,520 --> 00:35:02,120
Speaker 3: from prison with Tracy Chapman, her best friend, and we'd

567
00:35:02,160 --> 00:35:05,200
Speaker 3: recorded them with Kathy's agreement and with Tracy's agreement.

568
00:35:05,760 --> 00:35:08,520
Speaker 1: I'm glad you clarified that in light of what ended. Vikery.

569
00:35:08,600 --> 00:35:12,800
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, girl. We know all about that. Well.

570
00:35:12,880 --> 00:35:16,040
Speaker 3: I mean, can I just say I think, you know,

571
00:35:16,160 --> 00:35:19,040
Speaker 3: I think it was actually quite in some ways courageous

572
00:35:19,320 --> 00:35:21,200
Speaker 3: of Kathy to do this, because I mean I think

573
00:35:21,200 --> 00:35:24,160
Speaker 3: she could have been kind of severely punished for doing so,

574
00:35:24,600 --> 00:35:27,520
Speaker 3: you know, talking to the media from behind prison walls

575
00:35:27,520 --> 00:35:32,799
Speaker 3: probably not universally approved. But be that as it may,

576
00:35:32,960 --> 00:35:35,800
Speaker 3: that was a kind of friendly discussion that she had

577
00:35:35,880 --> 00:35:38,600
Speaker 3: with Tracy. A series of conversations actually, because as you know,

578
00:35:38,640 --> 00:35:41,880
Speaker 3: obviously each conversation is cut off after six minutes, so

579
00:35:41,960 --> 00:35:45,360
Speaker 3: a series of at least fifteen conversations in which during

580
00:35:45,400 --> 00:35:48,160
Speaker 3: which she explained what she meant by some of these

581
00:35:48,200 --> 00:35:50,440
Speaker 3: diary entries. So that was a kind of friendly exchange,

582
00:35:50,520 --> 00:35:55,759
Speaker 3: friendly explanation. And then fast forward to twenty nineteen when

583
00:35:55,760 --> 00:35:58,400
Speaker 3: she agreed for the first time to give evidence in

584
00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:01,560
Speaker 3: a court about her diaries.

585
00:36:02,120 --> 00:36:02,600
Speaker 1: And.

586
00:36:03,920 --> 00:36:07,280
Speaker 3: I can only describe what happened as you know, brutal.

587
00:36:07,560 --> 00:36:09,920
Speaker 3: Actually what you know, this was supposed to be an

588
00:36:09,960 --> 00:36:12,640
Speaker 3: inquiry where where I think all of her friends and

589
00:36:12,680 --> 00:36:16,600
Speaker 3: supporters and probably her legal team assumed that she would

590
00:36:16,680 --> 00:36:21,960
Speaker 3: be asked in an entirely neutral way to explain what

591
00:36:22,040 --> 00:36:25,680
Speaker 3: she meant by many of her diary entries. What in

592
00:36:25,719 --> 00:36:30,840
Speaker 3: fact happened was that she was cross examined in really

593
00:36:31,480 --> 00:36:37,759
Speaker 3: ferocious fashion by two senior counsel at three if you

594
00:36:37,800 --> 00:36:41,800
Speaker 3: include Gailpiness, who was less ferocious, over two and a

595
00:36:41,840 --> 00:36:47,720
Speaker 3: half days. And she was challenged sixty nine or seventy

596
00:36:47,800 --> 00:36:53,719
Speaker 3: times during this cross examination to admit that she had

597
00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:56,319
Speaker 3: killed one or more of the children, and every single

598
00:36:56,400 --> 00:37:00,640
Speaker 3: time she denied it. So, you know, one absolutely fundamental

599
00:37:00,640 --> 00:37:04,200
Speaker 3: point here is that Kathleen Folbig, you know, has never

600
00:37:04,640 --> 00:37:11,040
Speaker 3: once intimated, let alone admitted that she has harmed any

601
00:37:11,040 --> 00:37:15,799
Speaker 3: of her children. And you know, again you you will

602
00:37:15,840 --> 00:37:19,000
Speaker 3: know better than I do gary in many cases where

603
00:37:19,800 --> 00:37:23,520
Speaker 3: people profess their innocence of murder charges and then and

604
00:37:23,560 --> 00:37:25,600
Speaker 3: then they're convicted and they go to prison, you know,

605
00:37:25,680 --> 00:37:28,960
Speaker 3: they finally fess up and they say, you know, have

606
00:37:29,000 --> 00:37:29,440
Speaker 3: a lot.

607
00:37:29,360 --> 00:37:30,800
Speaker 1: In there that's still maintain They.

608
00:37:30,680 --> 00:37:33,640
Speaker 3: Know, well that's true too. But but anyway, so that

609
00:37:33,760 --> 00:37:34,800
Speaker 3: was the thurd main.

610
00:37:35,040 --> 00:37:38,240
Speaker 1: Just on on that, On that point, with the rigorous

611
00:37:38,239 --> 00:37:42,759
Speaker 1: cross examination, there can be a counter argument there that

612
00:37:42,800 --> 00:37:46,160
Speaker 1: if someone is tested strenuously and they stand up to

613
00:37:46,200 --> 00:37:49,279
Speaker 1: that test, that might be more revealing than if the

614
00:37:49,360 --> 00:37:53,240
Speaker 1: questions weren't us Is that reasonable to suggest?

615
00:37:53,320 --> 00:37:55,600
Speaker 3: So, I think that's fair, and I'm not suggesting for

616
00:37:55,680 --> 00:37:57,760
Speaker 3: a moment they should have been you know, it should

617
00:37:57,760 --> 00:38:00,440
Speaker 3: have been a kind of cuddly, warm exchange.

618
00:38:00,760 --> 00:38:01,000
Speaker 2: You know.

619
00:38:01,280 --> 00:38:04,960
Speaker 3: Of course she should have been challenged about some of

620
00:38:05,000 --> 00:38:08,759
Speaker 3: the more contentious entries she wrote in har Daries, and

621
00:38:08,800 --> 00:38:10,719
Speaker 3: some of the more some of the entries which to

622
00:38:10,800 --> 00:38:13,880
Speaker 3: many remain to this day troubling. Of course, she should

623
00:38:13,880 --> 00:38:16,080
Speaker 3: have been challenged about that. But my point is that

624
00:38:16,160 --> 00:38:21,000
Speaker 3: it was relentless. Now interestingly, one of the psychologists who

625
00:38:21,000 --> 00:38:23,520
Speaker 3: gave evidence of the Second Inquiry said, use the word

626
00:38:23,520 --> 00:38:28,920
Speaker 3: brutal about was his that was his assessment of the

627
00:38:28,960 --> 00:38:31,520
Speaker 3: cross examination which had taken place, and in my opinion,

628
00:38:34,080 --> 00:38:38,440
Speaker 3: it acted almost as a substitute for what didn't happen

629
00:38:38,520 --> 00:38:39,200
Speaker 3: during the trial.

630
00:38:39,520 --> 00:38:43,919
Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw that in the book that Okay, well,

631
00:38:44,000 --> 00:38:45,120
Speaker 1: now we've got an opportunity.

632
00:38:45,160 --> 00:38:46,680
Speaker 3: Now we've got her on the stand, We're going to

633
00:38:46,760 --> 00:38:47,200
Speaker 3: nail her.

634
00:38:47,760 --> 00:38:50,120
Speaker 1: There seems to be and I was going to talk

635
00:38:50,160 --> 00:38:52,640
Speaker 1: about this later, but there seems to be that real

636
00:38:52,680 --> 00:38:57,200
Speaker 1: division between the legal fraternity and the medical science fraternity

637
00:38:57,480 --> 00:38:59,960
Speaker 1: at Loggerheads about this whole case. It seemed to be

638
00:39:00,000 --> 00:39:02,799
Speaker 1: people in different camps. Is am I reading it right? That?

639
00:39:03,360 --> 00:39:05,640
Speaker 3: Yes, I think that is right, And I've written about

640
00:39:05,640 --> 00:39:08,200
Speaker 3: that prior to the book, And that's certainly a major

641
00:39:08,239 --> 00:39:10,480
Speaker 3: theme of the book, is that it ended up being

642
00:39:10,560 --> 00:39:13,360
Speaker 3: science versus the law. Now, that is, of course, in

643
00:39:13,400 --> 00:39:15,919
Speaker 3: one sense, a kind of crude summary, because there were

644
00:39:17,440 --> 00:39:21,239
Speaker 3: there were some scientists who kind of didn't believe the

645
00:39:21,280 --> 00:39:24,040
Speaker 3: fresh genetic evidence should carry as much weight as in

646
00:39:24,080 --> 00:39:28,000
Speaker 3: the end it did. But what happened after the first

647
00:39:28,120 --> 00:39:29,880
Speaker 3: what happened at the end of the first inquiry A

648
00:39:29,920 --> 00:39:33,440
Speaker 3: couple of interesting things. First of all, there was an

649
00:39:33,440 --> 00:39:39,319
Speaker 3: expert overseas a world expert in cardiology and genetics, called

650
00:39:39,360 --> 00:39:43,000
Speaker 3: professor Peter Schwartz, who wrote to the inquiry. Once he

651
00:39:43,000 --> 00:39:45,520
Speaker 3: heard about the case and the evidence, the genetic evidence,

652
00:39:45,560 --> 00:39:49,520
Speaker 3: he wrote the inquiry and essentially said, you know, I

653
00:39:49,560 --> 00:39:52,440
Speaker 3: can't make a judgment about this, but I think this

654
00:39:52,520 --> 00:39:57,720
Speaker 3: calls her convictions into question, and essentially called for further

655
00:39:57,800 --> 00:40:01,800
Speaker 3: hearings to investigate the genetics ants further. That didn't happen,

656
00:40:02,400 --> 00:40:07,799
Speaker 3: so the commissioner, Reginald Blanche, handed down his report and

657
00:40:08,040 --> 00:40:11,120
Speaker 3: dealt with the fresh genetic evidence in an appendix. It

658
00:40:11,160 --> 00:40:14,000
Speaker 3: wasn't even part of the Essentially, it wasn't even part

659
00:40:14,040 --> 00:40:16,719
Speaker 3: of the main report, which I think a lot of

660
00:40:16,719 --> 00:40:19,640
Speaker 3: people found quite troubling, and given that this was supposed

661
00:40:19,640 --> 00:40:23,400
Speaker 3: to be an inquiry, not a trial. And he said

662
00:40:23,480 --> 00:40:26,440
Speaker 3: his judgment was that the evidence that he had heard

663
00:40:26,880 --> 00:40:32,719
Speaker 3: reinforced Kathleen's guilt. I mean it was to many that

664
00:40:32,800 --> 00:40:35,160
Speaker 3: was an astonishing I I.

665
00:40:35,200 --> 00:40:38,680
Speaker 1: Know that there was a lot of people that took, yeah,

666
00:40:39,760 --> 00:40:42,799
Speaker 1: took that quite confronting that that was a fine needs

667
00:40:42,880 --> 00:40:43,960
Speaker 1: from that inquiry.

668
00:40:44,400 --> 00:40:46,239
Speaker 3: Well, I think a lot of people who were kind

669
00:40:46,239 --> 00:40:49,120
Speaker 3: of on her side, if you like, found that quite shattering. Actually,

670
00:40:49,280 --> 00:40:52,400
Speaker 3: they just could not believe that he'd said this. He

671
00:40:52,840 --> 00:40:56,560
Speaker 3: also said in his report, incidentally, that it was plausible

672
00:40:56,600 --> 00:40:59,160
Speaker 3: that each of the children might have died from natural causes,

673
00:40:59,520 --> 00:41:04,239
Speaker 3: But he said that given that the lies, as he

674
00:41:04,320 --> 00:41:07,080
Speaker 3: described it, this was his personal interpretation of the evidence

675
00:41:07,120 --> 00:41:12,200
Speaker 3: she had given in person lies and obfiscation, that the

676
00:41:12,239 --> 00:41:16,640
Speaker 3: evidence he had heard reinforced her guilt. And he said

677
00:41:17,120 --> 00:41:20,839
Speaker 3: and that the only means possible by which they might

678
00:41:20,880 --> 00:41:24,680
Speaker 3: have been killed was by smothering, and that there was

679
00:41:24,719 --> 00:41:28,760
Speaker 3: no other person who might have done that. Now, again

680
00:41:29,120 --> 00:41:34,200
Speaker 3: I found personally that shocking, because there was another person

681
00:41:34,520 --> 00:41:35,680
Speaker 3: who could have killed the children.

682
00:41:35,800 --> 00:41:37,440
Speaker 2: Craig and the.

683
00:41:39,360 --> 00:41:43,040
Speaker 3: Transcript of the secretly recorded conversation in which he laid

684
00:41:43,040 --> 00:41:45,400
Speaker 3: out in detail how he could have killed the children

685
00:41:45,440 --> 00:41:47,960
Speaker 3: and his motive for doing so was suppressed by the

686
00:41:48,000 --> 00:41:51,080
Speaker 3: first inquiry. It wasn't it wasn't allowed into evidence.

687
00:41:51,920 --> 00:41:56,399
Speaker 1: It's confusing, isn't it? And I say that, but I'm

688
00:41:56,440 --> 00:42:01,640
Speaker 1: saying it genuinely. It's confusing, like the White Court's inquiries

689
00:42:02,000 --> 00:42:08,239
Speaker 1: and the evidence that gets presented. So you've had an inquiry,

690
00:42:08,560 --> 00:42:12,960
Speaker 1: there's been the petition. Was there any point that people

691
00:42:13,000 --> 00:42:15,200
Speaker 1: were going to give up you're involved in it. By

692
00:42:15,200 --> 00:42:17,799
Speaker 1: this stage, you've been covering it, you've been reporting on it.

693
00:42:18,480 --> 00:42:20,359
Speaker 1: All the people coming in I know there were people

694
00:42:20,400 --> 00:42:24,759
Speaker 1: from Newcastle. Newcastle University would contact me about it, and

695
00:42:25,800 --> 00:42:30,160
Speaker 1: a friend, Xanthea Mallett, was a criminologist up there and

696
00:42:31,080 --> 00:42:33,080
Speaker 1: we're friends, and she would quite often talk to me

697
00:42:33,120 --> 00:42:37,600
Speaker 1: about this case. And I began like I would just

698
00:42:37,680 --> 00:42:39,560
Speaker 1: push back for the sake of pushing back, but she

699
00:42:39,680 --> 00:42:43,840
Speaker 1: was adamant that there's been a miscarriage of miscarriage of justice,

700
00:42:43,880 --> 00:42:48,360
Speaker 1: and even to the point when in discussion she'd say, well, okay,

701
00:42:49,280 --> 00:42:53,719
Speaker 1: let's say and talking hypothetically here, make sure we clarify

702
00:42:53,760 --> 00:42:59,320
Speaker 1: that that she was guilty, there still wasn't sufficient evidence

703
00:42:59,800 --> 00:43:03,400
Speaker 1: for that person to be convicted at trial. And that

704
00:43:03,520 --> 00:43:05,560
Speaker 1: sort of sat with me. I understood where she was

705
00:43:05,600 --> 00:43:09,239
Speaker 1: coming from. There. We're not talking about guilt or innocence here,

706
00:43:09,280 --> 00:43:12,920
Speaker 1: we're talking about there wasn't enough evidence for this person

707
00:43:12,960 --> 00:43:16,160
Speaker 1: to be convicted convicted at court. So that got me

708
00:43:16,200 --> 00:43:18,160
Speaker 1: looking at a little bit further. Then you have done

709
00:43:18,560 --> 00:43:23,200
Speaker 1: heading with reading your book, but where to from their

710
00:43:23,400 --> 00:43:26,919
Speaker 1: first inquiry? And Blanche came back stronger than anyone would

711
00:43:26,960 --> 00:43:30,239
Speaker 1: have anticipated. In his findings after the first inquiry, the

712
00:43:30,239 --> 00:43:33,040
Speaker 1: commissioner from that inquiry, So what was the next move?

713
00:43:33,400 --> 00:43:36,839
Speaker 3: Yes, and look, you know, he could have come back.

714
00:43:36,920 --> 00:43:40,239
Speaker 3: I suppose he could have come back with a finding that,

715
00:43:41,360 --> 00:43:45,120
Speaker 3: you know, the fresh genetic evidence was kind of interesting

716
00:43:45,200 --> 00:43:46,000
Speaker 3: but hadn't been.

717
00:43:46,040 --> 00:43:48,560
Speaker 2: Fully developed or whatever, you know. But he didn't.

718
00:43:48,680 --> 00:43:52,720
Speaker 3: As you say, he came back with his own finding

719
00:43:52,760 --> 00:43:57,000
Speaker 3: that the evidence he'd had reinforced her guilt. Now at

720
00:43:57,000 --> 00:43:59,319
Speaker 3: that point, you're quite right. I think a lot of

721
00:44:00,120 --> 00:44:04,080
Speaker 3: the supporters kind of fell in a heap after that.

722
00:44:04,160 --> 00:44:06,880
Speaker 3: They just couldn't believe it, and one or two of

723
00:44:06,920 --> 00:44:08,399
Speaker 3: them I think kind of gave up.

724
00:44:08,480 --> 00:44:09,000
Speaker 2: Essentially.

725
00:44:11,160 --> 00:44:14,120
Speaker 3: The one scientist who didn't give up was Professor Vnusa,

726
00:44:14,840 --> 00:44:18,560
Speaker 3: And to her eternal credit, I think she helped to

727
00:44:18,840 --> 00:44:22,480
Speaker 3: kind of broaden the scope of the inquiries into this

728
00:44:22,600 --> 00:44:27,120
Speaker 3: genetic mutation, which ended up with a team of twenty

729
00:44:27,160 --> 00:44:35,799
Speaker 3: seven scientists around the world putting together a paper which

730
00:44:35,920 --> 00:44:40,920
Speaker 3: essentially which followed on from laboratory experiments which were carried

731
00:44:40,920 --> 00:44:45,560
Speaker 3: out in several different countries to examine whether this genetic

732
00:44:45,680 --> 00:44:50,919
Speaker 3: mutation was actually pathogenic or not. And again I'm kind

733
00:44:50,920 --> 00:44:53,920
Speaker 3: of I'm paraphrasing, but essentially they came to the conclusion

734
00:44:53,920 --> 00:44:58,560
Speaker 3: that yes, it was pathogenic and that it likely killed

735
00:44:59,360 --> 00:45:02,920
Speaker 3: or triggered day of Sarah and Laura, and they wrote

736
00:45:02,920 --> 00:45:09,520
Speaker 3: this up in a peer reviewed paper for a publication

737
00:45:09,600 --> 00:45:12,439
Speaker 3: called EuroPace, which is published in Oxford in the UK.

738
00:45:13,320 --> 00:45:19,160
Speaker 3: And so based on this that there was then a

739
00:45:19,200 --> 00:45:24,880
Speaker 3: move to kerl or invite actually other scientists and science

740
00:45:24,880 --> 00:45:31,040
Speaker 3: advocates to endorse a second petition on her behalf, which

741
00:45:31,080 --> 00:45:34,600
Speaker 3: they did, and among the scientists who endorsed this petition

742
00:45:34,840 --> 00:45:37,520
Speaker 3: after reading the EuroPace paper and considering all the evidence

743
00:45:37,560 --> 00:45:41,160
Speaker 3: were two Nobel Laureates, so you know, which I believe

744
00:45:41,200 --> 00:45:43,640
Speaker 3: is unique in the whole kind of history of cases

745
00:45:43,719 --> 00:45:47,880
Speaker 3: like this around the world putting their name to that

746
00:45:48,000 --> 00:45:53,759
Speaker 3: and endorsing it. So that petition was then lodged with

747
00:45:53,800 --> 00:45:56,320
Speaker 3: the Governor of New South Wales and with Mark Speakman,

748
00:45:56,360 --> 00:45:59,800
Speaker 3: who was still the Attorney channel. At the same time,

749
00:46:00,640 --> 00:46:06,640
Speaker 3: Kathy's lawyers had launched an appeal essentially asking for Reginald

750
00:46:06,680 --> 00:46:10,480
Speaker 3: Blanche's findings to be quashed from the first inquiry, and

751
00:46:10,239 --> 00:46:14,040
Speaker 3: that appeal the hearing took place, and then the judgment

752
00:46:14,120 --> 00:46:17,560
Speaker 3: came down very shortly after the second petition had been

753
00:46:17,800 --> 00:46:23,440
Speaker 3: lodged and the appeal finding was negative, they refused to

754
00:46:24,160 --> 00:46:28,600
Speaker 3: quash the findings, and indeed they essentially agreed the judges

755
00:46:28,760 --> 00:46:32,319
Speaker 3: with Reginald Blanche on all the salient points that he

756
00:46:32,440 --> 00:46:37,440
Speaker 3: had made. But there was an enormous burst of publicity,

757
00:46:37,800 --> 00:46:39,400
Speaker 3: which I go into in the book how it was

758
00:46:39,480 --> 00:46:42,880
Speaker 3: organized and so on, surrounding the second petition, and I

759
00:46:42,920 --> 00:46:44,920
Speaker 3: think what that did was I think it helped to

760
00:46:44,960 --> 00:46:49,880
Speaker 3: move the dial of public opinion about Kathy's guilt or innocence.

761
00:46:50,280 --> 00:46:54,360
Speaker 3: So by the time the second petition was lodged, I

762
00:46:54,360 --> 00:46:58,680
Speaker 3: think public opinion was moving steadily more in Kathy's favor.

763
00:47:00,000 --> 00:47:02,200
Speaker 1: Seeing her up there. It wasn't just a public opinion

764
00:47:02,200 --> 00:47:05,319
Speaker 1: that was changing. Cathy's life was changing on the inside too.

765
00:47:05,680 --> 00:47:09,120
Speaker 1: That when she was in prison, going in as a

766
00:47:09,120 --> 00:47:13,080
Speaker 1: convicted child killer is not a good place to be.

767
00:47:13,280 --> 00:47:17,239
Speaker 1: But I found it interesting at that particular point in time,

768
00:47:17,480 --> 00:47:20,759
Speaker 1: even her fellow inmates started to look at her a

769
00:47:20,800 --> 00:47:23,480
Speaker 1: little bit differently and treated it differently at that stage.

770
00:47:23,560 --> 00:47:24,040
Speaker 2: That's right.

771
00:47:25,440 --> 00:47:27,440
Speaker 3: Obviously, she was considered to be the lowest of the

772
00:47:27,440 --> 00:47:29,799
Speaker 3: low when she was convicted and went into prison, and

773
00:47:29,960 --> 00:47:32,880
Speaker 3: I don't think she was able to speak to another inmate,

774
00:47:32,920 --> 00:47:34,680
Speaker 3: probably for about a year. Yeah, I mean, I think

775
00:47:34,680 --> 00:47:37,279
Speaker 3: it must have been horrific for her, and she thought

776
00:47:37,320 --> 00:47:39,360
Speaker 3: the whole time that, you know, she might be poisoned

777
00:47:39,440 --> 00:47:44,239
Speaker 3: or whatever. And then I don't think that Emma Cunliff's book,

778
00:47:44,239 --> 00:47:46,320
Speaker 3: and this is no disrespect to Emma. Her book was brilliant,

779
00:47:46,320 --> 00:47:48,839
Speaker 3: but it's an academic book. I don't think that kind

780
00:47:48,880 --> 00:47:50,359
Speaker 3: of shifted the dial.

781
00:47:50,400 --> 00:47:50,800
Speaker 2: Particularly.

782
00:47:50,800 --> 00:47:53,200
Speaker 3: I think the first sixty minutes, which I believe was

783
00:47:53,239 --> 00:47:56,960
Speaker 3: in twenty twelve, may have shifted it slightly. But then

784
00:47:57,000 --> 00:48:00,040
Speaker 3: I think the Australian story in twenty eighteen certainly.

785
00:47:59,760 --> 00:48:00,920
Speaker 2: Had a beneficial effect.

786
00:48:00,960 --> 00:48:05,080
Speaker 3: And it's interesting that when we were filming that we

787
00:48:05,080 --> 00:48:09,160
Speaker 3: were filming outside the perimeter of one of the prisons,

788
00:48:09,400 --> 00:48:13,800
Speaker 3: and I spoke to a prison guard who was escorting

789
00:48:13,840 --> 00:48:16,239
Speaker 3: us around, and I just asked him, you know, what

790
00:48:16,280 --> 00:48:17,880
Speaker 3: do you guys think kind of thing? And he said, oh, no,

791
00:48:18,040 --> 00:48:21,520
Speaker 3: you know, we all think she was innocent, which is

792
00:48:21,560 --> 00:48:24,040
Speaker 3: interesting because it's the old thing of you know, if

793
00:48:24,080 --> 00:48:27,160
Speaker 3: anyone knows whether someone's guilty.

794
00:48:26,880 --> 00:48:31,280
Speaker 2: Or it's the prison stuff, you know. So that was interesting.

795
00:48:31,320 --> 00:48:35,800
Speaker 3: And then and then Finally, when the when the second

796
00:48:35,840 --> 00:48:39,040
Speaker 3: petition was lodged and it was you know, endorsed by

797
00:48:39,360 --> 00:48:41,799
Speaker 3: two Nobel laureates, I think that really, you know, she

798
00:48:41,920 --> 00:48:46,160
Speaker 3: then began to be treated much much better inside and

799
00:48:46,360 --> 00:48:48,680
Speaker 3: to kind of enjoy the support of other inmates, which

800
00:48:48,719 --> 00:48:51,759
Speaker 3: of course must have been a gigantic kind of weight

801
00:48:51,840 --> 00:48:59,359
Speaker 3: off her shoulders. So then Mark Speakman did not come

802
00:48:59,440 --> 00:49:03,560
Speaker 3: down with his decision on the second petition for another year.

803
00:49:04,560 --> 00:49:07,880
Speaker 3: And what was happening here, and this relates to science

804
00:49:07,960 --> 00:49:10,200
Speaker 3: versus the law, if you like, What was happening here

805
00:49:10,320 --> 00:49:13,080
Speaker 3: was that the Australian Academy of Science had become involved,

806
00:49:14,400 --> 00:49:17,479
Speaker 3: and there was there was something called Team Folbig, which

807
00:49:17,520 --> 00:49:21,200
Speaker 3: was a kind of team of businessmen and philanthropists and

808
00:49:21,239 --> 00:49:25,040
Speaker 3: others who had become very involved in behind the scenes

809
00:49:25,239 --> 00:49:27,960
Speaker 3: in her case and in kind of pushing the science forward,

810
00:49:28,440 --> 00:49:33,600
Speaker 3: and the Australian Academy of Science, their former president John Shine,

811
00:49:33,600 --> 00:49:40,120
Speaker 3: Professor Shine spoke out very strongly and repeatedly saying, you know,

812
00:49:41,560 --> 00:49:44,759
Speaker 3: the evidence is in essentially scientifically, the evidence is in

813
00:49:45,120 --> 00:49:49,400
Speaker 3: that there is a genetic cause for the deaths of

814
00:49:49,480 --> 00:49:52,520
Speaker 3: two of the children. You know, why don't you referring

815
00:49:52,560 --> 00:49:55,480
Speaker 3: to Mark speakman, why don't you recognize that please and

816
00:49:56,200 --> 00:49:59,560
Speaker 3: pardon and release her? Because the request in the second

817
00:49:59,600 --> 00:50:03,080
Speaker 3: petition was for Kathleen to be pardoned and released, and

818
00:50:03,120 --> 00:50:08,439
Speaker 3: at any point from then on the Attorney General could

819
00:50:08,480 --> 00:50:10,719
Speaker 3: have made the decision. He had the power to do that.

820
00:50:10,800 --> 00:50:13,520
Speaker 3: He had the power to recommend to the Governor of

821
00:50:13,520 --> 00:50:16,600
Speaker 3: New South Wales that Kathy be pardoned and released, and

822
00:50:16,640 --> 00:50:20,120
Speaker 3: he didn't do so. But eventually, about thirteen months later,

823
00:50:20,960 --> 00:50:23,279
Speaker 3: he announced that there would be a second inquiry.

824
00:50:24,360 --> 00:50:27,280
Speaker 1: This is such a complex case what we're talking about

825
00:50:27,280 --> 00:50:31,200
Speaker 1: here with Kathy's situation. I can see people are defending

826
00:50:31,239 --> 00:50:34,080
Speaker 1: their position, or people are doing their job with the

827
00:50:34,120 --> 00:50:36,920
Speaker 1: viga that the same vigor that the prosecutors. I make

828
00:50:36,960 --> 00:50:39,640
Speaker 1: this observation in the book, the same vigor in which

829
00:50:39,680 --> 00:50:43,360
Speaker 1: the people involved in the prosecution of Kathy demonstrated was

830
00:50:43,400 --> 00:50:47,520
Speaker 1: also demonstrated by the people that were fighting for her freedom.

831
00:50:47,719 --> 00:50:51,959
Speaker 3: So that's absolutely right, and you know, is it right?

832
00:50:52,920 --> 00:50:55,160
Speaker 3: Let me ask you this question, Gary, is it right

833
00:50:56,120 --> 00:51:02,239
Speaker 3: that Kathy was eventually pardoned and least only after you know,

834
00:51:02,360 --> 00:51:05,080
Speaker 3: members of her legal team had worked thousands of hours

835
00:51:05,080 --> 00:51:09,279
Speaker 3: pro bono, money had been raised kind of to help

836
00:51:09,320 --> 00:51:14,640
Speaker 3: her defense by you know, philanthropists and senior businessman and

837
00:51:14,880 --> 00:51:18,760
Speaker 3: you know, scientists like Professor Vuisa had given up hundreds

838
00:51:18,800 --> 00:51:22,439
Speaker 3: and hundreds of hours of their own unpaid in order

839
00:51:22,480 --> 00:51:25,080
Speaker 3: to further the science that eventually helped to release her.

840
00:51:25,239 --> 00:51:29,040
Speaker 3: Is it right that that you know that those factors

841
00:51:29,040 --> 00:51:32,319
Speaker 3: came into play because without those factors, without that help,

842
00:51:32,640 --> 00:51:35,000
Speaker 3: almost certainly she we would not be having this conversation.

843
00:51:35,920 --> 00:51:38,120
Speaker 1: And there were so many times when she could have

844
00:51:38,120 --> 00:51:40,279
Speaker 1: been left left there and that that's the end of

845
00:51:40,320 --> 00:51:44,840
Speaker 1: the Kafi Folby story. But yeah, there's a disproportion that

846
00:51:44,840 --> 00:51:47,520
Speaker 1: what you're saying there, and the resources of viable to

847
00:51:47,600 --> 00:51:50,960
Speaker 1: someone taking on the power of the state is always disproportioned.

848
00:51:51,280 --> 00:51:53,920
Speaker 1: We need we need to have a situation that that's

849
00:51:54,200 --> 00:51:58,080
Speaker 1: protected as best at best at Kenby. But you're quite

850
00:51:58,120 --> 00:52:01,400
Speaker 1: right without that that important. I know the people I

851
00:52:01,480 --> 00:52:04,640
Speaker 1: was speaking to, how passionate they were about Yeah, it

852
00:52:04,680 --> 00:52:08,400
Speaker 1: was a wrongful conviction and we wouldn't have got to

853
00:52:08,440 --> 00:52:12,520
Speaker 1: that point that these people didn't continue on the actual

854
00:52:13,320 --> 00:52:16,600
Speaker 1: the process in which she was granted. So last where

855
00:52:16,600 --> 00:52:20,680
Speaker 1: we were talking about it was back with Mark's speakman. Yes,

856
00:52:21,239 --> 00:52:22,120
Speaker 1: second inquiry.

857
00:52:22,920 --> 00:52:26,320
Speaker 3: That's right, Mark speakman overall, and again I don't question

858
00:52:26,400 --> 00:52:30,279
Speaker 3: his integrity and he's emphasized repeatedly that he had to

859
00:52:30,320 --> 00:52:38,920
Speaker 3: take detailed legal advice on both partitions. Was the paperwork

860
00:52:38,960 --> 00:52:41,560
Speaker 3: was voluminous and so on. But I have to say

861
00:52:41,560 --> 00:52:45,480
Speaker 3: this overall, taking into account both petitions, it took four

862
00:52:45,560 --> 00:52:50,960
Speaker 3: years or for him to call those two inquiries. Anyway,

863
00:52:51,520 --> 00:52:55,360
Speaker 3: the inquiry was called. And then at the inquiry itself

864
00:52:56,640 --> 00:52:59,600
Speaker 3: there were two kind of fresh elements I suppose. One

865
00:52:59,640 --> 00:53:02,399
Speaker 3: was that there was the evidence given in particular by

866
00:53:02,440 --> 00:53:07,239
Speaker 3: two Danish scientists who had conducted further research into the

867
00:53:07,280 --> 00:53:12,200
Speaker 3: genetic mutation and found it to be pathogenic, and their

868
00:53:12,600 --> 00:53:15,680
Speaker 3: very clear view was that the genetic mutation had triggered

869
00:53:15,680 --> 00:53:18,880
Speaker 3: the deaths of Sarah and Laura. And then the next

870
00:53:19,280 --> 00:53:22,759
Speaker 3: and highly significant part of the fresh evidence was the

871
00:53:22,800 --> 00:53:25,480
Speaker 3: expert opinions of as you've said earlier.

872
00:53:25,200 --> 00:53:26,200
Speaker 2: Of nine or ten.

873
00:53:28,239 --> 00:53:33,760
Speaker 3: Psychologists, expert expert psychologists and psychiatrists, all of whom agreed

874
00:53:34,400 --> 00:53:39,239
Speaker 3: that the entries she had written in her diaries were

875
00:53:39,280 --> 00:53:44,759
Speaker 3: not incriminatory. They were not admissions of guilt in the

876
00:53:44,800 --> 00:53:48,000
Speaker 3: agency of their deaths. They were not admissions of guilt

877
00:53:48,000 --> 00:53:49,320
Speaker 3: and having killed her children.

878
00:53:49,600 --> 00:53:50,799
Speaker 2: They were, you know, the.

879
00:53:50,760 --> 00:53:55,360
Speaker 3: Diaries were suffused with expressions of the personal guilt that

880
00:53:55,440 --> 00:53:58,640
Speaker 3: any mother would feel, and the distress and the depression

881
00:53:59,600 --> 00:54:01,799
Speaker 3: following the deaths of her children, but they were not

882
00:54:02,280 --> 00:54:06,719
Speaker 3: in any way, shape or form admissions of guilt. And interestingly,

883
00:54:06,920 --> 00:54:10,360
Speaker 3: right at the end of the second inquiry, the DPP

884
00:54:10,840 --> 00:54:14,839
Speaker 3: essentially kind of threw in the towel and agreed that

885
00:54:14,880 --> 00:54:19,440
Speaker 3: there was indeed reasonable doubt at that point now surrounding

886
00:54:19,600 --> 00:54:23,920
Speaker 3: her convictions. So there was the fresh genetic evidence, there

887
00:54:24,000 --> 00:54:27,560
Speaker 3: was the fresh evidence about the diaries, and in the end,

888
00:54:27,600 --> 00:54:33,080
Speaker 3: Sophie Callen, who was the council assisting Tom Bathurst, who

889
00:54:33,160 --> 00:54:37,440
Speaker 3: was the former Chief Justice in charge of it, they

890
00:54:37,440 --> 00:54:40,719
Speaker 3: both agreed that there was reasonable doubt. There were some

891
00:54:41,520 --> 00:54:44,400
Speaker 3: scientists who were resisting this, but I think all but

892
00:54:44,520 --> 00:54:48,160
Speaker 3: one said that there was a reasonable possibility that this

893
00:54:48,239 --> 00:54:51,319
Speaker 3: genetic mutation could have killed Sarah and Laura. And so

894
00:54:51,440 --> 00:55:01,600
Speaker 3: in the end, really the new Attorney General decided on

895
00:55:01,760 --> 00:55:07,360
Speaker 3: the recommendation of Tom Bathurst to pardon and release Kathleen,

896
00:55:07,400 --> 00:55:10,920
Speaker 3: and that happened in June twenty twenty three, and then

897
00:55:10,960 --> 00:55:16,960
Speaker 3: six months later in December following handing down his report,

898
00:55:17,120 --> 00:55:19,600
Speaker 3: her case went to the Court of Criminal Appeal where

899
00:55:19,640 --> 00:55:24,880
Speaker 3: she was acquitted formally acquitted of all five charges.

900
00:55:24,920 --> 00:55:28,960
Speaker 1: So breaking breaking the pardon day, and that was, as

901
00:55:29,120 --> 00:55:31,680
Speaker 1: the word would employ, she's being pardoned. She was released,

902
00:55:31,680 --> 00:55:34,800
Speaker 1: but the acquittal followed on from the Court of Criminal Appeal,

903
00:55:35,080 --> 00:55:38,040
Speaker 1: so saying that the convictions no longer fellid.

904
00:55:38,400 --> 00:55:42,080
Speaker 3: Yes, And the acquittal was crucial, of course, because even

905
00:55:42,120 --> 00:55:46,280
Speaker 3: after she was pardoned and released, Craig Folbig was saying

906
00:55:46,320 --> 00:55:49,600
Speaker 3: that he still believed that she was guilty, and indeed,

907
00:55:50,360 --> 00:55:54,920
Speaker 3: even after her acquittal. Sadly and unfortunately, so many potential

908
00:55:54,960 --> 00:55:59,080
Speaker 3: witnesses had died in the meantime, and indeed, last year,

909
00:55:59,160 --> 00:56:03,480
Speaker 3: following on from the Craig Folbig tragically died himself. So

910
00:56:04,520 --> 00:56:06,560
Speaker 3: a retrial was never on the cards and it would

911
00:56:06,600 --> 00:56:10,480
Speaker 3: have been frankly absurd to suggest that. But the acquittal

912
00:56:10,560 --> 00:56:13,880
Speaker 3: was absolutely key because it wasn't just a case of

913
00:56:13,880 --> 00:56:17,400
Speaker 3: her being pardoned for what she had done and released.

914
00:56:17,440 --> 00:56:20,839
Speaker 3: It wasn't just the criminal justice system saying, okay, you've

915
00:56:20,920 --> 00:56:23,600
Speaker 3: kind of served your time, you've suffered enough, will release you.

916
00:56:24,440 --> 00:56:26,960
Speaker 3: It was critical because under the eyes of the law

917
00:56:27,040 --> 00:56:28,600
Speaker 3: now in the eyes of the law. She is now

918
00:56:28,640 --> 00:56:31,800
Speaker 3: an innocent woman. She has been acquitted of all the charges.

919
00:56:32,040 --> 00:56:38,680
Speaker 1: It's significant, an amazing, amazing story, complex story that really

920
00:56:38,719 --> 00:56:41,520
Speaker 1: calls in the question so many different aspects of our

921
00:56:42,080 --> 00:56:46,080
Speaker 1: justice system. How is she now? Do you have any

922
00:56:46,160 --> 00:56:48,239
Speaker 1: contact with her since she's moved.

923
00:56:48,360 --> 00:56:51,200
Speaker 3: Yes, so, Gary, I've met her a couple of times.

924
00:56:51,320 --> 00:56:53,759
Speaker 3: There was on the day of her acquittal, there was

925
00:56:54,320 --> 00:56:57,640
Speaker 3: a special lunch put on kind of team Folbig for her,

926
00:56:57,880 --> 00:57:02,000
Speaker 3: and of course she was, you know, very happy that

927
00:57:02,080 --> 00:57:04,960
Speaker 3: the result that legal result. But I don't think, you know,

928
00:57:04,960 --> 00:57:07,160
Speaker 3: there's no getting away from the fact that her loss

929
00:57:07,160 --> 00:57:10,319
Speaker 3: has been terrible and the trauma that she suffered has

930
00:57:10,360 --> 00:57:13,960
Speaker 3: been appalling over the years, and it's lasted for decades.

931
00:57:14,520 --> 00:57:14,920
Speaker 2: And so.

932
00:57:16,840 --> 00:57:19,280
Speaker 3: Is she okay, I'm you know, yes, she's I mean,

933
00:57:19,360 --> 00:57:21,880
Speaker 3: I'm in touch with her kind of from time to time.

934
00:57:22,240 --> 00:57:25,640
Speaker 3: She has a very close circle of friends who were

935
00:57:25,680 --> 00:57:29,120
Speaker 3: there to support her every day, and so, you know,

936
00:57:29,920 --> 00:57:33,400
Speaker 3: I'm very optimistic that she'll be okay. But I mean,

937
00:57:33,480 --> 00:57:36,560
Speaker 3: as I say, there's no getting away from the tragedy

938
00:57:36,560 --> 00:57:38,800
Speaker 3: of this case. There's no getting away from the fact

939
00:57:38,840 --> 00:57:43,800
Speaker 3: that the broader Folbig family as well as her you know,

940
00:57:44,000 --> 00:57:50,520
Speaker 3: lost for children, and that that tragedy may be kind

941
00:57:50,560 --> 00:57:54,080
Speaker 3: of softened by time, but it certainly doesn't leave us all.

942
00:57:55,160 --> 00:57:58,120
Speaker 1: No, it's a heavy, heavy story. I want to thank

943
00:57:58,160 --> 00:58:02,600
Speaker 1: you for coming on coming Nine Catch Killers. I've found

944
00:58:02,600 --> 00:58:04,880
Speaker 1: it fascinating. I'm not going to thank you for dragging

945
00:58:04,880 --> 00:58:07,640
Speaker 1: me back into a world that I've left. I was

946
00:58:07,720 --> 00:58:10,600
Speaker 1: sitting there reading your book with my homicide hat on,

947
00:58:11,240 --> 00:58:14,920
Speaker 1: just going okay this, trying to making notes. I just

948
00:58:14,960 --> 00:58:17,440
Speaker 1: found it fascinating, and I just want to say everyone

949
00:58:17,520 --> 00:58:19,840
Speaker 1: involved in this case, it was a difficult case around

950
00:58:20,160 --> 00:58:22,720
Speaker 1: you look at and I'm not just talking from the prosecution,

951
00:58:23,160 --> 00:58:26,360
Speaker 1: from the defense. There were so many complexities in there

952
00:58:26,680 --> 00:58:29,280
Speaker 1: and subtle little things that you had to look at

953
00:58:29,280 --> 00:58:34,280
Speaker 1: that I could imagine. It's yeah, broken a lot of people.

954
00:58:34,560 --> 00:58:37,160
Speaker 1: Your book must have taken you a lot of time

955
00:58:37,200 --> 00:58:42,560
Speaker 1: to prepare, but it certainly details the nuances of what

956
00:58:42,680 --> 00:58:45,040
Speaker 1: happened with this matter. It's given me a greater understanding

957
00:58:45,080 --> 00:58:47,520
Speaker 1: of what's happened with this case. So when I do

958
00:58:47,840 --> 00:58:49,919
Speaker 1: offer an opinion, now I can offer it with some

959
00:58:50,480 --> 00:58:53,720
Speaker 1: informed opinion other than just taking nah it must be

960
00:58:53,720 --> 00:58:55,200
Speaker 1: gildysh was convicted.

961
00:58:55,360 --> 00:58:56,200
Speaker 2: Well you don't. Gary.

962
00:58:56,360 --> 00:58:59,280
Speaker 3: Even now after writing the book, the first question that

963
00:58:59,320 --> 00:59:02,080
Speaker 3: almost everyone ask me is did she do it? And

964
00:59:02,120 --> 00:59:04,720
Speaker 3: so my recommendation to all of those people is go

965
00:59:04,760 --> 00:59:07,720
Speaker 3: out and buy the book and get it. But look,

966
00:59:07,760 --> 00:59:12,080
Speaker 3: thank you for inviting me on. And I found it

967
00:59:12,080 --> 00:59:15,040
Speaker 3: too to be a really fascinating exchange of views, So

968
00:59:15,120 --> 00:59:17,280
Speaker 3: thank you, thank you.

969
00:59:17,640 --> 00:59:17,920
Speaker 1: Jeez,