WEBVTT - Kathleen Folbigg exonerated after 20 years: Quentin McDermott Pt.2 0:00:01.880 --> 0:00:04.880 The public has had a long held fascination with detectives. 0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:08.039 Detective sy aside of life the average person is never 0:00:08.119 --> 0:00:11.080 exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop. 0:00:11.560 --> 0:00:14.040 For twenty five of those years I was catching killers. 0:00:14.440 --> 0:00:16.200 That's what I did for a living. I was a 0:00:16.200 --> 0:00:20.560 homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead, 0:00:20.600 --> 0:00:23.120 I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated. 0:00:23.840 --> 0:00:26.400 The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories 0:00:26.440 --> 0:00:28.760 from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw 0:00:28.800 --> 0:00:31.440 and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some 0:00:31.600 --> 0:00:34.640 of the content and language might be confronting. That's because 0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:37.640 no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged. 0:00:38.159 --> 0:00:40.320 Join me now as I take you into this world. 0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:49.000 This is Part two of my chat with Quintin McDermott. 0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:51.840 Quentin is the author of a book called Meadows Law, 0:00:52.159 --> 0:00:57.760 which is about the death of Kathleen Folbig's four children, Calib, Patrick, Sarah, 0:00:57.800 --> 0:01:01.680 and Laura. In Part one, spoke about Kathleen's conviction for 0:01:01.720 --> 0:01:04.560 the manslaughter of Calib and the murders of the other 0:01:04.600 --> 0:01:07.720 three children. In Part two, we talk about the fight 0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:11.000 that led to Kathleen being released from prison and her pardon. 0:01:11.720 --> 0:01:13.680 I think you'll be shocked by what you learn about 0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:18.760 one of the most controversial criminal cases in Australian history. Quentin, 0:01:19.000 --> 0:01:21.720 Welcome back, Thanks Gary, it's good to be here, have 0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:24.800 a bit of a break, refreshed our refreshed our brains 0:01:25.680 --> 0:01:30.039 on this matter. And yeah, it is complex and I 0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:33.440 think it's something that we talk about this case, that's 0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:36.480 one of the most controversial, high profile cases we've had 0:01:36.520 --> 0:01:39.240 in the country. And I don't think that's overstating that 0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:43.440 the stakes were very high and the hopefully lessons are 0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:48.000 learned from what occurred and things can be improved. We 0:01:48.080 --> 0:01:52.720 left part one and we got in our own inevitable way. 0:01:52.880 --> 0:01:55.240 We explained how it got to the point where Kathleen 0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:59.200 Fobbick was charged with the murder of four children. The 0:01:59.280 --> 0:02:03.680 trial trial rent for seven weeks. It resulved in her 0:02:03.760 --> 0:02:08.160 being convicted for murder of the three children, yes, and 0:02:08.320 --> 0:02:13.200 manslaughter of the Caleb, the first child. Do you want 0:02:13.200 --> 0:02:17.000 to tell us the trial, your view and the trial 0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:18.200 that occurred. 0:02:18.120 --> 0:02:20.919 Yes, so just very broad brush. 0:02:21.160 --> 0:02:27.440 My view of the trial is that the defense was deficient. 0:02:27.840 --> 0:02:31.240 To be blunt in one sense, it's very unfair of 0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:34.120 me to be saying this because her senior council, Peter Zara, 0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:38.320 and indeed junior council have since passed away, and so 0:02:38.760 --> 0:02:42.280 I've been in writing this book. I've been unable obviously. 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:43.880 To talk to give them the right. 0:02:44.400 --> 0:02:47.840 But one interesting a couple of interesting things about the 0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:50.359 trial and the defense I think are the are these 0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:55.600 that first of all, there was only one medical expert 0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:59.120 witness appearing for the defense, and there were multiple medical 0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:02.919 experts appearing for the prosecution. Now, part of this may 0:03:02.919 --> 0:03:05.920 have been down to the resources that were available for 0:03:06.000 --> 0:03:08.839 the defense. You know, she was being defended by Peter Zara, 0:03:08.880 --> 0:03:10.400 who was the senior public defender. 0:03:11.520 --> 0:03:12.600 It was legal aid, and. 0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:19.160 So obviously their resources were not considerable, and that I 0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:22.440 think presented real challenges to the defense prior to the 0:03:22.440 --> 0:03:26.720 trial in amassing the evidence they wanted to present. And 0:03:26.760 --> 0:03:29.200 then the second thing is that only very recently, when 0:03:29.200 --> 0:03:33.800 I was researching the book, did I discover that almost 0:03:33.800 --> 0:03:37.560 certainly Peter Zara, her senior council, believed that she was guilty. 0:03:38.120 --> 0:03:47.600 Now this was a really remarkable revelation. He had a 0:03:47.680 --> 0:03:52.400 kind of private conversation following a law conference seminar with 0:03:53.480 --> 0:03:59.200 a clinical psychologist, Char Milerbett's doctor, Char Milibets, where she 0:03:59.400 --> 0:04:03.560 said to him, you know, mister Tsara, clearly this was 0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:06.920 a horrible miscarriage of justice. I'm paraphrasing, and she said, 0:04:07.600 --> 0:04:10.560 you wouldn't think that if you'd read the diaries. So 0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:14.680 that's that's, you know, that's that's one remarkable aspect I 0:04:14.720 --> 0:04:15.560 think of the trial. 0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:21.960 Kathleen didn't give evidence at her trial. My understanding, that's correct. Again, 0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:26.240 that's you know, it doesn't surprise. It seems to be 0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:29.120 the thought within the legal fraternity. It's very unwise to 0:04:29.160 --> 0:04:32.160 put put an accused person in the witness box because 0:04:32.200 --> 0:04:34.800 it opens them up to all sorts of cross examination. 0:04:36.160 --> 0:04:38.240 Do you think she might have been better served just 0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:41.159 and this is you know, two outsiders looking in. Do 0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:43.520 you think she might have been better served in hindsight 0:04:43.720 --> 0:04:46.720 to explain what the diaries were about? Because in isolation, 0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:49.760 a lot of people and you touch on the fact 0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:54.159 that even her defense might have drawn some strong inferences 0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:56.200 from the diary. Do you think it would have served 0:04:56.240 --> 0:04:58.080 a better to get in there and explain what the 0:04:58.120 --> 0:04:59.159 diary was all about. 0:05:00.640 --> 0:05:02.960 Gary, My sense of it is that in terms of 0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:05.120 her psychological state at the time. She was in no 0:05:05.200 --> 0:05:08.800 fit state, quite frankly, to give evidence and to be 0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:12.320 cross examined by Mark Tdeski, who, and I mean this 0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:15.840 in a flattering way if you liked mister Tedesky, I think, 0:05:15.839 --> 0:05:18.479 would have kind of torn her apart in the witness box. 0:05:18.520 --> 0:05:21.559 And indeed she kind of recognized this herself, I think, 0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:25.520 but she also went on later to regret the fact 0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:29.320 that she hadn't given evidence. My kind of primary beef, 0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:31.960 if you like, with the defense is that they didn't 0:05:32.000 --> 0:05:36.520 cast the net wide enough to find psychological and psychiatric 0:05:36.640 --> 0:05:40.080 experts who could have given evidence about the diaries and 0:05:40.160 --> 0:05:44.560 given an entirely different interpretation to the interpretation given by 0:05:44.600 --> 0:05:49.599 the prosecution. So, for example, in one case, in relation 0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:55.000 to one diary entry, mister again I'm paraphrasing, but mister 0:05:55.040 --> 0:05:58.000 Tedesky essentially said, what could she possibly mean by this 0:05:58.080 --> 0:06:02.200 other than I killed children or I killed this child. 0:06:02.400 --> 0:06:06.200 Now Never, at any point in any of her diary 0:06:06.320 --> 0:06:11.360 entries anywhere did she ever admit to any agency in 0:06:11.960 --> 0:06:14.960 killing harming, let alone killing any of the children. She 0:06:15.360 --> 0:06:21.040 never admitted in her diaries to harming the children physically. Okay, 0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:23.000 I think that would have had a big effect on 0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:26.719 the jury. And I just don't believe, to be frank 0:06:27.520 --> 0:06:30.240 that Peter Zara hit back hard enough on this, and 0:06:30.279 --> 0:06:31.800 I think that one of the reasons for that, as 0:06:31.800 --> 0:06:36.000 I say, is because deep down they actually believed that 0:06:36.080 --> 0:06:37.239 the diaries were damning. 0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:42.000 Okay, it makes for a complex situation, doesn't And we're 0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:44.320 talking in the very matter of fact way. But the 0:06:44.360 --> 0:06:48.600 trauma associated when I've said about Kathleen going into the 0:06:48.640 --> 0:06:53.960 witness box, she's lost four children. Regardless of how that's happened, 0:06:54.000 --> 0:06:57.000 there's trauma associated with that. I don't care who you are. 0:06:57.279 --> 0:07:00.520 She's been charged with a charged with murdering the four children. 0:07:00.640 --> 0:07:04.080 Looking at I think the media were doing their job. 0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:08.040 The worst female serial killer and the camera, everything that 0:07:08.600 --> 0:07:12.520 goes into play play there. So the stakes were very high. 0:07:12.800 --> 0:07:17.160 The trial went for seven weeks, she was convicted. I 0:07:17.240 --> 0:07:22.200 think she was sentenced to initially forty years thirty years 0:07:22.240 --> 0:07:25.000 on the bottom. They appealed the sentencing and I think 0:07:25.040 --> 0:07:27.320 it was reduced to thirty years twenty five years on 0:07:27.320 --> 0:07:30.680 the bottom. That was where we're at. Can you take 0:07:30.760 --> 0:07:34.080 up the case from there, because for all intents and purposes, 0:07:34.160 --> 0:07:37.720 that could have been the last that we heard of Kathleen. 0:07:38.240 --> 0:07:40.800 She would stay in jail, But that's so far from 0:07:40.800 --> 0:07:44.120 the case. What were the things that started to turn 0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:47.520 it round where people believed believed her innocence and people 0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:49.640 started fighting for the justice. 0:07:50.280 --> 0:07:53.600 Can I just preface if I may, sorry, there is 0:07:53.640 --> 0:07:56.880 one other aspect of the trial that needs to be mentioned, 0:07:56.880 --> 0:08:00.600 which is indeed the forensic evidence. So the forends evidence 0:08:00.640 --> 0:08:03.640 in the trial, essentially to cut it, to cut it 0:08:03.680 --> 0:08:08.760 to its most basic element, was that you can smother 0:08:08.840 --> 0:08:14.080 an infant without leaving any physical trace. And kind of bizarrely, 0:08:14.120 --> 0:08:16.800 in my opinion, and this all relates to Meadows law, 0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:20.880 that if there is no physical trace of smothering, which 0:08:20.920 --> 0:08:24.840 there wasn't certainly no definite traces of physical smothering in 0:08:24.840 --> 0:08:27.800 any of the four cases, that is of itself or 0:08:27.840 --> 0:08:31.360 of any other means of killing them, that is, of 0:08:31.360 --> 0:08:35.880 itself evidence that they were smothered. Now to me, that 0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:39.240 is almost Kafkai esque, but that essentially was what happened 0:08:39.240 --> 0:08:39.800 in the trial. 0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:44.680 So just try and paraphrase that that if there's no 0:08:44.800 --> 0:08:47.880 evidence of the child Moon smothered, that could be evidence 0:08:47.880 --> 0:08:49.880 of the fact that the child was smothered because there 0:08:49.920 --> 0:08:51.480 is no physical evidence of the child. 0:08:51.760 --> 0:08:53.640 Well, I suppose there are two parts to it. Is 0:08:53.679 --> 0:08:56.000 there any evidence that they were killed by any other means? 0:08:56.200 --> 0:09:03.199 The answer is no. Is there a substantial evidence or 0:09:03.400 --> 0:09:06.160 that you know or is the likelihood of four children 0:09:06.240 --> 0:09:10.839 dying financial causes so unlikely that they must have been murdered. Well, 0:09:10.880 --> 0:09:14.000 if there is that, then they must have been smothered. 0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:18.160 And what adds to this argument, if you like, is 0:09:18.200 --> 0:09:21.640 the fact that infants can be smothered without leaving any 0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:25.400 physical traits, and therefore she smothered them. Now, Mark Tadesky 0:09:25.559 --> 0:09:28.800 at the trial gave various kind of scenarios as to 0:09:28.960 --> 0:09:31.120 why she might have or how she might why she 0:09:31.200 --> 0:09:34.600 might have smothered them. One of them was that she 0:09:34.760 --> 0:09:37.880 might have smothered each of them in turn. She might 0:09:37.920 --> 0:09:40.120 have suffocated each of them in turn in order to 0:09:40.120 --> 0:09:43.400 get them to go to sleep, okay, as opposed to 0:09:44.080 --> 0:09:46.880 killing them in a rage. That was another alternative scenario, 0:09:46.880 --> 0:09:50.080 that she flew into a rage on each occasion and 0:09:50.120 --> 0:09:53.200 she smothered them. And I think, I mean they knew 0:09:53.200 --> 0:09:56.720 about a case in the United States there of a 0:09:56.760 --> 0:10:02.720 babysitter who would use this suff vocation technique, allegedly in 0:10:02.840 --> 0:10:05.680 hundreds of cases where she was babysitting children and she 0:10:05.720 --> 0:10:08.679 would smother, she would suffocate them, you know, temporarily to 0:10:08.720 --> 0:10:12.600 put them to sleep. And then most unfortunately, she had 0:10:12.640 --> 0:10:15.800 actually killed a couple of children, and she confessed to 0:10:15.840 --> 0:10:18.720 this and was charged, And so that was one scenario. 0:10:18.760 --> 0:10:21.680 But again it's the whole basis for this was that 0:10:22.200 --> 0:10:25.080 you can smother an infant without leaving any physical evidence, 0:10:25.280 --> 0:10:28.319 and therefore that the means by which she killed them 0:10:28.440 --> 0:10:31.160 must have been smothering. Now, in the case of Laura, 0:10:31.520 --> 0:10:35.959 that was in fact highly unlikely because once a child 0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:41.080 of Laura's age is attacked in this way, they are 0:10:41.120 --> 0:10:43.800 going to struggle, and they have teeth, and the teeth 0:10:43.840 --> 0:10:46.200 are going to leave marks, almost certainly on the inside 0:10:46.200 --> 0:10:49.040 of the mouth. And in Laura's case, at her autopsy, 0:10:49.080 --> 0:10:51.280 doctor Carla found no evidence of this. He found no 0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:54.880 evidence that she had been smothered or that there were 0:10:54.920 --> 0:11:00.840 teeth marks inside her mouth indicating a struggle. So really 0:11:00.920 --> 0:11:05.920 the active evidence, if you like, for smothering was non existent, 0:11:06.320 --> 0:11:10.080 so that in effect reversed the burden of proof to 0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:14.719 make it incumbent on the defense to prove that they 0:11:14.720 --> 0:11:16.120 had died from natural causes. 0:11:16.320 --> 0:11:19.520 Yeah, okay, once she was convicted, who were the people 0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:23.920 that still believed in Kathy, Like you had had people 0:11:23.960 --> 0:11:26.840 campaigning on the outside. Who were the people of significant 0:11:26.840 --> 0:11:29.880 people that were fighting to get this weather overturned. 0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:34.080 Well, it was essentially her closest friends. I mean, you know, 0:11:34.280 --> 0:11:38.560 I think one, I can't imagine how hard it must 0:11:38.559 --> 0:11:42.240 have been for Kathy at the trial, because you know, 0:11:42.840 --> 0:11:46.400 her own foster mother was kind of sitting with Craig 0:11:46.720 --> 0:11:51.600 Folbig's family. Craig himself had turned against her. He was 0:11:51.640 --> 0:11:54.720 an absolutely key witness for the prosecution, and I would 0:11:54.760 --> 0:11:59.600 surmise that his evidence was crucial in the jury reaching 0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:03.240 the Verden. They did so her own husband and they 0:12:03.240 --> 0:12:05.800 were still married at the time of the trial. So 0:12:06.080 --> 0:12:10.400 Craig had turned against her, and really the only person 0:12:10.480 --> 0:12:14.200 she had on her side was this Salvation Army major 0:12:14.960 --> 0:12:20.640 who Joyce Harmer, who was amazing, and Joyce's husband, Hilton, 0:12:21.440 --> 0:12:23.199 who took care of her during the trial, and I 0:12:23.240 --> 0:12:26.600 think shielded her from the worst of the media. But 0:12:26.760 --> 0:12:29.640 so she was kind of bereft and then for various reasons, 0:12:29.679 --> 0:12:32.880 certainly her two closest friends were unable to attend the trial, 0:12:33.360 --> 0:12:36.320 and so she was literally on her own apart from 0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:40.240 Joyce Harmer's support. And then after the trial, really it 0:12:40.280 --> 0:12:44.120 was Tracy Chapman and Meghan Donoghan and you know, one 0:12:44.160 --> 0:12:47.320 or two other close friends who were kind of there 0:12:47.360 --> 0:12:48.079 to support her. 0:12:48.520 --> 0:12:49.360 There was an. 0:12:49.240 --> 0:12:54.880 Initial appeal, where as you mentioned, her sentence was cut 0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:57.680 from forty years to thirty years with a twenty five 0:12:57.800 --> 0:13:02.320 year kind of minimum period in prison, which incidentally would 0:13:02.360 --> 0:13:04.880 have meant that she would not even if she was 0:13:04.920 --> 0:13:07.240 granted parole, she would not be granted parole for another 0:13:07.280 --> 0:13:10.839 three years from now until twenty twenty eight. But then 0:13:10.880 --> 0:13:13.960 after that there was a second appeal. What happened was 0:13:14.120 --> 0:13:17.040 it was discovered that during the trial, a member of 0:13:17.040 --> 0:13:19.840 the jury, well let me go back to the beginning. 0:13:19.920 --> 0:13:26.439 During the trial, this infamous or famous line she wrote. 0:13:26.440 --> 0:13:29.160 Obviously I am my father's daughter was ruled in admissible, 0:13:30.440 --> 0:13:34.920 but when Craig was giving evidence, whether intentionally or unintentionally, 0:13:35.360 --> 0:13:39.920 he dropped into his evidence the fact that he had 0:13:40.000 --> 0:13:43.400 read this line in her diary. It was a kind 0:13:43.440 --> 0:13:50.520 of egregious, you know, flouting of the ruling of it inadmissibility. 0:13:49.760 --> 0:13:53.600 And that worthing of what she said, I am my 0:13:53.679 --> 0:13:56.600 father's daughter. It looks like I'm my father's daughter. Forget 0:13:56.600 --> 0:13:59.679 the exact words, given the fact that her father had 0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:03.040 murdered her mother, and the inference being fairly strong and 0:14:03.559 --> 0:14:07.280 probity against against her in that. 0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:10.040 Regard, exactly well it was it was It was deemed 0:14:10.040 --> 0:14:13.440 by I mean Petersarrap quite rightly put forward the argument 0:14:13.440 --> 0:14:16.760 that it was enormously prejudicial to for the jury to 0:14:16.800 --> 0:14:19.760 be told about this line that she had written, because 0:14:19.760 --> 0:14:22.400 they would automatically assume that what she was, as you say, 0:14:22.480 --> 0:14:25.400 what she was referring to was the fact that her 0:14:25.600 --> 0:14:29.000 her father had murdered her mother. But as I say, 0:14:29.280 --> 0:14:32.920 it was ruled in admissible, and then Craig Folbig mentioned 0:14:32.920 --> 0:14:36.080 it in his evidence, and then they came down with 0:14:36.080 --> 0:14:40.720 the guilty verdict. And then after the trial, after she 0:14:40.720 --> 0:14:43.920 she had been convicted, of course, the media went wild. 0:14:44.160 --> 0:14:47.000 They were finally allowed to report this line that she 0:14:47.040 --> 0:14:50.000 had written in her diary, and and and the media 0:14:50.240 --> 0:14:56.320 I think universally interpreted the line she had written as 0:14:56.400 --> 0:14:59.200 being a kind of an admission that she had killed 0:14:59.200 --> 0:15:03.360 her children. She of course, later gave a very different 0:15:03.440 --> 0:15:06.960 explanation for why she'd written it. She said, Look, all 0:15:06.960 --> 0:15:09.440 I was saying there essentially was, you know, my dad 0:15:09.480 --> 0:15:12.800 was a loser, and you know my life has kind 0:15:12.800 --> 0:15:15.760 of gone to shit basically, and you know I've turned 0:15:15.760 --> 0:15:17.560 out to be a loser as well. You know, that 0:15:17.680 --> 0:15:21.480 was her explanation for it. But for the second appeal, 0:15:22.400 --> 0:15:25.240 this was one of the grounds of appeal that that 0:15:25.240 --> 0:15:29.280 that there'd been a clear breach of the rules by 0:15:29.320 --> 0:15:33.440 a member of the jury and therefore essentially that there 0:15:33.440 --> 0:15:36.080 should be a retrial. And I think what was interesting, 0:15:36.080 --> 0:15:39.040 what I found interesting was that the appeal the Crown 0:15:39.200 --> 0:15:44.080 argued that you know, when this information went back into 0:15:44.080 --> 0:15:47.440 the jury room, it would have elicited sympathy from the 0:15:47.440 --> 0:15:48.560 other members of the jury. 0:15:48.920 --> 0:15:50.880 Now I personally find that absurd. 0:15:51.120 --> 0:15:54.240 Look, we're talking hypothetically if that's what happened, but I 0:15:54.840 --> 0:15:57.800 don't think I'm not picturing the jury room going sympathy. 0:15:57.840 --> 0:15:59.560 I'm thinking, ah, right, we've cracked the. 0:15:59.440 --> 0:16:03.560 Case exactly so, and so I find that to be 0:16:03.640 --> 0:16:08.600 frank an extraordinary decision of the Appeal Court, the Court 0:16:08.600 --> 0:16:09.320 Criminal Appeal. 0:16:09.800 --> 0:16:12.320 How did it get to the point where they were inquiries? 0:16:13.200 --> 0:16:16.520 Okay, so I'll kind of flash forward, if you like. 0:16:16.600 --> 0:16:23.400 In twenty and eleven, Emma Cunliffe, who is Australian, a 0:16:23.480 --> 0:16:26.840 legal academic, she's now a professor, but who had moved 0:16:26.840 --> 0:16:30.480 to Canada. She started looking at this case. She was 0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:33.120 actually I think looking at the case of Linda Chamberlain 0:16:33.160 --> 0:16:38.320 at the time, but as she describes it, she realized 0:16:38.800 --> 0:16:43.240 when she started researching Lindy's case, in Kathleen's case, that 0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:46.440 there were all these other mothers in the UK in particular, 0:16:47.960 --> 0:16:52.560 who had been convicted on largely on the basis of 0:16:52.600 --> 0:16:55.080 Meadows law or to a great extent on the basis 0:16:55.120 --> 0:16:57.600 of Meadow's law, but who had since been acquitted, and 0:16:57.640 --> 0:17:02.160 the only mother who had not been acquitted or on 0:17:02.480 --> 0:17:06.320 appeal was Kathy. Okay, So she started looking at the case, 0:17:06.359 --> 0:17:11.840 and she's quite clear in conceding that she started off 0:17:11.920 --> 0:17:14.520 with the view that Kathleen Folbey had. 0:17:14.359 --> 0:17:15.160 You know, was guilty. 0:17:16.040 --> 0:17:18.880 And she also is very clear in saying that when 0:17:18.920 --> 0:17:22.480 she started reading her diaries she was very troubled by them. 0:17:22.720 --> 0:17:25.720 Yeah. I found that found that very interesting because that 0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:31.240 was her initial reading the diaries. She saw something sinister there, 0:17:31.480 --> 0:17:33.760 but then she changed the view on it. 0:17:34.000 --> 0:17:37.359 Yes, that's right, and I think that I think I 0:17:37.359 --> 0:17:39.879 think a lot of people have, probably including myself, I 0:17:39.880 --> 0:17:42.760 have gone through that kind of process of reading some 0:17:42.800 --> 0:17:45.120 of the entries in the diaries, you know. The most 0:17:45.119 --> 0:17:47.600 famous one of which is apart from my father's daughter, 0:17:47.680 --> 0:17:50.280 is probably the one where she says that Sarah, you know, 0:17:51.080 --> 0:17:52.920 left with a bit of help, with a bit of help, 0:17:53.000 --> 0:17:55.640 and you think, oh my god, what is she saying here? 0:17:56.359 --> 0:17:56.560 Now. 0:17:56.960 --> 0:18:00.640 Her explanation for that has always been, and can persistently 0:18:00.760 --> 0:18:03.320 actually since the very earliest days, has always been that 0:18:03.359 --> 0:18:05.040 what she meant by that was that she left with 0:18:05.080 --> 0:18:09.399 some kind of divine or you know, supernatural help. It's 0:18:09.440 --> 0:18:12.719 a kind of semi religious kind of idea that she 0:18:12.800 --> 0:18:15.040 was taken from me by God or however you want 0:18:15.080 --> 0:18:15.960 to express it, or. 0:18:15.880 --> 0:18:20.199 A higher power. But Emma, in. 0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:26.639 You know, not uniquely was very troubled by that, and 0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:29.000 I think may will have thought that she was guilty. 0:18:29.000 --> 0:18:30.439 But the more she looked into the case, and in 0:18:30.480 --> 0:18:33.960 particular the more she deconstructed the trial itself, the more 0:18:34.000 --> 0:18:38.600 convinced she became that Kathleen was innocent. And so she 0:18:38.680 --> 0:18:41.320 wrote this book, which was a kind of seminal book 0:18:41.440 --> 0:18:45.200 really about the case which was published in twenty eleven Murder, 0:18:45.280 --> 0:18:50.479 Medicine and Motherhood that was read by, amongst other people, 0:18:51.600 --> 0:18:57.720 a close friend of Kathy's, Helen Cummings in Newcastle, and. 0:18:57.960 --> 0:18:59.480 She approached. 0:19:00.359 --> 0:19:05.920 Isabel Reid who who is a barrister in Newcastle. Isabelle 0:19:05.960 --> 0:19:10.080 read then got other lawyers involved, and so round about 0:19:10.080 --> 0:19:13.879 that time twenty eleven twenty twelve, lawyers in Newcastle and 0:19:13.920 --> 0:19:18.680 indeed the University of Newcastle's Legal Center got involved, did 0:19:18.680 --> 0:19:21.440 a lot more research the Legal Center into the case 0:19:21.520 --> 0:19:27.760 and the transcripts and everything else. And eventually in twenty 0:19:27.880 --> 0:19:33.000 fifteen a petition was put together and it was sent 0:19:33.280 --> 0:19:38.520 to the then Attorney General of New South Wales, gabrielle Upton, 0:19:41.440 --> 0:19:45.200 you know, calling for a judicial inquiry into her case. Now, 0:19:45.280 --> 0:19:48.880 one of the key aspects of that petition, in my opinion, 0:19:49.240 --> 0:19:51.840 the most crucial aspect of it, the most crucial element 0:19:51.880 --> 0:19:56.399 of it was an enormous report which was written by 0:19:56.640 --> 0:20:00.760 the esteemed forensic pathologists, Professor Stephen Cordner, and he'd spent 0:20:00.840 --> 0:20:05.800 over a year reviewing the forensic evidence in the case, 0:20:06.240 --> 0:20:09.000 and his very clear conclusion was that there were natural 0:20:09.040 --> 0:20:11.359 cause of death for all four children, and there was 0:20:11.400 --> 0:20:15.639 no evidence whatsoever that she had been smothered, and not 0:20:15.680 --> 0:20:19.960 only that, there was actually robust evidence that Laura had 0:20:19.960 --> 0:20:24.760 not been smothered because she didn't have any injuries exactly exactly. 0:20:27.200 --> 0:20:30.200 So this was presented in I think it was may 0:20:30.280 --> 0:20:34.240 Or June twenty fifteen, to the then Governor of New 0:20:34.240 --> 0:20:37.400 South Wales, and then passed on to the Attorney General, 0:20:37.480 --> 0:20:44.320 gabrielle Upton, and then Mark Speakman, her successor as Attorney General, 0:20:44.359 --> 0:20:49.479 came on board. And then following on from that, in 0:20:49.640 --> 0:20:53.600 twenty seventeen, I became involved in well, I should in fairness, 0:20:53.680 --> 0:20:57.959 I should add that after Emma Cunliffe's book was published, 0:20:58.200 --> 0:21:01.480 sixty Minutes did a store about her case, and they 0:21:01.560 --> 0:21:07.920 interviewed Emma Cunliffe, and you know, bravoed sixty Minutes, who 0:21:07.960 --> 0:21:10.119 actually followed the case right the way through pretty much 0:21:10.160 --> 0:21:14.080 to the very end, and consistently argued that there were 0:21:14.119 --> 0:21:19.600 reasons to doubt her guilt. So they did that. But 0:21:19.760 --> 0:21:24.160 then in twenty eighteen I was working at Australian Story 0:21:24.960 --> 0:21:29.520 and I produced a story, an episode, a long longer 0:21:29.520 --> 0:21:33.479 than usual episode for Australian Story about Kathy's case, and 0:21:33.520 --> 0:21:36.280 one of the things I guess there were two important 0:21:36.320 --> 0:21:41.280 elements of that story. One of them was that I decided, 0:21:42.480 --> 0:21:45.359 after reading as much of the evidence as I could, 0:21:45.400 --> 0:21:49.000 that there was a clear conflict between what Professor Cordener 0:21:49.359 --> 0:21:52.000 had said, which was that there was no forensic evidence 0:21:52.160 --> 0:21:55.359 to suggest that they'd been murdered, and what doctor Alan 0:21:55.480 --> 0:21:59.960 Carla had said, which was supporting the view that awful 0:22:00.080 --> 0:22:07.200 children had indeed been smothered. And I was able entirely 0:22:07.240 --> 0:22:12.760 independent forensic pathologist called Dr Matthew ord who incidentally was 0:22:12.800 --> 0:22:17.240 based in Canada along along with Emma Cunliffe, was suggested 0:22:17.280 --> 0:22:19.600 to us as someone to approach, and I approached him 0:22:19.600 --> 0:22:21.520 and I said, look, would you be prepared to do 0:22:21.560 --> 0:22:26.000 two things to kind of review Stephen Cordner's report, And 0:22:26.080 --> 0:22:28.840 he doctor ord had nothing whatsoever to do with the 0:22:28.880 --> 0:22:30.960 case prior to that, which I thought was a good thing. 0:22:31.760 --> 0:22:36.680 And secondly, if we can arrange for the slides of 0:22:37.160 --> 0:22:40.800 Laura's heart tissue to be delivered to you, will you 0:22:40.840 --> 0:22:44.040 examine them and kind of tell us what you think? 0:22:44.119 --> 0:22:46.359 And I didn't know what his conclusions would be. He 0:22:46.440 --> 0:22:49.760 might have he might have said he agreed to do this. 0:22:49.840 --> 0:22:51.879 But he might have said, look, I don't agree with 0:22:52.040 --> 0:22:57.120 Professor Cordner's report, and I think that the myo choditis 0:22:57.560 --> 0:23:00.600 that Laura was suffering from that I agree with Carla 0:23:00.640 --> 0:23:02.480 that it was only patche and mild. He might have 0:23:02.560 --> 0:23:06.280 said that. In the event, he said that broadly, he 0:23:06.359 --> 0:23:09.800 agreed with everything Professor Corden had written in his report, 0:23:10.040 --> 0:23:12.000 and he thought that there was a very clear case 0:23:12.080 --> 0:23:15.439 of my arcaditis which could have caused Laura's death. The 0:23:15.480 --> 0:23:18.399 phrase he used at one point he qualified it. He 0:23:18.400 --> 0:23:22.359 said that didn't that didn't prevent the possibility that she 0:23:22.520 --> 0:23:25.440 might have killed Laura. But he said that in his opinion, 0:23:25.560 --> 0:23:30.600 this was, to quote, an eminently fatal case of my acaditis. 0:23:31.400 --> 0:23:35.400 Now I was kind of, at one level stunned by this, 0:23:35.480 --> 0:23:39.159 because I thought, well, my god, you know, if this 0:23:39.440 --> 0:23:42.680 entirely independent forensic pathologist is saying this is an eminently 0:23:42.720 --> 0:23:45.480 fatal case of my arcaditis, why was she ever convicted? 0:23:46.000 --> 0:23:48.879 And after he said this, I came back and I 0:23:48.920 --> 0:23:53.200 spoke to I interviewed Nicholas Cowdrey, who was, of course 0:23:53.359 --> 0:23:57.520 the Director of Public Prosecutions when Kathleen was put on trial, 0:23:58.040 --> 0:24:00.919 and interestingly, he said a couple of things in relation 0:24:01.080 --> 0:24:04.159 to the pigs might fly quote he said, well, you know, 0:24:04.200 --> 0:24:05.920 that's not what I would that's not how I would 0:24:05.920 --> 0:24:10.720 have presented it. But in relation to this, he said, well, 0:24:11.080 --> 0:24:13.040 you know, even if this went to the Quarter of 0:24:13.080 --> 0:24:16.480 Criminal Appeal and she was found not guilty, she was 0:24:16.480 --> 0:24:22.840 acquitted of her conviction of murdering Laura, that wouldn't necessarily 0:24:22.880 --> 0:24:27.119