Thursday, July 10, 2003

Folbigg may have been innocent

Kathleen Folbigg could be suffering from a dissociative disorder, a top psychiatrist said yesterday.

Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists NSW branch chairwoman Louise Newman was commenting on a letter Folbigg wrote from jail to her foster sister Lea Bown.

In the letter, Folbigg proclaims her innocence but describes herself as the most hated woman alive because the Daily Telegraph exploited her case.

Dr Newman said that, while a proper assessment could only be made after a full examination, Folbigg's letter indicated a number of things about her state of mind.

But state of mind in terms of psychiatry is really common sense to an onlooker. Have you ever looked at yourself in the mirror? Have you ever sung in the shower?

Dr Newman explains, "The interesting question is whether, in general, someone who has committed serious offences can actually believe themselves to be innocent," Dr Newman said.

[Not likely? Other, interesting questions are, what about the goons who accuse people of crimes and have the power to exploit people in the media? People who have little or no defence against, corporations, like the Daily Telegraph?]

[And a more interesting question could be, whether, in general, someone who actually claims she never committed the serious offences can acutally be found guilty.]

Dr Newman said psychiatrists sometimes saw cases where people had committed murder yet had little or no recollection of the event.

"It's very difficult to assess and it's quite rare," she said.

"It will usually require a thorough examination but it's a well-known phenomenon in forensic psychiatry known as dissociation".

[And the community actually sometimes saw cases where people had been framed for murder, yet had little or no defence against the corporate media.

It's very difficult to assess and is not quite rare.

It will usually require a thorough examination but it's a well-known phenomenon in trial by media known as exploitation and propaganda.]

Yes dissociation is also when people are traumatised and the trauma was so shocking that they did not choose to integrate their experience because of their emotional state, at the time. And it's not quite rare. In lots of cases where a person has committed a killing those people couldn't tell you what happened during the killing. Especially in domestic disputes.

Dr Newman said a person entered a state of dissociation to protect their mind from traumatic events.

"We know that, from other examples where people are overwhelmed by anxiety, they forget or repress what's happened," she said.

[The guilty person but not those claiming innocents?]

Newman: "There's some research that people who abuse children may also forget what they have done or only have patchy recollections. They can interpret these recollections very differently but this is not a conscious thing."

[I notice there is no research propositions by Dr Newman about people who may be innocent here? This article wouldn't be a one sided argument against Mrs Folbigg now would it?]

It is my understanding people who have killed a person know they have killed but they cannot tell you how many bullets were fired or how many times they stabbed a person or how long they held a person under water etc. Most importantly unless they are mentally retarded they usually don't forget killing a person.

Folbigg didn't forget she said she was innocent.

Newman, "Dissociation enabled highly traumatised people to keep functioning, she said."

Like when a politician lies?

Newman: "It seems to be a programmed-in response to protect ourselves from awareness of overwhelming trauma, where anxiety is so high or events are too horrible we go into shut down mode, much like a computer, where the mind protects itself so that people can keep functioning."

[Like I said, the mind doesn't shut down on wether a person has done it. Perhaps the circumstances surrounding such an offence is scattered, but not what was done or not done in terms of guilt, unless of course the case was forensic and Mrs Folbigg had a mental illness, however in this case she was found guilty, which means she didn't have a mental illness.]

[The other alternatives in a case like the Daily Terrorists' reporting and their need to exploit people, was where the power of denial is overwhelming and the paper truly believes that someone has done this. Or when the prosecutor has relied on evidence that was false and misleading, usually because of noble cause corruption or because of professional opinions that may have been wrong, and or the Jury made a mistake generally, or because the information was overwhelmingly tainted.]

On the other hand, some people [Government?, Police?, Prosecutors?, or Corporation?], simply lied, Newman said. "The hard question for the courts is who is lying and who has genuinely forgotten or misinterpreted things." [?]

By Appeal 10 July 03

THE ACCUSED: On the other hand, some people simply lied or got it wrong because the system failed, The prosecution is not equal to the defence, professional opinions can be flawed and juries can determine the wrong evidence. That is what an appeal is suppose to decide. Not the Daily Terror, the Government or Dr Newman. Respect! Give Folbigg a fair appeal with legal assistance. Not a one sided post mortem from the Daily Telegraph!!!


Daily Terrorist burns woman at the stake
But in an extraordinary letter, Kathleen Folbigg maintains her innocence declaring: "Vindication will one day be mine." Folbigg wrote the revealing four-page letter to her foster sister, Lea Bown, two weeks ago from the isolation wing of Mulawa women's jail at Silverwater.

2nd Renaissance -36 Let The Girls Go! [263]
During 2003 an Australian woman, Kathleen Folbigg, was sentenced to 40 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 30 years. Her crime, which she continues to deny, was to consecutively smother her four children when they were aged between 8 and 19 months. She was largely convicted on the basis of entries in her private diary, although these did not specifically refer to her having killed her two sons and two daughters; only that she was her father's daughter. Her lawyers are appealing her conviction.