Mother's conviction quashed for killing her children

Sir Roy Meadow, the paediatrician whose evidence has been discredited.

LONDON - The conviction of a mother convicted six years ago of killing her two children has been quashed by London's Appeal Court.

Three of the country's top judges, ruled that the conviction and life sentence imposed on 31-year-old Donna Anthony could not stand. There will be no re-trial.

The prosecution offered no opposition to her appeal which had been referred to the court on the basis that evidence against her had come from, among others, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the paediatrician whose evidence has been discredited in other similar cases.

An earlier appeal by Anthony, of Yeovil, Somerset, was dismissed in June 2000. Anthony has always maintained that the two babies, who at the time of their deaths were aged 11 months and four months, were cot death victims.

However, her case was sent back to the Appeal Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) following consideration of fresh evidence from medical experts.

Anthony's appeal was one of 28 referred to the CCRC after the conviction of Angela Cannings was quashed in January last year. She had been accused of killing her two young sons.

Experts in child abuse cases face inquiry

UK: The government launched an official inquiry into the quality of expert medical evidence in child abuse cases last Thursday, as the implications of the miscarriage of justice in the Angela Cannings case continued to perplex ministers.

By SIDS posted 12 April 05

Related:

Experts in child abuse cases face inquiry
UK: The government launched an official inquiry into the quality of expert medical evidence in child abuse cases last Thursday, as the implications of the miscarriage of justice in the Angela Cannings case continued to perplex ministers.

Cot deaths and justice
Did you kill your babies?' A whisper came from the crumpled figure in the dock: 'No.' The whisper grew louder: 'No, no.' It was as if we were witnessing torture in Reading Crown Court. It is hard to imagine a crueller inquisition than that which faced Trupti Patel: a mother loses three babies in cot death and then goes through the hell of being accused of murdering them.

Accused of abuse, but never tried
Mothers Sally Clark and Trupti Patel found themselves in the dock accused of murdering their babies partly on the strength of expert testimony by Sir Roy Meadows. But other families have been forcibly separated thanks to Sir Roy's testimony without police charges ever being brought.

Cot Death Mothers: The Witch Hunt
John Sweeney investigates when mothers, grieving the loss of a child after cot death, are wrongly accused of murder.

Australia

Appeals court told woman's sentence barbaric!
Appeal: Folbigg's lawyers argue her sentence is barbaric.But is she guilty? When she has maintains her innocence? And what about "Meadows law"?

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome! & The Kathleen Folbigg Case
Kathleen Megan Folbigg, 37, is either Australia's worst female serial killer or her case is a serious miscarriage of justice in which an innocent mother has been wrongfully convicted of infanticide.

Folbigg, convicted until proven innocent
Convicted August 2003 for the manslaughter of her eldest child Caleb, and the murder of her next three children, Patrick, Sarah and Laura. Disturbing similarities between the case of Kathleen Folbigg and that of Sally Clark (nb. Other Meadows cases Trupti Patel, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony, Margaret Smith, Julie Ferris, Maxine Robinson) using "Meadows law" one cot death is tragic, two suspicious, three murder." The Attorney-General in England is reviewing more than 250 cases where a parent may have been wrongly convicted. In other words, Professor Meadows evidence has been totally discredited. There is a furore in England, but no mention in Australian press?

Folbigg may have been innocent
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.

Family tragedy in police spotlight
JOSEPHINE CAFAGNA, REPORTER: Next week the last chapter will be played out in a case that shocked the nation, the case of Kathleen Folbigg, found guilty of killing her four babies in NSW, at first thought to have died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Next week Kathleen Folbigg will know the sentence for her crime. In May this year, following the Folbigg conviction, Stateline made inquiries here in Victoria about any cases of multiple SIDS deaths in the one family. Stateline asked the Homicide Squad, the Coroners Court, Human Services Victoria and the SIDS Foundation if any cases were being re-examined in light of the Folbigg case. The answer was no

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.

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!!!

Related:

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.