Explainer: What will happen to Kathleen Folbigg now?

Kathleen Folbigg, 55, was found guilty in 2003 of deliberately smothering each of her four children. Here’s what has happened since.

Kathleen Folbigg breaks down whilst being questioned about the deaths of her four children as she appears via video link screened a the NSW Coroners Court in 2019. Picture: AAP

Once dubbed Australia’s worst serial killer, Kathleen Folbigg will be set free after two decades in prison after an inquiry cast reasonable doubt that she killed her four children.

Here is everything you need to know.

Who is Kathleen Folbigg?

NSW woman Kathleen Folbigg, 55, was found guilty at trial in 2003 of deliberately smothering each of her four children, Caleb, Patrick, Sarah and Laura, in fits of anger and stress. She was sentenced to 40 years behind bars, reduced on appeal to 30 years.

In an instant, she became, in the media’s eyes, “Australia’s worst female serial killer” and “the most hated woman in Australia”.

Folbigg, however, has always professed her innocence and has continually and repeatedly denied harming any of her children.

Why has she been freed?

In March 2021, Folbigg’s legal team lodged a petition with the state governor calling for her pardon and release. It was backed by three Nobel laureates and more than 150 scientists and science ­advocates. That petition, and the determined science advocacy that accompanied it, led to a second inquiry into her convictions after a public inquiry in 2019 reinforced her guilt.

The emergence of new expert medical evidence, which appeared to show Sarah and Laura Folbigg carried a genetic mutation that could cause sudden death and cardiac problems, led to renewed calls for another probe into the case.

In a 545-page submission, Folbigg’s lawyers assert that at trial, the prosecution’s case was built on three main falsehoods: the idea that four infants in the same family could not possibly all die from natural causes; the logically questionable notion that because there was no sign of physical harm being done to the children, that could itself be indicative of smothering, which can leave no traces; and thirdly, the interpretation of ­entries in Folbigg’s diaries as being “virtual” admissions of guilt.

How was she convicted?

Folbigg’s diaries, written over the decade that her four children died, were a compelling piece of evidence in her trial.

In one entry dated February 17, 1997, just after Laura was born, Ms Folbigg wrote: “One day it will leave. The others did, but this one’s not going in the same fashion. This time I’m prepared and know what signals to watch out for in myself.”

Another entry read: “All I wanted was to shut her up and one day she did.”

The inquiry examined more than 130 pages of private correspondence between Ms Folbigg and her childhood friend, Tracy Chapman, from shortly after she was imprisoned in 2003 to 2021, which speak to the strength of her diaries as evidence of her guilt.

Long-time friend and advocate of Kathleen Folbigg, Tracy Chapman. Picture : NCA Newswire / Gaye Gerard

Ms Folbigg denied that she was responsible for her children’s deaths in one letter penned behind bars, referring to a damning line in her diaries in which she had said she was her “father’s daughter”. Her father murdered her mother when she was just 18 months old.

“I did what I had been told to do years before by a grief counsellor,” the letter said. “Write it all down empty your soul, free your heart & mind. Lovely advice that turned out to be wasn’t it. I am my fathers (sic) daughter definitely, not referring to him being a murderer.”

But forensic psychologist Patrick Sheehan said Ms Folbigg’s abusive upbringing could have contributed to her self-blaming tendencies exhibited in the diaries.

“It’s to deal with her own badness, or something she’s carried on through her terrible childhood or the sins of her father or failings as a mother,” Mr Sheehan told the inquiry.

How did the children die?

Independent MP Monique Ryan fronted the inquiry, saying Ms Folbigg’s second child, Patrick, most likely did not die due to a brain injury inflicted by his mother, but had an underlying neurological condition which eventually killed him.

Baby Patrick Folbigg died at eight months old. Picture: Supplied

Dr Ryan, a paediatric neurologist and now the member for Kooyong, told the court she believed Patrick suffered from neurological problems which first presented on October 18, 1990.

Ms Folbigg’s husband Craig had checked on Patrick at 10pm and he was sleeping fine. At 3.30am, Craig was awakened by his wife calling for help. He rushed to find her standing over Patrick, who was breathing strenuously.

Craig did resuscitation until the ambulance arrived. Patrick survived and was diagnosed with epilepsy and cortical blindness.

Patrick died on February 18, 1991, aged eight months, with an autopsy finding the cause of death to be an acute asphyxiating event resulting from an epileptic fit.

What will happen to her now?

Folbigg will emerge from prison as a horribly wronged woman, the victim of the most serious miscarriage of justice in Australia’s recent criminal history; the mother who lost four children in succession, who was wrongfully charged with their murders, wrongfully convicted and subsequently vilified for ­heinous crimes she didn’t commit.

In the 2003 trial, Ms Folbigg was found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm on Patrick on October 18, 1990, but Dr Ryan said it was more likely Patrick had suffered a seizure that was the first presentation of an underlying health condition.

“It’s pretty clear that something happened ... that was fairly profound, and before that date Patrick was found to be essentially normal,” she said.

“There has to have been some sort of brain injury on or around the 18th of October. The question is exactly what that was.”

The Crown’s case in 2003 was circumstantial, with post-mortems failing to “establish exactly what had caused the cessation of breathing’’ in each child. However, the prosecution alleged Ms Folbigg had smothered the children.

Peter Fleming, a professor of infant health at the University of Bristol, said he found it “very hard to believe” Ms Folbigg could have smothered the children without causing visible damage to their mouths.

“I personally would find it almost impossible to believe that a child … who is having their airway obstructed by something being put over their face would not fight vigorously and injure the inside of the lip,” Dr Fleming said.