Husband’s DNA test refusal to aid Kathleen Folbigg

The former husband of convicted child killer Kathleen Folbigg is ­refusing to give a DNA sample and has withdrawn from an inquiry that could exonerate her over the deaths of their four infant children.

Kathleen Folbigg in 2019. Picture: AAP

The former husband of convicted child killer Kathleen Folbigg is ­refusing to give a DNA sample and has withdrawn from an inquiry that could exonerate her over the deaths of their four infant children more than two decades ago.

Folbigg was convicted in 2003 of smothering her children Patrick, Sarah, Laura and Caleb, but new scientific evidence that her daughters carried a genetic mutation causing heart irregularities has raised the possibility that they died from natural causes.

The success of Folbigg’s bid for freedom will hang on the strength of the new genetic evidence, which has been championed by some of the nation’s leading scientists, but Craig Folbigg’s refusal to provide DNA will limit the scope of the ­inquiry.

Mr Folbigg’s DNA has the ­potential to provide “considerable assistance” and reveal if he passed on any genetic mutations that could have led to the children’s deaths and establish from whom the boys inherited genetic mutations. The missing piece of the puzzle will make it more difficult for scientists to determine if the children’s genetic variants were pathogenic, a 2019 report on the children’s genetics by scientists Carola Vinuesa and Matthew Cook said.

“This makes it impossible to identify any variant in the children as de novo, which decreases the number of criteria that can be used to score a variant and makes it more difficult for any variant to reach a ‘pathogenic’ or ‘likely pathogenic’ designation,” it said.

Mr Folbigg – who has maintained that his ex-wife is guilty – has cited financial woes as the ­reason he won’t participate in the inquiry.

His lawyer Danny Eid said Mr Folbigg was unable to fund his legal representation for the ­inquiry and was denied funding from the Attorney-General. ­Instead he claims he was offered the option to take out a loan against his home.

“This whole inquiry was imposed on him and as the father who lost four children, he is a person who should be properly ­funded and represented before the inquiry,” Mr Eid said.

“He has been placed in an untenable position that required me to withdraw from acting because he could not secure funding … bearing in mind that he is not a killer and even a killer is provided funding to defend themselves.”

A directions hearing heard in July that although Mr Folbigg’s co-operation could not be compelled by the inquiry, his DNA was vital evidence. “It would be of considerable assistance to the inquiry as we are told by the relevant genetic experts to have the benefit of that DNA in order to broaden what can be analysed,” counsel ­assisting Sophie Callan said.

Folbigg’s close friend Tracy Chapman said she was bewildered by Mr Folbigg’s decision to withhold his DNA. “It’s disappointing, but at the end of the day only Craig knows why,” she said.

“He has been told time and time again his DNA would be kept confidential, and it was not going to go on a database. You would think it would be a no-brainer.”

Ms Chapman also raised concerns about Folbigg’s access to funding for her legal campaign.

A group of 90 eminent scientists – including Nobel laureates Peter Doherty and Elizabeth Blackburn and former Australians of the Year Ian Frazer and Fiona Stanley – signed a petition last year calling for Folbigg to be pardoned based on the new evidence.

“I continue to support looking at this case again,” Professor ­Doherty told The Australian. “I don’t understand why this woman is still in jail.”

In response to the petition, NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman launched a new inquiry into her case under former NSW Supreme Court chief justice Tom Bathurst.

Mr Speakman said his “office has been in ongoing contact with Mr Folbigg concerning his request for legal assistance”. Mr Speakman had also written to Mr Folbigg advising him that he had “approved discretionary funding… for his legal representation in the inquiry”.