The argument is that in a country of 20+ million people there will be enough people with a genetic predisposition toward natural causes of early death such that at least one family with 3+ children having many deaths should occur at least once .. not be such an outlier and so uncommon that "it must be murder".
The Folbigg case had no physical evidence of murder, just a "well, this has to be murder" argument and a media pile onto a very guilty feeling parent (as any parent would feel in such circumstances).
See:
March 2021 the Australian Academy of Science published a petition, signed by 90 scientists, calling for Kathleen Folbigg’s immediate pardon and release from jail based on newly available medical and scientific evidence, led by Academy Fellow Professor Carola Vinuesa. The pardon petition is currently being considered by the NSW Attorney General. This case highlights the urgent need for law reform such that evidence can be appropriately considered by the judiciary.
> The Folbigg case had no physical evidence of murder, just a "well, this has to be murder" argument and a media pile onto a very guilty feeling parent (as any parent would feel in such circumstances).
That's not really accurate, as you're leaving out the details in her journal. After all, it was her own husband who turned over her journal to police because he was so alarmed by it, and he became convinced his wife murdered his children.
While I do believe there was reasonable doubt, I think it would have been a tough call (there is no hard-and-fast definition of "reasonable"), as it always is in cases where the true outcome is extremely statistically unlikely, as you point out.
When I was last in a jury, the prosecutors were quick to point out that the law doesn't say "beyond all doubt", just "beyond a reasonable one", which basically guarantees that in some small number of cases that you'll have tragic outcomes like here.
There was NO physical evidence of murder .. certainly no indication the diary was used to batter the children to death.
There were the very dark feelings of a very guilty parent who had multiple children die on their watch, there was a very outwardly suspicuous husband that didn't trust his wife, yes.
> where the true outcome is extremely statistically unlikely, as you point out.
What I stated, and as the Australian Acedemy of Sciences pointed out, in a country the size of Australia such a case is to be expected.
Not that it has a low chance of happening at all in a hundred years, but that it is expected to happen a few times or else something is up with the numbers.
We ground buildings because we know that lightening will strike somewhere.
It's important for the general public to understand another thing about statistics and events.
That it's "unlikely" for a random person in a population to have multiple children die due to a genetic condition isn't the thing to focus on.
GIVEN a person has had multiple children die (as a starting point of fact), then how likely is that due to a genetic condition (or other "not murder" possibilities)?
( Answer: a damn sight more likely than the first question )
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-14/kathleen-folbigg-cour...