“Kathleen Folbigg is happy and grateful to the scientists working on the case”

First of all, congratulations. Kathleen’s release is largely the result of your efforts over the years. How did you get the news? how does it feel

I am extremely happy for Kathleen Folbigg. I’m so happy to find out that he’s finally out of jail. The review of his case represents the triumph of science correcting the greatest injustice in Australian history.

Were you able to talk to him? do you know how she is? How did you experience the news?

Kathleen, along with her lifelong friend Tracy Chapman, called me at three o’clock this morning. I woke up with good news and a very exciting, very good conversation. It was a nice call that surprised me. He is happy and grateful to the scientists working on this case.

Science has been decisive in the review of the case.

Kathleen’s release is cause for celebration for the scientific community. Personally, it’s comforting to be able to help Kathleen and contribute little by little to the reforms needed to get science more considered in the courts. Science is getting more complex, the technology we use is getting more sophisticated, and it is important that we be able to advise judges and lawyers on scientific discoveries that may be of key importance.

results Folbigg case It is a touchstone that will leave its mark on the history of justice…

It is very important that there are independent mechanisms that allow advising in judicial processes. There is a will on the side of justice, but this is a complex issue and new ways must be explored that make it possible to take greater account of scientific evidence. It is noteworthy that in the Kathleen Folbigg case, the Australian Academy of Sciences sought legal representation in the case and played a decisive role in overseeing the process, helping to select experts.

How do you compensate a woman who lost her four children and spent 20 years in prison accused of murdering her?

There is no humane way to make up for it. But he says that he always wanted to change the inscription of his children, that they were not killed, that they died naturally, and that he loved them very much. This was the most important thing to him and the rest will come. He lost 20 years of his life and it is very difficult to recover from it. He has a very strong trauma that he will have to gradually overcome.

You always argued that Kathleen could be innocent and there was no conclusive evidence to put her in jail.

Yes, we knew children were sick even before we did our research and found the genetic mutation. It was convincing that their deaths could respond to natural causes. But indeed, the genetic discovery of the cause of the disease reaffirmed me so firmly in Kathleen’s innocence.

You’re taking the stage with this genetic research in 2018, how did the case study reach your desk?

In 2018, David Wallace, a young lawyer with a master’s degree in immunology in my department, saw a report about this case on TV, called me and asked if the technology already existed to conduct genetic research. I told him yes, technology has come a long way in fifteen years, and we were already sequencing entire human genomes in my lab.

What did the genetic work you develop consist of? what conclusion did you come to?

We found a mutation in both Kathleen and her two daughters that explains the girls’ deaths. It is formed in a protein called calmodulin. Together with a group of experts from four countries, we were able to demonstrate that this mutation causes severe cardiac arrhythmia comparable to other calmodulin mutations that cause sudden unexpected death in children. Calmodulin is a protein that regulates the rhythm of the heartbeat, regulating the entry and exit of calcium into cells, and the calcium concentration is critical for regulating the heartbeat.

Thanks to these studies, it has been classified as pathogenic, that is, the probability of genetically causing sudden death in girls is 90-99%. So they weren’t killed, but died of cardiac arrhythmia.

The genetic study reaffirms Kathleen’s innocence, and from then on, she turns to win their support in the scientific community and go there to get a second review of the case in court, what aids and obstacles? Did you find it along the way?

Almost everything was helpful. I then contacted international experts on calmodulin who analyzed the research and they turned to it. They were interested from the first moment, showed a lot of desire and meticulousness.

The Australian Academy of Sciences has also steadfastly supported it, and the truth is that justice has taken this second review of the case very seriously. The judge, vice-judges, and lawyers have worked hard and spent hours, days, and weeks understanding the contribution of science. They developed an in-depth analysis of genetic issues linked to the medical causes of death of four children. Your work has been admirable.

And how did the citizens react? There was a quick trial that put Kathleen in jail in 2003, after which she became the big demon in the Australian public.

Unfortunately the media portrayed him that way and he was believed to be the worst serial killer in Australian history. Everyone demonized him, except for a group of friends who always defended his innocence. But thanks to this second review, media perception has changed, and everything we know in recent months has come to light. Public opinion about the event is different today. Many Australians realized that this was a huge mistake of justice.