Australia is reviewing the Folbigg case again after new questions were raised about the cause of death of her four children. Officials in New South Wales disclosed this investigation is reopening the matter amid doubts surrounding the children’s deaths and the originally stated circumstances.
In a formal update, the New South Wales district attorney general indicated that the ongoing inquiry, which involves independent experts and legal observers, is pursuing whether there is reasonable suspicion that the children did not die at the hands of a mother and will be referred to the Supreme Court for further scrutiny if warranted.
Folbigg was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to a lengthy prison term for the alleged killings of three children and the suffocation of another. Her ability to appeal the conviction has been repeatedly challenging, with previous attempts failing to overturn the judgment.
Defenders of Folbigg maintain that new scientific evidence could provide an alternative explanation for the fatalities, including natural or genetic factors that may have contributed to the deaths of the four young children between 1989 and 1999, ranging from 19 days to 18 months old.
In March 2021, a substantial group of scientists, including experts in genetics and related fields, called for a review by senior authorities in New South Wales. The petition urged careful consideration of the possibility that the deceased children may not have died due to intentional acts. The Governor-General of New South Wales, Margaret Beazley, faced calls to reconsider the case in light of new scientific perspectives. Beazley, who was 54 at the time, ultimately faced the question of whether clemency or exoneration was warranted based on the strength of fresh evidence.
A study published in a reputable scientific journal in 2019 highlighted the potential role of a genetic mutation, CALM2, in rare cases of sudden cardiac death. The research suggested that such a mutation could, in theory, contribute to fatal outcomes in young children. Folbigg supporters have pointed to this research as a possible factor that merits careful examination in the broader context of the case, while critics caution that single studies cannot overturn established legal findings without robust corroboration.
Officials have stressed that any future decision must rest on transparent, public, and fair processes designed to illuminate the facts without preconceptions.
Past legal steps include an initial judicial review in 2018, which was rejected, followed by a subsequent appeal attempt in 2021 that did not succeed. The current reopening signals an ongoing effort to ensure that all relevant evidence is weighed with the utmost rigor, including new scientific insights and expert testimony that may influence how the case is understood by courts and the public alike.