First of all, congratulations. Kathleen’s release is largely the result of long‑standing efforts and careful work over the years. How did the news reach you, and what was the feeling in that moment?
I am profoundly glad for Kathleen Folbigg. It’s uplifting to learn that she is finally free. The review marks a moment where science helps correct a historic injustice in Australia, signaling a shift toward evidence‑based outcomes in the justice system.
Were you able to speak with Kathleen, and do you know how she is faring? How did you experience the moment you learned the news?
Kathleen, together with her lifelong ally Tracy Chapman, reached out to me at three in the morning. I woke to good news and a heartening, deeply meaningful conversation. It was a moment of surprise and gratitude. Kathleen is hopeful and thankful for the scientists who worked on this case.
Science played a decisive role in the case review and its outcome.
The release represents a milestone for the scientific community and for those who support integrating scientific insight into judicial processes. On a personal level, there is a sense of responsibility and momentum to keep pushing for reforms that bring scientific analysis into courtrooms. Science is increasingly intricate, the tools we use grow more advanced, and it is essential to help judges and lawyers understand discoveries that could influence legal decisions.
In discussions about the Folbigg case, the results stand as a touchstone that will leave a lasting imprint on the history of justice.
Independent mechanisms that provide scientific advisory input in judicial processes are crucial. There is a genuine commitment to justice, but the issue is intricate, requiring new approaches to better weigh scientific evidence. Notably, in Kathleen Folbigg’s case, the Australian Academy of Sciences supported the process and helped oversee it, assisting in the selection of experts and ensuring rigorous judgment.
How should a person be compensated for the loss of a partner and four children, coupled with twenty years spent in prison on accusations of murder?
There is no humane way to fully repair such a tragedy. The individual has long sought to redefine the record, insisting that their children died of natural causes and that their memory should be honored. The significant loss of time, in this case twenty years, creates profound trauma that will require ongoing healing.
You have consistently argued that Kathleen may be innocent and that the evidence initially presented was not conclusive.
Indeed, initial research indicated illness among the children long before deeper study began. The genetic mutation identified later provided a plausible natural cause for the deaths, reinforcing a strong belief in Kathleen’s innocence through genetic evidence.
In 2018, a new genetic study surfaced in the discussion. How did the case study come to your attention?
David Wallace, a young lawyer with a background in immunology, saw a report on television and contacted the author to ask whether current technology could support genetic analysis. It was clear that fifteen years of advances had made comprehensive genome sequencing feasible in his lab.
What did the genetic work entail, and what conclusions were drawn?
The research identified a mutation in Kathleen and her two daughters that accounted for the girls’ deaths. The mutation affects calmodulin, a protein that governs heart rhythm by regulating calcium movement in heart cells. The collaborative effort with experts from four countries demonstrated that this mutation can cause severe arrhythmias comparable to known calmodulin mutations linked to sudden cardiac death in children. Calmodulin’s role in maintaining heartbeat rhythm and calcium balance is central to this finding.
Thanks to this body of work, the mutation has been classified as pathogenic, indicating a high probability of genetically caused sudden death in similar cases. In this light, the deaths were not homicide but sudden cardiac events arising from a genetic predisposition.
The genetic study strengthened Kathleen’s innocence and sparked renewed public and professional support. The scientific community rallied to advocate for a second review of the case in court, while acknowledging both aids and obstacles along the way.
Almost every source of support proved helpful. International calmodulin experts examined the research with evident interest, dedication, and precision. The Australian Academy of Sciences also offered steadfast support, and the justice system treated this second review with great seriousness. Judges, vice‑jurists, and lawyers devoted substantial time to understanding the scientific contribution and delving into genetic factors tied to the medical causes of the children’s deaths. The work was widely recognized as admirable.
How did the public react? The initial trial in 2003 placed Kathleen behind bars and painted her in a negative light within Australian media and public discourse for years.
Media portrayal contributed to a powerful, negative narrative about her. A dedicated group of supporters kept defending her innocence, and the new review gradually reframed public understanding. In recent months, the public narrative has shifted, and many Australians now see the earlier decision as a grave miscarriage of justice.
A Spanish scientist of international standing
Born in Cadiz, now in his early fifties, this scientist spent parts of his childhood in the United States and Belgium. Returning to Spain, he studied medicine at the Autonomous University of Madrid. He was an idealistic young researcher who admired the work of colleagues on humanitarian projects with NGOs such as Doctors Without Borders in Africa.
A commitment to social justice and solidarity has long defined his career. During his studies he traveled to Kolkata in India with Mother Teresa to assist in wound care for patients with leprosy, collaborating with a physician in the most underserved neighborhoods along the Ganges bank.
In Africa, where infant deaths from meningitis and malaria occurred before broad vaccination, he focused on meningitis immunity during his time at the University of Birmingham, earning a PhD. A 2001 scholarship then brought him to the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University, where he led the Department of Immunology for eight years. In a country that became his professional home, he established himself as a leading figure in research, blending immunology with genomic science.
In 2005 he identified a new gene involved in an autoimmune disease in mice. Inspired by his Andalusian roots, he nicknamed the mouse San Roque and the gene roquin, a playful nod that reflects his personal connection to his heritage. He co‑founded and led the Australian Center for Personalized Immunology, one of the first groups in the country to use genomic sequencing to link diseases with genetic variations.
Within Australia he is regarded as an authority. He joined the Australian Academy of Sciences in 2015 and received recognition from Health and Medicine in 2020 as Scientist of the Year. Carola García de Vinuesa later returned to the United Kingdom, continuing her work at the Francis Crick Institute in London after more than two decades in Australia.