Talk:Kathleen Folbigg

Untitled
Kathleen's diary: In the introduction to this peice it says that Craig found Kathleen's diaries which detailed the killings. This is incorrect. In fact the diaries detailed her mental inability to cope with the situations she was facing, which led Craig Folbigg to suspect that Kathleen was responsible for the deaths. At best, it could be said that there were vague references which could be inferred as going towards her having committed the murders, certainly it could not be said that the diaries detailed the killings. This is patenetly incorrect and should be corrected.

Also, the details of Kathleens childhood disturbance is sparse in this article. Overall the article would give the unknowing reader a somewhat sensationalised view of these tradgedies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphyryan1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

poetic
i agree. some of the phrases of 'guilt' are really tragically poetic. 'tis a natural skill of the gael. 121.127.210.36 (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Natural"
Please note "natural" means "of birth": as such, mutations are "natural". Note however the deaths were triggered by cold medication, so whilst medical professionals may prefer to say they were "natural", this is not entirely correct. See https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/events/news/documents/petition-to-governor-of-nsw-for-pardon-of-kathleen-folbigg-05-03-21.pdf 121.127.210.36 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of scientific evidence.
Please do not remove scientific evidence as "dubious" without better scientific evidence. Please also do not remove evidence pertaining to the case without just cause. 121.127.209.159 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The introduction as it stood was not appropriate - and it could still isn't. Detailed information about the scientific evidence belongs in the body, not the lead. The introduction omits the fact that the inquiry and the Court of Appeal has found against Folbigg. I added this in, but it's been removed. The presentation of the scientific evidence like this gives the dubious impression that Folbigg's release in imminent. Presenting this evidence as a breakthrough in the case when the inquiry and the Court of Appeal have already rejected this line of argument is obviously misleading. These edits assume a pardon is likely, but we don't know this. A pardon should be mentioned in the introduction when it is granted. Lastly, this is not Folbigg campaign website, and even if it was these edits are peddling dubious hope.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Your additions were wrong. The court did not consider the new evidence, only the accusation of bias.  It affirmed its past decision on some old evidence from 2019; but said nothing on the more recent evidence and research published 2020.  This is not a development in the legal court case, but a process that is separate from the judicial system, as has been affirmed by the governor.  If you think that ninety scientists and a former chief scientist of Australia, now head of the Academy of Science, petitioning the governor for a pardon, has any relevance to the courts, or implies Folbigg will be pardoned, you do not understand the legal system of the Commonwealth.  This page is titled "Kathleen Folbigg", not the "Trial of Kathleen Folbigg".  The purpose of wikipedia.org is not for providing court summaries.  121.127.209.159 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The court developments are important. I'm not trying to remove the scientific evidence. Sure, correct the details, but you seem to be trying to ignore reality. I don't see why a petition for a pardon is more important than the judicial inquiry and the appeal. The current introduction gives readers a misleading impression and is biased towards Folbigg.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Much of the article is dedicated to the trial and various appeals; this is the largest section. I do not see that the article presents the petition as more important.  Nonetheless, a procedural appeal, being one of a number, is less notable than the chief scientific society of the Federation coming out in support of a petition to the Governor.  It is less notable than the judicial process in total; and I have put its section after that ones; but it is more important then any one of a number of appeals against petty procedure.  In any case, the appeal is covered in the body; where it should be.  That said, there is too much detail in the summary about the scientific and medical opinion:  I will reduce it.  If this article is biased, it is towards science; as are the articles on the women who were condemned as witches: it is not the courts that have exonerated them, but science.  That said, the article covers both the judicial and scientific opinion in length and impartially, and is not biased. 121.127.209.159 (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In the summary, I have given greater emphasis to the judicial sentence, and removed unnecessary detail about the supposed natural causes, as well as removing some other material duplicated in the article body proper. I would appreciate your comment on my edit.  121.127.209.159 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this is an improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A year on, a pardon has not been granted. The article should be reviewed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A pardon has today been granted to Ms Folbigg. 182.239.213.55 (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Evidence considered in appeal
Please see https://www.science.org.au/news-and-events/news-and-media-releases/statement-australian-academy-science-kathleen-folbigg 121.127.209.159 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Massive concern: NPOV
This article suffers heavily from a biased point of view. It reads as though someone convinced of Ms. Folbigg's innocence - and trying to convince the reader of the same - wrote it. My tightness (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have tagged the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A pardon has today been granted to Ms Folbigg. 182.239.213.55 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Article order
The pardon should be at the end of the article. Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"parole period"
The text -- which I changed -- mentioned an original sentence of 40 years and a "parole period" of 25 years (should have been 30 years). A parole period runs from the day of being set free on parole to the formal end of the imprisonment period. Therefore I assume that the real parole period would only start after having been in jail for 25 years, leaving 15 years for freedom on parole. Is this correct? Retal (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a non-parole period. She couldn't get parole until the non-parole period was over. But it seems the current text is correct.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
An editor raised a concern about the initial sentence of the article, and I'm wondering if the paragraph could use a tweak. Here's the text as it currently reads (formatting removed):
 * Kathleen Megan Folbigg (née Donovan; born 14 June 1967) is an Australian woman who was found guilty in 2003 of murdering her four infant children. She was pardoned in 2023 after 20 years in jail following a long campaign for justice by her supporters, and had her convictions overturned on appeal a few months later.

Given that the conviction has now been overturned, here's what I'm thinking:
 * Kathleen Megan Folbigg (née Donovan; born 14 June 1967) is an Australian woman who was found guilty in 2003 wrongly convicted of murdering her four infant children. She was found guilty in 2003 but pardoned in 2023 after 20 years in jail following a long campaign for justice by her supporters, and had her convictions were overturned on appeal a few months later.

Since the introductory sentence should be an overall summary, this has the effect of providing an overall summary of the situation, with the situation being expanded on in the second sentence. Any thoughts on this change? —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)