Why Christopher Folbigg Should Not Be Considered Admissible Evidence

I INTRODUCTION

The deaths of Caleb Folbigg, Patrick Folbigg, Sarah Folbigg and Laura Folbigg in 1989, 1991, 1993 and 1999 respectively, have been subject to decades of detailed legal consideration by various Australian decision-makers. That four siblings could each die of natural causes on separate occasions seems inconceivable to many, and for approximately 20 years their mother, Kathleen Folbigg, was held to be guilty of three counts of murder and one count of manslaughter. Much of the Crown’s initial case against Ms Folbigg was founded on her private diary entries, which were construed as admissions of guilt. This essay will provide two arguments explaining why Ms. Folbigg’s diaries would and should not be considered admissible evidence.

Motherhood is one of the most commented on and criticised roles within Australian society. Nearly every person holds an opinion of what being a ‘good’ mother entails. Notably, the submission that ‘caution should be taken in respect of the idealisation of motherhood and that mothers are universally patient, nurturing and kind’ was accepted by Bathurst during his 2022 inquiry. That Ms Folbigg’s accounts of being angry or impatient with her children in her diaries were effectively portrayed by the prosecution as proof of her capacity to murder her child on four separate occasions is troubling. A mother struggling with having the primary caring responsibilities for an infant, after nine months of pregnancy and the trauma of childbirth, should not be evidence of her being a ‘bad’ or dangerous parent. Rather, it is a natural reaction to the drastic life change that is motherhood. However, Ms Folbigg’s circumstances clearly demonstrate that society allows very little sympathy for mothers who are unable to meet the standards of a perfect

This essay does not wish to criticise Mr Folbigg, who presumably suffered greatly due to the deaths of his four children. Rather, it intends to demonstrate the difference between expectations placed on mothers and fathers. That Mr Folbigg could describe Ms Folbigg as a ‘terrible mother’ whilst also being willing for her to care for them ‘night after night, day after day’ is indicative of how differently the Folbiggs perceived their role as parents. Considering it was Mr Folbigg who provided Ms Folbigg’s diaries to the police without attempting to ‘confirm his suspicions’, mothers may feel that they cannot even display parenting ‘weakness’ around their child’s father. That can be a very lonely position to be