A psychiatrist testifying at an inquiry into Kathleen Folbigg's convictions says it is noteworthy that the serial killer never asked in her diaries: "why are my children dying?"
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
A second judicial inquiry is looking at Folbigg's convictions for killing her four babies - Laura, Sarah, Caleb and Patrick - between 1989 and 1999.
Folbigg, 55, and her two daughters, Laura and Sarah, were later found to carry a rare genetic variant known as CALM2-G114R, leading to the current inquiry.
On Friday, psychiatrist Yumna Dhansay gave evidence that Folbigg had mental health problems when she wrote her diaries - a focus of the inquiry - but said, in her view, the diaries did not contain admissions of guilt as to harming her children.
"I would have thought that if she was guilty there would have been something more implicating," Dr Dhansay said, pointing to a lack of "grappling with guilt" in the diaries.
"There's nothing like that there," she said.
Quizzed by barrister Dean Jordan, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Dhansay was taken to a diary excerpt saying Folbigg's daughter Sarah left "with a bit of help".
Ms Dhansay said she took the phrase to refer to a "higher power", while Mr Jordan said "an alternative explanation is she's saying Sarah left with a bit of help, by Ms Folbigg".
"Yes, I do accept that's an alternative explanation," Ms Dhansay replied.
The barrister asked the witness what she made of there being no entry along the lines of a question: "why are my children dying?"
"I think maybe because she's so avoidant that she doesn't want to go there as it's too painful," the psychiatrist said.
She said she was not surprised at the lack of such a question but conceded it was noteworthy not to query the children's cause of death.
On Folbigg hiding diaries, Ms Dhansay conceded the conduct could be interpreted to reflect "consciousness of guilt" in relation to the unlawful death of her children.
Earlier, Stephen Cordner, the author of a report which concluded there was nothing from a forensic pathology viewpoint to suggest the children had been killed, was probed on the statistical underpinnings of a review he undertook on smothering cases.
Professor Cordner was questioned about whether his conclusions in the review were "skewed" by selection bias due to the omission of smotherings not established as intentional.
He stood by the work, saying of the methodology: "If they're not established to be intentional, then we can't say they're intentional smothering, and what we're trying to get to in this matter, I believe, is whether or not the four Folbigg children can be said to have been intentionally smothered".
Tom Bathurst KC, who is helming the inquiry, described the line of questioning as an attempt to "undermine the statistical basis on which Dr Cordner has made his report".
Prof Cordner conceded that he left out the term "suffocation" from his review, but denied it was out of a concern of skewing the results.
"I just didn't use it, I think I was so focused on smothering, that's what this matter has been all about," he said.
Earlier this week, federal independent MP Monique Ryan, a paediatric neurologist, told the inquiry Folbigg's son Patrick may have died in 1991 from an undiagnosed neurogenetic disorder.
Folbigg was sentenced in 2003 to 40 years in prison, but that was reduced on appeal to 30 years, with a non-parole period of 25 years.
Folbigg maintains her innocence, claiming all four children died of natural causes.
She will be eligible for parole in 2028.
The inquiry continues.
