NSW A-G’s prejudicial remarks in Folbigg case

Andrew L. Urban.

As the second inquiry into the murder convictions of Kathleen Folbigg winds up its first week, we ask why NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman made his prejudicial remarks. 

While acknowledging the need to hold a fresh inquiry, NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman had commented: “I can well understand why members of the public may shake their heads and roll their eyes in disbelief about the number of chances Ms Folbigg has had to clear her name, and why does the justice system allow someone who has been convicted of multiple homicides get another go.”

For an Attorney-General to make such prejudicial remarks is reprehensible. Indeed, ‘members of the public may shake their heads and roll their eyes in disbelief about’ his expressed, unethical bias. The remark also reveals ignorance about the case, including the new scientific information that came to light after the trial and the long ago debunked Meadows Law (inadmissible in court) that multiple such deaths must be murder.

Writing in The Australian (November 11, 2022), Quentin McDermott noted: “But that didn’t prevent the prosecutor, Mark Tedeschi, from articulating Meadow’s Law – as it came to be known – in a roundabout way.

“Rather than quote it directly, he compared the births of Folbigg’s four children to piglets being born to a sow – with wings attached. Could all four deaths be from natural causes, he asked rhetorically. Yes, they could but, equally, pigs might fly, he inferred in his closing address. It was, he suggested, fantasy to think otherwise.

“But Tedeschi’s assertion that there had never been a reported case of three infants in a family dying from natural causes was wrong. Other confirmed cases of multiple infant deaths from natural causes in a single family were recorded before 2003.” But then there had not been a reported case of four child murders in the one family …

McDermott also noted: “The signs are the Liberal NSW government is unlikely to free Folbigg if it can help it ahead of next year’s state election in March* – and potentially the ultimate responsibility for deciding Folbigg’s fate may then fall to a Labor attorney-general. How sad if, in the end, it all comes down to politics.” *This inquiry will not conclude before that election next year…

This entry was posted in Case 17 Kathleen Folbigg. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to NSW A-G’s prejudicial remarks in Folbigg case

  1. Owen allen says:

    Nice to see you back Whalensky, I love you, Owen.

  2. Father Ted Whalensky says:

    Don–These principled Barristers, Solicitors, members of the Judiciary and Parliamentary Associates live in Australia do they ? Which State–Tasmania ? OMG . WOULDN’T A REASONABLE BUILDERS LABOURER–Come to the exact same conclusion as The Internationally Respected Jurist-“Biggest Liar WINS”–That would be a FAIR JUDGEMENT wouldn’t it ? Convicting the INNOCENT is the Supreme Victory–The Ultimate Feeling of POWER–The warm feeling– watch the poor bastards DANGLE–(Raymond Bailey) Wait a little minute–the State Systems can’t murder anymore–except for the POLICEYMEN– They MURDER ABORIGINALS with TOTAL Immunity–Fascinating to watch– the little Aboriginal Teenager fighting back while being bashed to DEATH by the Lovely POLICEYMENS ! (Pat). $30. Million– that bit of POLICEYMENS FUN on Palm Island– cost the Queensland Taxpayers– Of course if this circumstance had been examined by an Australian Jury– the Verdict–NO DAMAGES– Done Like a duck in a Microwave ! Just been re-reading of the Magnificent Jury Decision–Rodney King–50 people died as a result– totally ignored the Video Evidence–What did the SYSTEM Think was going to happen ? Australians are a gutless mob–There should have been a lot of “noise” as a result of the “Doing Over” of SNF ( SUE) WE need some gutsy media and Politicians with Courage and a Integrity–Now that’s a Bloody Big Ask ! JUST REMEMBER– BIGGEST LIAR WINS AUSTRALIA ALL OVER !

  3. Julie says:

    Reg Blanch,’s statement as described here is disgusting & unfathomable.

    • Don Wakeling says:

      Julie, Blanch, and Tedeshi (long time prosecutor both during and after Blanch) have no belief in the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in the established criminal law of most democracies. Tedeshi declared that the prosecutor’s function was to act as a ” contradictor”. Tedeshi was criticised for his manner of conducting prosecutions. His terrible comments in the Folbigg case was the analogy that farmer Joe had a sow which had four little piglets who sprouted wings and flew away.
      This Blanch/Tedeshi, and certainly Speakman, mindset is the same “find guilt no matter what the evidence” is a mirror image of the Tasmanian crew: Blow CJ, prosecutor Ellis, former Sol General O’Farrell, and AG Elise Archer.

  4. Don Wakeling says:

    On 18th May last AG Speakman issued an official statement, that, on HIS RECOMMENDATION, the Governor of NSW had appointed former Chief Justice Bathurst to conduct a second enquiry into the conviction of Ms Folbigg. He said that this second inquiry was justified in the light of new scientific/medical revelations.
    The fact is that he had either refused or resisted any second review after retired former judge ( and former DPP), Reginald Blanch, ruled out any further Inquiry. He did so with an astonishing statement that, EVEN if it was arguable on the scientific evidence available, that two of the infant deaths WERE NOT HOMICIDES, he would still not recommend re-opening the inquiry ! ! That statement, set out in an addendum to his report, showed Blanch to have a dangerously twisted view of the criminal justice principles. Speakman’s acceptance of Blanch’s absurd report shows Speakman’s own contempt of those principles. He had to be dragged screaming before succumbing to pressure and making the recommendation to the Governor.
    Toward the end of his official statement in May, he event went so far as to say that he did not want to comment too m.uch further on the matter as he would not want to prejudice Mr Bathurst’s Inquiry.
    But he chooses now, at the very outset of that Inquiry, to treat it with utter contempt. Is the former Chief Justice Bathurst expected to wear this without comment. I don’t think so. The sarcasm of the Attorney is glaringly insulting and outright demeaning of the Inquiry, it’s Commissioner ,the public of NSW, and not least of all the fate of this woman who has spent the last 20 years of her, now childless life, incarcerated.
    I hope the Attorney is publicly held in contempt by all principled Barristers, Solicitors ,members of the Judiciary and his parliamentary associates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.