Hi all,
       this Folbigg case continues to amaze me.

 The official line is that she killed her four children, one after
the other as they became toddlers. Her record was 19 months, most of
them died arounf 12 months. She was brought to justice for these
heinous murders, tried, convicted, and now the judge has given her 40
years for being a monster who shows absolutely no remorse. Naturally,
she was molested as a child, or Judge Fuckwit would have given her
life.

 I have a small problem with this... there is ZERO evidence that the
children died from anything but natural causes. In fact, the doctors
at the time had perfectly reasonable explanations for the deaths. To
me, it seems she was convicted of multiple murder simply becasue four
kids is one over the odds. The jury agreed with Oscar Wilde. To lose
one [parent is understandable, but to lose two smacks of carelessness.
In her case, three kids is understandable, but to lose all four has to
be murder.

 The husband is the one who put her away, urged on by a small-time
cop in a country town... and only *after* she divorced him and ran off
with the butcher (or someone). The clincher was her diary, where she
wrote that she had to stop herself killing these noisy little fuckers.

 So... what evidence is there? The obvious is that all four kids
died, and that has to be a worry. Oscar was right... to lose one
parent is okay, but two is careless. But what evidence is there of
foul play? Actually... none. Nothing forensic, or even any suspicion
from the doctors who examined the kids.

 Next we have a cop convinced that he is on the track of murder most
foul. If we convicted every time a country cop thought he was Maigret
the Magnificent, there would be no one left living in the bush. Cops
are basically fuckwits.

 Then we have a bitter husband. This is unusual. Men can usually
accept a marriage breakdown without wanting to see their wife put in
gaol for forty years. It's the woman who wants that. My guess is that
the husband is a closet queer... or perhaps just a cunt. You live with
a woman for ten years, you must feel *something* for her. What sort of
a man would want to utterly destroy a wife of ten years, even if she
*did* microwave the kids?

 And the diary.

 Without the husband or the diary it went nowhere, suspicious cop and
all, but a diary may be read various ways. How many women have to stop
themselves killing the little fuckers? I know Mum was one of them. But
if she wrote it down and a clever prosecutor read the good bits in
court...

 The question of the diary bothers me... legally. An accused is given
the right to silence. In fact, Mrs Folbigg chose not to give evidence,
and personally, I think this was a big mistake, as the diary stood
unexplained or contradicted... but she has that right under law. So
what about a diary? Isn't that using her own words against her? Isn't
that *forcing* her to convict herself? Where is her right to silence
if the prosecution can take private thoughts written down, and use
them to convict?

 Anyway... forty years isn't much for such a terrible crime. We all
agree that killing the little fuckers has to be stamped out or there
won't be any big fuckers to make more little fuckers.

 Even so, I reckon this woman has been screwed, royally. Lindy
Chamberlain, where are you?

 And the moral of the story is... never put it in writing. And if you
have to kill the kids, make sure you get the husband too - especially
if he's a closet queer.

Regards,
Bob
 

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5