In addition, Mr. Walker added that one of the jurors had undertaken amateur sleuthing about the length of time a dead baby’s body could remain warm after death. They had obtained this information from the internet and from nursing friends of one of the jurors. Bret Walker told the court,
"This is precisely the kind of sleuthing the jury was warned against by the judge." He continued. "(Such directions) are not outlined just for the sake of it; they are meant to be taken to heart."
However, the appeal court judges Justice Peter McClelland with Justices Carolyn Simpson and Virginia Bell concurred that while the irregularities should not have occurred they were “satisfied that they were not material and did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice.''
In the United Kingdom on the 9th of December in 2011, the Lord Chief Justice warned juries over internet research. He warned that the integrity of court trials may be damaged by modern technology and the internet. He said he was particularly concerned at the ease jurors had to research cases ignoring court orders not to do so. During 2011, judges in the United Kingdom had, in three trials, squashed convictions and had ordered retrials in two cases because jurors had taken to the internet, ignoring guide lines from judges in their trials to return verdicts based solely on the evidence heard in court.
In the criminal cases yearly report of the Court of Appeal's, Lord Judge said:
"I remain concerned at the ease with which a member of the jury can, by disobeying the judge's instructions, discover material which purports to contain accurate information relevant to an individual case or an individual.”
WRONGFUL CONVICTION?
In May of 2011, Emma Cunliffe, an assistant professor of law at the University of British Columbia in Canada, spent six years researching Kathleen Folbigg’s case. She believes that Kathleen was wrongly convicted based on unreliable evidence from medical experts. She claims in her book Murder, Medicine, & Motherhood that in the absence of medical evidence and a confession, circumstantial evidence from Kathleen’s diaries and her husband Craig were not enough to convict her. She argues that medical experts in the court trial neglected to give evidence that fully showed the then current uncertainty in the scientific and medical communities about repeated unexplained deaths of infants in a single family. Ms. Cunliffe says the experts' evidence was misleading to the extent
''It was unreliable under evidentiary rules. They gave a very incomplete account of the medical research that then existed.''
Emma Cunliffe, when she first began looking at Kathleen Folbigg’s case, said in an interview that she believed her to be guilty. Now she is so convinced of Kathleen’s wrongful conviction, she is calling on the New South Wales to introduce the same ''last resort'' mechanism that was used in the Northern Territory to squash Lindy Chamberlain's murder conviction. Emma Cunliffe says the medical uncertainty that existed at the time of Kathleen’s trial and the appeals had since moved to a consensus view: that repeated unexplained infant deaths in a single family can and do occur. She strongly believes that Kathleen’s conviction is unsound and should be reviewed. Dr Cunliffe's opinions have won support from eminent forensic pathologists who share her belief that a review of Kathleen Folbigg's conviction should be examined. Professor John Hilton, who was a prosecution witness in Kathleen’s trial, believes that Dr Cunliffe’s book is a
“A valuable contribution to this whole matter and is deserving of notice by the relevant authorities.''
Professor Stephen Cordner, the director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, says of Dr. Cunliffe’s book,
''I think she's written a very even-handed book based on substantial research and persuasively concludes … that Kathleen Folbigg has been wrongly convicted.''
Emma Cunliffe is so convinced of Kathleen’s wrongful conviction that she is talking to barristers and law firms, searching for experts prepared to work pro-bono to fight for Kathleen’s case to be reopened.
Increasing concerns are being raised more and more frequently at unreliable expert evidence leading to contaminated criminal trials. Such evidence can result in innocent people being sent to jail. At the very least, such evidence can tilt trials unfairly. Two recent examples in Australia are the Supreme Court appeals of Gordon Wood, found guilty of murdering Caroline Byrne, his girlfriend and Jeffrey Gilham, found guilty of the murder of his parents.
In Mr. Wood’s case, appeal judges in March of 2012 demolished the prosecution’s case in which Mr Wood had been accused of hurling his girlfriend, model Caroline Byrne, to her death at the notorious suicide spot The Gap in Sydney. The appeal judge’s savage criticism of Mr Tedeschi, the prosecutor in Kathleen’s case, accused him of failing his most basic obligations - to put the case fairly to the jury. The appeal court judges said that Mr Tedeschi had tried to bolster the Crown case by resorting to fiction, impermissible reasoning, and innuendo. Defence lawyers are calling for a review of all successful prosecutions involving prosecutor Mark Tedeschi after the criticism of his handling of the Gordon Wood case.
Is Kathleen Folbigg Australia’s worst serial killer of children or is she an innocent mother torn between expert opinions, the uncertainty of SIDS, and a criminal justice system that may have incorrectly sent her to prison for a lifetime for crimes she never committed?
Sadly, people are wrongfully convicted all the time. In Kathleen’s case, I firmly believe there is reasonable doubt. You don’t throw away the key when there’s reasonable doubt, do you? You make sure an innocent woman isn’t behind bars, don’t you? I don’t believe enough evidence existed or was presented to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe her conviction was a dangerous conviction and should be reviewed.
My understanding of Kathleen’s present situation is that Kathleen’s appeal process has been exhausted, and the only way of having the case re-examined is if the Attorney-General of New South Wales recommends it. I believe that would take either public support or new compelling evidence for such a re-examination.
Hopefully, one day I can include Kathleen in a book of wrongful convictions. Perhaps, if she had have been convicted in the United Kingdom, she would now be a free woman!
“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
Extract of a letter from Kathleen Folbigg to her foster sister Lea Bown.
“Try to imagine your life being spread out, ripped to pieces, examined, opinions cast, character assassinated, your every word, action, thought doubted, and you’re told you don’t know yourself. Add to that, because of all of the above, becoming the most HATED woman alive…You can’t. I now live with that every day. I endure all of this knowing that vindication will one day be mine. This is the last time I’ll state – I did not kill my children.”
AUSTRIA
ELFRIEDE BLAUENSTEINER -The Insatiable Gambler
Elfriede Blauensteiner was born to impoverished parents in Vienna, Austria on January 22nd of 1931. Her ambition, since her poverty-ridden childhood, was to become rich. This she did not achieve until 1986, when she was in her fifties.
Elfriede’s stepfather, Otto Reinl, in 1986 was a 78-year-old diabetic. Elfriede offered to care for him and invited Otto to move into her home. Otto happily moved into Elfriede’s and her husband Rudolf’s home, grateful to be looked after. Elfriede made sure he took his diabetic medicine, Euglucon, every day. This was medicine prescribed to Otto to bring down the sugar level in his blood. Elfriede soon began to experiment with the medicine by increasing his dosage slowly day by day and noting the effects on Otto. Otto would frequently lose consciousness due to low blood sugar levels caused by the increased medication. Then one day Otto died, leaving all his possessions to Elfriede. An autopsy was performed, but nobody tested the amounts of Euglucon or insulin in his body. Elfriede learned two things from this experience: 1.) that excessive amounts of Euglucon administered over a long period could be fatal and 2.
) that Euglucon amounts are not tested during an autopsy.
At Otto’s funeral, Elfriede played the distraught grieving stepdaughter and for the first time in her life, Elfriede had a little money.
Elfriede then took a long hard look at her husband Rudolf and decided it was time to be free of him. Not to arouse suspicion, she carefully began spiking his drinks with tiny amounts of Euglucon. Eventually, he was admitted to the hospital with low sugar levels. Once Rudolf was discharged from the hospital and back home, the procedure was repeated. Neighbors and friends soon accepted that Rudolf was a sick man. Over the course of a few years, Rudolf slipped into comas thirteen times. When he died, at the age of fifty-two in August of 1992, nobody was surprised by his premature death. Elfriede had his body cremated and buried his ashes next to her stepfather’s. His life, of course, Elfriede had well insured.
Elfriede, as a new widow, discovered a passion for gambling and began to be seen regularly at the roulette tables of Baden and the Esterhazy Palace in Vienna. She began dressing in furs and sporting expensive jewelry and enjoying life as a wealthy Grande Dame. Elfriede also realized that her newly acquired lifestyle would require more funds.
A wealthy, lonely, 84-year-old neighbor, Mrs. Fransizka Köberl, attracted Elfriede’s attention. Elfriede befriended Fransizka and before long invited her to live with her so she could care for her. Fransizka was so grateful that she made a new will in Elfriede’s favor. Elfriede then began administering Euglucon in the old woman’s coffee. In 1992, Franziska Koeberl died leaving Elfriede the equivalent of €170,000 ($221,080).
Spurred on by her successes, Elfriede, in 1994, began placing ads in the lonely hearts column of newspapers. Through one of her advertisements, Elfriede met Friedrich Döcker. Friedrich was a wealthy retired man of sixty-four and within three days of meeting, they were married. Barely a year after the wedding, on July 11th of 1995, Friedrich died. Elfriede inherited a house worth €300,000 ($390,142). Four days before Friedrich died, Elfriede had placed another ad in the newspaper saying: “A widow, faithful spouse, and a nurse looking for a peaceful aging with a well-off widower.”
Alois Pichler, a retired former post office director, was a lonely widower and wealthy man at the age of seventy-seven when he answered Elfriede’s advertisement in 1995. Alois Pichler, although elderly, had no serious health problems; that is, until he answered the advertisement and employed Elfriede Blauensteiner as his caregiver. In October of 1995, Elfriede moved in to Alois’s house and within days, she became not only his nurse but also his lover. Two weeks later, there was an ambulance at the door. Alois was diagnosed in the hospital as having a low blood sugar level problem. Elfriede promised Alois that she would care for him and help make him better with her nursing skills. She also attempted to persuade him to make out his will in her favor.
One of the reasons Elfriede had selected Alois, out of the eighty men who had answered her advertisement, was that he was well-off and appeared to have no relatives except his 91-year-old nun sister. When Alois would not co-operate with changing his will in her favor, she solicited the help of a bent lawyer, Harold Schmidt, to draw up a false will.
When Alois was discharged from the hospital back to her care, Elfriede returned to her “medicinal treatment of him” and to speed proceedings along added Anafranil, an antidepressant. In November of 1995, when Alois was exhausted and drained, Elfriede and Harold Schmidt made Alois sign the false will. They then left him in a cold bath with all the windows open even though it was snowing outside. Elfriede and Harold then went to the Casino, and Alois died from a heart attack while Elfriede and Harold were drinking champagne and gambling.
At Alois’s funeral, Elfriede dressed elegantly, placed a red rose matching the color of her lipstick on the coffin, and cried profusely. However, what Elfriede had not realized was that Alois had written a real will and had a nephew to whom he had bequeathed everything he owned. The nephew reported his suspicions of the false will to the police, and an autopsy of Alois’s body was ordered. The autopsy showed up a fatal dose of "Anafranil" and traces of "Euglucon”., a medicine that had never been prescribed for Alois.
Elfriede Blauensteiner was arrested on suspicion of murdering Alois Pichler by administrating the drugs Euglucon and Anaframil. While under questioning, Elfriede confessed to the police that she had committed five murders. Later, she withdrew the confession. When questioned by journalists she said, "I confessed because the police questioned me for so long. I would have confessed to anything”.
On February 10th of 1997, in the town of Krems, thirty miles west of Vienna, Elfriede with her lawyer, Harold Schmidt, went on trial for the murder of Alois Pichler. For the trial, the matronly sixty-six-year-old, bespectacled Elfriede dressed in an elegant beige suit and carried a golden crucifix. On entering the courtroom, she raised the crucifix in the air and declared, "My hands are clean. I've nothing to hide," and smiled at the milling reporters. Throughout the trial, Elfriede reveled in the media attention, laughing and waving to the journalists as if she were a Hollywood superstar.
Elfreide and Harold Schmidt pleaded not guilty. The jury thought otherwise and found Elfriede Blauensteiner guilty of the first-degree murder of Alois Pichler. Harold Schmidt was found guilty of falsifying the will and aiding Elfriede. On March 7, 1997, the judge sentenced Elfreide to life in prison -- the maximum sentence possible. Harold Schmidt was sentenced to seven years.
According to a police officer leading the investigation, Elfreide had shown no remorse and indeed had even told an officer at the initial interrogation, when she had confessed to the five murders, that all her victims had deserved to die.
Meanwhile in Vienna, the police were investigating the other deaths surrounding Elfriede Blauensteiner. The body of Franziska Koeberl, the 84-year-old woman Elfriede had befriended, was exhumed. After forensic tests, it was confirmed that she had died from Euglucon poisoning. Friedrich Döcker’s body, Elfriede’s second husband, was also exhumed, and the results were the same.
In 2001, Elfriede Blauensteiner was tried for the murder of Franziska Koeberl and Friedrich Döcker. Again, Elfriede courted the press and gave interviews and dressed smartly and elegantly. When asked by journalists if she had killed, she answered, "I would never kill. I believe in my innocence”. Elfriede told journalists that she enjoyed nursing older men and that it was merely a coincidence some of those she cared for had died. In another interview, she proclaimed "Death is only the beginning of eternal life”.
Elfriede Blauensteiner reveling in media attention
When asked how she was coping with life in prison Elfriede said, “Life is worth living everywhere, even in prison. In prison, you get everything you desire”. She said that she got up early every day at seven then took a shower and had breakfast of coffee, bread, butter, jam, and a boiled egg. Later, she said, she would play table tennis or exercise in the fitness center and then spend her time writing her memoirs and romantic novels.
During the second trial, the prosecution alleged that Elfriede killed for greed and to finance her gambling addiction. They said that she had visited the Esterhazy Palace in Vienna one thousand six hundred times in the span of three years and spent an estimated $1,600,000.
Esterhazy Palace
The jury took just over an hour to find Elfriede Blauensteiner guilty of killing Friedrich Döcker and Franziska Koeberl.
Senior Austrian detectives believed she was responsible for far more deaths than she was ever tried for. They said, "She's as cold as ice. She has played with the lives of at least six people and possibly up to a dozen”.
After the trial, Elfriede was returned to Schwarzau prison where she spent the rest of her life. She died on the 18th of November in 2003 from a brain tumor. Her memoirs or romance novels, if she even wrote them, were never published.
“LAINZ ANGELS OF DEATH ”
As if it’s not shocking and horrifying enough that one nurse goes on a killing spree in Vienna, Austria, four nurses collaborated together in the murde
r of their patients. The killing spree was begun by Waltraud Wagner who was born in 1960. Waltraud worked in the geriatric ward, “pavilion five,” of Lainz General Hospital. Waltraud had become a nurse because she wanted to help people. Working on the geriatric ward she liked to make her patients comfortable and help ease their suffering and pain.
All of the patients on her ward were elderly, and many of them had terminal illnesses. In 1983, an elderly seventy-seven-year-old female patient begged Waltraud to "end her pain and suffering." The woman repeated her impassioned appeal several times daily to the twenty-three-year-old Waltraud. The nurse reflected over the appeals when she was off duty and decided that if her death was inevitable, perhaps it was more humane to end her suffering. The next time the woman begged her to end her suffering, Nurse Waltraud walked determinedly to the medicine store and took out a lethal dose of morphine. As she injected it into the IV tube, she was convinced that she had done the right thing as the look of pain and anguish on the patient’s face changed to one of serenity.
That day, Waltraud finished her work at the hospital feeling energized. She also discovered that she rather enjoyed having power over life and death, and the ability to relieve someone of so much pain. When more patients begged her to end their pain and suffering, she obliged.
After work, Waltraud would frequently go for drinks in a bar near the hospital with three nurses who worked on her ward: Maria Gruber, who was nineteen, Ilene Leidolf, who was twenty-one, and Stephanija Mayer, a native Yugoslavian who was forty-three. Inevitably, they would discuss their days’ work. Waltraud, suggested to them that she thought patients who asked should be put out of their misery. The other nurses agreed, saying how much it upset them to see the patients suffering so badly.
She Devils Around the World Page 4
