Science, Media and the Law: Lessons from the Kathleen Folbigg Case

Welcome ladies and gentlemen welcome to the Royal Society Victoria for tonight's lecture very special lecture and panel discussion uh my name's Rob Jill it's my pleasure to be the president of the Royal Society Victoria uh so welcome to you all whether you're here in the Royal Society Victoria's Ellery theater in person or via zoom on the webinar or live streamed via YouTube Welcome to everybody um it's my pleasure to be here before we begin in the spirit of reconciliation uh we acknowledge that all of us are located on the traditional lands of the state's first scientists the many different First Nations people who belong to the diverse lands and Waters of what we now call Victoria we're coming to you from the lands of the wery of the Wang uh and invite everyone joining us tonight online either via the Zoom webinar's chat function or YouTube's comment section to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land from which you are this evening and join me in paying respects to the elders past and present and likewise we extend that respect to any indigenous Australians who have joined us in the meeting tonight this evening we have a joint presentation uh between the society and two of our nationaly the Australian Academy of technological sciences and engineering and the Australian Academy of Science and I extend a very warm Welcome to our friends and colleagues from those emies who have joined us either in the room or some perhaps online as well it's National Science week we had a terrific opening of national science week at Museum Victoria just up the hill last Thursday night uh and our three organizations actually grouped together and wanted to do something a little bit more special this year including inviting Miss Tegan Taylor uh to be our MC tonight for this uh presentation and a very important one it is science media and the law lessons from the catholing F Kathleen F big case tan of course is a multi-award-winning health and science reporter for the ABC she hosts shows including radio Nationals health health report quickmart and what's that rash uh which you you need to you need to listen to what's that rash we and it's replayed valuably as well isn't it tan yeah RSV members will be filling with tigan as the most recent host of ABC's ogams Razer podcast which we've often hosted here at the society uh she's received a Bley award and Eureka prize for science journalism and her work appeared in the best of Australian science writing so with that please join me in making our MC for the evening Miss tan Taylor very welcome thank you so much and thanks for having me thank you all for coming out or joining us on a Wednesday night Ms Tegan Taylor because we're dealing with something a bit heavy tonight honestly one of the hardest topics imaginable with layers of insult and and Injustice over injury the Kathleen fig case is one that has been so publicized over such a long period of time that the details almost roll off the tongue now but before we delve into matters of Science and the law let's just remind ourselves what we're talking about tonight to lose a child a baby is unspeakably sad and to lose for defies any kind of resilience and then to be accused of causing those deaths being convicted and then serving 20 years in prison there just aren't words for it but that's what happened to Kathleen fig between 1989 and 1999 each of her four infant children died in the legal proceedings that followed the prosecution leaned heavily on the now discredited Meadows law the idea that one sudden infant death in a family is a tragedy two is suspicious and three or more is murder until proven otherwise Kathleen was convicted of murder manslaughter and Grievous bodily harm and went to prison in 2003 but while the case against her was always circumstantial in the years that followed scientific and medical research further pointed towards her innocence suggesting a genetic cause of the deaths and in 2020 90 eminent Australian scientists and medical professionals led by the Australian Academy of Science petitioned the New South Wales Governor to Pardon her finally in 2023 Kathleen was pardoned and then acquitted it's an outcome that wouldn't have been possible without the work of a team that advocated for her team fig as well as the backing of the scientific community so as well as being a long awaited reprieve for Kathleen the case represents a legal flash point a moment for Science and it provides a blueprint for to help avoid future injustices so we're going to look at it in detail tonight we'll hear from some of the key people in the Kathleen fig case including P Yates who spearheaded team fig Anam Maria Arabia the chief executive of the Australian Academy of Science and Kathleen's lifelong friend and Advocate Tracy Chapman we'll also gain insights from David balding a geneticist with plenty of experience in giving scientific evidence in court both here in Australia and overseas it is a huge topic we will do our best to cover the sorts of things that you're likely to want to know about that there also will be some time for question and answers at the end and to start us off with an overview I'd like to welcome a man not contented with being at the Forefront of just one sector he's a leader in financial stewardship science and the not for-profit sector and he was instrumental in Kathleen Fig's case as we're about to hear please welcome Dr py [Applause] Yates thank you tan and uh thank you so much for joining us this evening um Mr Peter Yates uh I'd also like to thank Matthew kerson uh for initiating this it was sort of his idea but I understand there were others involved as well um and for Mike flattery for getting us together Rob jel your chairman thank you very much indeed uh other panelists experts and uh audience in the room um and online just before I begin though uh our indigenous Community have been acknowledged um so I'd like to add my acknowledgements and thank uh give my thanks and acknowledge those who serve in the armed forces and keep us secure those who serve in our essential services and keep us safe our creator thank all our religious organizations for the work they do in our society and after all this is the Royal Society so I'd like to acknowledge King Charles who is our Sovereign being involved with Kathleen's tragic Journey has been one of the most challenging and rewarding matters I've actually ever taken on uh and I think you know my background I was at mcari bank for 20 years I ran kry pac's Empire I bid for quantis uh I now chair the second largest life insurance company in the country I chair the risk committee for for linf Fox uh that's probably well known you've seen a couple of trucks around and I chair the investment committee for Mutual trust which is a largest wealth management uh private family multif family office in the country so I've done a few things along the way um but I can guarantee you that being involved in Kathleen's tragic Journey has been one of the most challenging because Kathleen is a beautiful woman who lost her four children to a complex illness they in fact they were all a bit younger than my grandchildren I got two gorgeous grandchildren two young young girls uh but instead of being able to grief for her losses she was confronted with the full institutional force of the New South Wales police the Judiciary the prison system and an extremely hostile Attorney General's office now how Kath has survived this ordeal is a story in its own right I mean it is the great story of resilience uh uh but tonight we're actually taking you on our journey um uh this is team fig up here um and this is the journey I'm going to take you through but what I can happily share with you is that Cath is doing remarkably well I speak with her most weeks she's enjoying her life she's getting on with her life uh and when and I know obviously Tracy's here as well she speaks with her probably every day but I I sit back there and say how can this extraordinary woman um be so upbeat so positive so grateful so so gracious um but she is uh she is a truly remarkable woman now let's just to um pick up a couple of points that was raised before so first of all we now know because we we've got all the backstory right I mean we have got thousands and thousands of pages of information a lot of it's confidential it's never ever been made public what we do know though was Kathleen was actually targeted by the New South Wales police um so there was a there was a specific Target taken out on Kathleen's head for a reason we don't quite know but we know that she was targeted um she was and without any evidence to suggest that she actually did anything because after all three of her children had had incredibly poor health epileptic fits being in and out of Hospital you know this weren't these weren't four Healthy Babies that you know she just whacked that's rubbish these were incredibly K Kids except for one so they targeted him the second thing and this is where Meadow's law should have applied because she was actually prosecuted by the same Chief prosecutor of the New South Wales Mark teski who's subsequently been found on two other occasions to in in high-profile cases to have improperly or in incorrectly prosecuted two other very hope profile cases one of which was the Hilton bombing case you would know that now Meadow's law once as bad luck twice as unbelievable three times as incredible so we know no Hilton bombing there's another case and Kathleen fing now I mean just let's imagine that that's where uh that's where meta's law should apply um uh she was in prison then for 20 years of which most of that time she spent in isolation for her own safety now child Killers a prison scum and she became fully aware of the consequences of this terrible title and and we will discover and it will become public exactly what happened to Kathleen in prison uh then after 15 years she was granted a purportedly independent inquiry now you need to understand the judicial system in in in our world in Western democracy we have Judiciary we have Parliament and we have executive they the separation and then of course the fourth estate is the media um the the the judicial system in New South Wales had come to an end in terms of what it was going to do to appeal so there was no route for Kathleen to appeal any further so it required the executive branch of government to run what's called an independent inquiry now let's just think about this so Mark spakman the attorney general who did he appoint to run this inquiry very fine name uh very fine Justice uh by the way that person had been the CEO of the DPP before he became a Justice and Mark Speakman appointed uh Justice blanch to review the case now the case was run as I said by Mark deeski Mark teski was appointed by Justice blanch to be Justice blanch as Deputy now I'm from the business World Imagine your Volkswagen and you've had this terrible situation of you know false evidence and the government of Germany appoints the former chairman of Volkswagen to review the conduct of the CEO I mean hard to imagine um and that inquiry concluded that the judge was even more certain of Kathleen's crime than the original trial and that inquiry used cath Diaries to make this conclusion now he did so without wanting to know why she wrote the Diaries or what the words actually meant to her in his opening comments he dismissed the anything in the Diaries other than effectively uh evidence of her own conviction oh and by the way just let's flow back a second step back a second if I hadn't told you this took place in New South W Australia you might think this took place in some communist you know uh uh communist or or other you know dictatorial environment but no this happened in New South Wales in Australia um in addition it happened under the watchful eye of some 15 members of the New South Wales Judiciary were involved in reaching various different cisions about Kathleen uh three High Court judges were involved and three Attorneys General um I would ask each of us to reflect on what happened it's shocking imagine if Kath was your sister friend or neighbor I mean just think about that set of circumstances and by the way this is Australia and this is New South Wales um it's just appalling um now how did we how did we uh manage this well first of all it began through true true friendship from Tracy without Tracy none of us would be here telling this story uh it was also the grit determin of of Cora vessa the coming together the best science uh which we've never seen before engagement from The Academy of Science and also through the incredible uh PR team we had from gr cway and the national media team uh from uh from The Academy of Science and of course with a social media campaign run by tracing now we came together in this incredibly effective team here is team fig uh and we managed to wrench open the Attorney General's office using tactics more commonly found which I used to use in my days when I raided corporate entities uh so hostile takeovers uh which I've done quite a few of uh but we use scientific skill media Network and political pressure and of course we had a committed legal team and that's how we uh writed the the Australia's worst judicial wrongdoing now we are going to talk about things that could be changed in due course but some people have asked me well how did I become involved well here's team fig and that's because at my 60th birthday I decided I'd like to have five presentations for things that I was interested in I had baroness Greenfield come down from uh the UK to talk on Alzheimer's uh I work with her I have I I asked Michelle Simmons who heads up the center of quantum Computing which I chair to come and talk about Quantum Computing I asked carola venessa I chair the center of personalized Immunology which is rare genetic disorders uh so she was my SE o and I had a couple of other people come and speak and so corala decided that I had of course you know I had a couple hundred friends there and very lucky to have that many friends maybe they knew that booze was going to be good whatever they all came along um and corala made her pitch to that group she explained to us the Kathleen fig Story how she'd been involved how in the first inquiry she'd been effectively trashed uh by the process how upset she was and we thought about this and you know a few of us got together afterwards and said this there something wrong here you know I mean you know maybe the desire to do something when you turn 60 is the right moment right motivation but we were shocked and then I read that Cora's transcript in the inquiry where she was subjected to a withering interrogation by Council assisting Gail finesse I I've had the privilege of being um cross-examined for three days uh in different in a court case that I was involved in and that was a very very harrowing experience but that was a legal case it was a commercial matter if you actually read Cara's transcript from the withering interrogation she was given you'd think this was you know this was a prosecution it was not it was actually an inquiry so I read that and thought geez something's wrong here and then I actually then read the trial uh and I thought this is impossible to believe this is nuts U and so we got together a few of us got together and then with the Academy of Science thanks to anim Arabia and the SE at the time John shine we decided to support this idea of the petition now the petition was signed we're about to release it and we thought to ourselves hang on a second if that doesn't cause the Attorney General's office door to be opened then science itself has been dismissed and there's no chance of recovery for a Kathleen that's it so we backed off a second and we said okay let's bring in the austalian media industry uh obviously you I said before I used to run car Packer's Empire I've got a few friends left in the media industry uh the strali science Media Center that I chair we have The Gatekeepers from News Channel 9 ABC sitting on our and Caroline McMillan knows all too well about that the Academy of Science the Royal Institution so we said no what we're going to do is we're going to launch an absolutely an atomic bomb on the Attorney General's office in a media sense so we lined up uh News Corp uh who very kindly decided every single front page of every single News Corp paper in the country carried the petition um Channel 9 carried it across all of their news all their main coverage they're all institution had separate articles going the science Media Center distributed nationally and internationally and what that meant is for the very first time the Attorney General's office realized that uh they were now dealing with something of deep power and deep influence because when you're the Attorney General's office or the DPP you have huge power with the media because you know you can get a little if if the Attorney General's office or the DPP give you as a media uh organization a little bit of a leak about something pretty exciting then you youve got content which makes it valuable so you always want to keep on S side of the DPP or the Attorney General's office so so they always have a huge advantage in terms of managing processes uh then the second thing is we had to do is we decided that we needed to change the public narrative from the idea that Kath was a child killer to the fact that Kath was a tragic case of an innocent M who'd been in improperly incarcerated and that required a continued media campaign uh to change public perception because to get the General's office to spend the taxpayers money to do a second inquiry required of a change in the public opinion and through the uh through the efforts of gr cosway uh who who did actual polling um across different cities at different times we knew how a message was going and we were successful in in in getting public sentiment changed on this occasion we had a absolutely Top Gun legal team previously Kathleen hadn't had really uh open to her the quality of the legal team that we now were she was now able to enjoy that makes a big difference um and Robert kavanau and Rony Rego and the wi illegal Minds pulled off something that was absolutely incredible then the political stages well the paret government was struggling and as the Attorney General Mark span was you know sort of rumbling a little bit as to who was going to get to what is you know Mark span is now the leader of the opposition so there were some internal issues going on but through media pressure we put the AG to make a decision and and not hide the process so then as the months and months elapsed without any decision uh uh uh we decid to apply pressure uh to get a decision uh up I then met with John Sharp uh he's actually was the was the was the member uh the federal Member of Parliament also chairman or Rex but he'd been the person who had discovered how to get Lindy Chamberlain out of jail and so he suggested some political processes and guess what from then on in every single time the liberal government met as a as a party for a major fundraiser um funds were given and and questions were asked in those all in front of cabinet as to why Kathleen was not out of jail so we managed to continue to do this um and each anniversary event uh each anniversary of incarceration her birthday her jail milestones we kept the media running now in the meantime we decided that we must plan for Success uh and so we engaged because in Australia if you if we were going to be successful when new Kathleen story would be valuable and that value we needed to capture for her so she started her life with something in her bank because after 20 years there was nothing so we engaged Nick forom Nick forom and forom Enterprises is the most famous you think of a story you've ever heard of in Australia he's probably done it for you and and maximized the media sales so finally the dam broke second inquiry was announced and of course uh uh we we we then had the Attorney General come out saying well basically he didn't want to have to do this but he felt he had to it was awfully had to do it waste of taxpayers money but he had to do it you know he was really disgruntled about doing this now we thought okay great he's going to spend $4 million on his legal team we should get a little bit absolutely as little as possible wouldn't even pay for Ronnie Ronnie and Robert live in Newcastle they wouldn't even pay for them to stay in Sydney they said oh no you can drive to and from Newcastle every day of the trial there's no reason for you to have accommodation expenses in Sydney so at this point point in time I thought right we went out to all of our financial uh industry friends High net weals and said right we need to raise money because we needed to raise the money not only for that but also to get the five scientists that we needed in the trial who were all overseas to come in evidence in person uh so we were able to do that a and because the science came through in the inquiry because the scientists were there in person because those scientists were able to explain not on a zoom call on the wrong time of day in a different part in the world and by the way the technology out of that court is okay but there was plenty of times when the zoom call went down we paid to have all those scientists brought down from England London Europe America we paid for all their accommodation so that her story and the science behind her story could be properly told so kath got released she was acquitted um and we successfully sold her her story the first installment and that's enabled her to have some financial means to begin her new life and that's why each time I talk to her I know that she's in reasonable accommodation she's got a reasonable life uh but of course there's still another stage to go in this process which is the state of New South Wales needs to decide how they wish to apologize to Kathleen and it ain't going to be just an apology words are cheap for what Kathleen has has has has come to um so what needs to change well I think there's going to be a further discussion about this the use of purely circumstantial evary procedures which is what happened in those three cases that I referred to the ability to have a process to to have a criminal review that's not controlled by the Attorney General's office and of course different methods for experts to be vetted um it's been an incredible journey I've been very fortunate um uh of the people that I've worked with Anamaria Arabia Tracy the legal team um and thank you for listening to the story and over to you Anna [Applause] Maria thank you Peter look I've never been involved in a corporate takeover but I feel somewhat primed um after the Ms Anna-Maria Arabia team f big experience thank you um you may not know it but you've got the scoop on team fig um this is the first time um I think it's been spoken about in so much detail and the behind the scenes work that happened um I just want to start with a few things happy science week everyone um this is the week where we remember that we shouldn't take for granted Science And scientists and that you got here because of science whether you flew Drew drove or took public transport you registered because of Science and we're likely to live longer because of it so um yay to science um and it's well worth celebrating this week and every day of the year actually um I've I'm chief executive of the Australian Academy of Science and have the great privilege uh to oversee the contribution um of our fellowship which is 600 of Australia's most distinguished scientists and they come together and offer their expertise their time and their energy um and all of the evidence that they bring to bear for us to use at the Australian Academy of Science to then bring it to decision makers in the hope of overturning um things like this or bringing bringing evidence to decision making which is critically important um I'd like to acknowledge David Bing Professor David balding who's a fellow of the Academy of Sciences with with us tonight um and it's an absolute honor to be able to share uh this event with Tracy Chapman who sets a standard in advocacy friendship and support there is she really shows the world what that looks like good on you Tracy um and of course pet Yates uh who is an academy medalist to be an academy medalist you're one of a handful of people in Australia who have made a profound contribution to science from outside of the scientific world and Peter is um very um proud and we're very proud to have him as an academy medalist um so we are able to draw on the brains Trust of the nation uh to translate their work into meaningful and accessible knowledge um so you know one of the things I've learned in in working with scientists and Gathering their evidence is that the more volatile our world becomes the more uncertain it becomes the more we need science and the more we need to be able to draw on science to guide our actions and our decisions and this was absolutely evident in the Kathleen fby case um and it was indeed a great privilege to be able to participate in it um The Academy was um appointed as an independent Scientific Advisor to the Kathleen the second inquiry into Kathleen's um convictions and I'll go through some of that today we worked as Peter said with Team fig um and and the great talent uh that was that and we're responsible for very painfully but could I say elegantly extracting that second inquiry out of the new South Wales um justice system uh because it wasn't an easy thing to extract to be fair um it offers a fantastic demonstration case of how science and the law should interact and how things could be done better in the future and an absolutely extraordinary example of how Science And scientists fought to be heard in a legal system that is currently ill equipped uh to deal with the pace of scientific and technological change um and and of course let's not forget in all of this in Peter's description of everything that went on behind the scenes at the core of this is a woman a mother who lost four children and was wrongfully incarcerated for 20 years and I'm always reminded of how unimaginable that must be um and I think was very much um a driving force in everything uh that we did so lots of people have asked me why the academy got involved um we got involved because we are all about bringing evidence to decisions and this is no different we're often associated with bringing evidence to our Parliament and to assisting the decisions of ministers um but bringing it to the justice system is something that is equally important uh we became involved in um 2019 2020 I won't go through it all but of course you know this started a lot earlier in 2003 the first inquiry was in 2019 so uh and it was in October 2019 that uh Professor Cara V weer another extraordinary fell of the Academy of Science called me and then come to see me about this case and I must admit when she first took me through it I C you sure like know justice system doesn't get it wrong all that often um you know have have you know you got all of the detail and we were naturally skeptical as scientists should be skeptical um but it's fair to say that the closer we looked at the evidence and uh the way this um entire case had been conducted the more we became concerned but from our perspective the perspective of the Australian Academy of Science we were particularly concerned uh by science not being heard in that first inquiry in 2019 uh Corolla delivered science she delivered evidence and it was dismissed and I'll go through some of the ways that that happened um and and what we did um so we were appointed a um independent Scientific Advisor um in that second in inquiry I'll I'll come back to the journey to get there uh in a moment and what does that mean we were involved in the independent selection of experts so we were able to literally look at where the experts were across the world in the correct subdisciplines to be able to give the most upto-date and best scientific evidence to that inquiry so it could be heard uh we were we assisted the inquiry in asking the right questions to the right experts so one of the features of the first inquiry was that some people who were not fully qualified in this in the specific subdiscipline will ask questions outside of their field and therefore the best available evidence wasn't given so it was about getting the right questions to the right experts uh we helped um Council assisting where we need where they needed to clarify some of the technical and scientific information so where there were clarifications and needed because of inconsistencies we were able to work with them to help guide their questions or suggest what their questions might look like so that they could uh work through some of the inconsistencies and get a good hold of the science um we didn't have importantly we weren't a party to the inquiry in that we weren't able to cross-examine Witnesses ourselves and that was a good thing uh we acted into independently and separately to assist Council assisting um with their with their work um this next slide shows um some photos of two Danish scientists um Michael Toof overgard and mete nyard um and Peter mentioned that there was fundraising efforts to get people like those two scientists to Australia um and that it was a 6-hour cross-examination uh it didn't feel hostile it didn't feel very adversarial because it was a deeply engaging discussion between uh The Inquirer um uh Bathurst uh Council assisting and these two scientists and indeed the other scientists who were put before the inquiry for 6 hours they took the inquiry through what the mutations held by Kathleen fig and who her two daughters me they started with evolutionary biology and they ended in today's most upto-date knowledge it is by far and remains for me one of the most extraordinary um demonstrations of science communication and facilitation of signs in a Justice setting that I have ever seen in my life I'd go as far as saying it should be compulsory viewing for every science law and medical student in the country it was really something now it's not available anywhere yet we might be able to get that out of the new southw Justice System um but they really did explain why it's so rare and novel to have a cal modum mutation and why when you do have one you're likely to have cardiac aymas and when that does happen you might die um and so they they they were able to explain that so um in such a sophisticated way it was really a moment of Brilliance uh I can go into some of the detail of the calm modular mutation later I won't in the interest of time but if there are questions I'm happy to take them later why do we need independent scientific advisors you know don't we have prosecution and defense putting forward um experts all the time we do but things go wrong and some of the reasons we need um independent scientific advisors is because uh there is great misuse of Statistics in our courts uh David balding will be able to speak to that later um you know in Kathleen's case there was this Reliance on the discredited Meadows law which we've heard about uh this happens time and time again prosecution often chooses experts often um because they're the people they know they're good performers they know that in interrogating them they can get to a certain point and that's where it ends defense often don't have the resources to be able to come back or even to identify experts to bring forward so an independent an adviser would be able to um overcome some of that um uh often the methodology of Science and and and the rigor that is behind scientific methodology is not well explored um and and some expert evidence isn't sought at all and we'll see that um in the Kathleen fby case in just a moment so ignore the bit on the on the left um but effectively this was a transcript out of the uh 2021 appeal and it referred to the first inquiry um but there were a couple of things here there was uh the the scientific rigor did not exist in this case so science was not in any way being heard accurately or sufficiently uh so there is this thing called the international Cal modul calmodulinopathy register and that is all of the cases of people with Cal modulin mutations around the world um and so the interpretation of that register was incorrect in this um in the conclusions of this appeal um there was preference given to circumstantial evidence so the diaries that Kathleen kept rather than scientific data which just doesn't stuck up in a scientific sense and the conclusions were all based on the premise that there needed to be one unifying cause of death that those four children could not have possibly died from different individual causes of death which is absolutely incorrect scientifically and and should never been um allowed to happen I won't go into complete detail but let me just give you a couple of examples from here um the experts who were examined who were cross-examined in the first inquiry were asked uh whether they knew of any children who had died under the age of two and they said nope didn't know of any um the register has children who died under the age of two they asked they were asked if they knew of any children who had suffered from cardiac arhythmia because of calm modular mutations um when they were asleep as opposed to during exercise or exertion not when the register does actually contain those uh there were questions raised about how could it be possible that Kathleen is Alive and Well when it's hereditary and and and the children have this mutation when it's understood genetically that that is absolutely consistent and possible um so these inconsistencies were littered right throughout that first inquiry they were inaccurate and the experts who were presented to that inquiry did not do this maliciously I'm sure of it but they were not the right experts in the right field they simply did not have the knowledge to present accurate science to that inquiry and decisions were made that were wrong and Kathleen spent another 3 years in prison as consequence um and then of course there were the diary entries now in that first inquiry um uh The Inquirer Reginal blanch um said that he could read the diary so he knew what they meant uh he refused uh any psychologist or psychiatrist to come forward as as a witness flat out refused that um they are scientific experts in their own right so yet circumstantial evidence was put above scientific evidence um to Kathleen's uh detriment um and as I said she went on to um spend another 3 years in jail uh she was accused of suffocating her children there was never any pathological or medical evidence of of Suffocation it was littered with inaccuracies so some these are some of the wonderful people who came forward um and signed a petition uh to petition the governor of New South Wales to say uh to ask for a mercy ple to have Kathleen freed and it was that and everything Peter has told you that went around that um uh and and of course Peter and team fig bought all of that strategy and wonderful work and we gathered uh the scientists who looked at scientific Publications that were in the public domain by this stage and saw that the evidence was overwhelming um that those Cal modum mutations were reasonable causes of death of the two girls and there were medical um explanations for the other children uh so the petition went forward we finally extracted that second inquiry um and and and you know that the um so what have we learned from this from the Australian Academy of Sciences perspective there are three important law reform opportunities that we are focusing on and seeking to bring about now the system is slow um but we are we are Fighters you've probably figured out um so uh I'll only go through them very briefly in the interest of time but happy to take questions so one of them is the introduction of a reliability standard for the admissibility of evidence what does that mean so when evidence comes into a courtroom there is no standard there is no reliability standard that it is judged against so often suspicions opinion things that have no basis in science are admitted as evidence and juries who may not have know any better take that as evidence and consider it in their deliberations and their thinking and people's lives are impacted we need a reliability standard for the admission of evidence it needs to be introduced in the Commonwealth Evidence Act and then translate it into all the state and territory acts the second is a mechanism to select experts um who are independent and by reliable sources this is the role the academy played in the Kathleen fby case it doesn't have to be a role for the Academy to play in all of the justice system but an independent body that would be able to say these experts are the best possible that you could bring to this case whatever that case might be and it won't be every case in the country there would have to be a threshold um and that would allow the best possible experts to be coming forward it would also stop I I think it would also remove some of that adversarial um uh environment that experts uh currently um participate in so many of our scientists say that they hate giving evidence and they'd prefer to never do it again they feel cornered they feel unable to give full answers they didn't have the Danish um scientists uh experience that's for sure so independent selection of experts would help address that and thirdly Peter mentioned it the establishment of a post appeals mechanism so when all of your appeals um mechanisms have been exhausted um a mechanism where there is fresh evidence uh to enable cases to be reconsidered again thresholds would need to be met you can't leave every case open forever other countries like the UK have introduced a criminal cases review commission for this very purpose they're effective they exist in many other countries around the world but not in Australia I just want to acknowledge the extraordinary work the Corolla Vin racer continues to do around the world um unfortunately she is one of those scientists who has spent a good part of her career in Australia and has now been snapped up by the UK and we let her go um so Corola vinesa is Unstoppable and she is uh continuing her work trying to bring about reform so that full genomic sequencing is part of uh processes particularly where there are unexplained deaths um and particularly amongst children um so she's she's getting some traction there she's also um been involved in a range of cases often grouped um or or called around um M mu and syndrome by proxy these are mothers who um often have well have children who have undiagnosed illnesses and uh they seek second opinions and seek to um better understand what's going on and they're so proactive in that uh that often they are then accused of being um abusive through that giving of attention to that child but it's it's often a case of um that child's illness being undiagnosed or difficult to diagnose um there many children who have been taken out of the care of their parents because of this um and and she's looking at shedding light on on this sort of thing and helping lots of mothers around the world she's um a force of Nature and uh she's a wonderful wonderful Advocate and and um scientist so uh here's toara um wherever decisions are made they need to be informed by evidence including in our justice system I'll stop there it's my great great privilege um to introduce Tracy Chapman Australia's wonderful friend Advocate supporter um and just an extraordinary human being over to you [Applause] TR hi everyone feel very nervous um it's such Ms Tracy Chapman an amazing building it's such an amazing thing we're doing and I'm grateful to be here so thank you I just wanted to start look I I often do really offthe cuff structured that unstructured stuff and I got told that's what I should do tonight but I've got a neurod Divergent brain I'm not not afraid to admit that and I feel because I'm a bit tired lately I'm going to give you something structured but I was reading something the other day that I I was trying to trace back in about 2007 when Kath had gone through a whole bunch of appeal stuff and things were quite insane from the legal perspective that you know I was kind of on the periphery and wasn't allowed in and I and I read it again the other day and I just want to Michael Kirby who is a former Justice of the high court back in 97 they were trying to get a criminal cases review commission I think put up in South Australia and he said and I'm just there's a long paragraph here but I'm I'm not going to go into that um because this sort of sets the scene of where I'm going tonight the desire of human Minds for neatness and finality is only sometimes eclipsed by the desire of human Minds for truth and justice Justice I just want you all to think about that is you know to me I just kind of went oh my goodness you know this is a really senior judge and this is what he has to say so on this journey I've been with some of the most remarkable people I still have to pinch myself every day I pinch myself and I'm so grateful that these people did the right thing but if you've got someone at this high level ALS Al feeling that way I think it's up to each of us to behave B way way better in our working lives and you know everything we do professionally I often wonder if that had happened at the beginning of this case when you know I couldn't believe it when I was listening to all the media stuff with Kath when which she was going through the trial I was heavily pregnant I'm um I'm not going to go into all the details of what was going on in my life at the time and you'll find out about it eventually but at the moment I just couldn't believe it when I was watching the television every night and they're talking about this woman's Diaries we all knew Kath wrote diaries for when we were in primary school and what they were interpreting was just nonsensical to us and yet there was nobody willing to stand up for her in the original trial and yet it became one of the key pillars of evidence in the circumstantial case against her that was really disturbing it lit a fire in me that just didn't go out until I did a happy dance at the second inquiry sobbed openly in front of the the actual um Justice that was overseeing it and felt this amazing sense of relief cuz finally for me the truth came out so for the past 20 years I've stood for my friend Kathleen fig a woman who was once considered Australia's most hated woman Australia's worst serial killer they called her openly a rock spider which is a horrible term for children Killers it's just the most disgusting thing um but through all that noise and the accusations and the Venom I along with a small group of friends Megan Alana I'm not sure if they're listening tonight but we all hung in there our close friendship and a handful of other people believed in something far greater than the stories told about cath we actually believed in the truth and that's why we kept going for all these years our journey has been a lonely one for years we felt like we were shouting into the void fighting a battle that seemed impossible to win the weight of public opinion and the label of monster mother the kath was given made our mission pretty insurmountable at the times but true friendship isn't about standing by someone when it's easy I don't think so anyway it's about standing by them when it's really really hard when the world tells you you walk away and even my parents used to tell me to walk away cuz I've forgotten my career for this and when you know in your heart that those people deserve your support and nobody else is there so our resolve was often tested and the Darkness of Doubt would often creep in telling us what we were trying to do was pretty impossible and it really was but then one day after celebrating Peter's 60th birthday a wonderful woman named Cora vinesa gave me a call and she told me something I couldn't believe I was sitting I was at my farm feeding out my horses and she's called me excitedly and when Cora's excited she speaks at a million miles an hour and I'm really struggling to hear what she's got to say but she's telling me that there's some really amazing people out there they're really accomplished and they're actually willing to look at the case and maybe even help I just went oh my goodness so there was a flipper of Hope but it was tempered by caution pretty sad that comes from being you know going through years of being let down by people that said they would help you and too many times we've encountered those that spoke loudly promised Lots but actually delivered very little for us however this time was different this time we were met by a group of individuals who not only said what they meant but they actually did what they said they were going to do and I was really grateful for that and they've become known as our league of luminaries so and I count C's awesome Lego team Ronnie and Robert and Greg I know Ronnie's listening tonight love you Ronnie um yeah in that League of luminaries so these weren't just experts these people were real Visionaries and so tonight I'm sort of taking you on a journey I know we've looked at the big picture but I really want to look at the characters of some of the people the characteristics that you have to have to actually bring some pull something like this off you know um these people truly were Visionaries they showed me the true collaboration really looks pretty good when it works a collaboration that goes beyond mere teamwork and enters a realm of deep connection where every member's World viw expertise and experiences enriches all our Collective effort the way this team worked together was structured but it was pretty effortless which surprised me because usually it's the hardest thing to get teams to work together I don't know how do you all feel about that I I find it's pretty difficult at times um so yeah it was a form of collaboration as I said that I've never experienced before a collaboration that led to breakthrough Innovations on so many levels and Professor Hill from Harvard University and I'm a bit of a in my former life I was a management and Leadership teacher and it's a passion of mine so I you know I always go back to the text but Professor Hill from Harvard refers to this as collective genius and I think we had Collective genius we operated on an open loop system where our emotions thoughts and energies were all in sync which I thought was a beautiful thing and I um sorry I'm just thinking have I lost my place there no neuroscientists have shown that when we work in such Harmony Al liic system that's the part of our brain that governs emotion actually lights up and I like to think that in essence we were catching feelings from each other which I think's kind of woman fuzzy maybe you're a scientist or all think it's bit but to me I thought it was kind of cool as Leaders you know that the emotions you bring to your or organizations Ripple out and they actually impact everyone around you and our team was no different the emotionally intelligent leaders in this group had a unique ability to create a shared understanding of the complexities and there were a lot of complexities of the fobby case the intricacies of the science the legal entanglements and the humanity at the core of this this allowed us to collaborate across boundaries and engage with science and Society globally and even now nearly a year post C's exoneration the interest and conversations continue to grow in the media and I'm always getting calls which that makes me really happy I was humbled and deeply grateful that the remarkable individuals were willing to help us this wasn't about just telling kath's story I always said to Kath this is not your story so it wasn't to me it was more than telling her story because this story was never meant to be hers as far as I was concerned this was about rewriting a narrative about ensuring that Justice was served and that the whole truth including those damn Diaries prevailed for the first time I felt Vindicated there's incredibly skilled well-connected high-profile individuals were standing beside us willing to be counted and that was amazing and for the first time I actually felt hope and that felt pretty good so hope was scarce after this disheartening inquiry of 28 29 I can't tell you how stressed I was at that inquiry um and it started pretty well straight away I found out I think it was the 18th of August that we were getting an inquiry and about a month later I find that blanch and and finesse are in a room with a whole bunch of barters and they're all discussing the Diaries and saying oh I'd really like to hear from Kathleen fing see what she's got to say about the Diaries when I read that I went psycho because I thought you're asking a woman in trauma to talk about this this the things that she's written and she doesn't even remember really and it was just her way of purging things that were on her mind and she's always said that so hope was scarce after this inquiry but we were going to free Kathleen and overturn her convictions as far as I'm was concerned and so off we went this experience taught me much about what it means to be a good leader it's reinforced the importance of ethical behavior and there no I have a t-shirt that says ethical is the New Black it has reinforced that that importance to me the Australian Academy of Science under the leadership of Anamaria Arabia professor dadish and Professor shine served as Prime examples of what it means to be a Humane leader as far as I'm concerned and as an example I used to call them Chief translation officers I loved it because they were bridging that gap between complex science and evidence and the legal system and they were supported by the most extraordinary team in Paul and Dan and so many others behind them it just got that out there and I hope this case inspires you all to adjust your own World Views to reassess who you are and what you're willing to see and do in this rapidly changing world I hope it encourages you all to expand your concepts of caring Beyond yourself your family and your work to Encompass many other things other than that I also put in here sentient beings but I'm an environmental scientist and I reckon I could get away with that um I can't help myself sorry we must become solutionaries conscious change agents this is more than just an idea I want it to ignite inspiration that leads to action no more words action leaders who are strong at connection can see what's happening within this sphere of influence they can simplify complexity and make sense of it in a way others can understand and in this case we also had gr cosway working alongside us to exemp um to exemplify this the expertise of Cosmos magazine in breaking down complex science into simple terms everyone could understand was also invaluable we didn't attack entrenched beliefs because that would have alienated people and especially the media CU you know they were so Pro um keeping Kath in jail for a long time I know that sounds bad to say that but the legal system and the general public we we kind of inspired new alternative views new beliefs framing everything around the importance of caring and I loved that caring about evidence-based science about legal and political process the mother and the children at the heart of this case and how the media could reframe the case from Fear to stri for from Fear to trust and from guilt to innocence I've never really thought about this before but I realized the other day and thinking about this that the solution to overturning this case the secret Source if you will actually um to freeing and exonerating Kath and giving children an honorable epit was always in the explanation so as a gift if you will to you all based on key lessons that I've learned from my involvement in this case for the the last 20 years I were I really want you all to be courageous by establishing open transparent and honest communication I want you all to lead with humility if I can ask with others in mind I want you to respect dignity and well-being cultivate high levels of cognitive empathy integrity and kindness influence without control harness the collective wisdom and move away from the typical ego-driven hierarchical approaches that I'm sure you're all part of right now I want you to all learn to work collaboratively ethically with Integrity empathy truth true and genuine humility and kindness at the heart of every decision you make if we can achieve this then every cost and every significant loss that I've personally had to experience and I can't speak for anyone else but I can tell you now I'm genuinely broken I have no career um in advocating this case that's worth it to me be the best Humane beings you can be so I'm going to leave you with this thought I want you to say every day it is up to me it's up to each of you to be the very best human beings you can be and just in closing a dear friend of mine passed away last week and I'd just like to recognize the work of journalist Jane Hansen who passed away after her 2-year battle with cancer Jane's being buried on Thursday tomorrow and um Jane was one of the most talented committed and professional journalists that I have known Brave Really Brave she's a plain speaker honest and held integrity at the core of everything she did she worked on the mother's guilt podcast and if you haven't heard it I'd really like you all to have a listen her impartial articles on the case invaluable in our journey towards Justice for Kath her dedication and passion has always I'm sorry has made a significant impact and I can't thank her enough for that b Jane Hansen thanks so [Applause] Panel Discussion much so we're going to now have a bit of a chat together with the three speakers who you've already met of course anaria Peter and Tracy and invite a a wild card if you will in the form of uh Professor David balding I'll let your slide behind me um a statistical geneticist with a long history of giving expert evidence in the courts of Australia and in the UK and other countries he wasn't involved in Kathleen's case but he has advised on a lot of issues relating to statistics and probabilities in court as well as um the evaluation of DNA profile evidence so really relevant to kind of the broader implications I suppose of Kathleen's case so now we're just going to have a super chill um intimate chat with all of our podcast mics um and then there will be time for questions from from you here in the physical audience and then also via uh the internet as well um but given that we haven't yet had a chance to to hear from you David I'd love to get a sense from I think when we're thinking about the legal system and when we're thinking about science we are thinking about evidence and and truth and we say that we want things to be evidence-based but how does that actually work in practice in a legal setting uh yes well that's a big uh it's a big question but I do want to tell you a little bit about my experience with DNA profile evidence which is my main area of expertise because I think it's relevant and just highlight Anamaria showed you a headline about all the chances of four babies dying in one family is one in a trillion or something of course the number is nonsense there are you know there are uh there are are instances of this occurring around the world although of course it's extremely rare but even if that number were true what does it mean for the guilt of a defendant uh and I just this is really important there are so many cases that involve these kind of rare events you know coincidences and there's a whole kind of legal theory of coincidence but it it just gets it wrong on a lot of matters now going back to the DNA profile evidence when it came in three decades ago it was very controversial uh and um and and I was just starting my career at that time and I was sort of in right from the start and there were you know there a lot of confusion and you know a lot of passion in the debate and so on but eventually over time I think we kind of figured it out and we know there is a kind of Science of weighing evidence which is now routinely used for DNA evidence and it hasn't got into other parts of the legal system and and we think it should just like there's the the kind of reading Wars going on in Victoria about you know the science of reading you know it's just taken decades to get there so the science the one in a trillion even if it's true it doesn't really mean anything on its own there are a lot of rare events happen you know the Rarity of event on its own doesn't really say anything uh what the the the kind of scientific approach to evaluating evidence is How likely is this evidence if the prosecution is Right How likely is this evidence if the defense is right so if the prose tion is right um sorry if the defense is right that these are all uh you you know non you know deaths kind of innocent deaths then that's an extremely unlikely event but also on the other side it's also an extremely unlikely event you know all of the uh all of the circumstances of the case uh for you know for all kinds of reasons the fact that there was no real tangible in incriminating evidence um and uh the the the the you know there just many circumstances we could go into that makes it extremely unlikely and so sort of my uh you know interest in these kinds of cases is try and get people think you've got to think about both sides just the the unlikeliness of the event on its own doesn't tell you very much you've got to weigh it up it's unlikely under this case but it's also unlikely on the other case and it's got to be much more unlikely uh under the under the defense case in other words much more likely under the prosecution case hugely more likely to get a a conviction Beyond Reasonable Doubt so um I I was studying and then working in the UK during Kathleen's case so I wasn't even I you know uh aware of it at the time but we have had many you know experience of of many kind of similar cases where this coincidence evidence going and if we could if we could just get uh PE people to accept this and it is actually routinely done with DNA evidence now now it is a uh you know How likely is this DNA evidence if it came from the accused How likely is this DNA evidence if it came from someone else the one must be much greater than the other to get a convincing uh and and a convincing case and we and and in in Kathleen's case it's clear you know obviously I've now read quite a lot about it it's just astonishing in retrospect how little real evidence there was we heard from Tracy about the diary evidence that really doesn't amount to very much but also people can't get their heads around this rareness of four deaths in one family and and that also doesn't amount to much on its own I mean possibly the prosecution could have made a case but they didn't uh and um so yeah that's that's just my my my contribution to to to to this and I think that comes up in many other cases we have our own you know many of the Great miscarriages of Justice involved deaths of children because they involve passion you know great passions and we have our own in Victoria the case of Robert Faron who's still in jail that many of us think uh uh shouldn't be there and it's another one involving deaths of multiple children and again this coincidence principle played a big role in that and it it's not really thought clearly and you know there is a science of doing it properly and we just got to get this uh promoted more widely in the system that's that's what I'm trying to do y yeah I want to follow up on that because we' heard about science communication usually when I'm thinking about science communication I'm thinking about like how do I tell little kids how far away a star is but this is like at real life and death death staff especially when you're when a jury is involved are there some principles that you have seen work or is there a shift in how people are are trying to make these communications given that this is super complicated stuff this isn't something that people have a reference point for yes well um again I've I've spent I had a lot of experience many many trials standing up in in juries trying to uh convey this complex uh DNA evidence actually you know unlike many scientists who don't like giving evidence I did you know I did quite like it and I convinced my uh and I I rapidly got enough experience that the that the the you know the the the the the legal people on the other side didn't uh challenge me too much you know I was treated pretty much with respect most of the time I'm pretty I'm pleased to say and I and I managed to persuade myself that I was explaining things to the jury it is hard to get for the principles around this uh and of course you never know you you don't get a chance to interview jurors although uh I don't know if this is allowed but actually in one case because I you know my University affiliation was given so in one case a juror rang me up afterwards to tell me what the jury deliberations had been which was quite interesting but uh I didn't even get her name because I thought it was probably improper that uh but uh yeah I don't I'm not sure I have any you know I think it can be done um and uh and you know there are some good people out there who can who can do it well but I I'm not sure if I have any really uh uh good uh good principles but I do try and do you know this kind of you know How likely is it on this side and How likely on that side and do and do a few kind of illustrative ideas you know what if there's a million people out there that could have been the source of the DNA then this is what the outcome would be you know those kind of uh illustrative and and and I feel you you you can do it but it's difficult yeah an Maria I'm not sure if it was entirely unprecedented but it was definitely incredibly rare that the academy came out so strongly what got you over the line with it and what were the deliberations that happened within that group to decide that yeah this is this is something we're going to really hang our hats on look we've not surveyed every learned Academy across the world but we do believe it might be rare if not the only case where a learned Academy has played a role such as the one we played in the Kathleen fby case um the scientific evidence that was shown and shared with us by Cara Viner who did not do all of the science but gathered 27 experts from 11 countries across the world and published their evidence in peer in a very high quality peer rreview Journal um really with the leaders of pioneers in the field of Cal modul mutations and all and everything that means that evidence was so compelling it wasn't a case of oh you know it's a bit gray here we're not quite sure um those that public there was one publication in particular but there were others that supported it um of of all of the people who were asked to sign the petition that was shared with them and no one said oh I'm not sure I wouldn't put my name to this so in some ways it was so compelling that it wasn't that hard to get people over the line um they backed the signs they were there because they backed the science and myself um and certainly those who backed that petition did not know of the other circumstances that Peter shared with you today starting in 2003 and nor should they you know that was separate had no idea of the conflicts of interest you described and some of the other wrongdoings the science itself spoke so loudly and uh people willingly scientists of Nobel laurates very distinguished people in our country uh were willing to sign that petition this is viously super recent we're talking about last year but would you worri that it would open the floodgates or have you had other approaches by other people in similar situations yes I have received correspondence from people in jail since um all all sorts of cases have been put to us um I've got to say um you know Kathleen in some ways was is the unluckiest person ever but also the luckiest um because the the the resources people and approach that was pulled together through team f big was extraordinary but it shouldn't take that to deliver Justice and it's not something that you can just pick up an activate and then apply to all of the other cases that might come forward it would need a team of thousands to be able to get through them all and it's not the role of the Australian Academy of Science for for me this was an important demonstration case it was one that was very clear in that science had not been heard at that first inquiry um scientists had been treated of L frankly um and so that needed to be corrected and if science Was Heard and the second Inquirer had decided that she remained guilty well so be it science Was Heard um but we weren't satisfied that it was heard in the first inquiry and we weren't going to give up until it was and it was and the outcome speaks for itself it's funny you say that when Peter was speaking before it's incredibly inspiring and it also feels ridiculous how many resources went into this case and it still took years and years Peter like a reflection on I suppose Equity of how you learn from a case like this and then also like make it streamlined because it shouldn't have to take one of the most well-connected men in Australia and a team of PR people and years and years and years and a lot of money um for justice to be done well no it shouldn't uh but we discovered that it did um uh in fact uh when um Kathleen was uh released uh I was there for the press conference and the attorney general made the comment that this was a uh a tribute to the capability of the New South Wales justice system that uh it worked so well um that Kathleen could be released and I had the chance to get up afterwards and I said yep yeah sure everybody's got access to $3 million the former CEO of pbl the best the best the best PR team in the country the finest legal mind in the academy and science sure you know I mean there was something um clearly uh wrong about it but um my um Cara was my CEO um and I knew how incredibly competent uh she is um she asked me to become her chairman because in her her genetic studies one of her core areas is lupus and my uh my sister died of lupus and so I very happily supported um uh Cora and provided scholarships to a&u to support it and so when somebody of that quality that you know in that context sits down and says Peter just read this transcript and as I said before um I just couldn't believe how a scientist was treated um in an inquiry this is not you know I was the acting chairman rert and krie Packer decided to make me the acting chairman of oneel um and so therefore I spent quite a bit of time being interrogated in the oneel um uh matter now that was people lost you know hundreds of millions of dollars billions in fact that's one issue but but Corolla um just gave the science as it is and if you read the way she was treated in that in that context you say something is wrong here and and and in fact that was what really got me be going right and sure I mean I'm very fortunate uh that through my career um through the the the the role I played at mcari bank and uh and then pbl uh that I yeah I do have access to um a large number of people um but sometimes when you realize that Kathleen was treated like she was is because those people that did knew she had access to almost nobody and she had access to Tracy and her close friends but she had access to almost nothing she was a completely downtrodden her father was convicted of murder um she was a completely downtrodden out of sorts woman um who who could be easily picked on you know and the system did that to her um and and sometimes in life uh when you've been given the privilege uh of access which I do and the privilege of power which I have from time to time uh it's not that you're giving back that's not the right language it's that it's that I was given the opportunity to use my skills and capabilities to help Kathleen get out and I'm incredibly grateful to her for that opportunity that was given to me um and yes I used my resources um to help Kathleen get out but at the end of the day um at the end of the day it was partly no it was significantly because how terrible is it that the system of the scale of the New South Wales Judiciary and the prison system decided to completely and comprehensively trash a beautiful individual because they could um and and that upset me deeply um and so yes I mean I I remember sorry to keep going when I was with Tracy I was actually went up to Tracy uh um to I was going to spend the weekend there I went up the Friday and we didn't know that Kathleen was going to be released and and so he planned to be there so I actually Tracy and I had a visit planned with Kathleen and she'd actually been released on the Monday and we were there on Saturday morning and and Kathleen and and Tracy and I having a breakfast and I got this text message from the New South Wales prison system to say Peter uh your Pates you know uh visitor number blah blah blah uh where are you because you are you have booked an appointment with Kathleen fig and you have to be there 1 hour advance in the prison right and and and I shared this with Kathleen and Kathleen goes oh my goodness we need to get in the car Tracy and and and I go why she goes well I can't miss my appointment with Pates I mean how crazy and and and then when she came out she had no identity she had an identity taken offer so I had to call up uh the prime minister's office to get her an identity she couldn't get a bank account so I called up the CE of of uh of the a andz to get her a bank account now I also learned something else it must be incredibly difficult to be a prisoner that is released without somebody to help you because the system makes your life miserable and so that was the second piece of the puzzle that I discovered I have so many questions I want to ask but I feel like I'm hugging the microphone and I know that you have questions as well so if you do have a question throw your hand in the air I know we've also got some questions coming through on Zoom but we'll prioritize the uh the Warm Bodies in the room first all right I'm Q&A G uh Don Williams terrific presentation just inspiring uh just to be a bit provocative think about the role of juries um a murder trial is an inherently adversarial um event both sides are trying to win to uh you know defeat the other side not find the truth um if you have science it may well be fiercely contested if we have a situation where you've got what might be very abstruse science being prevented it's being presented it's been contested very fiercely do we have to think about how the role of jury in this um you know I've sort of heard of in the past where there sort of tricky science that sort of Judge only sort of trial so just based on your experience in this case do we have to really think a little bit about the role of juries in these types of cases there'll be cases that require juries and uh mostly I think generally speaking um judges and juries are ill equipped to deal with the rapidly changing scientific and technological advances before us so you know we've spoken about DNA evidence and and genetic evidence but think about um uh litigation related to climate change related to AI related to Quantum now I hope we can select members of the public who are well across all of these matters but my sense is that that's not going to be the case so it will become ever more important to have very accurate meaningful and accessible science communication to those people making decisions that's judges and jurors to put them in the best position place to be able to draw a conclusion and sometimes that material will be gray it will be uncertain scientists have no problem at all dealing with uncertainty if it is presented in a way where the boundaries of that evidence are well described where uh you know margins of error are described the level of certainty we have around evidence and material presented is well described you equip and Empower decision makers to make a best possible decision with the available evidence at the moment that's not happening so I I don't think we should do away with jurors I don't think we should do away with judges our system mostly works for us but we do need to be able to give them the most accurate and accessible information with all of the parameters around it around the certainty with which they can take that information if I could just add one comment there it's important also in this case to distinguish between um a trial which is a judicial process and an inquiry which is a process of the executive of government it's actually not a judicial process um and in the trial there was almost no um there was almost no scientific evidence even asked for um the evidence was did matter as law work or effectively um and did she uh did she basically through her Diaries um uh uh uh uh um confess and that was the extent of the uh of of the scientific evidence that's it was in the first inquiry that the scientific evidence was first presented and an inquiry is not a judicial process the purpose of an inquiry is to is inquire information but the way it was run it was run as if it was the prosecutions um uh uh the prosecu so that so the DP P's um uh uh uh scientists versus uh those scientists that were put up by Kathleen fall big site and that's when it it it it moved around the other comment that I would make and I've had this experience myself because I was a foreman in a criminal trial um and the the unfortunately the legal representation for uh for the defendant was so poor uh that I put my hand up to the judge and I said uh your honor are we allowed to ask questions and he goes yeah you're the foreman I didn't know that but in Victoria if you're the foreman you're allowed to ask questions and we only I only asked one question and we were all shepher it out because the basically the case collapsed immediately and I was trying to think well well hang on this poor defendant's got a barrister and the team and of course you know legal aid doesn't get you you basically doesn't get you what you probably need um and one question by a foreman in in a criminal trial basically undermined the entire case and I still to this day can't understand how the legal team supporting uh the defendant hadn't even asked that same question right um my name's kri Q I think I'll be addressing this question to Tracy because you've followed the case all the time um Professor Roy Meadows was struck off from the UK register in 2005 um that was for a case where Sally Clark who was a UK lawyer was accused of of suffocating her two babies who died of Sids and was jailed for 3 years until the Royal statistical Society who knew there was such a society came up and um protested to his at to his incorrect use of Statistics now um and I'll add that Sally Clark died was released after 3 years and died of alcoholic poisoning in 2007 but the question is um could you use that information that he was struck off if that information was used as some sort of scientific basis he was struck off the register in the UK did you get a chance to do that well I think that's the interesting thing um I annoyed the hell out of every single legal team that was ever um involved in kath's case initially but I I was not kath's um what do you call it um I've got the word in my head and I can't think of it right now uh legal guardian so basically any questions that I put forward didn't have to be met with any answers really so um yeah I was really annoying asked lots of questions similar and even gave lots of newspaper cuttings about that and many other things um but voiceless at the end of the day um yeah it's it's a complex thing but I mean to what I've realized um when you go through appeals processes too you bloody will excuse the language but get it right at the trial because whatever comes thereafter is is the truth and that's what you're trying to actually overturn whatever that is becomes the thing that you're fighting I I I couldn't believe when I heard all of the stuff about the diaries for example at trial and as I said I couldn't be at the trial because um I was very ill at the time and that's a whole other matter and anyway it wouldn't have made any difference because the outcome was the outcome but I was most shocked to find that people like Professor James Panabaker who you know I ask when we finally get because we didn't want to do a second inquiry to tell you the truth I don't know whether you guys actually ever knew that but Kath and I tell us we just wanted a pardon we did we just wanted a pardon but Kath and I you know we we used to talk every day and we had great lengthy conversations sometimes s you know 10 phone calls talking about this stuff really robustly you know you got initially in the early days we had six minute phone calls so we can talk real fast but then we got 15minute phone calls but these were really really heavy things you know you've got this amazing legal team with Ronnie and Robert and everything but we were this time around for the inquiry we we were shocked at how Kath was treated and and the nonsensical garbage that came out of the first inquiry you know the the the people that were standing up asking her questions about Diaries weren't even psychologists they had they were they were some legal team members what would you know about scientific you know evidence in terms of Diaries I mean I was just sitting there the amount of times I had to almost like I was screaming into my bag I was so angry but so my point here is that what you you know what is my point really sorry I'm just thinking I'm sort of jumping this is my neurod dierence brain it goes too fast but in terms of this you only have limited capacity to do stuff right and the outcome for the trial meant that the truth was that Kath killed her children and the Diaries were the truest form of evidence that said she did it garbage to me like absolute garbage we find then that we get an inquiry and when I think that perhaps we might actually get some experts in the room we get 3 days of some of the worst cross-examination I have ever seen in a courtroom and if you haven't heard it it's all online do yourself a favor go and listen to it I'm sure your toes will curl it was disgusting so you've got that and then you know you get blanch that says he's even more convinced that she's guilty now and Kath and I just went how how does this happen so we actually had a really robust conversation about whether we were going to go it was just that the iies were brought in this time because they go hey that's technically new evidence right if you actually stuffed up and didn't do it the right way the first time then if you're going to do it the right way bring it in then then that's new evidence isn't it so we were really happy that cast legal team then brought it in and then we were able to bring in some of these other cases and actually have real conversations about this stuff and bringing the truth can can I can I just add just quickly directly to that that um my my understanding is that you know Meadows law has been completely discredited many times and I don't think it was overtly relied on in Kathleen's case but it's one of those things that just never dies no matter how many times it's discredited it's lurking in the back of the of the minds I think yeah and I actually can I just add to that one of the biggest questions I'm asked all the time and I've been you know thousands and thousands and thousands of online questions is yeah but what's the chance of that actually happening yes always even now even now you have a genetic mutation pretty high actually um thank you very much uh my name is Michael bachelard I'm a journalist and I'm covering the Robert fuson case at the moment and I have a podcast and so forth uh so I'm very interested in this topic uh and I wanted to direct a question probably to Peter uh about it's almost a political question um it's I'm told it's extremely difficult uh to get compensation uh for a wrongful conviction in most States in Australia and particularly in Victoria where they fight these cases very hard um and now the government in Victoria is seeking to legislate to rule out compensation for anybody who's been wrongfully convicted as part of the Gobo uh problems uh simply i i g I guess because the the defendants there are very unpopular people but the question my question is should there be uh a wrong some kind of uh uh compensation or or or deure uh um Fallout or or or push back against a wrongful conviction when the systems got it wrong particularly if it's shown for example that the police did Target uh the the person who's been convicted and so forth uh it's my view that that that would give some kind of uh uh some it would deter uh wrongdoing in the justice system from the police up through the prosecution um uh and at the moment it seems like there isn't much deterrence against uh against wrongful convictions uh well first of all the proposal that's been put forward um in the goo case that um nobody can be prosecuted or no compensation can emerge um I I believe in a liberal Democratic Society um and I believe that we all have uh the right of Law and due process and the suggestion uh that the state would interfere with that right is absolutely appalling now the problem we have with States as you know is there is no Constitution and there are no human rights uh in each state um and if the state of Victoria voted for the put pt8 to death act not that I'm advocating that they do that thank you as you know they they can do that so so so um the the crown in a state is absolutely all powerful uh the idea that our Crown um the state of government of Victoria would use that as they're proposing in the goo case is absolutely appalling and I believe the the the position that's been put by the the opposition is the right one and I think most fair-minded people would think the same I mean it's a form of Communism isn't it I mean really to say I'm going to take away your rights that's what's being proposed um it's really just absolutely shocking now sure um you know we might not like as taxpayers the amount that we're going to have to pay but if you do that wrong then why should you as a government get off the hook I mean I can't um the bigger issue is that you're right now the Commonwealth has signed up an act which is why uh compensation is paid for wrongful um uh uh wrongful uh um uh prosecution in federal territories Cambra um or Northern Territory which is where Lindy Chamberlain obviously was prosecuted under uh the state governments have both Victoria and New South Wales have steadfastly refused to have um such an act that doesn't mean that compensation hasn't been paid and doesn't mean the compensation won't be paid but it's not it's not governed by an act as I understand it you have to basically prove malicious prosecution so you essentially have to prove corruption uh which is a very high bar uh that's partly correct I appreciate that there will be many databases available uh to many scientists on genetic disorders and that are updated and where uh scientists will access and contribute to that knowledge base is there a does that database uh is it expanded at all into the context of the legal system whereby cases that have been brought and linked to a genetic disorder and a consequence of that disorder um but written as it were in a language that would pass the law um without with providing the evidence but without necessarily all of the science behind it which is what exists for the scientists who are engaged in this world so is there a database globally that is each case comes along that uh in a sense does not appear to have a genetic base to it where a as evidence suggests that it is and then is proven or proven a court of law and is then put into that database so that lawyers can begin to access it through the eyes of the law rather than through as it were the genetic completely the detail of the genetic science I need to say that no um but it would be a tremendously useful uh resource I think for the legal system because as you say it would be put in language that is accessible and understood in in in legal terms um it's whilst there's nothing that I'm aware of that is um you know that physically exists I think there is growing evidence and the bringing together of that sort of information um across genetic disorders the international kogal opathy register is kind of an example of that but it's not presented in a legal way um although it is being interrogated increasingly um by the law um and in fact the um owner of that or the director of that register was one of the witnesses at the Kathleen fby at second inquiry um Professor Peter Schwarz and he was quite great actually um as a scientist he he stood there and said look I've got the numbers here and he spoke about having the numbers almost in political terms but um but he he was speaking about the genetic numbers of course yeah that is where we have to oh sorry go no I I was just going to say that I don't think there's anything systematic you know all the different disease areas have their own databases and there's nothing particularly tailored for the legal system you just have to rely on Experts being able to communicate that in individual cases and it's and it is rather hidden Miss yeah be friend could yeah yeah that's true that could be better although again you know interpretation is the key and so it may not be MH um just to acknowledge again that tonight would not have happened without the Royal Society of Victoria obviously the Australian Academy of technological sciences and Engineering the Australian Academy of Science inspiring Victoria National Science week and a particular shout out to Matthew cson for bringing it all together and of course thank you so much to our incredible speakers Pates Tracy Chapman Anamaria Arabia and David balding [Applause]