MURDER, MEDICINE AND MOTHERHOOD by EMMA CUNLIFFE
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2012.00594.x |
| Author | SIÔN JENKINS |
| Published date | 01 September 2012 |
| Date | 01 September 2012 |
MURDER, MEDICINE AND MOTHERHOOD by EMMA CUNLIFFE
(Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011, 232pp. £35.00)
While research on miscarriages of justice has gained prominence, few
scholars have attempted to examine a single case as thoroughly as Emma
Cunliffe and to suggest on the basis of their research that an appellant has
been wrongly convicted. Cunliffe's book offers an important and original
contribution to discourses on wrongful conviction and the dynamics of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The subject of her book is Kathleen Folbigg who
was found guilty on 21 May 2003 by the Supreme Court of New South
Wales of killing her four infant children. The prosecution case was that she
had smothered each of her children in separate incidents between 1989 and
1999 during periods of frustration. Folbigg's defence argued that all four
children had died of natural causes. Following the conviction, Folbigg
appealed against conviction and sentence. The New South Wales Appeal
Court dismis sed the appeal b ut reduced th e sentence to 3 0 years'
imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. Folbigg continues to
maintain her innocence.
Cunliffe's central thesis is that, at a time when the medical community
was expressing uncertainty in relation to multiple infant deaths, the experts
involved in the Folbigg case argued that they were increasingly certain that
the Folbigg infant deaths were murder. The testimony of medical experts in
criminal trials is an important theme throughout the book and one in which
Cunliffe confidently articulates the dilemma facing juries when presented
with complex and disputed expert evidence.
The desire of prosecution experts to support the viewpoint of the
prosecution team during the Folbigg trial encouraged some experts to
generalize and misinform the jury on the state of medical knowledge
regarding multiple sudden infant death syndrome. The vacuum created when
scientific or medical evidence is not able to provide certainty is well handled
by Cunliffe who examines gendered narratives and the extent to which, in
the Folbigg case, normative assumptions of motherhood place mothers in a
particularly vulnerable position when they are presented by the prosecution
as being a `bad mother'. The `bad mother' motif has received attention in the
literature
1
but the systematic approach taken by Cunliffe contributes to
understanding how women are sometimes mythologized by the courts and
media to secure a conviction.
In relation to the analysis of media reporting, she comprehensively
compares the trial transcripts with the daily media reports and demonstrates
that the media sometimes contributes to wrongful conviction either through
misreporting or by ignoring its asserted commitment to balance. Other
important areas of analysis include the diaries of Kathleen Folbigg and the
478
1 B. Morrissey, When Women Kill: Questions of Agency and Subjectivity (2003); Y.
Jewkes, Media and Crime (2004).
ß2012 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2012 Cardiff University Law School
To continue reading
Request your trial