Event Review: Falsely Accused – Justice by genomics

The Francis Crick Institute, London, recently welcomed the public alongside scientists, legal experts, and advocates for an event titled 'Falsely Accused: Justice by Genomics'. The symposium covered the exoneration of Kathleen Folbigg, an Australian mother who was wrongfully imprisoned for decades following the sudden deaths of her four children. Her release in 2023 was galvanised by novel genomic evidence, offering not only justice in a personal tragedy but a powerful precedent for legal systems globally.

The event was split into two parts: a daytime session focused on the integration of genomic data into legal processes, and a more personal evening session starring Folbigg herself, alongside lifelong friend and advocate Tracy Chapman. It was remarkable how jovial the two managed to make the discussion, which after all centred-on accusations of a quadruple infanticide. A panel discussion capped off the event, featuring key figures responsible for uncovering the genetic truth behind her children's deaths and securing Folbigg's pardon during a second enquiry.

In 2003, Folbigg was sentenced to 40 years in prison after being convicted of murdering her sleeping children. A diary in which she expressed maternal guilt was weaponised as a confession by the prosecution, despite the lack of physical evidence – yet another reason to avoid acting like Bridget Jones.

At the time, genomic technologies such as whole-genome sequencing (WGS) were not affordable or commonplace in legal settings. However, a new era began in 2019 when Dr Carola Vinuesa, current assistant research director at the Francis Crick Institute, led a team that performed what she refers to as a 'molecular autopsy'. Sequencing 350 loci in Folbigg's genome, alongside her deceased children's, led to the discovery of a rare variant in the CALM2 gene, known to affect cardiac rhythm.  

This same variant was later identified in another case of sudden unexplained death in children (SUDC) and laboratory experiments confirmed the variant's pathogenicity. This helped establish that a genetic predisposition, rather than homicide, was the likely cause of death for Folbigg's children. The impact of this genomic data is self-evident but, unfortunately, five more years passed before Folbigg's eventual release in 2023, outlining an unfortunate clash between scientific discovery and judicial diligence.

The evening panel allowed attendees to experience a personal account from Folbigg herself, who recounted her suffocating daily existence in prison. Conversations were rationed to six-minute intervals with Chapman while she was incarcerated, explaining why she sometimes sounds like the verbal equivalent of Usain Bolt.

She was joined on stage by Chapman, who became not only her lifeline but a legal scholar in her own right, navigating uncharted territory in advocating for Folbigg's freedom. Chapman's friendship with Folbigg was obvious from her jovial back-and-forth: 'We all did biology at school. You remember that CGAT stuff?' Chapman said, laughing. 'Turns out that CGAT stuff really matters.'

Chapman's journey was unconventional but relentless. She was unable to testify as an expert during the first enquiry but refused to be sidelined by the judicial system. She recruited a world expert in journaling to contextualise Folbigg's diary entries during the second enquiry. This decisive act, along with the CALM2 evidence, helped shift public and judicial opinion.  

Folbigg described the moment scientists requested her DNA as 'bittersweet' as it held the power to exonerate her but also forced her to grapple with a deeper guilt: 'I didn't do anything, but genetically I did.' This statement captures the emotional complexity of being absolved by science yet feeling morally implicated by biology.

The event's broader focus was the systemic failure to incorporate genomic data in legal evaluations. Thirty precent of child deaths in the UK are sudden and unexplained, said Dr Nicki Speed, founder of SUDC UK. 'How many of these might have underlying genetic causes?' she asked. The answer, as suggested by Dr Vinuesa, may be far more than we actually realise.

David Wallace, the scientifically trained lawyer who initiated contact with Dr Vinuesa, emphasised the difficulty of engaging the scientific community because of stigma surrounding criminal cases. Dr Vinuesa was the only academic willing to investigate the potential link with underlying genetic predispositions. Together, they demonstrated that genomic evidence should become routine in post-mortem analyses and courtroom evaluations, not a fringe option.

Dr Vinuesa also contested the American College of Medical Genetics classification framework, noting that its conservative criteria for 'pathogenic' variants may exclude functionally valid discoveries, particularly with novel variants. This is no small concern as adjustments of five percent on a pathogenicity scale could confer life imprisonment.

'Falsely Accused: Justice by Genomics' made it clear that justice systems must evolve and adapt with emergent technologies. Just as DNA fingerprinting revolutionised forensic science in the 1990s, so too must WGS become a more standard forensic tool. Growing affordability of the technique no longer makes this an insurmountable task. Courts should consider adapting not only their evidentiary thresholds but also their interdisciplinary attitudes by bringing geneticists in early in the process of SUDC cases.

As she noted, Folbigg holds the record for the fastest prison release following a pardon in Australian legal history: 56 minutes after the judge's ruling. Unfortunately, her path to freedom was not so swift. The pivotal science took years to emerge, validate and be heard by the courts and public. This event was not just a retrospective on a wrongful conviction but a blueprint for how to prevent the next one.

The event can now be watched in full here.