Has Justice been served for this mother, who had 4 children and lost all of them for an unknown reason?
CAROL Matthey entered the Supreme Court yesterday charged with murdering her four small children, one by one, over five years.
Police said she deliberately suffocated them, partly in order to sustain her troubled relationship with her husband, Stephen Matthey, the children’s father.
But yesterday, the criminal case against Mrs Matthey, who has always denied she harmed her children, collapsed.
Fifteen minutes after she arrived, Mrs Matthey left the court free, cheerfully accepting congratulations. In an extraordinary end to one of the most dramatic cases in Victorian legal history, prosecutors dropped the charges because much of the evidence gathered against her was ruled inadmissible.
A case that involved a three-year police investigation, thousands of pages of statements and 160 witnesses — and a case that dominated four years of Carol Matthey’s life — was suddenly over before it reached trial.
After she left the court, Mrs Matthey walked along William Street smiling, declining to answer reporters’ questions until this one: “Are you not guilty, Carol?”
“No,” she said firmly.
The reporter pointed out the double negative and asked for clarification. Did she mean she was innocent? “Yes,” she said, chuckling, amused at the misunderstanding. Then she walked off the public stage and into the rest of her life.
The Supreme Court case against Mrs Matthey ended as a result of pre-trial hearings before Justice John Coldrey. In a complex 94-page judgement on October 12, he found most of the proposed evidence inadmissible under the law.
In legal terms, this is not an acquittal. A defendant against whom charges are withdrawn is not protected by double jeopardy and, theoretically, faces the prospect of another trial if new evidence emerges.
Mrs Matthey, 27, of Geelong, lost four children between 1998 and 2003. Jacob was seven months old, Chloe nine weeks old, Joshua three months and Shania three years and four months. At her committal hearing in March 2006, Mrs Matthey’s defence argued there was no physical evidence of harm done to any of the children. Her lawyers said it was possible the children shared an as-yet-undiscovered gene that caused a medical condition, such as a fatal cardiac arrhythmia, that led to their deaths.
Police yesterday declined to comment. The acting director of public prosecutions, Jeremy Rapke, QC, said the case was irreparably damaged when the judge deemed inadmissible much of the medical evidence.
Initially, Jacob and Chloe Matthey were found to have died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and Joshua of klebsiella septicaemia. A police investigation began after the death of Shania, who was too old to have died of SIDS, and for whom no cause of death could be found. At the committal hearing, experts acknowledged SIDS was a “diagnosis of exclusion” — the cause of death used for babies when no other cause can be found. They said there were often no forensic clues that would differentiate natural SIDS from deliberate suffocation.
This left much of the expert medical evidence at the committal heated and contradictory. Four local forensic pathologists strongly argued the autopsies revealed no scientific evidence of harm to any of the children.
But a pediatrician from South Australia who specialized in SIDS, Dr Susan Beal, and a forensic pediatric pathologist from the US, Dr Janice Ophoven, were equally vehement homicide was the most likely explanation.
They argued that “scientific” evidence included the lack of risk factors for SIDS in some of the children; the rarity of four such deaths in one family; the troubled marriage; and the fact that the children had experienced “ALTEs” — apparent life-threatening episodes in which they stopped breathing or were found unconscious.
Dr Beal said: “ALTEs are not a predictor for SIDS; they’re a predictor for (homicide).”
Justice Coldrey ruled out most of the evidence of these two witnesses.
The conflict between the experts meant the Crown case relied on other evidence, such as Mrs Matthey’s relationship with her husband and children.
Justice Coldrey said the Crown had submitted that, particularly at times of ALTEs or deaths among the children, the marriage was under severe strain.
“Moreover, it is asserted that the relationship of Mrs Matthey to her children, evinced by unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, mediocre parenting and indifference to their deaths, would enable a jury to infer they were the unfortunate pawns in this strategy to bolster her marital situation,” he wrote.
Justice Coldrey found there was no discernible link between the timing of marital crises and the ALTEs or the deaths: “There is no foundation for the contention that the killings were designed to win back Stephen Matthey’s love and affection.”
While there was evidence of poor mothering, the judge wrote, other reports painted a picture of a woman “who was a concerned, caring and loving mother during the children’s lives, and a distressed and grieving one when they died”.
Mrs Matthey’s lawyer, Paul Lacava, SC, said there were no winners in the case. “Mrs Matthey and her husband have lost their children and their sadness is profound and ongoing.
I find it very strange that it used to be accepted if one baby died from SIDS then there was a chance that further babies could die from SIDS, yet these two women “experts” on a mission claim that it is impossible and that the deaths must be homicide. If this mother did in fact kill her children, then both of these “experts” have done a lot of harm to the prosecution case. The local pathologists, who had more than likely examined the bodies of the babies indicated that there was no scientific evidence of harm being done to the children. Why then should the Prosecution be allowed to build a case based upon the evidence of “experts” who had not performed any forensic pathology on the children. The Judge did the right thing striking down the charges. Carol Matthey does not walk away from the court as a totally free woman, because she could be charged again, but at least justice is seen to be done when a case that is not based upon fact, but upon “experts with a mission” has been struck down because of the lack of real evidence that would lead to a conviction.
Comments
The woman is obviously not innocent. After the first child died (possibly as a result of an unfortunate accident) any responsible parent would take steps to ensure the same thing didn't happen again. But four children? The legal system in Australia is a joke, and those who don't know this are deluded.
I think the main problem is that we (as a society) will not prosecute a woman, regardless of whether she is guilty. Women can get away with just about any crime (but especially crimes against children) and then blame it on hormones, or depression or something like that. A man in the same situation would be locked away for the rest of his life - even if he was innocent.
So to answer your question. Justice (as we know it in Australia) has definitely been served for Ms Matthews - she got what she expected, and she can carry on and have more children that later unexpectedly die. Or she can write a book about her "ordeal" - although this is unlikely given that she has always struck me as a fairly un-educated person.
Solution? Not likely... The entire justice system needs an overhaul, and it will unfortunately not happen in my lifetime.
Posted by: Ephemeral | 09/11/2007
Ephemeral,
I disagree with the thrust of your comments because you do not understand the Australian justice system. In this particular case if there is further evidence that will show that the woman did in fact kill her children then she will go before the courts again.
It is so odd to me, that in this day and age people do not understand that (1) everyone is innocent until proven guilty; and (2) that there are all sorts of reasons why children die, and they have not been murdered by the mother.
There is another case that went before the courts in NSW, where the woman was in fact insane when she killed her children. I believe that it was wrong to convict the woman, given the circumstances of her own children and her insanity. In that case the diary entries were used as a means of getting a conviction, yet if the jury understood anything about what led to those entries then she should have been found not guilty on the grounds of insanity, and placed in the proper kind of care. It was a case where the woman had witnessed her father killing her mother, when she was at the age of 2, and because the trauma was never resolved she feared her own children witnessing the same horrors.
This other case is by no means cut and dried. There was no evidence that the children were smothered by their mother. There is no reason to believe that it was not cot death, after all genetics still play a role as far as unexplained baby deaths are concerned.
The problem with these expert witnesses happens to be that they shoot off at the mouth with their own theories yet, if one looks back to the nineteenth century there were many children who died at an early age. They were not murdered by their parents either. This is something that I discovered in my own family history, where one family lost up to 4 children, the oldest boy was 14 when he died, and the youngest was a day old. It was truly tragic because the mother died in childbirth and a year later the father also died.
The problem with political correctness, and the pursuit of mothers where their babies have suddenly died is in fact political correctness gone mad, can lead to innocent women being arrested and put in jail. There have been several cases where the baby had a rare disorder that caused the death, and the mothers have been accused of arsenic poisoning or something like that, yet, the truth happened to be that the baby in question had a rare genetic disorder.
The facts of this case are such that there are three unexplained deaths, plus a child who died as a result of a common infection due to klebsiella. This should not lead to the mother being placed in custody and charged with the murder of her children. The evidence that was produced lacked anything that was substantial, which is the real reaon why the case has been dropped.
If the police do come up with more substantial evidence then she will be charged again, and that will still indicate that the Australian justice system can work, and justice will be done for those who are in fact innocent of any wrong doing.
Posted by: Maggie | 10/11/2007
Maggie,
I agree that everyone should be perceived as innocent until they are proven guilty. However, what would the Australian legal profession do, if there was more truth and honesty in the justice system? Yep - they would have to find something different to do. Most (if not all) solicitors and lawyers are only interested in lining their pockets (or renovating their house, or that new set of golf clubs) and will do anything to get their client acquitted, regardless of guilt. And we, as a society, sit back and accept it.
As for the case in question... how do you apportion guilt when the "rare genetic condition" may have been caused by toxins that the mother ingested prior to the birth? That could be voluntary toxins like drugs, or something involuntary like the fallout from the local chemical plant. It is in most cases not possible to prove this with any degree of certainity, and "genetic disorder" sounds educated and mysterious enough for the average person to go: "Ahh, yes... genetics - that must be it - the mother is not guilty".
I am not saying that the mother was on drugs while pregnant, or that she goes swimming in the river where the chemical plant releases its waste. I am also not saying that she deliberately murdered her children. However, the responsibility of a parent doesn't start or stop when a child is born. So, as a parent, I still feel that she is guilty (of neglect, or bad parenting - even SIDS can be explained this way).
The problem today isn't that bad things happen - because bad things have always happened. The problem is that no-one wants to take responsibility for their actions, and no-one wants to be honest or truthful about anything. Hence, even if this mother is completely innocent, it is very difficult to believe, because of the track record that we have seen in Australian courts over the past decades - an abundance of lies and deceit, and very little real justice.
Whether in Australia or not, "justice" in the 21st century is driven solely by money. If you have it, then you can be innocent. If you don't, then you have less chance. If you are honest and have no money, then you have no hope at all.
You mentioned "insanity" as a valid reason for being innocent. What message is that sending everyone else? You mustn't kill people, but if you do, then make sure that you can prove you were insane at the time. Your solicitor will be able to help you with this proof.
You also mentioned arsenic poisoning... Cigarettes contain a lot of arsenic, and children before they are born don't reject toxins to the same extent as adults do - so we get "rare disorder" and everyone walks away happy and blameless.
I don't really care whether you (or anyone else reading this) agrees with me - in fact, I expect you won't. However, I am sick and tired of the prevalent sheep-mentality in our society, and if what I say can make people start thinking for themselves (as opposed to just agreeing or disagreeing with me), then I will have done my bit.
Posted by: Ephemeral | 10/11/2007
Ephemeral,
I suggest that you read up on the story instead of shooting off at the mouth and making inferences that are simply not correct. You seem to be inferring that the woman was on drugs, however, that was never a part of the evidence, and the same with the other insinuations.
There has been a case in the USA where a woman was found guilty of the murder of her child because it was claimed that she poisoned the baby. The woman was innocent because the child had a rare genetic condition. Her sister, who was taken away from the mother ended up with the same symptoms, and it was only after that happened, that it was discovered that the woman was innocent.
If more probing was done, instead of finger pointing and being politically correct, then those who have in fact killed their children deliberately will be brought before the courts.
Your responses about insanity and the message it sends is also off the mark because every case needs to be decided properly on its merits. The case refers to a woman from Newcastle - her name is Kathleen Folbigg. She had a definite mental disorder that could be traced back to the violent death of her mother, which she witnessed, and had internalized. This particular case is one that should have led to a verdict of not guilty due to her insanity, and a recommendation that she be placed into an institution and treated for her mental illness. The diary itself was evidence of clear delusional thoughts.
There are some unsolved cases that are more than 30 years old (more than 40 years old probably), and the man responsible is in custody. Records have been found that indicate that he plotted each of the kidnaps and murders of children, and teenagers, and that he had very violent thoughts towards others. Clearly, the man is insane and he will never be brought to justice for those crimes, but the discovery of those documents means that there could be some closure for the families of the victims.
The message here is not for people to plead insanity, which even in this last instance has not happened, but that their cases are judged on their merits and appropriate sentences etc. be given to those who have killed but are not responsible for what they have done because of their insanity.
We should not be judging others, especially by implying things regarding what might have happened prior to giving birth. In a lot of cases where there are claims of links to different things and abnormalities in children, one can find hundreds of children who were not affected.
As for smoking during pregnancy, I am against a pregnant woman smoking, because the unborn baby is more likely to be affected by asthma.
If you knew of the case that I have mentioned where the child died and the mother accused of poisoning the child, then you would not be shooting off at the mouth and pontificating about facts that do not fit into the actual story. There was a rare genetic disorder that caused the child to have a build up in its system. The sibling was also affected, and she had no contact with her mother. The sibling was tested and the disorder was found.
As I have said, all too often people come up with their politically correct ideas, point the finger and blame an innocent party.
In keeping to the subject of the woman who has been freed for the time being, if any concrete evidence turns up that proves the points raised by the so called experts, then the woman will face fresh charges. She did not go to trial and therefore she is in a situation of being neither innocent or guilty, but according to the law of the land, the woman is innocent until proved guilty. The case collapsed because the evidence of the "expert" witnesses was thrown out, and the forensic pathologists who had examined each of the babies do in fact support the mother, not the prosecution.
Whether or not lawyers line their pockets is also irrelevant in discussing the issues surrounding the deaths of these children. What was wrong in this case was an expert who was stating that "more than one baby dying suggests murder", and what I am saying is that this is just someone on a mission, and not someone who has properly examined the case. Justice is served when these expert witnesses are given the flick.
Posted by: Maggie | 11/11/2007
Maggie,
I was neither inferring not implying anything - I was simply suggesting that the "facts" and "evidence" of any court-case are based on a cursory investigation answering the question "what will the public buy?". They will buy "genetic disorder". They will not buy "cellular mutation caused by excessive smoking", because that would make too many other people guilty by proxy... and, by inference, the tobacco companies.
Please understand that I have no idea what Ms Matthey did or didn't do while she was pregnant or afterwards. I agree that each case has to be treated separately, and sweeping generic statements like "genetic disorder" don't fly well.
Still, it would be interesting to turn things around, and put the burden of proof onto the accused, in cases where one or more people have lost their lives. In other words, they are guilty until they can prove, beyond any doubt, that they are innocent.
Having lived in the Newcastle area for almost 20 years, I could not avoid hearing about Matthey, Folbigg, Knight (the woman who butchered her husband and allegedly cooked him up for the evening meal), and even Milat - who I suspect you are referring to. Being inundated with the news as it happens does not really make me wiser as to who is guilty or not. It just makes me wonder why it is necessary for a "case" to drag on for years and years, when there is obvious guilt to be apportioned.
By the same token, because of the sensationalism involved - delivered by the media, but driven from a higher level - it is difficult to know exactly what happened in a given case, unless you are actually the victim or the accused. The rest of us can either rely on the media coverage, or we can form our own opinions, or we can sit back and ignore the show.
I generally never accept what the media serves up, at face value, because most of it is hype, and a lot of it is plain wrong.
Having said that, I do think it is important that more people in Australia start thinking for themselves. It is obvious that it is a big problem, or the current government would have been out the door a long time ago :-D
Posted by: Ephemeral | 11/11/2007
Ephemeral,
when people are wanting to shoot off at the mouth they have a tendency not to read the facts that are placed before them. What you have been doing is making a lot of generalizations about "court cases", which in this instance is unhelpful. The case against the woman was dismissed before it got as far as a trial.
If you had bothered to read the story you would see that almost all of your comments are not relevant where this case is concerned. The prosecution had built up a case that was not based upon solid evidence. The case was built upon the inferences of two "expert" witnesses who, in turn did not have intimate or detailed knowledge of the facts surrounding the deaths of the children. Instead, the "expert" witnesses were on a mission, that they alone must be right in claiming that babies do not die mysteriously but are murdered by their parents, especially if there is a second or third death.
It was the judge who threw out the case after taking a hard look at the evidence that was presented. There was not enough solid evidence to bring about a conviction of this woman. If the case was to be taken before a jury at this point in time, then the woman would have a good chance of walking away from the court as a free woman never to be tried again. What if, after all of that procedure had gone ahead, there was new solid evidence that pointed to the fact a finding of not guilty was in fact wrong? In such an instance there would be no further opportunity to try the woman for any alleged crime.
The woman did not walk away from that court as a totally free and vindicated person. Rather, she still has the case hanging over her head, and if further evidence comes to light, that is evidence that is strong enough to get a conviction, then the prosecution can have another go at bringing her before the court to ask for her to stand trial over the deaths of her children.
There is a new case here in Australia where the parents are being charged with the murder of their 7 year old daughter. With all the publicity that has been given to the case I wonder how it will be possible for a jury to be free of any bias when that pair are brought before the courts. I hope that the police have rock solid evidence to bring about a conviction in this case, but we shall just have to wait and find out what happens next.
I would suggest before offering an opinion, especially one that is general, and not pertaining to the case in question, that you either take the time to read up the whole story, or you at least refrain from the generalizations until you are more familiar wiith the legal procedures in another country.
Posted by: Maggie | 22/11/2007
Post a comment