0:00

A Warning. This episode contains references to

0:03

infant loss

0:09

and violence against children. If

0:12

this content affects you, help is

0:14

always available at Red Nose Grief and

0:16

Loss. Dial their 24-7 support line on

0:18

1300 308 307 or call Lifeline on

0:24

13 11 14. Welcome

0:32

to Crime Insider's Forensics. For

0:35

those joining us for the first time, my

0:37

name's Katherine Fox. I'm a

0:39

former GP, crime author and screenwriter.

0:44

I'm enthralled by forensics and have spent

0:46

thousands of hours researching for books and

0:48

screenplays. So, I thought,

0:51

why not turn my research into

0:53

a podcast? Every week,

0:56

you'll be joining me in discovering

0:58

how forensic science is helping solve

1:00

high profile crimes in Australia and

1:02

around the world. This

1:05

week, how forensics and the

1:07

Australian legal system failed

1:10

Kathleen Folbig. The

1:13

jury heard the

1:15

doctor saying yes to

1:17

the prosecutor asking them, really doctor, you

1:19

really think that these babies

1:21

were killed, don't you? Professor

1:26

Stephen Cordner is one of

1:28

Australia's most respected forensic experts.

1:32

In 2021, Stephen

1:34

was one of 90 eminent scientists

1:36

who signed a groundbreaking petition calling

1:38

for the immediate pardon and release

1:40

of Kathleen Folbig. There's

1:42

a much greater

1:45

risk of wrong conviction in

1:47

our criminal justice system than people feel us. In

1:52

2003, Kathleen was convicted

1:54

of killing her four infant children.

1:58

However, based on scientific advances

2:00

in the years following her imprisonment,

2:03

these experts believe Kathleen had

2:05

been wrongfully convicted. We'll

2:09

understand what the evidence was and

2:12

how it changed things for Kathleen, but

2:15

first we'll go back more than 20 years

2:17

to where it all began. Kathleen

2:24

had four children over a 10-year

2:26

period with her husband and

2:30

each of them died suddenly

2:32

and unexpectedly with Caleb who

2:35

died at 19 days, Patrick who

2:38

died at eight and a half months, Sarah

2:41

who died at ten

2:44

months and Laura who

2:46

died at 19

2:49

months. Essentially

2:52

Caleb was 19 days but the circumstances

2:55

of his death were such like he

2:57

was simply found dead in his cot.

3:01

The paediatrician had been looking after him,

3:04

had mentioned that maybe he had

3:06

a bit of a floppy larynx but that's sort

3:08

of not something that concerned

3:11

anybody either then

3:13

or even in retrospect as

3:16

a significant issue. 19 days

3:19

is technically before

3:22

the period when the term

3:24

sudden infant death syndrome

3:27

is comfortably used and essentially

3:29

that was the sort of

3:31

death that Caleb

3:33

had and indeed that was what

3:36

the pathologist who did the autopsy at

3:38

the time concluded. Patrick

3:41

was the second death and

3:46

about four months in

3:48

after he was born he had some

3:50

sort of event where his mother

3:52

came upon him. He was

3:55

taken to hospital And

3:58

was having seizures. as

4:00

a result of days says is he

4:02

hit. By. A Damage. As

4:06

I shouldn't I should be a little be

4:08

careful about tying as a result of

4:10

the says as he had been damaged because

4:12

at the trial. The. By

4:14

and damage was said to be due

4:17

to. Smothering. Sorry.

4:21

I didn't really discover. A

4:23

diagnosis the why had been damage

4:26

at the time. There was. Serious

4:29

consideration given to herpes simplex

4:31

and care for lot is,

4:33

but that diagnosis was never

4:35

made. Some guys upset my

4:37

investigated. For

4:40

everything I could, but I

4:42

couldn't come up with a

4:45

diagnosis. For. Months

4:47

after that diagnosis said he

4:49

had some a disease says

4:51

in mouth I'm have missed

4:53

asked asked see was found

4:55

dead. Or very

4:57

close to destinies. I'm

4:59

caught by his mother

5:01

and an ambulance cold

5:03

again but he was.

5:05

He was dead. There

5:07

was an autopsy and

5:09

to cause of death

5:11

was basically given as

5:13

epileptic seizures. but really.

5:16

The cause of death was

5:19

whatever caused the event for

5:21

months previously been at the

5:24

trial. This death

5:26

was also one that was. Night

5:30

against Kathleen and was eventually

5:32

coming off. As

5:35

well. As well

5:37

as convicted of causing grievous

5:39

bodily harm four months previously.

5:42

Then Sarah. See.the

5:45

bad and months and did have

5:47

a close to death in has

5:49

caught by mother the fact that.

5:53

The. Cast Lanes and all of

5:55

children was held against him

5:57

in the trial Then. 19

6:01

months, everything going swimmingly. She

6:03

had a cold a couple of days

6:05

before she died. There's

6:08

a video of her at

6:10

a party and

6:13

she went for sort of an afternoon

6:15

nap and was found dead

6:18

or dying. At that time she

6:20

wasn't actually pronounced dead until after

6:22

she got to hospital

6:24

I think. At

6:28

the autopsy like all

6:30

of the children there were no signs of

6:32

injury with the exception

6:34

of Sarah who had two

6:37

tiny little scratches on

6:39

her lower lip which all along

6:41

the way everyone has agreed is

6:43

really of no significance and could

6:45

well have been done

6:48

by Sarah herself if not

6:50

having occurred during the resuscitation.

6:52

So none of the

6:54

babies had any injuries, Laura had no

6:57

injuries, Laura had teeth which

7:00

is relevant in the sense that if

7:02

you're going to say that Laura as

7:04

the others were alleged to

7:07

have died if Laura was

7:09

smothered then pressure

7:11

on the mouth might well be

7:13

expected to have left

7:15

some marks on the inside of the lips

7:18

as in her case she had upper

7:21

and lower teeth. So

7:24

the pathologist in that case, in

7:26

Laura's case found that

7:29

her heart had infection,

7:32

inflammation called

7:34

myocarditis but

7:36

notwithstanding that he felt that

7:39

he couldn't conclude

7:42

why Laura died particularly in view of

7:44

the fact that there had been three

7:46

previous deaths in

7:49

the family and

7:52

one thing led to another police involved

7:55

Kathleen Kept Diaries. The

7:58

police got to hear about that. the diaries.

8:01

The husband told police

8:03

about the diaries. He

8:05

was very concerned and he

8:07

handed them over to police.

8:11

The diaries formed a

8:14

very significant part of the prosecution

8:18

case because the prosecution said

8:21

that some of the entries

8:24

were tantamount to confessions. So

8:28

any sort of laxity

8:30

if you like and the medical evidence was

8:32

more than made up

8:35

for the prosecution thought

8:37

by Kathleen Dentries

8:39

in the diaries. Was

8:42

there any evidence that Kathleen's behaviour

8:44

altered after the loss of

8:46

her first child in terms of parenting? In

8:50

general terms the evidence that was available

8:53

at the trial was that Kathleen

8:55

was a good mother that

8:58

yes there were periods when

9:00

she would get fed

9:03

up or had too much of the children

9:05

or needed to hand the

9:07

child over to her husband. But

9:10

generally speaking the people who

9:12

observed her behaviour with the children provided

9:15

no evidence that there was abuse

9:18

of any sort of

9:21

the children. One

9:24

thing that did stand out for me was

9:26

that with Laura the 19 month old she

9:28

was too old to be diagnosed with SIDS

9:30

but she had symptoms of a

9:33

viral infection and then myocarditis inflammation

9:36

of the heart can be caused by

9:38

viruses and it

9:40

can cause arrhythmias which

9:42

are abnormal heart rhythms which can

9:44

cause death. And to me

9:47

that just screamed how

9:50

could somebody dismiss that as a

9:53

potential natural cause of death to the

9:55

point that they had no reasonable doubt

9:58

that This child had been murdered. It. That

10:02

stood out to me as

10:04

horrifying am because as I

10:06

understand seeds it's a diagnosis

10:08

is exclusions more than a

10:10

diagnosis of a cause of

10:12

death. And. Then

10:14

the fourth child Laura head. A

10:16

possible cause of death is with

10:19

my a cut Isis but that

10:21

was glossed over and that was

10:23

when the pathologist notified the police

10:25

about. The. Stray prior children

10:27

and be something suspicious. To

10:30

me that wasn't reading. Certain way.

10:32

It was extremely odd. And

10:35

looking backwards a bit looks

10:37

even odder that at the

10:39

time the perspective was was

10:41

very different. There

10:43

was some a stream of

10:46

thought. The. Stream

10:48

Of and spending nothing people

10:50

thought back then which is

10:53

encapsulated by Meadows. What?

10:55

Called Meadows Law. The.

10:58

American to call it to my as low. Ah,

11:01

which essentially guys like this

11:03

said, one sudden infant death

11:05

in a family is a

11:07

tragedy. To is suspicious

11:09

and three is murder until

11:12

proven otherwise, and that exactly.

11:15

had played out. Some.

11:17

Settling folks case.

11:20

that's. The. Type

11:22

of thinking that a me I

11:24

did. As the enquirer in the

11:26

second inquiry found that this sort

11:28

of thing seems I've just mentioned

11:31

Meadows Law M added the Hall

11:33

persecution. And

11:35

of course, the right way

11:38

to think about days is.

11:40

Where. We didn't know what happened. To

11:43

Caleb. Actually, there

11:45

was some seizures, but we didn't really

11:48

know what happened to Patrick. We.

11:50

Didn't really know what happened to say is.

11:53

And as he just said actually

11:56

says caught a good explanation for.

11:59

Floors Death. I cannot stay lot

12:01

wider think of as death was well

12:03

actually for the first play with really

12:05

know. And.

12:08

The Law and we probably or

12:10

possibly don't on. That

12:13

would have a new out by to think about

12:15

it. so that sort of. thinking.

12:19

That. Mountable. Seeds.

12:22

Mains: Murder. Despite

12:26

the. Presence. Of

12:28

my cat artists in law and.

12:31

Added to that was the thought that.

12:35

You. Could smother a baby and

12:37

leave? No Science. Math

12:40

A very important thing

12:42

to me was. That.

12:45

There were no signs. Now enjoys a

12:47

toll for example in law. Law

12:50

had case she's not a

12:53

months old. I think most

12:55

parents. Would. Agree

12:57

that are now dead months old is not.

13:00

Totally. Weak. Person.

13:04

That actually got some

13:06

ma'am. Strength

13:08

and you can't imagine ethically raised

13:10

about us as had an Ironman

13:12

not a month? Aren't stuck on.

13:16

Smothered Lee. Sin. And have tantrums

13:18

in supermarkets lists a nineteen month

13:20

old. Six seats and I sat.

13:23

And yet there was

13:25

nothing. Not scared, nothing.

13:29

Sod. Rick and. And

13:32

route that that was

13:34

evident against. Smothering

13:36

and lawyers cat sit. There was nothing.

13:53

One of the things that. I

13:55

think she's looked at. In retrospect,

13:58

the definition of us. Cia.

14:01

And. This

14:03

is a word used in strangulations in

14:05

smothering and it's use in popular culture

14:08

a six year. when you see it

14:10

on see a sigh Law and Order

14:12

any of those shows. Means.

14:15

Murder. And. There was

14:17

something that. This. Sort of

14:19

all culminated that the

14:21

International Cessation Forensic Science

14:23

Conference in November in.

14:26

Sydney. The giant one and I was in

14:28

the room. And what

14:30

absolutely shocked me He.

14:34

Was that. Everybody They

14:36

said that there was no universal.

14:39

Definition. Of. The

14:41

would a six year. And

14:43

there was a Canadian facilities stay.

14:46

He said oh yes cause the deaths

14:48

The somebody was swallowing a doable. And

14:51

a compressed the a way and

14:53

that was a six year. That

14:57

won't murder. That wasn't strangulation. that

14:59

was self inflicted. Say that started

15:01

as a conversation with in the

15:03

conversations that we're going around in

15:05

the room. What?

15:08

Do you find when you look at the language

15:10

used in Kathleen Fullbacks trial with reference to the

15:12

was six year. This

15:15

pic series is shaka Have

15:17

a word and should be.

15:21

Sir Richard time do our work

15:24

is for into doctors without using

15:26

the word is six Yeah. That's

15:29

because ah six and as evidence

15:31

for to look at the Urban

15:34

dictionary. Which has

15:36

understanding said people in the state.

15:39

Have of words talks about a

15:42

six year as you just did.

15:44

sort of violent. Ah. Strangling

15:47

usually associated with.

15:49

This. Accompanied. At

15:53

the time we looked at the Urban

15:55

dictionary by an image of a man

15:57

slap on a woman. In

16:00

a very violent. Way. So.

16:05

When the word six year was used

16:07

at the time and it was he

16:09

is some hundreds of times. In

16:12

the six wake car Saturday

16:14

was hearing the word day

16:16

in day out. And

16:19

if their representative of people in

16:21

the state say hundred times I

16:24

would have been hearing. Something

16:27

akin to. Throttling.

16:30

Ah. Even if the

16:32

people using the were taught to say

16:34

what they meant. But. They.

16:38

Lawyers. Would. Have

16:40

been somewhere in between the expect and

16:42

the. And the

16:44

jury in their understanding. The.

16:47

Prosecutor had. A

16:49

particular understanding of dyslexia

16:51

he thought. The. Doctors.

16:55

Were. Saying. That I

16:57

could tell. That.

17:01

From their examination said something had

17:03

interfered with the believing of the

17:05

tilt. That

17:07

what he said in his opening

17:09

and he said the doctors will

17:12

tell you that there has been

17:14

external interference with a position of

17:16

the baby's breathing. May.

17:19

I didn't close with that because

17:21

by that com don't have understood

17:23

to be said. That

17:26

he had a misunderstanding know what it

17:28

was the doctors were gonna say and

17:30

then if you ask the doctors. Thought

17:33

I thought they were saying when that use

17:35

the word a six year or that towel

17:38

way many new said. You know that with

17:40

a low oxygen in the blood. Side

17:43

It means nothing really in that

17:46

context when using it like that

17:48

as fix yet as the not

17:51

equaling low oxygen it really is

17:53

It is not a very helpful

17:55

word for understanding was some I'm

17:58

has died. Did

18:00

you add to that? A

18:02

very common question that the

18:04

prosecutor asked. Of

18:07

all doctors and they were

18:09

non dame doctors who gave

18:11

evidence at the top huge

18:14

number doctor ah and many

18:16

of them were asked. For.

18:18

A tip the for babies so

18:21

doctor where the findings. Are. Consistent.

18:24

With. The. Child

18:26

Caleb. Patrick

18:29

Say are employed. Having.

18:32

Quite. An acute

18:35

catastrophic sixty eight him

18:37

event. On

18:40

a case that was defies

18:42

said the prosecutor years. And.

18:46

I can only imagine that if

18:48

I was in the jury belts

18:50

fearing the bus Key to say

18:53

you know and we're The findings

18:55

are consistent with an acute catastrophic

18:57

is exciting event that j men

18:59

and end all a doctor saying

19:01

yes to all of the babies.

19:04

And thinking in terms

19:06

of allow oxygen seeing.

19:10

The jury wouldn't have been

19:12

human if they didn't hear

19:14

ah, I'm. In a Murder.

19:17

Guy. Head Iraq and the do

19:19

you said the doctor saying

19:21

yes. To the prosecutor

19:23

asking them really doctor You really think

19:26

that these babies were killed Them To.

19:30

To me that's akin to saying in

19:32

it everybody dies, the cardiac arrest, But.

19:34

Not everyone is murdered. He does have

19:37

a cardiac arrest every single day. These

19:39

is eventually coolest by a cardiac arrest.

19:42

And you could equally say every single death

19:44

is a catastrophic as fix the adding of

19:46

interest. I mean this way.

19:48

I wonder? it's

19:51

almost like a game then that

19:53

way as a doing business is

19:55

kathleen follow big slice she's already

19:57

traumatized candidates and school children which

19:59

is inconceivable for most of us. There's

20:01

not even a word in the English language

20:03

for a parent who's lost a child. We

20:07

have words for orphans, we have words

20:09

for widows and widower, but we don't

20:11

have a word to capture

20:14

this kind of grief. So

20:18

trying to imagine Kathleen grieving and

20:20

then being convicted and

20:24

then constantly hearing, there

20:26

must have been the ultimate gas

20:28

light for her to be hearing that

20:30

she was the cause of these catastrophic

20:34

lack of oxygen events and

20:36

then being convicted. How

20:39

long was it before

20:41

the genetic testing was

20:43

applied to Kathleen's children? And was

20:46

it done specifically for that or

20:48

did it just happen that the

20:50

genetic testing evolved and then someone

20:52

thought to apply it back to

20:54

the phobic case? There

20:56

was no genetic testing at

20:58

all done in any

21:01

of the deaths. At

21:04

the time there was no genetic

21:06

testing done in preparation for the

21:08

trial. When I

21:11

wrote my report, I'm

21:14

glad to say that 25

21:16

per cent of the report was

21:19

about discussing

21:23

the potential role for genetics,

21:26

although I did not discover

21:29

or mention myself the

21:32

calmodulin gene. So

21:35

I missed that. Then

21:38

a fabulous person

21:41

in Professor Corolla

21:43

Vinowaso, then

21:46

a professor at ANU,

21:49

who's a Spanish

21:52

doctor who

21:54

had trained

21:57

further in England And

21:59

come out. I endured. she's

22:01

now I fell out of the

22:03

Royal Society says see is one

22:06

of the world's top scientists. Say

22:09

was prevailed upon. Eyes

22:12

supporters and representatives of

22:15

the test name code.

22:18

Code. Vagina. And

22:21

this work was ongoing. At

22:24

the time in the first inquiry. And.

22:28

See. Believe that and

22:30

correctly. As it turns

22:33

out that she had discovered something

22:35

of significance back at the yeah

22:37

I just and cry and now

22:39

the problem for the first inquiry,

22:41

was it it dismissed. Evidence

22:44

and save it. Another group

22:46

is a geneticist. His time

22:48

to a different conclusion. They

22:51

done any work continued after the

22:53

first inquiries and thirty and I

22:56

said I did in evaluated. They.

23:00

Discoveries and we were able

23:02

to conclude that with a

23:04

very odd gray of likelihood

23:06

the. Genetic abnormalities fan

23:08

didn't say or android

23:10

wear pathogenic. That is

23:12

it. They would have caused

23:15

pathological clinical problems for

23:17

Law and Sarah South's and

23:19

that of course. I

23:22

won the day it convince The

23:24

Nandi. Based. Style and

23:27

Sawdust to sign the petition

23:29

and. Ended up convincing

23:31

the Commission of inquiry that

23:33

they was sufficient data sets

23:36

that all come back to

23:38

cover all of in a

23:41

way that who had to

23:43

withstand some pretty serious assaults

23:46

on here professionalism along the

23:48

way. To

23:50

the here our in this in

23:52

this story. Was.

23:55

Getting so big informed that this all the way

23:57

only says skilling on some of that behind the

23:59

same. All. Of our

24:01

long, she's had very good

24:04

legal representatives. Am pro

24:06

bono has to be said about

24:08

our. Not enough credit

24:10

guys to. And I've the

24:12

Journey. I've seen a lot of lawyers

24:14

who do work for clients. The Nothing.

24:17

I don't see the lawyers from

24:20

Kathleen have. Been. Paid

24:22

anything at all along the Disney. The

24:25

state has been very parsimonious to

24:27

Bat. Doing anything, they'll

24:30

cast blame along the way.

24:33

So. Lawyers

24:35

have done here demand for

24:38

her bed. Also Friends says

24:40

he's had a very loyal

24:43

group of friends in L

24:45

A Job Enemies: Dicey Chapman

24:47

is, ah, just. Ah,

24:51

Stood. By their and damn

24:53

pushed and pushed them poked

24:55

and prodded and pen to

24:57

paper and talking to grope

24:59

some people that's with app

25:01

that. Am the submitter.

25:04

Much progress was made. Simply

25:06

wouldn't happen. it's it's a

25:08

very common same and people

25:10

who have in Chile prevail.

25:13

In heavy me wrong conviction

25:15

overturned. did they have a

25:17

very strong support group and

25:19

cause for very many people

25:22

in them person. Getting.

25:24

A strong support mechanism?

25:26

Serious seriously difficult thing

25:28

to do. I

25:30

think one thing that lee summit into this

25:32

that can see did exhaust all who has

25:35

nice repeal. But. That

25:37

was prior to the genetic testing.

25:39

Being. Available. See. was

25:41

wrongly convicted they foresee was

25:44

wrongly imprisoned ah it can

25:46

be really interesting to say

25:49

how the government in the

25:51

south wales deals with compensation

25:53

compensation is not available by

25:56

right in new south wales

25:58

it's discretion and

26:00

it's a discretion for the Attorney General to

26:04

exercise on behalf of the government. So

26:08

if the government looks to

26:10

another case, the one in the ACT, where

26:14

the man wrongly convicted

26:16

for the murder of the

26:20

Assistant Commissioner down there, the

26:22

government originally offered him two million,

26:27

he was able to appeal

26:30

and say that the amount

26:32

offered to him by discretion simply didn't

26:35

meet a legal standard that

26:38

they had in the ACT. Well in the New

26:40

South Wales that's just not possible. Kathleen

26:42

Follbig will get whatever the Attorney

26:45

General decides, and

26:47

that will not be able to be, as I

26:50

understand it, appealed or argued with.

26:54

Stephen, what would you like to see happen so

26:57

that a case like Kathleen Follbig

26:59

doesn't happen again? That's

27:03

a huge question. I mean

27:06

the first thing I'd just reiterate is that

27:08

Australia does need a Criminal Cases Review Commission,

27:12

and that would allow people in

27:14

Kathleen's position at least after their

27:17

conviction to have

27:20

another way of getting

27:22

their case looked at. And

27:24

if you're, just imagine being wrongly convicted

27:26

and sitting in jail, your options are

27:29

almost nil in terms

27:31

of establishing your wrong conviction.

27:34

But your question really was how

27:36

to prevent Kathleen's

27:38

experience happening in the

27:41

first place. And

27:43

I'm not sure, Kathy,

27:47

that the legal system, the criminal

27:49

justice system, and I've

27:51

been a servant of the criminal justice system for

27:53

40 years, I

27:57

don't think the criminal justice system

27:59

is. is completely broken or

28:03

needs to be thrown out and start from

28:05

the beginning again. I think

28:08

Australia's got a

28:11

reasonable criminal

28:13

justice system but

28:15

it is definitely not

28:17

perfect and I don't

28:21

see the criminal justice

28:23

system operating as a system. I

28:26

see it operating as a whole

28:29

lot of silos and

28:33

there's some sort of structural justification to

28:35

that. I mean judges would say,

28:37

well we have to be a silo, we've

28:40

got to be separate and

28:42

I sort of obviously

28:45

see and understand that

28:48

but systems such

28:52

as many people understand them, making

28:54

a motor car involves a

28:56

system that self-corrects. It has

28:58

a whole subsystem of

29:01

identifying errors or near

29:03

mistakes that feed back

29:06

into the system so that it

29:09

can correct, so that those mistakes

29:13

or near misses don't happen again

29:16

and there's

29:18

a whole science really,

29:20

there's a whole literature about how that

29:23

works. I don't

29:25

see that happening in the criminal

29:27

justice system. When things go wrong,

29:29

who's the person who's supposed to

29:32

inquire into that, discover

29:35

what went wrong, engage

29:38

the relevant stakeholders

29:42

and ensure that the remedies are

29:44

put in place? There's nobody as

29:46

far as I can see whose

29:48

role is to do that and

29:52

until there is such a thing, these

29:55

things are going to happen again. If

29:57

you go into a public hospital, everybody

30:00

sort of got a little bit of an understanding that

30:03

going into a hospital you

30:06

know is where you need to go

30:08

to have your illness or injury

30:11

fixed but they know that

30:13

things can go wrong in hospitals. Every

30:16

self-respecting hospital in Australia has

30:18

a quality system

30:21

which is geared to

30:25

making sure that if something goes wrong or nearly

30:27

goes wrong that they fix it quickly because that's

30:29

going to come back and bite them. I

30:32

don't see the same thing in

30:34

the justice system. I

30:38

think there's a much greater

30:41

risk of wrong conviction in our

30:43

criminal justice system than people feel us. Stephen

30:47

this has been really informative

30:49

and disturbing at the same time

30:52

as to how such a miscarriage of justice

30:54

can take place in Australia but

30:57

I'm very glad that finally Kathleen Folbig

31:00

is free and that

31:02

science and forensic science have definitely

31:04

helped her in proving

31:09

her innocence for want of a

31:11

better description. So thank you

31:13

so much for joining us. Thank you very much for

31:15

asking me. Crime

31:25

Inciders Forensics is a listener

31:27

original production. It's hosted by

31:29

me Katherine Fox and is produced

31:31

by Ed Gooden. Sound design

31:33

and imaging is my link to Kelly.