I really can't comment on any illness she may or may not have been diagnosed to have, although I at least have to acknowledge the reality that the condition may mean she is not in control of what she says.
However, I would still hope that the charities can be made whole. Either through remaining proceeds or sales of assets. I fear that if Australia has anything like the British limited company that assets may now be owned by her personally and this just may not be possible.
This is a tough philosophical position. If a person does not have free will (that is, does not have control over what they say), do they have liability for their actions?
I don't know what the law in Australia says on the matter, but again I would hope that whilst the condition might be taken into account in sentencing, she would stand [fair] trial for the appropriate crimes. Being a convicted fraudster might at least give people in the future a heads up that she may not be telling the truth. And whatever the reason she is not telling the truth (medical or intentional) the fact remains she has lied, and is likely (perhaps even more likely if it's medical) to do so again.
It's a sad situation, people who took hope from her "story", and perhaps invested in it by purchasing her products, must be gutted. Charitable organisations have been denied pledged funds. This really is no silver lining to this story from whatever angle.
I must admit, I do find her surprise at people's negative reactions (and I hope that the negative reactions are NOT physically threatening... two wrongs don't make a right) more than a little off. Perhaps that's another symptom.
Anyway, I hope that those who were taken in can find a way forward, that those who were promised things get them, and that she is not able to do this again.