They just did
Robert Farquharson
- Thread starter Flawed Genius
- Start date
- Tagged users None
They just did
I don’t get that video of the car being gently lowered into the water and 8 minutes of floating. Surely the car was driving at speed?
craffles
Brownlow Medallist
There was enough in that show to warrant at least a hearing to see whether an appeal has grounds.
Didn't Nine say that he flagged down a car and got a lift?
I'm not saying that his behaviour after the event was normal, but it's not like he would be rocking a waterproof smartphone in 2005. In 2005, some older people and especially those in the country might not have even had one.
It's a strange set of events no matter which way you want to spin it. From his perspective, what I don't understand is that if the police contend that he wanted to kill his kids for revenge, then wouldn't he just admit it like Arthur Freeman (he took the mental illness route, but you know what I mean)?
Plus, if you're veering a car towards a dark void of water that you presumably knew was there, did he back himself to get out of the car alive, or was he aiming for a murder suicide and just bottled it? And how would he have known that he was not going to hit a tree which might have only killed himself?
Last edited:
First time poster on B.F. I've always felt R.F. was wrongfully convicted especially after the prosecution Medical Officer stating he was unaware of a condition of blacking out after a coughing fit. I myself fell into much the same condition as R.F. at the exact time. I had a virus, on B.P. medication, ex-smoker and slightly overweight. I would start coughing with this virus and basically pass out. This happened around 3 times in a week or so. Luckily, I was always at home and not driving.
Last night's show also doubted the theory he made a conscious decision to avoid a tree to steer into the dam. The change of direction was more than likely when he collided with the fence. IMHO, a very unfortunate chain of events led to a catastrophic accident.
Last night's show also doubted the theory he made a conscious decision to avoid a tree to steer into the dam. The change of direction was more than likely when he collided with the fence. IMHO, a very unfortunate chain of events led to a catastrophic accident.
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 35,056
- 34,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #31
Had he have been picked up, why go to his ex-wives house & turn up 3 hrs later... wouldnt the normal thing to do would be to ask the motorist to either call 000 or drive anywhere close to the nearest phone. - even 000 from a payphone worked back then and wouldnt take 3 hours to find one.
His whole story is bizzare, so was his demeanor during the police interviews
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 35,056
- 34,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #32
Medical episodes happen... Cant argue with that statement and Im not qualified in the medical field to give a statement of fact.
Although, a reasonable person who's lost 3 children doesnt wait 3 hours and go to their ex-partner's house to tell them their kids are dead before calling for assistance via 000
Where are you getting the 3 hours from?
Also, it was 3 kilometres from Winchelsea which is tiny, so why **** around trying to find a payphone in the town when he can use his ex's?
I don't disagree that some aspects of his demeanour are odd, but could that not be brought down to him being both in extreme trauma and perhaps being a bit emotionally stunted to begin with?
I don't know what happened, but ultimately for this to be murder, Farquharson had to be a stone cold psychopath to do what he did, because he would have had to premeditatively sought out the dam, thought that this might be the best place to ditch my car with myself and my 3 kids in it, smashed some Maccas at Waurn Ponds (or wherever!) for Father's Day and then at 7.15pm which is pitch black in September, expertly veered the car at pace into a farm, missing a heap of trees, boulders, ditches and undulations, before landing in the dam, all whilst backing himself to escape and hope that none of the boys escape.
Again, I don't know what happened, but that's psychpathic for both the crime itself and for the belief you could actually pull that off without a hitch!
FWIW, the farm owner stated that 7 cars crashed through his fence in 8 years, but none had hit the dam.
ApplesandBananas
Draftee
- Nov 26, 2021
- 12
- 23
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
i wonder if he is autistic. That is, his response post the accident and how he presented. To be clear, he is not devoid of empathy, nor are autistic people. However that particular neurotype fits into how he has allegedly presented, and processed the events.
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 35,056
- 34,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #35
'I've just killed my kids,'' were among the first words he said to the two men who stopped. All he could think about was the boys' mother, he recalled, demanding that they take him so he could tell her. ''It's just something I had to do, I can't explain it,'' he said. ''She's the mother of my children and I wanted to tell her I had an accident.''
He refused the men's offer of a mobile phone to call police and told them there was no point in jumping into the dam. It was too late. They're ''already gone'', he said.
Also inexplicable is why his story changed from a wheel bearing to a coughing fit to blacking out and a chest pain, when later speaking to Ms Gambino, police and paramedics at the scene.
''I'm trying to fill the gaps myself, to find out why this accident happened,'' he explained during intense cross-examination by prosecutor Andrew Tinney, SC, about the many holes in his ever-changing story. He was upset, in shock and traumatised, he explained
Farquharson - the man behind the nightmare
Robert Farquharson has again been found guilty of murdering his three sons.
Someone who’s telling the truth doesn’t have to remember what they said or change their story
The above there is not inexplicable and ties in with his claim that he tried to free the boys by the car went down like a lead brick. He ultimately knew the cabin was filling with water and that the boys couldn't get out. They'd have sadly been dead within a minute or two.
Him murmuring about a coughing fit which literally raises pressure in your chest area before unconsciousness is consistent with cough synbcophe.
Him waffling on about a VN Commodoore's problems also shouldn't be surprising given that it's one of the worst made Aussie cars of all time.
What is most extraordinary and damning is the claim of his mate Greg King that he's going to do exactly what he said he was going to do 8-months to the day.
It's so accurate in line with the actual events, in my opinion, to be unbelievable.
And the eye witness' story has glaring timing holes in it and should be disregarded. "Witnesses" reconstruct thnigs often in their minds
Of course, Farquharr, in addition to absolutely nailing the landing into the dam in the dark, had to be brilliant enough to come up with a medical episode as obscure as cough syncope. I didn't know you could even knock yourself out with a coughing fit until the 60 Minutes episode.
The bloke's either a psychopath, playing a long game with an element of 'playing dumb evil genius', who's also actually dumb enough to attempt the dam ditching effort despite all of its unknowns, or he's a down on his luck country town simpleton who was unfortunate enough to have a known medical episode that leads to unconsciousness.
Again, I don't know what happened, but if the above shakey witness reports and 8 minute submergence demonstration of a VN Commodore lifted via a crane in shallower water with no forward volition with all doors and windows closed are the primary evidentiary pieces that have lead to conviction, then I'd be wanting more than that as a juror. But if you think that a car will actually take 8 minutes to sink and then believe the witnesses, then I can see why he was convicted.
This article here has a good detailed chain of events as to the pick up by the passing driver:
The kids are in the water
Father's Day 2005 was the darkest of days for Cindy Gambino, her ex-husband Robert Farquharson and their three boys. Megan Norris recounts the tragedy.
maggiethecat
Senior List
- Oct 30, 2021
- 222
- 498
- AFL Club
- Richmond
This is such a sad strange story.
I just finished reading Helen Garners book and am convinced he’s guilty but listening to the Podcast , I’m beginning to have second thoughts.
He certainly comes across as being either incredibly stupid or maybe on the spectrum. His behavior afterwards was very questionable when he went to Cindy’s place to tell her instead of getting someone to call the police but who knows how any of us would act in this situation?
I just finished reading Helen Garners book and am convinced he’s guilty but listening to the Podcast , I’m beginning to have second thoughts.
He certainly comes across as being either incredibly stupid or maybe on the spectrum. His behavior afterwards was very questionable when he went to Cindy’s place to tell her instead of getting someone to call the police but who knows how any of us would act in this situation?
I've finished The Age podcast. I've changed my mind on various true crime docos / podcasts over time and am appreciative of the fact that they all have an inherent bias and this one is obviously tilted towards innocence. But on facts, this conviction doesn't pass the pub test for mine.
Guilty Narrative: Farquharson coldly an calculatedly planned to drive his car and children into a dam near Winch, with the knowledge that it was suitably deep enough to sink a car and that at speed he'd plant it in a deep enough section, at pace, whilst avoiding trees with "three steering inputs" that would require the driving skills of a rally driver in a VN Commodore, all in pitch darkness.
Despite his cunning plan, he told a mate exactly what he was going to do months beforehand, including nominating Father's Day specifically.
He was seen driving by a "witness" who came forward 4 years after the event, who drove passed him and saw him veer off, without rendering assistance and despite the fact that the witness had kept a receipt for her #23 noodles purchased in Colac at 7.15pm, about the same time as the crash.
As a part of his elaborate ruse, he visited a mate and invited him for a bite. After a Zinger, he bought the boys a cricket ball and video from Kmart. Then he visited his sister. Didn't appear nervous at any point to the people he encountered, despite the fact that he was just about to potentially kill himself in order kill his kids.
After his stellar ditching of the car in the dam, he then watched his VN slowly sink over an 8 minute period, because that's how long it takes to sink if you don't open a door or window and lower it onto a dam with a pully system. In this time, the older boys didn't manage to free themselves and Farquharson knew that they wouldn't or couldn't.
For the record, all three boys were recovered out of their seatbelts. Farquharson has subsequently kept up this elaborate ruse by crying on the phone to his sister (prison recorded call) and in the dock at a trial when he found out about the fact that his kids had their seatbelts undone.
Despite not having access to the internet (bearing in mind that it was 2005 and he lived in the country) and having never visited a library, he ingeniously found out that cough syncope/fainting was a verifiable medical issue that he could fall back on as an excuse. He then feigned a cold for a week beforehand. He didn't bank on the majority of people thinking that fainting due to coughing was complete bullshit, despite the fact that it has been recorded since 1876 and the fact that a doctor in Geelong verified that this is what happened and had extensive experience with cough syncope.
His motive was obvious; he wanted to get back at his ex and did so by callously killing her/his own kids. He did so with malice to get back at her, despite the fact that he never admitted to it.
Putting aside the fact that Farquharson apparently told a mate in the street of his intentions to the day, his plan was absolute genius, with the cough syncope excuse locked and loaded and the rally driving between trees executed to a perfect standard, he then failed to carry on the ruse post the event in watching on from the dam and smoking darts, instead of swimming in the dam pretending to try to find kids that he knew were already dead (guilty or not guilty, this is a fact).
Having watched from the dam edge for 8 minutes to ensure that the kids died, with none of them having escaped from the car despite releasing their seatbelts, he then flagged a car down and hitched a ride to Winchelsea (just a couple of minutes away) to see his ex and to bask in her pain. Despite the elaborate ruse, he continued to deny that it was anything other than an accident and dropped "grieving father" act to dare ask "what's going to happen to me".
Farquharson failed to act in the way a grieving father should. He is therefore guilty by demeanour, which is fair enough, because this has never lead to a incorrect verdict in Australian history.
Not-Guilty Narrative: Farquharson had a medical episode.
Guilty Narrative: Farquharson coldly an calculatedly planned to drive his car and children into a dam near Winch, with the knowledge that it was suitably deep enough to sink a car and that at speed he'd plant it in a deep enough section, at pace, whilst avoiding trees with "three steering inputs" that would require the driving skills of a rally driver in a VN Commodore, all in pitch darkness.
Despite his cunning plan, he told a mate exactly what he was going to do months beforehand, including nominating Father's Day specifically.
He was seen driving by a "witness" who came forward 4 years after the event, who drove passed him and saw him veer off, without rendering assistance and despite the fact that the witness had kept a receipt for her #23 noodles purchased in Colac at 7.15pm, about the same time as the crash.
As a part of his elaborate ruse, he visited a mate and invited him for a bite. After a Zinger, he bought the boys a cricket ball and video from Kmart. Then he visited his sister. Didn't appear nervous at any point to the people he encountered, despite the fact that he was just about to potentially kill himself in order kill his kids.
After his stellar ditching of the car in the dam, he then watched his VN slowly sink over an 8 minute period, because that's how long it takes to sink if you don't open a door or window and lower it onto a dam with a pully system. In this time, the older boys didn't manage to free themselves and Farquharson knew that they wouldn't or couldn't.
For the record, all three boys were recovered out of their seatbelts. Farquharson has subsequently kept up this elaborate ruse by crying on the phone to his sister (prison recorded call) and in the dock at a trial when he found out about the fact that his kids had their seatbelts undone.
Despite not having access to the internet (bearing in mind that it was 2005 and he lived in the country) and having never visited a library, he ingeniously found out that cough syncope/fainting was a verifiable medical issue that he could fall back on as an excuse. He then feigned a cold for a week beforehand. He didn't bank on the majority of people thinking that fainting due to coughing was complete bullshit, despite the fact that it has been recorded since 1876 and the fact that a doctor in Geelong verified that this is what happened and had extensive experience with cough syncope.
His motive was obvious; he wanted to get back at his ex and did so by callously killing her/his own kids. He did so with malice to get back at her, despite the fact that he never admitted to it.
Putting aside the fact that Farquharson apparently told a mate in the street of his intentions to the day, his plan was absolute genius, with the cough syncope excuse locked and loaded and the rally driving between trees executed to a perfect standard, he then failed to carry on the ruse post the event in watching on from the dam and smoking darts, instead of swimming in the dam pretending to try to find kids that he knew were already dead (guilty or not guilty, this is a fact).
Having watched from the dam edge for 8 minutes to ensure that the kids died, with none of them having escaped from the car despite releasing their seatbelts, he then flagged a car down and hitched a ride to Winchelsea (just a couple of minutes away) to see his ex and to bask in her pain. Despite the elaborate ruse, he continued to deny that it was anything other than an accident and dropped "grieving father" act to dare ask "what's going to happen to me".
Farquharson failed to act in the way a grieving father should. He is therefore guilty by demeanour, which is fair enough, because this has never lead to a incorrect verdict in Australian history.
Not-Guilty Narrative: Farquharson had a medical episode.
Thats Ambitious
Debutant
- Apr 13, 2011
- 112
- 238
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- German sycronised weight-lifting
It was my understanding that only the eldest son had his seatbelt undone, and that it appeared he was trying to rescue his brothers.
The Dr who appeared at trial for the defence was the one who raised the coughing syncope, and is quoted that Farquharson told him that he "didnt know what happened".
Also, we are not talking of a criminal mastermind here. Twice it has been found that it was a conscious decision by a father to kill his children, all to get back at his ex because she had moved on (and also because he had to drive the older Commodore and she got the newer car in the split... yes seriously). Sadly it is nothing more than that.
The reason that the alternate theories gain traction is because for almost all of us it is so very hard to comprehend someone doing what Farquharson did.
The Dr who appeared at trial for the defence was the one who raised the coughing syncope, and is quoted that Farquharson told him that he "didnt know what happened".
Also, we are not talking of a criminal mastermind here. Twice it has been found that it was a conscious decision by a father to kill his children, all to get back at his ex because she had moved on (and also because he had to drive the older Commodore and she got the newer car in the split... yes seriously). Sadly it is nothing more than that.
The reason that the alternate theories gain traction is because for almost all of us it is so very hard to comprehend someone doing what Farquharson did.
- Jul 23, 2010
- 5,816
- 4,254
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
i hope he's guilty.
the podcast was an interesting listen, though clearly had a pro-RF slant.
i don't know whether he did or not (though i think it's more likley than not that he did do it). what i do know is that different people react differently to different situations, particularly extreme ones.
everyone you speak to including some of the people on the podcast, and including me when this happened judges him because he wasn't in the water but was bumming ciggies and asking to be driven to his ex's place.
he seems like a terrible, weak, pathetic bloke. but having only listened to the side presented in the podcast, that alone doesn't mean he's guilty of murder.
- Feb 8, 2023
- 483
- 1,415
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Dunno about your driving training, but I would suggest that reasonable people would, if faced with an uncontrolable coughing fit would slow down and pull to the left of the road, especially if your 3 kids were in the car
It was not as if he had a stroke or seizure which caused an instant loss of consciousness and total loss control of motor control
I've seen my wife suffer a sudden onset severe asthma attack whilst driving; the first thing she did was take her foot off the throttle and look for a place to pull over by the time she managed to get her second breath
That was only with me in the car
Many years off misspent youth with sick handbrake slides and donuts!
My general stupidity as a teenager is also why I think the 'intentionally ditching a car through a heap of trees in the dark just after the rail overpass, over embankments, avoiding rocks or trees and landing it perfectly in the drink' argument is moronic. There are way too many things that can go wrong in that scenario.Your argument would dictate that Geoffrey Ferguson who was mentioned in the Nine News articles and also suffered cough syncope "should" have pulled over and gotten over his coughing fit, instead of engaging in 'culpable driving' of which he was found guilty, by not slowing down and pulling over when he had an episode.
Neither had lifelong asthma and neither had any idea that you could knock yourself out by coughing (unless of course you subscribe to the idea that Farquharson is a criminal mastermind that had cough syncope already lined up, which I've detailed above as being quite ridiculous).
Ferguson and Farquharson have a lot of similarities with regards to post-event reactions too.
Geoffrey’s killer cough put him in jail. A phone call to his brother got him out
The truck driver is not sure if convicted murderer Robert Farquharson is innocent – but he can see similarities with his own unjust imprisonment.
I wouldn't put my life on Farquharson on not having done it intentionally, but I'd put clearing my mortgage versus doubling my mortgage on it. None of it washes for mine and I personally don't think his post event behaviour was that weird. His behaviour, coupled with some junk science, has however caused enough emotional damage to convict him multiple times and sustain many in the public's opinion of him as an infancidal maniac.
Last edited:
- Sep 22, 2011
- 42,312
- 92,708
- AFL Club
- Essendon
No idea if he did it or not.
What I do know, after listening to the latest, is that there’s no way I could find him guilty BRD if presented with that case.
What I do know, after listening to the latest, is that there’s no way I could find him guilty BRD if presented with that case.
- Aug 7, 2004
- 8,540
- 7,357
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Have you been to the scene of the crime?Many years off misspent youth with sick handbrake slides and donuts!
Nope!
Used to do a lot of work down the Bellarine and knew the road well before if became a dual lane highway.
The owner of the farm claimed to have had a heap of cars crash through the fence, so seems like it's a bit of a magnet.
- Jul 3, 2001
- 22,526
- 9,512
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Heat, Victory, Man Utd, Redskins
Few questions…
Do they think there was any accelerator use from the road to the dam?
Was there sufficient time for any of the kids to grab the wheel? One turn could have made a big difference.
Any thoughts this could be a family suicide attempt that RF bailed on?
Does the ex wife think he is guilty? I tend to think her opinion would carry a lot of weight knowing him well, but of course grief could impair judgement.
Do they think there was any accelerator use from the road to the dam?
Was there sufficient time for any of the kids to grab the wheel? One turn could have made a big difference.
Any thoughts this could be a family suicide attempt that RF bailed on?
Does the ex wife think he is guilty? I tend to think her opinion would carry a lot of weight knowing him well, but of course grief could impair judgement.
Yes.
This is by prosecutor Andrew Tinney SC, who was clearly being sarcastic in his delivery:
On the bolded:
1. It's not unusual.
2. So he's a criminal mastermind who looked up couch syncope, pretended to have it and then said it was his first time rather than a recurring issue, which as seen above was detrimental to his case?
If read without the facetiousness, I agree with a large amount of the prosecutor's statements. It's amazing how much emphasis and tone can influence the exact same words!
All were in the back seat with their seatbelts undone. Probably zero time to do anything other than scream and brace sadly.
That would completely put doubt the police and prosecution's narrative that he ditched and bailed to see the look on his ex-wife's face and bask in her misery, so it's never been suggested that I can tell.
The other extreme scenario other than accidentally or deliberately killing himself in the process of his random bout of infanticide, that could have quite easily happened, is that he made himself (and or his kids) quadriplegic(s).
And he just set about his day leading up to this "planned" murder attempt that had him front and centre of getting hurt if he hit a tree? I just can't fathom the logic of this narrative!
To mess with your head, she through he was innocent at first and then guilty later. I think her change of mind came after this "eye-witness" came forward:
‘Fried noodles #23’: Witness’s new detail raises crucial question in Farquharson case
Dawn Waite’s evidence excited police, swayed Robert Farquharson’s ex-wife against him and was held to be crucial by the judge. But it might well have been impossible.
Last edited:
- Sep 22, 2011
- 42,312
- 92,708
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I found Dawn Waite totally ridiculous. Perhaps it’s the way the pod presented her but she just came forward, four years after the event, gave some story about something she saw on the night, and her only backup was “oh I’ve always had a really good memory.” Honestly, she sounded like a moron.
The other factor since revealed in a bonus episode casts doubt on another supposedly “crucial” fact - that RF “refused” to call the emergency services as soon as possible. Two men driving past were first on the scene after being hailed by RF, and there’s actually nothing in their evidence that suggests they had a phone on them that they “offered” to RF to call 000.
Their own evidence strongly suggests they didn’t. They went to the nearest cop shop (closed) and started banging on the front door. Why not just call?
It all seemed a bit strange anyway. They offered the phone to RF, he refused and that was it? If they had a phone, once you had your head around what had happened, couldn’t you just call 000 yourself?? It’s clearly a major emergency, what, the one survivor says “nah don’t call” and you just accept that and don’t make the call?
The other factor since revealed in a bonus episode casts doubt on another supposedly “crucial” fact - that RF “refused” to call the emergency services as soon as possible. Two men driving past were first on the scene after being hailed by RF, and there’s actually nothing in their evidence that suggests they had a phone on them that they “offered” to RF to call 000.
Their own evidence strongly suggests they didn’t. They went to the nearest cop shop (closed) and started banging on the front door. Why not just call?
It all seemed a bit strange anyway. They offered the phone to RF, he refused and that was it? If they had a phone, once you had your head around what had happened, couldn’t you just call 000 yourself?? It’s clearly a major emergency, what, the one survivor says “nah don’t call” and you just accept that and don’t make the call?
Thats Ambitious
Debutant
- Apr 13, 2011
- 112
- 238
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- German sycronised weight-lifting
Anyone swayed by the podcast should probably take a read through the original trial, the re-trial, the 2010 judgement and the appeal. A great deal of the 'inconsistencies' and 'unanswered questions' that have been suggested in the podcast have actually been dealt with.
