Robert Farquharson

[FIGJAM]

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.

Do you have access to them? This is all I can find online:


Initial Sentencing (2007):

DPP v Farquharson [2007] VSC 469 - BarNet Jade

The smart way to search, annotate and share Australian legal judgments, decisions and statutes!

jade.io

Supreme Court of Appeal (2009) - Retrial Ordered:

https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/2018-12/Appeal%202009.pdf

 

[Thats Ambitious]

Do you have access to them? This is all I can find online:

Hi Figjam

The easiest way to access is on Jade, with the Court of Appeal decision here: https://jade.io/article/287368

FYI, if you havent used Jade before, you can scroll to the bottom and it will give you the links to all the Court history.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Hi Figjam

The easiest way to access is on Jade, with the Court of Appeal decision here: https://jade.io/article/287368

FYI, if you havent used Jade before, you can scroll to the bottom and it will give you the links to all the Court history.

This is potentially a rabbit hole I'm getting myself deliberately lost in.

Thanks for this link.

 

[_Mike_]

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.

Do you believe that the act of not bothering to call the police, ambulance, or anyone is what a reasonable person would do, especially a parent. Rather tell them dont bother because they're dead?

I dont buy the argument that any parent in that situation, without motive, would do the same.

 

[FIGJAM]

Do you believe that the act of not bothering to call the police, ambulance, or anyone is what a reasonable person would do, especially a parent. Rather tell them dont bother because they're dead?

I dont buy the argument that any parent in that situation, without motive, would do the same.

I'll answer you with an alternate question; if he did kill them, what motive does he have for not getting the lift to calling emergency services?

I mean, this is a supposed 'criminal mastermind' that police allege;

• Had a fathers day dinner and met up with people in Geelong, appearing as calm as a coma other than his presumably fake cold;
• Bought his kids a cricket ball and DVD to 'keep up appearances' that they were going to see a tomorrow;
• Devised a premeditated path through trees and embankments that he took on at pace;
• Executed this premeditated path to perfection without any hiccups that would potentially result in him crippling himself or his kids;
• Had premeditated excuse that is an obscure but known condition (and he did so without any internet access and also faked a cold leading into this);
• Knew that if he opened the door to the car that it will sink in 5 seconds (despite the enactment at trial showing that it takes 8 minutes to sink if you don't open anything);
• Then made up a story that he attempted to save the kids by diving in a number of times, but of course he didn't because he put it into the dam at a point where it was 7.4 metres deep (he presumably had engineering plans to the dam).

After all of the above criminal brilliance, he didn't think to play 'the grieving father' better? He didn't think that getting emergency services in would be a 'good look'? He didn't think to go for a second dive into the dam instead of smoking darts (again, for appearances)?

It's contradictory that he was an ice-cold criminal genius up until the point that his kids were dead and then gave up trying on his elaborate plan.

My take is that it is far more logical that he had a medical episode of cough syncope, had a tragic accident into a dam, opened the door instead of the windows (the latter is recommended!) which saw the car fill up and sink like a stone. He tried to get the boys back, couldn't, knew they were irretrievable and was in effect in a state of shock thereafter. He'd have also been freezing his **** off, which can't help with decision making. He was just 5 minutes from Winch, so going to see the ex wasn't an act of wanting to see her in tears, but was him wanting to explain the tragedy. Getting emergency (read: body retrieval) services there 5 minutes later isn't a big deal. Him smoking on the sidelines rather than risking giving himself another bout of hypothermia by diving in for his kids' bodies isn't that weird either. Farquharson asking about himself isn't a big deal either, as Geoffrey Ferguson who suffered a cough syncope episode in a fatal crash said that he did the same thing (ie. human nature).

Having read some of the trial transcripts, it is extraordinary with how much distain the judges and prosecutors treated cough syncope 'excuse'. It was like Farquharson rolled in with a "dog ate my homework" excuse! But it's as legit as a heart attack and needs far more respect.

 

[Thats Ambitious]

The transcripts do make mention of Farquarson having a previous coughing episode where the car gently rolled on after he tried to stop. He did not pass out at that time however and merely took his foot off the brakes. This sword cuts both ways though, is it proof of a medical issue, or is it proof that Farquarson did not need google to come up with the 'coughing episode' excuse, noting of course that Farquarson did not claim he passed out until after being told about the existence of coughing syncope by a Doctor (who later appeared as an expert witness for the defence).

IMHO it was not premeditated insofar as he did reconnaissance for a definite path through to the dam, only that the dam was the objective. I think it also needs to be said that Farquarson first claimed to have veered off toward the dam due to 'doing' a wheel bearing (which fed into Farquarson's view that he had that he got the older car and the ex got the 'good' car, and so it was the ex's fault the car he had to drive went into the dam).

 

[Zidane98]

The transcripts do make mention of Farquarson having a previous coughing episode where the car gently rolled on after he tried to stop. He did not pass out at that time however and merely took his foot off the brakes. This sword cuts both ways though, is it proof of a medical issue, or is it proof that Farquarson did not need google to come up with the 'coughing episode' excuse, noting of course that Farquarson did not claim he passed out until after being told about the existence of coughing syncope by a Doctor (who later appeared as an expert witness for the defence).

IMHO it was not premeditated insofar as he did reconnaissance for a definite path through to the dam, only that the dam was the objective. I think it also needs to be said that Farquarson first claimed to have veered off toward the dam due to 'doing' a wheel bearing (which fed into Farquarson's view that he had that he got the older car and the ex got the 'good' car, and so it was the ex's fault the car he had to drive went into the dam).

You don't just "do" a wheel bearing. They only fail after being flogged out completely with no grease left. Before a wheel bearing reaches that stage it would be that noisy that it would be simply unbearable.

 

[Irma]

Knowing the location very well, one also must state the the child locks on the rear doors, (were the children sat )were on.
He also managed to lock the car as he exited the vehicle.

- Shane Atkinson, who discovered Farquharson on the side of the road, said Farquharson twice refused to call the 000 emergency number, preferring instead to travel to Winchelsea to tell his wife of his children's fate.

Atkinson also said that Farquharson didn't tell him there were children in the car with him at the time.

I think Atkinson was quoted
" If I had known there were kids in the car I would have jumped in the dam to search for them."

'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

amp.theage.com.au

Someone who’s telling the truth doesn’t have to remember what they said or change their story

I never followed this case that closely mainly because my own children were similar age to the eldest, and I had, and still do, have a hard time when it comes to crimes involving kids. So listening to the podcast was the first time I’ve really taken it all in.

I’m curious though, with the above 2 quotes, they are contradictory. Can anyone who has followed closely tell me if the people who stopped to pick up Farquharson on the side of the road, did or did not know there were kids in the car?

This whole situation is just so heartbreaking. Regardless of guilt, just… those poor kids and what they went through in those last moments

 

[FIGJAM]

Can anyone who has followed closely tell me if the people who stopped to pick up Farquharson on the side of the road, did or did not know there were kids in the car?

You don't just "do" a wheel bearing. They only fail after being flogged out completely with no grease left. Before a wheel bearing reaches that stage it would be that noisy that it would be simply unbearable.

Loading…

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Robert Farquharson also rejected offers from a passing motorist to jump in the dam to try to rescue them, the Victorian Supreme Court has heard today.

The 38-year-old has pleaded not guilty in the Victorian Supreme Court to killing Jai, 10, Tyler, seven, and Bailey, two, by driving them into the seven metre-deep dam in Winchelsea, south-west of Melbourne in September, 2005.

After he drove the boys into the dam he flagged down motorist Shane Atkinson.

Mr Atkinson told the court today he was driving along the Princes Highway toward Geelong when he saw a man on the side of the road waving his arms around vigorously.

He stopped his car and approached the man, Mr Atkinson said.

"I ran over to him and he was running towards me and I just said what the f*** are you doing standing on the side of the road - are you trying to kill yourself?" he said.

"He said he wanted to go back to his missus' house so he could tell her that he had killed his kids.

"He said that he had put his car into a dam and said that he had either had a coughing fit or he had done the wheel bearing."

Mr Atkinson said he and his passenger Tony McClelland both offered to jump in the dam and he refused their offers and asked for a cigarette.

"He just said that it was too late, they were already gone."

Farquharson twice refused to call an ambulance, once at the scene and again in the car on the way back to the house of his estranged wife, Cindy Gambino.

"I just killed the kids … No, no, no, f---, f---, f---! What have I done? … Give me a lift back to Winch. I've got to tell Cindy I've just killed the kids."​

It's a weird case, because I can see why some view Farquharson's behaviour as being odd enough to convict him of infanticide.

That said, I can't view it through that lens, and indeed, I think his behaviour actually supports his case.

As a criminal mastermind, who engineered a chill Fathers Day with his kids at KFC, visited some people who vouch for his good spirits (save for a faked cold for the cough syncope defence that he wasn't yet sure about), bought is kids a cricket ball and DVD that he knew they were never going to use, then with premeditation nailed a 10 out of 10 complex ditch into a dam in the dark at a suitably deep spot, at an insane risk to his own safety, opened the door which meant that any car will sink in seconds and then flagged down a car in the freezing cold in the dark.

Then (and only then!) does his 'mastermindery' within this narrative completely stop.

If viewed through the lens of a murderer, the first words that he utters to the good Samaritans, is literally a confession to murder.

If viewed through the lens of a murderer, he then provides a motive by wanting to drive to his ex's house to 'bask in her misery' as a motive.

As a mastermind, he also wavers between competing excuses for driving off the road with the bung wheel-bearing or cough syncope reasons being in his mind.

This mastermind then does everything wrong with regards to how a grieving father "should" behave.

Or, he had a medical episode, woke up in his car in the water in the pitch dark, didn't know how he got there (hence the wheel bearing or coughing fit as potential reasons), got out, tried to save his kids, couldn't, was freezing his **** off and in shock, then flagged down a car and told them what happened and that the kids were irretrievable, said to drive the whopping 4 minutes to his ex's house rather than call emergency services (again, because he knew the kids were irretrievable), then later stood on the sidelines at the attempted retrieval (again, because he knew...you know the drill!), then asked what was going to happen to him (because his kids were dead and he may have wanted to know if he was going to be charged with negligence...or as it happens...worse!).

Then you're faced with the "witnesses":

Dawn Waite came forward years after the event, was in Colac at the time of the "murder" (had a receipt to prove that), yet saw Farquharson slowing down to intentionally ditch the car and watched him ditch the car, yet didn't stop to help and kept driving to Colac to buy noodles (before the incident even happened; again, the receipt). Fair effort all round!

Then you have Greg King, who claimed that Farquharson told him that he was going to kill his kids, in a dam on Father's Day no less, to get back at his wife. King told his wife apparently, yet she has zero recollection of being informed about a homicidal maniac in Winch. King was facing criminal charges himself at the time when he made these 'extreme' claims. And "extreme" isn't a word that I just made up; the Supreme Court of Appeals that was provided by That's Ambitious linked to refers to King's testimony that is basically the events as they happened as "the extreme version". Now I ain't saying there definitely was coercion here......but ya know.....there obviously was coercion here!

The non-extreme version of King's testimony that involved Farquharson being pissed with his ex and pissed at getting the shit car is obviously believable. This is especially believable, as who isn't miffed at an ex and the VN Commodore is an unbelievably shithouse car!

Once these shonky "witnesses" are dismissed, you're left with the peculiar scenario of a bloke killing all three of his own kids who he loved, out of spite, in a bizarrely risky method, that if attempted intentionally, would have a massive degree of chance of going wrong.

 

[Irma]

Thanks FIGJAM, so it sounds like RF did tell the guys who stopped that the kids were in the car. I wonder where Todman got his info from then?

Throughout listening to the podcast I was jumping from one side to the other, and at the end I’ve landed squarely in the ‘still undecided’ basket. Would’ve hated to be a juror for this. The lady who came forward after 4 years though was seriously questionable. Saying she hung onto the food receipt for all these years and has only now thrown it away, is akin to the dog eating your homework. “Trust me bro.”

 

[maggiethecat]

Loading…

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

It's a weird case, because I can see why some view Farquharson's behaviour as being odd enough to convict him of infanticide.

That said, I can't view it through that lens, and indeed, I think his behaviour actually supports his case.

As a criminal mastermind, who engineered a chill Fathers Day with his kids at KFC, visited some people who vouch for his good spirits (save for a faked cold for the cough syncope defence that he wasn't yet sure about), bought is kids a cricket ball and DVD that he knew they were never going to use, then with premeditation nailed a 10 out of 10 complex ditch into a dam in the dark at a suitably deep spot, at an insane risk to his own safety, opened the door which meant that any car will sink in seconds and then flagged down a car in the freezing cold in the dark.

Then (and only then!) does his 'mastermindery' within this narrative completely stop.

If viewed through the lens of a murderer, the first words that he utters to the good Samaritans, is literally a confession to murder.

If viewed through the lens of a murderer, he then provides a motive by wanting to drive to his ex's house to 'bask in her misery' as a motive.

As a mastermind, he also wavers between competing excuses for driving off the road with the bung wheel-bearing or cough syncope reasons being in his mind.

This mastermind then does everything wrong with regards to how a grieving father "should" behave.

Or, he had a medical episode, woke up in his car in the water in the pitch dark, didn't know how he got there (hence the wheel bearing or coughing fit as potential reasons), got out, tried to save his kids, couldn't, was freezing his **** off and in shock, then flagged down a car and told them what happened and that the kids were irretrievable, said to drive the whopping 4 minutes to his ex's house rather than call emergency services (again, because he knew the kids were irretrievable), then later stood on the sidelines at the attempted retrieval (again, because he knew...you know the drill!), then asked what was going to happen to him (because his kids were dead and he may have wanted to know if he was going to be charged with negligence...or as it happens...worse!).

Then you're faced with the "witnesses":

Dawn Waite came forward years after the event, was in Colac at the time of the "murder" (had a receipt to prove that), yet saw Farquharson slowing down to intentionally ditch the car and watched him ditch the car, yet didn't stop to help and kept driving to Colac to buy noodles (before the incident even happened; again, the receipt). Fair effort all round!

Then you have Greg King, who claimed that Farquharson told him that he was going to kill his kids, in a dam on Father's Day no less, to get back at his wife. King told his wife apparently, yet she has zero recollection of being informed about a homicidal maniac in Winch. King was facing criminal charges himself at the time when he made these 'extreme' claims. And "extreme" isn't a word that I just made up; the Supreme Court of Appeals that was provided by That's Ambitious linked to refers to King's testimony that is basically the events as they happened as "the extreme version". Now I ain't saying there definitely was coercion here......but ya know.....there obviously was coercion here!

The non-extreme version of King's testimony that involved Farquharson being pissed with his ex and pissed at getting the shit car is obviously believable. This is especially believable, as who isn't miffed at an ex and the VN Commodore is an unbelievably shithouse car!

Once these shonky "witnesses" are dismissed, you're left with the peculiar scenario of a bloke killing all three of his own kids who he loved, out of spite, in a bizarrely risky method, that if attempted intentionally, would have a massive degree of chance of going wrong.

Thanks for your insightful post in regards to this.
I also don’t think Robert wanted to go to Cindy’s to rub it in.
I believe he was most likely in shock , still loved Cindy and as she was the person who had seemed to be in control in the family’s past situations, he almost needed her to tell him what to do , to take that control again without considering the emotional state she would be in at the news

 

[FIGJAM]

The other thing I can't get my head around is with the accident hypothesis, everything unfolded just as it did.

With the murder plan, what if the car flipped, broke or hit a tree? Having just had his kids watch him diabolically drive of the road, dies he then just turn to them and say "Errr, sorry boys, I was trying to kill all of you to get back at your Mum, but I kinda ****ed up!"?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Thanks FIGJAM, so it sounds like RF did tell the guys who stopped that the kids were in the car. I wonder where Todman got his info from then?

Throughout listening to the podcast I was jumping from one side to the other, and at the end I’ve landed squarely in the ‘still undecided’ basket. Would’ve hated to be a juror for this. The lady who came forward after 4 years though was seriously questionable. Saying she hung onto the food receipt for all these years and has only now thrown it away, is akin to the dog eating your homework. “Trust me bro.”

I found Dawn Waite to be a complete idiot.