Matthew Farwell Believed WHAT About Sandra’s Baby?!

SPEAKER_1 (0:00)

This is The Big Breakdown, a long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today.

Tony Brueski (0:09)

Let's move over to another one, trial starting next week, jury selection still underway as of this recording. Prosecutors say Sandra Birchmore was 23 and pregnant when Matthew Farwell, a police officer, strangled her to keep her from exposing years of ass abuse, then made her death look like an ass. Farwell has pled not guilty, and there's detailed prosecutors have to account for DNA, DNA testing excluded him as the baby's father. Their argument is that his messages show he believed he was the father when Sandra died. When you're explaining the alleged motive to a jury, I mean, how much turns on what he believed he stood to lose at that moment in time. Eric Faddis is with us, defense attorney, former prosecutor along with Robin Drake, retired FBI special agency for the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program.

Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting way that they're going to probably try and argue this, where it's like, well, see, he's not even the father. Well, he sure thought he was at the time. What does it mean to this case, Eric?

Eric Faddis (1:19)

So what is pivotal is not the actual reality, but it is the defendant's perceived reality, what they thought, because that's what gives rise to a possible motive. You know, even if it turns out he wasn't the father, which it sounds like he wasn't, if he thought he was, that folds in to a motive to want to prevent this reputation damaging and problematic event from taking place, you know, having a child with an underage victim.

And so the fact that he thought that it was his own child, that's what is central here. The fact that it's not doesn't really matter. And in fact, if I'm a prosecutor, I might be moving to exclude that because that whether he was actually the father doesn't matter whether he thought he was done.

Robin Drake (2:11)

And from what I read, again, both of you all correct me if I'm wrong on this. I don't want to be inaccurate. But from what I read, they're not bringing in there or they're not planning on bringing in or can't bring in. That's what my question, Eric, is any of that back history of her basically being groomed by him in that program?

Eric Faddis (2:28)

No, it's going in.

Robin Drake (2:29)

Is it? All right, that's good. Yeah. And so what kind of so then that's an easier question. So Eric, what kind of impacts that guy is obviously going to have on the prosecution, I mean, on the defense as well?

Eric Faddis (2:40)

Gosh, I mean, just think about how stomach churning, hearing that kind of evidence is that this person, not just any adult, but a police officer, a person who was in a position of trust with respect to this alleged victim, and to then took measures allegedly to manipulate her, to cause her to be open, to do his bidding and what he wanted, and then when it got too out of hand, he allegedly took her life. I mean, the grooming precursor to that just kind of makes your hair stand up on your neck a little bit. It's going to do that to the jury. Defense is going to have a big uphill battle trying to neutralize that piece of it.

Tony Brueski (3:21)

Yeah, I mean, the allegations of the S-abuse go all the way back to when she was a minor. She was 24, I believe, at the time of her death, but it traces all the way back, allegedly, to those teen years. Allegedly, he met her when she was like 12

Eric Faddis (3:38)

12, 12 to 13

Tony Brueski (3:39)

In the Explorer program, and then it, I was going to say developed, because that sounds like a fucking weird word to use with an adult and a kid, but it developed into whatever that was, a predator grooming a child, basically.

And she thought it was, you know, love. And he thought it was a side thing with his wife over here and his kid over here and a child over here. It's insane.

But, you know, to serve and protect. The first official answer that was thrown down here and where this case stood for a long time was S. It took the federal government, a federal investigation, which is why this is in a federal court, to actually go, Yeah, you know what? This is bizarre. There's a strap here from a bag that seems to be used as the actual cause of death or the murder weapon, as it's now more so being looked at. And there's DNA from an officer on that strap. And, oh, by the way, it's on a door handle, one to which she was sitting down and hung herself somehow. But again, the first official answer was S. Prosecutors have medical experts who say Sandra was killed by strangulation. If you're at the prosecutor table, there's going to be those two things that will be presented in court to a certain extent. And the juror who doesn't know much about the case is going to be wondering, why should I trust the explanation of strangulation over the first one?