Matthew Farwell Is Charged — So Why Isn't Anyone Else in Stoughton?

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

Tony Brueski (0:07)

The federal murder trial of Matthew Farwell is about one man accused of killing SandraBirchmore, but the evidence that's come out at trial paints something much bigger. Unrecorded interviews, untested DNA, witnesses ignored, and a department where the accused, his twin brother, and a former deputy chief all had ties to the same dead woman.

Today, we're joined by criminal defense attorney and host of defense diaries, Bob Motta, to talk about whether what happened in Stoughton was a failure, an oversight, an honest oops, or what, if anything, can be done to the people and institutions that let it happen, if this in fact was a cover-up. Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent, chief of the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program, and master class instructor with us as well.

Bob, was the strategy here, and I guess, conjecture, was the strategy here lack of information, and that's what's going to be our safety blanket for not only Matthew Farwell, but everybody who was passing SandraBirchmore around like she was basically a piece of meat. That seems to be what I'm getting out of watching this of, oh, we don't take records of the interview. Oh, we don't test this. If we're not doing any of the things that we're supposed to do, but we say we checked the boxes of either we did them or there's no need to do them because it's this, well, then there's no investigation and there's no evidence. Should this ever get to trial, which I think is kind of what we're starting to see now. You had pointed out in our last segment, we're talking about the conversations they had in the school parking lot. There's no record of it, so it can't work this way and it can't work that way. It's just kind of null. Was that the intention all along, you think, on this department to protect everybody's ass?

Bob Motta (2:04)

It sure seems like it. I mean, when you're looking in retrospect, it seems like it because look, incompetence is random.

It falls in and fails in every single direction. Cover-up fails in one direction only. And that's the test that I would apply. And frankly, it's the test that a jury is going to apply as well. I mean, you run the list. Seen calls it a suicide despite the pendant. The broken pendant is significant. As one of her closest friend testifies, she's like, she never didn't have that pendant on. Right. And when you're thinking about the situation where you're trying to prove a case through almost exclusively circumstantial evidence, in what situation, if she's, it's a self-harm situation, is that pendant getting broken?

To me, that pendant is incredibly important in terms of the fact that it was broken. It was still on her, but the chain itself was broken, which to me is indicative of force. Beyond somebody deciding to do this to themselves. And, you know, I mean, the pregnancy, man.

Robin Drake (3:18)

And the excitement about it. That was the big one. She vocalized the excitement about the pregnancy too. So that's counter to someone wanting to off themselves, because again, we're not in the postpartum aspect of it. And another aspect, again, just on facts and data, because I know we like making sure we dive down. Believe it or not, I did look it up. Partial hangings for S's, it's actually in the 50 to 80% range. It's not as low as you think. Yeah, it's actually pretty high.

And even, it can be even higher in psychiatric institutes as well. But it says right here, other series put partial hangings in the 50 to 80% range out of a US review of 229 S's by hanging, down that 83.4 or partial.

Bob Motta (3:58)

I'm curious what does partial mean?

Robin Drake (4:00)

With feet touching floor in some way. So not full suspension with feet off floor.

Bob Motta (4:06)

Well, it doesn't mean doorknob though.

Robin Drake (4:07)

Let's eat it, man. It did not go to the granular level of doorknob or not, but it was actually partial saying that a part of the body was still, like the feet were still touching the floor in some way.

It's higher than I expected. But again, because we're fair and equal on everything, I want to make sure that we did hit the stat.

Tony Brueski (4:23)

I'd be curious to break that number down even more of determining, OK, is that more common? Or what are the numbers? What's the breakdown of that happening in an institutional type setting where there are less options available to someone, where they may be S, versus in someone's home, where you have every option available to you if you're wanting to end it.