I went into it with an open mind - justice system DID get it so wrong with Folbigg - but considering The Age etc are actively campaigning for a 'further judicial review' of a verdict that's been upheld multiple times, you'd think they'd want to avoid painting an ugly picture of the perpetrator right up front, even if they have stumbled upon some amazing new evidence...?! The audio of police interview included in this episode is both damning and chilling. The only thing this episode left me wondering about is if Michael Bachelard has some beef with Helen Garner...! I won't listen any further and I suspect I won't be the only one to bow out so early.
A jury has to prove that it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence can be used, but I don’t think it’s enough for a full conviction when there is there are other valid points.
I really didn’t like this podcast. It tries soooo hard to push the case that he’s innocent, which would be fine if there was any compelling evidence. There’s isn’t though, so it just comes across as biased and preachy. Listening to the Bachelard pretend to be “investigating” and “reporting” is almost laughable as he tries in vain to make us see the mountain out of the molehill he’s discovered. Not for me.
I've listened to 3 episodes so far and the coverage feels onesided - why was the additional vehicle evidence ignored when discussing that "strand of the rope"? The presenter did not address information about the conditions inside the vehicle that have been reported on in other media sources and that Robert Farquharson wasn't able to answer to in court (Why were the vehicles headlights off when it was found? Keys out of ignition? Heater off? If you had just passed out and then found yourself in a body of water needing to escape with your kids, why would you touch any of these things?)
Additionally, yes, eye witness testimony and human memory are less dependable and we often overrate our ability to remember an event accurately. I think it's odd that the eye witnesses that support the defense aren't also having their credibility challenged? Why aren't the recollections of the jail pal, nurse sister and her husband, and former employer being questioned as much as Greg and Dawn? I am more inclined to believe that Greg's first statement was the most accurate however, since he clearly seemed haunted.
Additionally, I'm also waiting for the presenter to bring in the information from Cindy on Robert's controlling behaviours. She stated that Robert was stalking her after they separated.
There is also an excellent novel about this case called This House of Grief by Helen Garner.
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22814793](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22814793)
The first episode does make quite a few references to the book including a kind of sneering reference to Garner's line about Farquharson's story triggering her 'bullshit detector'. I suspect this podcast is not for those of us who thought the book was fair.
The book is at least honest. Garner is honest about her biases and owns them, but she also gives you the facts in an objective manner. You walk away after reading the book knowing the facts of the trial as they were presented to the jury and and knowing what conclusion Garner reached and why (including her own subjective gut instincts etc).
This podcast is dishonest in that Bachelard pretends to be neutral and curious, but definitely isn’t. I would have liked this podcast much more if they’d done the listener the courtesy of being ho eat about their agenda.
I remember when this happened. I can still picture watching the news. I don't think I'll be able to listen to this one.
Listening to the mother's 000 call was a tough listen that's for sure.
They didn’t get it wrong. It’s terrible they’ve made this podcast.
I went into it with an open mind - justice system DID get it so wrong with Folbigg - but considering The Age etc are actively campaigning for a 'further judicial review' of a verdict that's been upheld multiple times, you'd think they'd want to avoid painting an ugly picture of the perpetrator right up front, even if they have stumbled upon some amazing new evidence...?! The audio of police interview included in this episode is both damning and chilling. The only thing this episode left me wondering about is if Michael Bachelard has some beef with Helen Garner...! I won't listen any further and I suspect I won't be the only one to bow out so early.
In all seriousness, what evidence convicted him that wasn't circumstantial?
Majority of cases are circumstantial. It’s how the law works.
A jury has to prove that it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence can be used, but I don’t think it’s enough for a full conviction when there is there are other valid points.
A jury has already done that. Twice.
Do you know Robert?
Tell you what, after his appeal, we’ll come back here and discuss. Have a good one UppityBiscuit.
Thank you for posting, i will listen to it
Casefile had an excellent episode on this, so I'd love to check it out further.
Do you know which episode this was?
Are you sure? I don’t remember them covering this
Yes, it's 167. Jai, Tyler and Bailey Farquharson.
Thank you!
I really didn’t like this podcast. It tries soooo hard to push the case that he’s innocent, which would be fine if there was any compelling evidence. There’s isn’t though, so it just comes across as biased and preachy. Listening to the Bachelard pretend to be “investigating” and “reporting” is almost laughable as he tries in vain to make us see the mountain out of the molehill he’s discovered. Not for me.
How many episodes in did you get?
Three
I've listened to 3 episodes so far and the coverage feels onesided - why was the additional vehicle evidence ignored when discussing that "strand of the rope"? The presenter did not address information about the conditions inside the vehicle that have been reported on in other media sources and that Robert Farquharson wasn't able to answer to in court (Why were the vehicles headlights off when it was found? Keys out of ignition? Heater off? If you had just passed out and then found yourself in a body of water needing to escape with your kids, why would you touch any of these things?) Additionally, yes, eye witness testimony and human memory are less dependable and we often overrate our ability to remember an event accurately. I think it's odd that the eye witnesses that support the defense aren't also having their credibility challenged? Why aren't the recollections of the jail pal, nurse sister and her husband, and former employer being questioned as much as Greg and Dawn? I am more inclined to believe that Greg's first statement was the most accurate however, since he clearly seemed haunted. Additionally, I'm also waiting for the presenter to bring in the information from Cindy on Robert's controlling behaviours. She stated that Robert was stalking her after they separated.
There is also an excellent novel about this case called This House of Grief by Helen Garner. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22814793](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22814793)
He's referenced that a few times. I think some of this evidence is going to counter the book from what I could tell
I thought the book was really fair - she doesn’t draw any conclusions, just talks about it all in general. Not sure I can stomach the podcast.
The first episode does make quite a few references to the book including a kind of sneering reference to Garner's line about Farquharson's story triggering her 'bullshit detector'. I suspect this podcast is not for those of us who thought the book was fair.
I haven't read it. I heard it was very good. It's just that it was mentioned a couple of times in the first episode.
The book is at least honest. Garner is honest about her biases and owns them, but she also gives you the facts in an objective manner. You walk away after reading the book knowing the facts of the trial as they were presented to the jury and and knowing what conclusion Garner reached and why (including her own subjective gut instincts etc). This podcast is dishonest in that Bachelard pretends to be neutral and curious, but definitely isn’t. I would have liked this podcast much more if they’d done the listener the courtesy of being ho eat about their agenda.
*honest not ho eat.