Three life sentences no parole for father accused of killing

The tragic case of Robert Farquharson highlights the discrimination faced by men in the courts. From what I heard in this case I find it difficult to believe that he is guilty, although it is possible he is and the court's verdict would seem to confirm this. However, he professes his innocence, his ex-wife, family and friends support him and he plans to lodge an appeal.

This website contains details regarding a range of contentions issues in his case http://factbeforetheory.wordpress.com

Despite this fact the sentence he received seems excessive, three life sentences with no parole. His depression was not taken into account and the blame is placed directly on him. Mitigating circumstances are not discussed and despite his plea of innocence he is damned by the media.

Compare his treatment with mothers who blatantly admit that they have killed their kids, the difference is staggering. Kathleen Folbigg was convicted of murdering 3 of her children and convicted of manslaughter over the death of a fourth child, but she was only sentenced to 25 years, whereas Robert was given 3 life sentences (75 years)

If Robert committed this crime he deserves to be punished, but the key issue is the way the media has presented him and the underlying discrimination that he has been exposed to. Furthermore, recent information I have seen on the factbeforetheory website has lead me to believe he may very well be innocent.

Research by Dr Phillip Resnick supports the idea that men and women recieve differential treatment from the judicial system when charged with murdering their children. See quote below

"....mothers convicted of murdering their children were hospitalized 68 percent of the time and imprisoned 27 percent of the time, fathers convicted of killing their children were sentenced to prison or executed 72 percent of the time and hospitalized only 14 percent of the time."

Three life sentences for father who killed boys

By Katie Bice November 16, 2007 Herald Sun

VICTORIAN man Robert Farquharson has been sentenced to life in jail with no parole for murdering his three children by driving them into a farm dam.

Farquharson, 38, was given three life sentences after a jury found him guilty of deliberately driving sons Jai, 10, Tyler, 7, and Bailey, 2, into a dam and leaving them to drown.

Justice Philip Cummins said Farquharson had acted without emotion in killing the boys to get revenge on estranged wife Cindy Gambino and make her suffer for the rest of her life.

He said that although Farquharson had led an otherwise good life and suffered moderate depression, he killed his own children and had been contemplating it over a significant time.

"In all circumstances, it's not appropriate to set a minimum term."

Justice Cummins said Farquharson was in total control of the children and they were dependent on him to help them.

The Supreme Court was told that two months before the Father's Day 2005 tragedy, Farquharson had angrily vowed to kill the boys to pay back Ms Gambino.

Mr Farquharson said Ms Gambino would "suffer every Father's Day for the rest of her life" and he would be the last one to have them.

He was bitter that in their separation she had taken the good car, and had also moved on with another man.

Maintenance payments had also left him financially strapped.

The court was told Farquharson had struggled to come to terms with the breakdown, in late 2004, of his four-year marriage to Ms Gambino.

He sought counselling for depression, saying he was finding it difficult to cope with the boys.

The jury was told as he returned the boys to Ms Gambino after an access visit he veered the car off the Princes Highway and into the Winchelsea farm dam before swimming free of the wreckage.

The father of three had pleaded not guilty to the three murders, claiming that his sons had died in a tragic accident, the result of his blacking out at the wheel after a violent coughing fit.

But police who reconstructed the crash told jurors the car's path from the road to the dam involved three steering movements and there were no signs of skid marks or emergency braking.

Doctors said his story was unlikely because cough syncope afflicted fewer than 2 per cent of people.

Farquharson's family members sobbed and shook their heads today.

Outside court, Farquharson's brother-in-law Ian Ross read out a statement on his behalf.

"The court has found me guilty but I did not murder my children," he said in the statement.

"I received a life sentence on the night my boys died so I don't care much about what other people think of me.

"I do care how people remember or think of Jai, Tyler and Bailey because they are three special boys and their lives were very important to me and all their family.

"I will appeal the verdict because I will not have the public believe that Jai, Tyler and Bailey were anything less than the most important part of both my life and the lives of their families.

"I will fight to clear the names of my three boys. They are what keeps me going because there is nothing much else more important to me."

"I cannot change what people think of me now so with all my heart I ask you to respect my children, (ex-wife) Cindy and both our families."

Mothers who kill, but get off lightly................

I saw this story in todays paper and it follows on from my last post. Here we are faced with a mother who kills their child, but once again we are told that because she was depressed this makes her less culpable for the killing.

This is just another example of the way the law provides special treatment to women.

Mother smothers five year old to death
Christine Kellett | December 14, 2007 - Brisbane Times

A Brisbane mother taped her five year-old daughter's mouth and smothered her to death with a pillow because she "wanted some peace", a court has heard.

Alice Maree Potter, 43, lured pre-schooler Stephanie Brummer into the bedroom of her Eagleby home on September 18, 2005 with the promise of playing a game, before kneeling on the child's face for 20 minutes until she stopped breathing.

The mother of three later told police she had killed her daughter, an alleged victim of sexual abuse, because she was a "spoilt brat" who wouldn't do what she was told.

Potter was yesterday afternoon jailed for a minimum of three years after pleading guilty to one count of manslaughter.

An original murder charge was downgraded on the grounds that Potter had been suffering at the time from a major depressive episode which legally diminished her responsibility.

Brisbane's Supreme Court heard Potter was struggling to care for Stephanie and her two year-old son on her own after leaving her marital home amid allegations Stephanie had been raped.

The child also had significant learning difficulties, could barely speak, and would throw tantrums lasting as long as two hours, Potter's defence counsel submitted.

However, Crown prosecutor Sal Vasta said the child's problems made Potter's crime all the more heinous.

"She turned to the only person on whom she could rely," Mr Vasta said of Stephanie.

"That trust was betrayed by this woman."

Potter, who has already spent more than two years in custody on remand, was expressionless as the facts of the case were read out.

The court heard she had considered killing Stephanie the night before the event, but had intially decided against it.

After returning from an early morning shopping trip, she put her youngest son to sleep and asked Stephanie to follow her into a bedroom to play a game.

Once inside, she wrapped masking tape around the little girl's mouth, laid her on the floor and pressed a pillow into her face with her hands and knees, smothering her to death.

She then rang her husband and asked him to come and collect her son.

"I love you," her husband told her, to which Potter replied: "I don't think you will after you see what I've done."

The court heard the man arrived at the Eagleby commission house to find his step-daughter dead on the floor "lying on her back like a starfish".

"She just won't do what I tell her," Potter explained.

"She just keeps being naughty.

"She's a spoilt brat."

Police were called three hours after Potter committed the killing.

Doctors later diagnosed her with depression and a personality disorder which had affected her ability to reason right from wrong.

Justice Debra Mullins accepted Stephanie had exhibited difficult behaviour, and her complaints of being sexually abused had only added to her mother's stress.

"You were unsure in your mind about the allegations that Stephanie had made ... (and) you were affected by the fact that you were with the two children in a community with no support," Justice Mullins told Potter.

"I think a sentence of eight years recognises the seriousness of the act that you committed and the fact that your defenceless child was killed by your own hands."

Justice Mullins set parole eligibility after three years behind bars, meaning Potter could walk free as early as September 18 next year, after her 815 days in pre-sentence custody is taken into account.

An example of bias against men in the courts

The following article appeared in the Brisbane Times on the 13th of December. It is a blatant example of the manner in which men are treated unfairly by the courts.

When reading this story please note that although the female perpetrator (the sister of the victim) initiated the most severe acts of abuse including three counts of rape and taking photos of the sex acts, she was sentenced to only 9 months, while her boyfriend was sentenced to 12 months gaol.

You would assume that the longer sentence would be related to a more severe crime but in this case perhaps it is more a reflection of society's underlying prejudice.


Sex pics show sister raping 9yo
Christine Kellett - December 13 Brisbane Times

A Brisbane private schoolboy who kept on his school computer photograghs of his teenage girlfriend raping her nine-year-old sister has been jailed for four months.

The District Court in Brisbane today heard the youth, now 19, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was engaged in a full-blown sexual relationship with the then 15-year-old schoolgirl in April 2005 when the couple decided to draw into their x-rated activities the girl's younger sister.

As well as masturbating in front of the nine-year-old child, the youth simulated anal sex with her in her older sister's bedroom, the court heard.

In acts described by prosecutors as "depraved", his girlfriend also photographed herself raping her younger sibling before emailing the pictures to the youth to use as sex aides.

The couple was busted when a student at Brisbane Boys College found the photographs on the youth's school email account and notified a school counsellor.

The boy pleaded guilty today to 17 separate child sex charges, including unlawful carnal knowledge of his underage girlfriend and the indecent treatment of her sister.

His girlfriend, now 17, is already serving a nine-month sentence for three counts of rape following her appearance in the Children's Court in September.

''This is a case of gross misjudgement,'' the youth's defence barrister John Griffin QC argued in an unsuccessful bid to keep his client out of jail.

The court was told the couple had met over the internet and began having sex as "boyfriend and girlfriend" in November 2004.

Their parents were aware of the situation, but did not realise the extent of their exploits, which included the use of sex toys.

Crown prosecutor Petrina Clohessy said it was towards the end of their 18-month fling when the couple began to involve the nine-year-old.

In one incident, the youth bent her over a bed and rubbed his genitals on her buttocks while her older sister watched.

But Mr Griffin said there had been no force or violence used against the youngster, and the more serious offences had in fact been committed by her sister.

The youth had not instigated the taking of the photographs or used them for any other purpose after receiving them by email, he said.

Senior Judge Gilbert Trafford-Walker agreed, but insisted jail was the only punishment befitting the youth.

He sentenced him to a total of 12 months' jail for the abuse of the little girl, but did not record convictions for his unlawful carnal knowledge of her sister.

He will be released after serving four months behind bars and will spend two years on probation.

Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

The following story is somewhat bleak in its perspective, however I have included it to highlight the fact that many men are not too keen to marry because of the many challenges that may exist should this union be broken.

However, life is full of risks and if we don't want to get hurt we could just stay home and avoid everything, but this would make for a rather boring life.

I for one have amazing daughter and plan to have another child in the future, I am currently in a relationship with a wonderful women and we plan to get married next year. While I cant agree with his advice, it is a sure sign that plenty of men are hurting but the solution is not to put your head in the sand but to stand up be counted and demand that legislation is enacted to amend these inequities.

The following article is by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
Men's News Daily 14 November 2007

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced
civilization has ever existed without the married, two-
parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs
healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young
men to marry today. For many men (and some women),
marriage has become nothing less than a one-way
ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how
easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men.
In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young
men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.

Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be
the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution.
For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage
today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from
homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse
the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage,
it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage
Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to
marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem
is the divorce laws.

It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But
widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot
happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will
never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact,
it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit
any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your
spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons.
The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any
questions.

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for
breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by
filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have,
also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly
get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude
you from them, without having to show that you have done
anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your
children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children
you will be subject to arrest.

There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why
they are seizing control of your children and allowing your
spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of
proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you
should be allowed to see your children.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for
your spouse to divorce you and take your children.
(All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations
control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and
spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall
comes through the children. With custody, she can then
demand “child support” that may amount to
half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is
set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and
enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in
setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend
it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets
the tax deduction.

You could easily be left with monthly income of a few
hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or
sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own,
borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards,
they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in
handcuffs.

Mothers never harm their children, do they?

I have included this story below, because so often in the media we find that when mothers kill their children, the first response is to label them as mentally ill, whereas a father charged with similar crime is damned for his actions.

The women is "placed in psychiatric care", while a father charged with a similar crime would be in a prison. When women engage in violent acts it is seen as out of place and the media is often quick to justify their actions by pointing out how they were abused, mentally ill, or a vicitim etc.

Society has difficulty accepting that mothers are anything but pure and caring, stories like the one below challenge this perspective and thus in my attempt to bust the "gender myths" I have included it. Because as the great feminist catch cry goes "woman can do anything" including being great mothers, outstanding leaders and child killers.

Both men and women are capable of reprehensible acts, but when gender myths suggest that it is only a man's domain I feel compelled to provide some evidence to undermine this belief.



German police find five dead boys in house

By Erik Kirschbaum in Berlin | December 06, 2007

FIVE boys between the ages of three and nine have been found dead in a house in the northern German village of Darry today.

Their 31-year-old mother has been detained on suspicion of involvement in the "violent" deaths of the children and has been placed in psychiatric care, police said.

"Based on preliminary investigation the motive appears to be a psychiatric illness of the woman," police in the northern city of Kiel said.

Police said they were still investigating and would not make any further comment. Darry, a town of 450 residents, is 40km east of Kiel, near the Baltic Sea.

The mother had turned herself into police, the NDR 1 Welle Nord radio network reported, saying she had drugged the five boys before suffocating them with plastic bags.

Teachers at the local school had notified the youth welfare office about the run-down appearance of two of the boys, who had come to school without coats, Spiegel Online reported.

It said workers from the local youth welfare office planned to visit the family today.

In a separate crime earlier today in another part of Germany, police said they found a third corpse of an infant girl wrapped in a plastic bag on the balcony of a 28-year-old woman arrested last week.

Police in the eastern town of Plauen said the woman said she gave birth to the girls in February 2002, January 2004 and September 2005, and that they had died suddenly.

The bodies of two other girls were found in a suitcase and a freezer.

The woman was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.

Police said the woman, who has two other children aged one and seven, denied killing the girls.

Police began investigating when the girl born in 2002 did not report for school registration.

They found her corpse in a suitcase stored in a basement, and then they found the second corpse in a freezer before making today's discovery.

The cases follows the starvation death of a 5-year-old girl last month in the eastern town of Schwerin.

Also, in 2006, a woman was jailed for 15 years for killing her eight newborn babies. The remains of the babies were found wrapped in plastic bags and buried in flower pots, buckets and a fish tank on her property.

Sperm donor ordered to pay lesbian couple

December 5, 2007
AAP

A British firefighter who donated his sperm so a lesbian couple could have two babies is being forced to pay thousands of pounds in child support.

Andy Bathie, 37, initially agreed to help Sharon and Terri Arnold after being assured he would not have to be involved in the upbringing of their young boy and girl or have any financial responsibility towards them.

But the British government's Child Support Agency has begun docking his pay to force him to contribute to the children's upbringing because the lesbian couple have split up.

Mr Bathie has launched unprecedented court action in an attempt to ensure he cannot be recognised as a legal parent to the children.

"These women wanted to be parents and take on all the responsibilities that brings," he told the Evening Standard newspaper.

"I would never have agreed to this unless they had been living as a committed family.

"And now I can't afford to have children with my own wife - it's crippling me financially."

Ignoring violence against men?

Teens made boy, 15, eat own faeces
By Christine Kellett, Brisbane Times 30 Nov 2007

Two 13-year-old girls who forced an intellectually disabled boy
to eat his own faeces laughed and waved for television
cameras after walking free from a Brisbane court this afternoon.

The girls, who cannot be named under Queensland law
because they are juveniles, along with two boys aged 17
and 18 pleaded guilty today to assault charges over the
humiliating October 2006 attack at Mitchelton, north of
the city.

Their victim, a 15-year-old boy with muscular dystrophy,
was pelted with rocks, kicked and punched and eventually
taken to a house to be force-fed his own excrement in a
prolonged ordeal sparked, prosecutors said, because
the boy had looked the wrong way at one of his assailants'
little sisters.

The court heard the attack, committed while the two girls
brandished a metal bar, had caused significant pain and
humiliation to the boy, so much so that he could not face the
foursome at a youth justice conference to receive an apology.

The girls, who were just 12 at the time, were released today
on 12 months' probation, while their co-accused received
two years, including 120 hours' community service.

No criminal convictions were recorded.

Outside court, their victim's mother said the punishment was
not harsh enough.

The girls, however, smiled, giggled and waved for waiting
television cameras as they left the building.

Judge Milton Griffin expressed his disgust at their actions
throughout the sentencing hearing - and even hinted at jail -
but was forced to take into account the tender ages of the
group and their lack of previous criminal history.

"It was cowardice in the extreme the way that you behaved,"
the judge told them.

"These are extraordinarily serious circumstances."

Defence counsel for the youths said peer-group pressure
accounted for much of their actions, described at one point
as "just childhood play".

"It's pack mentality," Judge Griffin fired back.

"Perhaps the more terrifying that they were younger than others."