"Then you ask, again, when did he first fuck you?"
"Then Ms. Birchmore says 'many years ago'?"
"Yes."
"What do you say at 5:39:19?"
"When/where did he first fuck you?"
"She says, LOL on April 10, many years ago at his house. Is this still about your brother?"
"Yes."
"And you say, like when, lol?"
"And she says, 'When I was 15?'"
"Yes."
"And you say, 'nice, raw' right?"
"Yes."
"Why did you respond to that with the word 'nice, raw'?"
"There were two reasons; uhh, the first reasons was I didn't really believe her, the second was I didn't think my brother was that dumb."
After the devastating testimony harmful to Farwell by the expert on grooming, the defense asked the predictable question: “The law for consent in Massachusetts is 16?” In other words, let’s blame the child who had been groomed by that time for almost three years when the abuse started. A sickening strategy of desperation.
FYI…Massachusetts was the last state in New England to close a loophole in its age-of-consent laws that left 16- and 17-year-olds vulnerable to sexual exploitation by adults in positions of authority.
While neighboring states had already enacted criminal protections, Massachusetts did not close this loophole until 3 months ago in July 2026.
The question is not whether a 16- or 17-year-old can legally consent to sexual activity generally. It is whether an adult entrusted with supervising or protecting that child should be permitted to exploit that position of authority.
If the law had been enacted when Sandra was 16 and 17, Matthew Farwell could potentially have faced additional felony charges for sexual abuse of Sandra Birchmore. But like everything else in Massachusetts when it comes to protecting children, it’s never surprising that Massachusetts is dead last.
@GrantSmithEllis going to take his REMARKABLE skills to Delphi when Richard Allen gets a retrial?
Bob, Ali, Andrea and Grant?
It's almost like God's putting together the Justice Avengers 2.0.
GAME. CHANGER.
@defense_diaries@aburkhartlaw
Holmes, now the Chief of Kingston PD, first contacted the FBI in June of 2022
That is the month that investigators uncovered that Billy Farwell had been running illegal criminal database inquiries on Sandra Birchmore and her vehicle for years before her death
POST findings
Those allegations included that, from a period of 2017 through 2021, Farwell conducted multiple unauthorized searches of the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information System database, that he sent and received sexually explicit messages while on duty, and that he provided false information to Massachusetts State Police investigators.
The White House claimed there were 16,000 non us citizens in Nevada that were on the voter rolls… after being forced to provide data to this they dropped their made up number to 185… Nevada investigated the 185 names and discovered that all of them were legal us citizens that were legally allowed to vote. Meaning the Trump White House was only off by 100%.
Ty Masterson has held a veto-proof supermajority for his entire tenure as Senate President. He promised lower property taxes and hasn’t delivered. Either he doesn’t want to, or he doesn’t know how.
Imagine being a kid and dying of measles, a disease we completely eradicated 27 years ago… because your parents watch Fox News and are as dumb as a fucking dickhead with a dickheaded brain
In 2004, the Wall Street Journal published the name of a holdout juror (for acquittal) while deliberations in the case were still ongoing. The juror reported being threatened, and a mistrial was declared. On retrial, the defendants were convicted.
The decision to publish the juror's name was highly criticized and led to exactly the same debates about discouraging jurors from serving versus the First Amendment interests in transparent court proceedings.
What noticeably didn't happen in 2004 was any suggestion that anybody should be criminally prosecuted (i.e. crushed under the bootheel of the State) for publishing lawfully obtained information in the public record about a government proceeding or for raising funds for a former juror affected by publication of their identity.
As the saying goes, you don't have to agree with what someone says to defend their right to say it.
I support everyone's right to share lawfully-obtained information about criminal prosecutions, to raise money for whoever they feel like, and to criticize each other for doing it. That's what the First Amendment requires and expects of us as a free society.