Beyond The Horizon
Sandra Birchmore's Story: Matt Farwell And His Response To The Allegations (7/5/24)
Matthew Farwell, a former police officer in Stoughton, Massachusetts, was fired following an internal investigation that revealed he had an inappropriate and exploitative relationship with a young woman named Sandra Birchmore. The relationship began when Birchmore was 13 years old and a participant in a department-run youth program and continued for several years.
Farwell, along with his twin brother William and another officer named Robert Devine, engaged in relationships with Birchmore that involved explicit messages and physical encounters. These interactions were deemed to be serious misconduct and violations of department policies. Birchmore died by suicide in February 2021 at the age of 23, shortly after Matthew Farwell ended their relationship following a heated argument.
The investigation led by Stoughton Police Chief Donna McNamara uncovered a pattern of manipulation and abuse by the officers, who exploited Birchmore's admiration for police officers. The internal probe lasted 18 months, revealing deeply troubling behavior and leading to the resignation of the involved officers. McNamara has called for the decertification of the Farwell brothers and Devine, ensuring they cannot serve as police officers again.
(commercial at 9:18)
to contact me:
bobbbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
(In Order As) Matthew Farwell Answer to Complaint, William Farwell and Robert Devine Memorandums in Support of Motion to Dismiss_2282CV01197 Darlene Smith as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra Birchmore vs. Farwell, Matthew et al - DocumentCloud
- Duration:
- 14m
- Broadcast on:
- 05 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. Recently we introduced the case of Sandra Burchmore to the conversation and today we're going to add onto that by taking a look at the defendants and their response to the allegations that have been made against them by Darlene Smith who is acting as the personal representative of the estate of Sandra Burchmore. And the first document we're gonna take a look at as we continue to set this table is the defendant Matthew Farwell's answer and claim of jury trial the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Case number 2282 CV 1197. Darlene Smith is personal representative of the estate of Sandra Burchmore versus Matthew Farwell. Nature of action. The defendant denies any allegations against him contained in this section of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Jurisdiction and venue. A, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph A of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. B, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph B of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Parties, one. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph one of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Two, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph two of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Three, the defendant is without sufficient information to either confirm or deny the allegations contained in paragraph three of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Four, the defendant is without sufficient information to either confirm or deny the allegations contained in paragraph four of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Five, the defendant is without sufficient information to either confirm or deny the allegations contained in paragraph five of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Six, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph six of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Seven, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph seven of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Facts. Number eight, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph eight of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Nine, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph nine of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Ten, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Eleven, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Twelve, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Thirteen, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Fourteen, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Fifteen, the defendant is without sufficient information to either confirm or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Number 16, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Count one, wrongful death versus defendant. M. Farwell, W. Farwell, the vine, and heel. Seventeen, the defendant repeats and re-alleges his answers to paragraphs one through sixteen as it fully stated here in. Eighteen, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Nineteen, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Twenty, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Twenty-one, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Count number two, negligence versus defendant M. Farwell, W. Farwell, the vine, and heel. Twenty-two, the defendant repeats and re-alleges his answers to paragraphs one through twenty-one as it fully stated here in. Twenty-three, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Twenty-four, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Twenty-five, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Twenty-six, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Twenty-seven, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Count number three, negligence versus defendant divine. The defendant, M. Farwell, files no answer to count three, paragraph 28 through 32, as said, count and paragraphs do not assert any allegations against them. To the extent of any of the allegations are meant to apply to the defendant, M. Farwell, the defendant denies. Count number four, negligent hiring versus stout and PD. The defendant, M. Farwell, files no answer to count four, paragraph 33 through 40, as said, count and paragraphs do not assert any allegations against him. To the extent, if any, the allegations are meant to apply to the defendant, M. Farwell, the defendant denies. Count number five, negligent supervision versus stout and PD. The defendant, M. Farwell, files no answer to count five, paragraph 41 through 46, as said, count and paragraphs do not assert any allegations against them. To the extent, if any of the allegations are meant to apply to the defendant, M. Farwell, the defendant denies. Count number six, assault and battery versus defendant, M. Farwell, W. Farwell, divine and heel. 47, the defendant repeats and re-alleges his answers to paragraphs one through 46, as if fully stated herein. 48, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 49, the defendant is without sufficient information to either confirm or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 50, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 51, the defendant is without sufficient information to either confirm or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 52, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Count number seven, negligent infliction of emotional distress versus defendant M. Farwell, W. Farwell, divine, heel and stouton PD. 53, the defendant repeats and re-alleges his answers to paragraphs one through 52, as if fully stated herein. 54, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 55, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 56, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Count number eight, negligent infliction of emotional distress, Sandra Burchmore versus defendant M. Farwell, W. Farwell, divine, heel and stouton PD. 57, the defendant repeats and re-alleges his answers to paragraphs one through 56, as if fully stated herein. 58, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 59, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 60, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 61, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 62, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Count number nine, US Code 42, section 1983, violation of M. Farwell, W. Farwell, divine, heel, stouton PD. 63, the defendant repeats and re-alleges his answers to paragraphs one through 62 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 64, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 65, the defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 65 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 66, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 66 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 67, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 68, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 68 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 69, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 69 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 70, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 71, the defendant is without sufficient information to either confirm or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 71 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 72, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 73, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 73 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Count 10, civil conspiracy versus M. Farwell, W. Farwell, the vine and heel. The defendant repeats and re-alleges his answers to paragraphs one through 73 as if fully stated here in 75. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 75 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 76, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 77, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 77 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 78, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 78 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 79, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 79 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 80, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. 81, the defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 81 of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. First defense and further answering the defendant says that the plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to set forth facts constituting a cause of action and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover. Second defense and further answering the defendant says that the plaintiff's precedent on negligence caused or contributed to the death alleged and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover. Third defense and further answering the defendant says that the plaintiff, Deceden, was more than 50% negligent in causing or contributing to the death alleged and therefore the plaintiff either cannot recover or any verdict or finding in the plaintiff's favor must be reduced by the percentage of negligence attributed to the said plaintiff, Deceden, fourth defense. And further answering the defendant says that the plaintiff's Deceden alleged injuries and subsequent death were caused by persons other than the defendant, his agent, servants or employees and that the plaintiff's Deceden's alleged injuries and subsequent death were caused by persons for whose conduct the defendant is not responsible and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover. Fifth defense and further answering the defendant says that the negligence of the defendant did not cause the death of the Deceden and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover, sixth defense. And further answering the defendant says the plaintiff is not the proper person or entity entitled to recover damages under the mass wrongful death statute and therefore the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed. Seventh defense and further answering the defendant says that he was not acting in concert with any of the other defendants in the planning or carrying out of the alleged assault upon the plaintiff's Deceden and therefore cannot be held vicariously liable for their conduct. Eighth defense and further answering the defendant says that the plaintiff's Deceden's alleged injuries, if any, were the result of the criminal intervening acts by third parties for whose conduct the defendant was not legally responsible and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover. Ninth defense and further answering the defendant says that he owed no duty of care to the plaintiff's Deceden and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover. Tenth defense and further answering the defendant says that the plaintiff cannot provide objective evidence of physical harm to the plaintiff's Deceden and therefore the plaintiff's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress must be dismissed. Wherefore the defendant demands judgment against the plaintiff and further demands that said action be dismissed. And further the defendant claims a trial by jury on all the issues so trialable. The defendant Matthew Farwell by his attorney Brian Welsh. All right, so that's the first response as far as the Sandra Birchmore case goes from Matthew Farwell. And obviously we're gonna continue to set this table before we dig in. And that's because I want everyone to get a good look at what these people are being charged with and what their response is. We always wanna give somebody a chance to respond, right? Somebody a chance to, you know, try and answer the charges that are put before them. That way you folks have a complete story or as complete as possible. And you can make a decision based on the facts and not on some bullshit. So we have a few more episodes come in your way that are related to these court documents. And then after we have these few documents added to the catalog, we're gonna dive in. But for this one, that's gonna do it. All of the information that goes with this episode, you can find that in the description box.