Seven long years have negotiated Australian courts to determine the guilt of a man in the death of his three young sons. If he has committed this crime, so it was particularly cruel, heartless and hard to comprehend. Or the children died due to an unavoidable accident? Or is it all completely expired differently than it seems? The sensational murder trial and his enigmatic history has processed the Australian author and journalist Helen Garner is an impressive legal thriller.
The accused is Robert Farquharson.
He lives by his wife Cindy separately. Every second week, he manages the common three sons. As he moves back one evening of 2005 the children to her mother, it robs a violent coughing attack at the wheel. For a short time he loses consciousness, he therefore can not say anything about what happens in the sequence. The car comes in any case off the road, crashing into a quarry pond and sinks up to seven meters depth.
The man can free himself and floats on the water surface. drown the three boys, however.
Farquharson was always regarded as a loving, caring father. No one in the family dares him to a deliberate act of murder, not even his wife, but a piece of lost themselves their dearly beloved children and with them. The only motive of the question that he has his sons from primitive revenge, dissatisfaction with his life situation can drown. But is such an act ever imagine.
Friends of the accused, police officers, detectives, emergency medical services, experts, medical professionals – many witnesses are summoned.
Photos can not create clarity, as the venue of the event was marked inaccurately. Pocketing to reconstruct how the accident happened, an identical vehicle in the lake. But all that promotes just and hardly conclusive evidence to light. So all representations of witnesses and experts are always up questions in the details, subjected to cross-examination, provided by other statements and reports in question, sometimes out of this, sometimes re-examined from that perspective.
require these lengthy procedures all process participants patience and utmost concentration. Inevitably access boredom, fatigue, inattention around. But again and again the parents tear – “broken people” in mourning for their lost children united in a “abyss of suffering” where terms like “guilt or innocence had no more power” – jury, spectators and media representatives from their lethargy. “Heartbreaking sobs and cries” from the cold hall outside the courtroom penetrate into the negotiating room.
Helen Garner has accompanied the process from beginning to end as bystanders. She knows the scene of the accident at the lake and the cemetery where the three sons are buried. Tirelessly and with great care, she reports from their perspective of the neutral observer, and you will not miss a detail. In her presentation, she tries to factual objectivity, but the reader does not remain hidden, she also takes part, can not repress their feelings, force must draw to get through to the unimaginable ordeal of tough finding a recalcitrant, perhaps unfathomable truth. This unobtrusive integration of the human aspects that do not want to rush into a siding to the reader, the strength is this literary treatment of a certain in the countless file folders dry process the report.
Precise describes the winner of several literary awards author (1942 ) born dress, posture, mental and physical condition of the accused and their families as well as their changes during the process many years. At the end of the novel we know each person involved the inner family circle. The main characters, the always his love and innocence beteuernden father and desperate mother, we will never forget.
particular impression left both the author and with us the two legal antagonists. Attorney Rapke and defender Morrissey present themselves for the sake of their mission to the jury for or against the accused take. While the defender is struggling and “with the heart on his sleeve” for his client ensnared “the jury with its warm, chummy way,” his opponent emphasizes a “rational approach” that is to withdraw from the meager evidence of life and explosive power. With “impressive rhetoric,” “steely logic” and “psychological sophistication” he launched against the defense targeted strikes that often come along casually and inspire the attentive rapporteur (the “spectator in me”) so that they rose “prefer and he would have “cheered. The defender, however, are steadfastly and can not bring out its concept. The thesis of the prosecution, Robert Farquharson had planned the accident and deliberately, Morrissey considers “bizarre, grotesque, absolute nonsense”.