Analysis Of The Farquharson Murder Case

The second investigation conducted by Mr Urquhart, used PC Crash, an advanced software program which can recreate a vehicle accident into an animation. Using this program, Urquhart was able to predict what degree the steering wheel would have been turned at and at what section of the road this occurred for the accused’s car to have ended in the dam (DPP v Farquharson (No 2) (Ruling No 4) [2010]). Although the evidence from this investigation seemed compelling; it was dismissed as it was believed to be prejudicial to the accused.
Following the interrogation of the accused’s close family and friends in an attempt to establish a motive, investigators interviewed Farquharson’s friend, Mr Gregory King. Mr King became a key witness in the murder
As stated by Rossmo (2009), a major weakness of police investigations is bias and portraying a heuristic frame of mind. The anchoring heuristic theory is commonly depicted within police investigations as it deviates from surplus and sometimes incorrect information which creates an incorrect starting point for the investigation. Consequently there is a great chance the true conclusion of the investigation will be jeopardised (Rossmo, 2009). This theory is evident throughout the Farquharson murder trial in relation to Mr Urquhart. As stated throughout the court transcripts, Mr Urquhart, despite his knowledge of major collision investigations, still supported the software program PC Crash as evidence against the accused (DPP v Farquharson (No 2) (Ruling No 4) [2010]). Mr Urquhart knowingly inputted information which was only approximations to create the re-animation, which consequently resulted in the evidence becoming inadmissible. Additionally, Mr Urquhart gave evidence at the first trial that his test car in which he completed his experiments had a current wheel alignment. It was only in a later trial that it was found that the test vehicle had not had a wheel alignment (DPP v Farquharson (No 2) (Ruling No 4)). Moreover, Mr Urquhart’s evidence of his experimental drive throughs were questioned as the cross fall of the road had not been measured, producing inaccurate results (DPP v Farquharson (No 2) (Ruling No 4)). Furthermore, another flaw of this investigation was that the police investigators failed to disclose, even when questioned, that their key witness- Mr King- had a prior conviction. This information, if had been known earlier, would have deemed Mr King as an unreliable witness and resulted in Farquharson being acquitted (“Farquharson Appeal”,