In her opening statement, the prosecutor told jurors: “There was no suicide note. The girl who told everyone everything about her life left no note.” Matthew Farwell’s lawyers now say the government’s own witness disagrees. In a filing late Monday, the defense says Massachusetts State Police Trooper Matthew Dunne told federal prosecutors last month that a journal entry found in Sandra Birchmore’s apartment was “absolutely a suicide note.”
That is one of several claims in two defense replies, Docket Nos. 343 and 344, filed October 12 in answer to the weekend motions we covered here. We read both in full. WCVB also reported that the defense called the prosecution’s argument wrong and made in bad faith. Testimony began Tuesday morning, and Judge Denise Casper had not issued a written ruling on either motion when this was published. These are the defense’s arguments. Farwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
“The prosecution is wrong and is acting in bad faith”
The first reply answers the government’s request to let three women testify about alleged affairs with Farwell. Prosecutors want to rebut the defense explanation that Farwell wore a mask to Birchmore’s apartment on February 1, 2021 because he was hiding an affair. The defense filing says:
- The quote was cut. The defense says the government “totally mischaracteriz[ed]” its opening. It points to the full passage from the official transcript: “Matthew Farwell is a man who had an affair. He’s made regrettable mistakes. He’s human. Matthew Farwell did not kill Sandra Birchmore. He did not.”
- The mask theory came from the government’s own witness. According to the filing, on October 3 the government turned over a 14-page FBI report of a September 25, 2026 interview of Trooper Dunne. The defense says two thirds of the prosecution team attended. The report, as quoted in the filing, says: “Tpr. DUNNE thought the mask simply meant that FARWELL was having an affair and didn’t want to be seen.” It also says Dunne “wondered why FARWELL would text BIRCHMORE before he came over and essentially create a record that he went there if he planned on killing her.”
- The affairs pre-date COVID. The defense says a sealed July 31 notice from the government dated the three alleged affairs to 2012, 2016 and 2017. “Assuming arguendo, Mr. Farwell engaged in other adult consensual affairs in 2012, 2016, and 2017, what reason could he have used as an excuse to wear a mask then? A face covering during those years would have surely drawn attention.”
- Nobody checked earlier visits. According to the FBI report as quoted, Dunne said it was “a fair question” whether Farwell wore a mask on earlier visits. He also said investigators pulled building video only to find when Birchmore was last seen, and he asked whether federal investigators had ever obtained footage of earlier visits. The defense says the government “has no evidence that Mr. Farwell did not wear a mask” on prior visits.
- The anti-masker claim. The prosecutor told jurors that witnesses would say Farwell “was actively opposed to wearing a mask during COVID.” The defense says another government witness, who testified before the grand jury, “contradicted this claim outright.” The filing does not name that witness.
- The suicide note. The defense says Dunne laid out “significant evidence which pointed to BIRCHMORE committing suicide,” including his conclusion that the journal entry was “absolutely a suicide note.”
The filing also complains that prosecutors filed the affairs notice under seal but filed this motion on the public docket after trial began.
“Any one of you”: the defense apologizes
The second reply answers the government’s request for curative instructions. On the most direct legal point, the defense concedes a slip. Defense attorney Kimberly Stevens told jurors that “if any one of you finds that the government has not met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that you must acquit.” Federal verdicts must be unanimous either way. In a footnote, counsel writes that “upon reviewing the transcript, counsel realizes that she inadvertently used the ‘any one of you’ phrasing, and she offers her apology to the Court.”
The defense says she “clearly meant to repeat ‘every one of you,'” a phrase she had used minutes earlier. It also notes that the government did not object at the time. It argues no new instruction is needed because the judge already told jurors that openings are not evidence and will instruct them on the law.
“His wife is not a federal law enforcement officer”
On the federal-officer element of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C), the defense does not back down. It says the prosecution’s opening suggested jurors could convict if Birchmore threatened to tell Farwell’s wife about the relationship. The defense points to the prosecutor reading Birchmore’s text: “I’m telling [Mrs. Farwell] what you’ve been doing.” It says the government never mentioned a communication to federal law enforcement in its opening. Under Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011), the government must show a reasonable likelihood that a communication would have reached a federal officer, “more than remote, outlandish, or simply hypothetical.” The defense says Stevens’ line was a proper “invited response” to the government’s framing.
“Gushing blood”: a recorded phone call, not a text
The government said a text in which Birchmore told a friend “I was gushing blood” “does not exist.” The defense says it never claimed there was a text. Stevens said Birchmore “tells the friend.” The source, the defense says, is a recorded phone call between Birchmore and a government witness, marked as Defense Exhibit 665/N11. According to the filing, the transcript of that call reads: “I really was. I was at the ER yesterday too because I was gushing blood.”
The other disputed statements
- Denying paternity. The defense says a State Police memo produced in discovery records a defense witness telling police that Birchmore told her Farwell denied paternity. The filing says it is unclear whether that came by text, phone or Snapchat. It notes that snaps are deleted once read unless saved, and says the witness will testify about the conversation.
- A military medical examiner. The government objected to the defense describing FBI agents’ notes. The defense says those notes record a consultation with Dr. Zoe Sundell, whom it identifies as Chief Medical Examiner for the Armed Forces. According to the notes as described in the filing, she “did not see any reason to contradict the conclusions of Dr. Capo-Martinez,” the medical examiner who performed the autopsy. The defense says the government chose not to call her, and that the defense has subpoenaed her. The Boston Herald has reported that the state medical examiner found Birchmore’s death was a suicide.
- The February 1 timeline. The defense says its opening walked through Birchmore’s texts, searches and cached images that day to complete a record the government “took out of context.” It invokes the rule of completeness, Federal Rule of Evidence 106. It also says the government’s own opening relied on a disputed cached image, her search for children’s furniture and bookshelves.
- The Kilroy affidavit. The defense says the court already overruled the government’s objection during openings. It cites an earlier order allowing testimony from a witness named Kilroy about Birchmore’s alleged suicidal statements under Rule 803(3), the state-of-mind exception.
The defense also says Judge Casper ruled orally on the cached-image issue after openings, and that the government “apparently has filed a motion to reconsider.”
What happened in court Tuesday
Before jurors entered, Judge Casper addressed housekeeping issues, “including an instruction she will read to the jury based on a recent motion about opening statements,” NBC10 Boston reported. The station did not report the instruction’s wording. The judge also said she would instruct jurors before graphic evidence is shown that their verdict cannot rest on emotion. The first witness was Stoughton police Detective Heather Cheever, who described herself as a mentor to Birchmore in the police Explorers program. She testified that she never heard Farwell was tutoring Birchmore at the library, NBC10 reported.
The government also filed an amended witness list and, with the defense’s assent, a request for copies of the sealed docket so both sides know the numbers of sealed filings.
Frequently asked questions
Did a state trooper say Sandra Birchmore left a suicide note?
According to a defense filing on October 12, 2026, an FBI report of a September 2026 interview records Massachusetts State Police Trooper Matthew Dunne concluding that a journal entry found in Birchmore’s apartment was “absolutely a suicide note.” The prosecution told jurors in its opening that there was no suicide note. The trooper has not testified on this point at trial.
Did Farwell’s lawyer apologize for her opening statement?
Yes, on one point. In a footnote, defense counsel said she “inadvertently used the ‘any one of you’ phrasing” when describing the burden of proof, and apologized to the court. She said she meant “every one of you.”
Where does the “gushing blood” quote come from?
The defense says it comes from a recorded phone call between Birchmore and a government witness, not a text message, and that the recording is Defense Exhibit 665/N11.
Has Judge Casper ruled on the affairs testimony?
No written ruling had been posted when this was published on October 13, 2026.
Sources: Defendant’s Reply to the Government’s Motion in Limine to Admit “Specially Relevant” Evidence, ECF No. 343, and Defendant’s Reply to the Government’s Motion for Curative Instructions, ECF No. 344, United States v. Farwell, No. 1:24-cr-10259-DJC (D. Mass.), both filed October 12, 2026 and read in full via CourtListener’s RECAP archive; ECF Nos. 340 and 341. Quotations from the FBI report, State Police memo and FBI notes are as quoted or described in the defense filings; those documents are not public. WCVB, NBC10 Boston and Boston Herald, October 13, 2026. These are the defense’s arguments; the court has not ruled on them in writing. Matthew Farwell is presumed innocent. General information about the law, not legal advice.