Who killed Peter Falconio? Or did they?

[think positive]

Did anyone watch the show last night?

It was gobsmacking, is it Azaria 2.0? A very corrupt NT system?

One things for sure, if I’d heard all this and I was on the jury, that man would not be in prison.

[stui magpie]

I think I saw an ad for it but didn't watch it.

There's a potential tendency in high profile cases to just FFS arrest and convict someone.

[David]

I saw the ad too – looked like they were trying to throw his ex-gf under the bus! Was that the case?

I’m fine with these true-crime documentaries trying to exonerate someone who may be wrongfully convicted, but it’s astonishing how often they turn around and try to point the finger at someone else – something both Paradise Lost and West of Memphis did with regard to the case of the West Memphis Three. Seems pretty unethical!

[Pi]

I did watch it, a few things stuck out.

The early description of the offender was very different to Murdoch, was Lees and the police under pressure to find a suspect, Murdoch was not arrested until sometime afterward? He was easy to convict, just look at him, you can be tempted to think its good that he's off the street, but did he do it?

The DNA evidence was probably not enough to get a conviction in today's court.

No dog hairs found on clothing.

Who is the other mystery suspect?

Gaps in Lees story: I dont remember her describing the suspect putting Falconios body in the ute.

I dont think she did it but I have doubts about Murdoch being the murderer.

[think positive]

She throws herself under the bus!
"During the interview, she did not reveal whether she would have confessed to the affair if her emails weren’t caught by police. In a police interview, she calls the emails “irrelevant” despite Nick using a code name ‘Steph’ when they discussed meeting up in Berlin after the murder. - just 2 days after.
Nick Reilly was an IT worker in the City of London and had left Australia at the time of Falconio’s murder.'
the 6 burning questions:
1. Was there someone else on the highway that night?
After Joanne's desperate escape and spending five hours hiding in bushes, she was finally picked up by truck driver, Vince Millar.

But Andrew claims Vince's reports of seeing other headlines on the highway were never followed up by police.

In his statements the trucker claims that before Joanne rushed out into the highway he saw headlights "doing circles and lights going on and off", something Andrew says was never explored by detectives.

And Andrew claims there was one key detail that Vince didn't report to police.

Again, just before he picked up Joanne Vince is said to have claimed he saw "two blokes" standing outside a red car on the side of the road. - he actually says on the show that he did tell them but the 1st 2 pages of his statement had disappeared by the trial.

2. DNA evidence
The case was over when some of Murdoch's DNA was found on the back of Joanne's T-shirt after her ordeal.
However, some experts believe he didn't need to have been at the murder scene for the DNA to end up on Joanne's top.
On their epic road trip Joanne and Peter had called into the Red Rooster restaurant in Alice Springs, and Australian DNA expert Brian McDonald has said it could have been possible for Murdoch's DNA to have been transferred if he had sat in the same chair as Joanne.The expert also says there was a lack of DNA on Joanne, who was involved in a lengthy struggle with her attacker and added that he would have expected more than one spot on her T-shirt.He added: "Joanne Lees never gave evidence that her attacker was wearing gloves."

3. Is Peter still alive? - not sure on this one but stranger things have happened, just look at the kidnapped girls kept for many years.
Peter's body has never been found, with some experts claiming he could have been buried in a well or his remains destroyed by wild animals.
But others claim this could indicate the backpacker could have survived what happened. Since his murder, several witnesses came forward to claim they had seen him.One brother and sister, who were working at their family's service station in a remote town believe he came in several days after the attack.They recognised his photo from the paper and claim he bought a Mars Bar.Both were convinced it was the same man "or his twin".

4. The lack of blood at the scene - this one is very interesting, no blood splatter of GSR
Joanne's horrifying description of what happened explains a gun shot that she believes killed Peter, followed by a lengthy struggle to tie her up.
There were three pools of blood at the scene of the murder and some of it was Peter's - but there was no blood trail.While Joanne has always said she didn't see what Murdoch did with her partner's body after he shot him, she believes he was dragging him away from the road side when she managed to escape. Blood expert Professor Barry Boetcher said: "If blood is present, you get a pale blue luminescence. If a body had been shot and then dragged somewhere you would expect a blood trail. "There was no blood trail in this case. Further than this, there was no blood spatter found at the scene."
He added that the lack of both of these led him to believe a jury would not have recorded a guilty verdict had to case been heard today.

5. What happened to the other possible witnesses?
Joanne has always denied stopping for a break at the Aileron roadhouse on the day of Peter's murder, despite its owner, Greg Dick, claiming he had seen the couple. He also claims he saw Joanne chatting to a man who matched the description she later gave to police of the couple's attacker.
Another trucker, Phil Creek, also claims he saw a man matching the same description at a pub close to where Peter was murdered, according to lawyer Andrew. He said the man told him he had been camping close to where the attack took place on the night of the crime. Police later eliminated the mystery man from their enquiries and Andrew believes he should still have been spoken to. - this bit isnt in the first show, maybe next week.

6. Why were there only one set of footprints? THIS is the big one to me, just doesnt make sense.
On the night of the murder, Joanne and Peter were pulled over by a driver - but there were only one set of footprints found in the desert dust. Joanne also told police the attacker had a medium-sized brown and white dog, but again there were no prints left behind.

-they go into this more on the show, no tyre tracks, and it was a bush dog, when you see where it is, if he searched for hours as she said, find it hard to believe he didnt find her.

plus:
A police report into the disappearance of British backpacker Peter Falconio in the Australian Outback concluded his girlfriend Joanne Lees was hiding the truth, a documentary will claim.
In July 2001, Ms Lees told police that the couple had been flagged down by a truck driver on a remote highway.
She said the man shot Mr Falconio and tied her up, before she escaped.
Bradley Murdoch was convicted of murdering Mr Falconio, although a body was never found.
A Channel 4 documentary, 'Murder In The Outback', casts doubt on the conviction and presents a police report that was not put before the jury at Murdoch's trial in 2005.
In a Scientific Content Analysis (Scan) report, analysts looked at the statement Ms Lees gave to police the night after Mr Falconio disappeared.
Ms Lees said she could not remember particular details or that her memory was hazy.
The report said: "These statements are all indicative of a false account."


I have no idea what the truth is, but seeing this show i honestly cant believe if all this was brought up at the trial, that Bradley John Murdoch could be convicted beyond all reasonable doubt. no body, 1 speck of DNA, and 1 eyewitness identification 3 years later, by someone who saw him briefly in the dark, and while being terrorised. He may be guilty, but im not convinced of it.


and lets not forget the way lindy Chamberlain was treated there.

[think positive]

[think positive]

[Lazza]

[Pi]

This is a podcast from an interview with Robin Bowles, the author of a book murder in the outback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_IjqZvn7Y

[think positive]

interesting, i skipped bits, but yeah basically if you listen around the 20 min mark, thats where my doubt comes in.

yes something bad happened, but not what she said.

wonder if we will ever get the truth? i doubt it.
meanwhile the guy in prison is apparently at deaths door...16 years is enough for all the bad shit he actually admits to, let him out.

[Pi]

In other news; the lead former investigator in the Falconio case has now been charged with abuse of office for an unrelated matter.

Specifically, alleged 'arbitrary and prejudicial conduct'.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-16/nt-childrens-commissioner-colleen-gwynne-charged-by-nt-police/12462812


Of course it doesn't undermine any other cases but it's likely to raise more questions about general conduct.

[watt price tully]

I think channel 7’s push for ratings wasn’t even considered by the Justice system. Outrageous

[Woods Of Ypres]

watched about 10 minutes of this nonsense tonight

they were talking to some video camera 'expert' saying he doesn't believe it was Murdoch at the truck stop due to something about height difference, when you can clearly see his face. had to change the channel.

[think positive]

actually you cant clearly see his face, and if you had listened to it all, he talked about lens distortion!! and he was spot on! when you see the way the guy moves, i dont think for a minute its him, the guy is a man mountain! and even if it was, what does that prove?

i watched the whole show. is he guilty? i dont think so, a bad drug deal gone wrong sounds very plausible, but even if he is, there is no way in hell that the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. hes still a drug dealer, but 16 years is enough for that!

[Woods Of Ypres]

it was clear to me based on face structure, even had the same posture
DNA evidence aside his vehicle was spotted near the scene by multiple sources
he also had her hair tie in his possession, did they mention this?
he had history of shooting at people, assault and other charges
a real lowlife. bottom feeder.