murder in the outback - channel 4

fryup

Anyone watching this? it started last night and continues over the next three nights

all about the peter falconio disappearance and his girlfriend joanne lees and the accused Bradley Murdoch

all very strange

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jun/07/murder-in-the-outback-the-falconio-and-lees-mystery-review-more-tragic-than-mysterious

Harry Palmr

Watched it but not a fan of this sort of thing, it's played out using the dynamics of fiction drama but isn't. Also why should I spend 4 hours of my time on a post facto investigation that clearly doesn't have a fresh conclusion - if it did we'd know.

Muahahaha

yeah I watched episode 1 last night and will see through the other three over tonight, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Was living in Australia at the time it happened and it was major news. That and a deliberate arson attack on a youth hostel in Childers, Queensland that killed 15 backpackers were giving Australian tourism a bad rep so the cops there put huge resources in to both those cases and they remained national news for quite some time. .

The bit in the murder in the outback about the truck driver seeing three people near the crime scene but the cops never investigating it sounds a bit suss, hopefully they flesh that out more in tonights episode. I know many Australians have some suspicion on the girl Lee and dont think she is telling the full truth, that there might be more to it than what is known.

fryup

well they certainly portrayed her as an ice queen in tonight's edition,

something definitely off about her

smelly sock

Your Woman Lees isnt credible at all. I get a strong impression she knows more than she is saying.

It'll be interesting to see how they try and explain away the Murdoch DNA on Lees clothing. That really is what got him convicted.

She's cold.

The_Dave

Muahahaha wrote: »

The bit in the murder in the outback about the truck driver seeing three people near the crime scene but the cops never investigating it sounds a bit suss, hopefully they flesh that out more in tonights episode. I know many Australians have some suspicion on the girl Lee and dont think she is telling the full truth, that there might be more to it than what is known.

The driver seemed quite disoriented and dishevelled when recounting that part in comparison to other interviews he gave the programme

Living Off The Splash

The footprints or lack of them in the dessert is suspicious. Did she say that the suspect was searching for her for hours?

I can assure you if there was somebody after me I would keep running until I was far enough away.....not 30 yds?

fryup

yes its all very strange, the lack of footprints, no cartridges found at the scene and above all else....no body?
it just doesn't add up

The_Dave

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

The footprints or lack of them in the dessert is suspicious. Did she say that the suspect was searching for her for hours?

I can assure you if there was somebody after me I would keep running until I was far enough away.....not 30 yds?

The truck driver said it was pitch black that night, so she may not have known which way she was running and could've gone in circles or in a route that didn't veer that far from the road.

But it is definitely suspicious, as were the fact that the cops seemed to think that some details she recounted seem to have come from a place they had stayed in. Though as never having been through such trauma who am I to judge.

smelly sock

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

The footprints or lack of them in the dessert is suspicious. Did she say that the suspect was searching for her for hours?

I can assure you if there was somebody after me I would keep running until I was far enough away.....not 30 yds?

She said she ran for 10 minutes yet only got 30 yrds away. Also no footprints of the man or his dog is another inexplicable missing piece of evidence. No way you'd assume he could have covered that amount of footprints if he'd been searching for hours. The fact she was emailing another guy arranging a holiday in Europe days after Peter had gone missing is a reflection of how cold and empathy lacking she is.

I'm not suggesting that Lee's is guilty but something isn't adding up. I think she probanly doesnt and didnt care about Peter and this whole thing was an inconvinience.

Then there is the red car......

smelly sock

fryup wrote: »

yes its all very strange, the lack of footprints, no cartridges found at the scene and above all else....no body?
it just doesn't add up

No gun shot residue either.

The_Dave

smelly sock wrote: »

No gun shot residue either.

Was he not shot behind the combi, not sure how gsr works and in what proximity someone would have to be to a vehicle for gsr to be present, but it doesn't seem that unusual to me

Living Off The Splash

Also, why would her captor tie one leg.....to what? Did he just wrap the tape around one leg? What's the point?

If she wanted to run off with the new boyfriend.....why would she need to kill her existing boyfriend......just end their relationship...

The_Dave

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

Also, why would her captor tie one leg.....to what? Did he just wrap the tape around one leg? What's the point?

I took it as he wrapped tap around both legs, but neglected to tie the two legs together, odd I know

Tipsy McSwagger

fryup wrote: »

yes its all very strange, the lack of footprints, no cartridges found at the scene and above all else....no body?
it just doesn't add up

Revolvers don’t leave shell casings

Muahahaha

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

The footprints or lack of them in the dessert is suspicious. Did she say that the suspect was searching for her for hours?

I can assure you if there was somebody after me I would keep running until I was far enough away.....not 30 yds?

yeah I think her claim was that she hid for five whole hours while the assailant and his dog were searching for her. Lots of things not adding up about that, especially no footprints from the assailant or his dog. Also as the doc said a working dog would have found her in no time. Her whole desert story doesnt really add up and the lack of footprints leads to the idea she was involved in some sort of cover up where she was voluntarily bound and just ran 35 metres into the desert to create a few footprints to back up her story.

The frequency of phone calls between her and the Nick fellow she was having an affair with are interesting too. It went from a couple of phone calls a day to 8 or 9 all the way to to 28 phone calls in a single day. Sounds like it was far from a casual fling and something more serious.

All that said if she wanted out of the relationship with Falconio why not just break it off. Murdering him in the desert seems an extreme measure unless there was life insurance involved but I dont think there was.

sugarman20

It's an usual case for sure but DNA evidence is hard to beat.

smelly sock

Muahahaha wrote: »

yeah I think her claim was that she hid for five whole hours while the assailant and his dog were searching for her. Lots of things not adding up about that, especially no footprints from the assailant or his dog. Also as the doc said a working dog would have found her in no time. Her whole desert story doesnt really add up and the lack of footprints leads to the idea she was involved in some sort of cover up where she was voluntarily bound and just ran 35 metres into the desert to create a few footprints to back up her story.

The frequency of phone calls between her and the Nick fellow she was having an affair with are interesting too. It went from a couple of phone calls a day to 8 or 9 all the way to to 28 phone calls in a single day. Sounds like it was far from a casual fling and something more serious.

All that said if she wanted out of the relationship with Falconio why not just break it off. Murdering him in the desert seems an extreme measure unless there was life insurance involved but I dont think there was.

Possibly happened in the heat of the moment and wasnt planned. She panicked. Hiding a body out there would be easily done. The Murdoch DNA on her tshirt will be interesting though. Like that really cant be subjective can it? Its there because he had physical contact with her. I'm not sure if she was involved. But she sure is a horrible woman. Holding the brothers hand like that was really odd too.

Muahahaha

Yeah the DNA was probably the clincher. for the jury during the trial. This series seems to focus on Joanne herself and how her story has holes in it. Thats fine and there does seem to be holes in it but the DNA places Murdoch as having contact with her which is pretty damning. Not sure how the lawyer Fraser is going to explain that one away

smelly sock

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yeah the DNA was probably the clincher. for the jury during the trial. This series seems to focus on Joanne herself and how her story has holes in it. Thats fine and there does seem to be holes in it but the DNA places Murdoch as having contact with her which is pretty damning. Not sure how the lawyer Fraser is going to explain that one away

Lets hope they actually focus on the DNA and ask the hard questions. This is getting to be a bit of a PR stunt for Murdoch it feels.

Mike Guide 69

So it’s mentioned that the Australian high court says you cannot convict on dna evidence alone as it’s not safe enough and requires corrobation ,so the cops have the cctv footage of Bradley Murdoch at the petrol stop in Alice Springs,which in essence places him in the area...

smelly sock

Mike Guide 69 wrote: »

So it’s mentioned that the Australian high court says you cannot convict on dna evidence alone as it’s not safe enough and requires corrobation ,so the cops have the cctv footage of Bradley Murdoch at the petrol stop in Alice Springs,which in essence places him in the area...

The cctv is ****e though. The independent height expert person reckons the guy in the photo was 10cm shorter than Murdoch. If you can't convict on DNA alone then the conviction is looking shakey.

gmisk

I vaguely remember this story.
She is an odd fish tbh....not sure if there is more to her than that. Some of her story is odd but she was smoking wacky backy seemingly.

Like other people have said the dna on the shirt is pretty damning.

fryup

smelly sock wrote: »

The cctv is ****e though. The independent height expert person reckons the guy in the photo was 10cm shorter than Murdoch. If you can't convict on DNA alone then the conviction is looking shakey.

Well to my eye i think it is Murdoch in the petrol station, got the same build, wide shoulders and sticky out ears, as for the height difference...Murdoch is 6'5" upright, but no one walks around straight-back upright all the time so i think that argument goes out the window.

BUT having said that... Whether it was Murdoch on the CCTV or not seems a bit irrelevant. It doesn’t mean he then killed Peter Falconio, does it?

smelly sock

fryup wrote: »

Well to my eye i think it is Murdoch in the petrol station, got the same build, wide shoulders and sticky out ears, as for the height difference...Murdoch is 6'5" upright, but no one walks around straight-back upright all the time so i think that argument goes out the window.

BUT having said that... Whether it was Murdoch on the CCTV or not seems a bit irrelevant. It doesn’t mean he then killed Peter Falconio, does it?

Puts him in the area though along with the DNA.

Muahahaha

Mike Guide 69 wrote: »

So it’s mentioned that the Australian high court says you cannot convict on dna evidence alone as it’s not safe enough and requires corrobation ,so the cops have the cctv footage of Bradley Murdoch at the petrol stop in Alice Springs,which in essence places him in the area...

I think the DNA thing is because back in 2001 it wasnt considered reliable enough to convict on DNA alone because it was relatively new technology. Guessing that scientific advances have changed that in the last 20 odd years, I think now they say the chances of it being wrong are in the billions. The final episode tomorrow night will be concentrating on the DNA so it'll be interesting to see how the lawyer Fraser tries to attack that evidence.

I thought the CCTV was inconclusive, theres no way you could tell if it was him or not from those grainy images. Im surprised the jury accepted that it was him and Fraser might be on to something about the weight and power that an experts word can carry in a courtroom. Regardless of the height analysis if you cant say with certainty that it is him then surely it must be discounted. I dont know how any juror could look at those low quality images and say its him with any certainty.

The other person of interest and the dog shot out in the desert is interesting. He certainly seemed to have vanished into thin air.

Tipsy McSwagger

I finished the series last night. To me it was all about the DNA, that’s all there is. But if the cops are willing to set him up for a rape just to get his DNA, then they are capable of planting evidence IMO.

The_Dave

smelly sock wrote: »

The cctv is ****e though. The independent height expert person reckons the guy in the photo was 10cm shorter than Murdoch. If you can't convict on DNA alone then the conviction is looking shakey.

From my viewing he appears to be a foot or more away from the point this hegiht expert is trying to compare when he is measured. It just looked like something a kid cobbled together last minute to hand in as homework rather than a professional presentation.

The_Dave

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but if I was Fraser I'd be focussing on the fact that the heat was on the police to get a result and was the DNA planted given that it seems like a small amount

smelly sock

I think if we look at all of the facts presented it makes a compelling argument against the safety of Murdochs conviction at the very least.

Joanne Lees as the only witness isn't at all credible and her recount of events is full of contradictions and there are holes throughout it.

The CCTV is a joke. There is no way you can say we any degree of certainty that guy is Murdoch.

The lack of any footsteps other than Lees is incredible. Maybe the cops missed some or maybe the perpetrator managed to clean them all. Highly doubtful and also highly doubtful that there would only be one set of tracks there.

The perpetrator had a dog. Lees was no more than 30 meters away and after searching for hours with his dog he couldnt find her.

The tiny, miniscule fragment of DNA. Again it's hard to argue with unless you want to go down the route of it being planted.

No gunshot residue on the van etc.

The fact that Lees picked Murdoch out of a lineuo after seeing him on the internet was crazy carry on.

No motive. Robbery just isn't really believable is it?

Then we have all of the other stuff. The guy in Barrow creek saying he was talking to a guy that met a paticular description. The dog being found dead.

The couple in Bourke swearing blind they encountered Falconio a few days later. Maybe looking for their momnet of fame.

Murdoch seems like he is odd. Obviously a self confessed drug runner but to stretch to murder and abduction is a huge leap.

Again I dont really go for conspiracy stuff but from where I watched there was only really one person with a potential motive to harm Falconio.

4Ad

Spoiler Question ..
So the police took the tiewraps into the prison, but did they take them out of the evidence bag ??
I thought the police/ prosecution said they didn't show them to Murdoch...
Could of mis-heard...

fergiesfolly

4Ad wrote: »

Spoiler Question ..
So the police took the tiewraps into the prison, but did they take them out of the evidence bag ??
I thought the police/ prosecution said they didn't show them to Murdoch...
Could of mis-heard...

They "said" they didnt.

Nothing conclusive in this documentary.
Four hours of scratching the surface of various pieces of evidence, testimony and hearsay and no deep investigation of any of it.
And the 5 minutes of repeated soundbites each night really grinds my gears.

fryup

****HERE'S WHAT I THINK******

Bradley Murdoch was as we all know was a drug runner doing regulars runs from the south to the north of Australia.
It is said that on occasion he would get backpackers to do the odd run for him smuggling drugs
to various towns & cites.
I reckon Murdoch or one of his associates recruited Lees & Falconio to do one of these drugs run - they
were afterall on their way to Darwin that day.
I also reckon that somewhere along the line Lees & Falconio had a rendezvous with Murdoch on that
particular night probably at a roadhouse, and knowing Joanne Lees prickly nature and Murdoch's short temper
that meeting ended in a heated dispute between the two parties, with Lees & Falconio rebuffing Murdoch and
driving off to Darwin. But Murdoch in a fit of rage drove after them caught up with them and drove them off the road.
Falconio gets out of the campervan to confront Murdoch and is instantly shot dead, Murdoch enters campervan
to shoot Lees but the gun jams or is out of bullets - he then decides to tie her up puts her in the back
of his 4WD and kill her at a later stage.
Murdoch goes to retrieve Falconio's body - and in the mean time Lees manages to escape and hide out
in the bush until she is rescued later by the truck drivers..and the rest of it plays out as is.

* I think the drugs running angle is the very reason that Joanne Lees has subsequently been so evasive about the whole affair - because she knows that it could have resulted in a prison term for her as well as jeopardizing her future employment prospects, that's why she's been so economical with the facts.

So thats my synopsis ---feel free to punch holes in it if you like.

Living Off The Splash

I agree. They also admitted to smoking cannabis in their campervan. Was this supplied by Bradley. Is this how the trace DNA came to be on the gear stick, wheel of campervan etc.

I have to say I thought that the show didn't probe enough.

Did they ever trace the mysterious boyfriend Alex/Steph/
Did Lees have a friend named Steph, why was that name used for the emails?
Why didn't Bradley's lawyer question the DNA evidence in the campervan. Apparently it was contaminated with thousands of trace examples. It would have been a simple question to ask "how many traces of DNA were found in the campervan".
Did Lees ever meet up with the new boyfriend or have contact with him in the last 18 years?
Why did Bradley not set fire to the campervan to destroy any DNA. Is that not standard?

bullvine

Its a one sided show but from what we saw, he should never have been found guilty.

Only Lees knows what really happened.

What was with no foot prints? I thought was damning, how could there not have been any? If it had happened at that location.

dfx-

fergiesfolly wrote: »

They "said" they didnt.

Nothing conclusive in this documentary.
Four hours of scratching the surface of various pieces of evidence, testimony and hearsay and no deep investigation of any of it.
And the 5 minutes of repeated soundbites each night really grinds my gears.

I thought it was a very one sided account of what happened. They've clearly set out from the start that "he's not guilty". A character assassination on Lees which they criticise "the media" for doing to Murdoch and a lot of talking heads stuff comes down to "it doesn't feel right". The only forensic scientists shown are those who find them not guilty or doubt the evidence, actively trying to explain away the evidence.

It desperately needed a balance.

smelly sock

dfx- wrote: »

I thought it was a very one sided account of what happened. They've clearly set out from the start that "he's not guilty". A character assassination on Lees which they criticise "the media" for doing to Murdoch and a lot of talking heads stuff comes down to "it doesn't feel right". The only forensic scientists shown are those who find them not guilty or doubt the evidence, actively trying to explain away the evidence.

It desperately needed a balance.

Yeh I'd agree with that summary from looking back on it. A prosecutor probably would have been able to debunk any of the issues Foster etc raised.

Babooshka

It was all just snippets. I thought the one who wrote the book, the white headed lady, would go into why she believed his innocence, where he was that night, what he was doing, did he have an alibi. No one touched on any of these things, it was a bit of a waste of time. And there was the guy at the truck stop restaurant who said he saw Lees chase after a bloke in a yute who had a dog who had just bought a pie for his dog....that was it, it was never mentioned again, a whole lot of confusion.

RocketRaccoon

fryup wrote: »

****HERE'S WHAT I THINK******

Bradley Murdoch was as we all know was a drug runner doing regulars runs from the south to the north of Australia.
It is said that on occasion he would get backpackers to do the odd run for him smuggling drugs
to various towns & cites.
I reckon Murdoch or one of his associates recruited Lees & Falconio to do one of these drugs run - they
were afterall on their way to Darwin that day.
I also reckon that somewhere along the line Lees & Falconio had a rendezvous with Murdoch on that
particular night probably at a roadhouse, and knowing Joanne Lees prickly nature and Murdoch's short temper
that meeting ended in a heated dispute between the two parties, with Lees & Falconio rebuffing Murdoch and
driving off to Darwin. But Murdoch in a fit of rage drove after them caught up with them and drove them off the road.
Falconio gets out of the campervan to confront Murdoch and is instantly shot dead, Murdoch enters campervan
to shoot Lees but the gun jams or is out of bullets - he then decides to tie her up puts her in the back
of his 4WD and kill her at a later stage.
Murdoch goes to retrieve Falconio's body - and in the mean time Lees manages to escape and hide out
in the bush until she is rescued later by the truck drivers..and the rest of it plays out as is.

* I think the drugs running angle is the very reason that Joanne Lees has subsequently been so evasive about the whole affair - because she knows that it could have resulted in a prison term for her as well as jeopardizing her future employment prospects, that's why she's been so economical with the facts.

So thats my synopsis ---feel free to punch holes in it if you like.

Wouldn't Murdoch have just said that's what happened if that was the case?

For what's it's worth I think he's innocent

fryup

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Wouldn't Murdoch have just said that's what happened if that was the case?

For what's it's worth I think he's innocent

but then he's admitting his guilt, he said he was innocent right from the off he's not going to change his tune esp now when he's looking for an appeal

although as one commentator said at the very end maybe Murdoch didn't act alone maybe he had an accomplice?? and maybe the accomplice did the actual killing and Murdoch is keeping stumm out of loyalty to him????

both Murdoch and Lees (for whatever reason) are not telling the full story

Muahahaha

fryup wrote: »

****HERE'S WHAT I THINK******

Bradley Murdoch was as we all know was a drug runner doing regulars runs from the south to the north of Australia.
It is said that on occasion he would get backpackers to do the odd run for him smuggling drugs
to various towns & cites.
I reckon Murdoch or one of his associates recruited Lees & Falconio to do one of these drugs run - they
were afterall on their way to Darwin that day.
I also reckon that somewhere along the line Lees & Falconio had a rendezvous with Murdoch on that
particular night probably at a roadhouse, and knowing Joanne Lees prickly nature and Murdoch's short temper
that meeting ended in a heated dispute between the two parties, with Lees & Falconio rebuffing Murdoch and
driving off to Darwin. But Murdoch in a fit of rage drove after them caught up with them and drove them off the road.
Falconio gets out of the campervan to confront Murdoch and is instantly shot dead, Murdoch enters campervan
to shoot Lees but the gun jams or is out of bullets - he then decides to tie her up puts her in the back
of his 4WD and kill her at a later stage.
Murdoch goes to retrieve Falconio's body - and in the mean time Lees manages to escape and hide out
in the bush until she is rescued later by the truck drivers..and the rest of it plays out as is.

* I think the drugs running angle is the very reason that Joanne Lees has subsequently been so evasive about the whole affair - because she knows that it could have resulted in a prison term for her as well as jeopardizing her future employment prospects, that's why she's been so economical with the facts.

So thats my synopsis ---feel free to punch holes in it if you like.

Thats actually a pretty good theory because its not uncommon for backpackers to be drug mules in Australia. I think it was mentioned his crops were worth 200k at a time and that amount would get you a very long prison sentence in Aus so it makes sense Murdoch would use a mule, better that that risking a 20 year prison sentence himself. Also in the program it said Lees/Falconio were staying in a hostel in Alice Springs but planned to hit the road towards Darwin at 4pm, giving them just a few hours daylight and then driving through the night. People in the hostel said to them that was a bit crazy driving mainly at night. But if you were transporting dope it would make more sense to do it at nighttime.

Also of interest was Falconios workmate who had worked in life insurance fraud and told of how interested Falconio was in the idea and his quote that he "had got the policy"

Anyway I thought it was good but think there should have been an extra episode or two. I would have like them to flesh out Murdochs trial for the rape in Adelaide, like was there anything that placed him at the scene at the time or were the cops literally just framing him to get their DNA. The program just mentioned he was found not guilty but never said how much not guilty, was it a complete sham of a trial or was there something in it?

And on the DNA thing it certainly was very co-incidental that both Murdoch and Lees/Falconio had eaten in the exact same Red Rooster chicken shop on the day of the murder. That begs the question were they all meeting there for a handover of loads of dope and his DNA was transferred at that point. Could have been the case that he gave them the dope in Alice Springs with the idea of him following them up the highway a couple of miles behind to track his haul and then they got into some sort of row at the roadhouse as a witness explained.

fryup

Muahahaha wrote: »

The program just mentioned he was found not guilty but never said how much not guilty, was it a complete sham of a trial or was there something in it?

that was purely a sham trial to obtain Murdoch's DNA

Muahahaha wrote: »

And on the DNA thing it certainly was very co-incidental that both Murdoch and Lees/Falconio had eaten in the exact same Red Rooster chicken shop on the day of the murder. That begs the question were they all meeting there for a handover of loads of dope and his DNA was transferred at that point. Could have been the case that he gave them the dope in Alice Springs with the idea of him following them up the highway a couple of miles behind to track his haul and then they got into some sort of row at the roadhouse as a witness explained.

that's a very good point...it is very coincidental that all three were in the same diner on the same day, was CCTV footage ever looked at it?? as it would have been damning if Murdoch was seen talking to F & L ...not just for Murdoch but Lees as well

retro:electro

Good documentary. But as much as I enjoyed it and enjoy others like it, I’m always reluctant to commit to believing any narrative that is being pushed so heavily in one direction. With the right production, a few inconsistent details and intense music, you could make anyone look guilty.
That said, I think the way Joanne was supposedly manhandled and the scant bit of DNA left behind is rather curious. I’m not sure I’d be happy to convict based on that.
I found it deviated a lot in parts.. it was one minute focusing on Joanne being highly suspicious, then that someone else other than Murdoch did it, and then it briefly focused on the possibility that he might still be alive. A bit confuddled.

The thing that struck me most is surely the first detail you would give when describing Murdoch is the fact that he is absolutely huge.. did she ever even mention his height? Surely that would be the first description you would give.

Casefile did a good podcast on this case a while back. Worth a listen.

Muahahaha

fryup wrote: »

that was purely a sham trial to obtain Murdoch's DNA

Have you read the book about it or from somewhere else? I mean if the cops had no evidence for the rape but still got the prosecutors office to take it to trial just so they could get his DNA that is some serious level of police corruption right there

that's a very good point...it is very coincidental that all three were in the same diner on the same day, was CCTV footage ever looked at it?? as it would have been damning if Murdoch was seen talking to F & L ...not just for Murdoch but Lees as well

Yeah funnily enough Ive been in that Red Rooster myself, its not far from Alice Spring town centre (which was an absolute dump with boarded up shops everywhere and alcos sleeping on the streets). From memory it is near a roundabout from where the main road to Darwin begins. Yeah the CCTV or this aspect was not fleshed out very far but I remember in another case that CCTV back 20 years ago was often useless because it only ever was a camera directly pointed at the tills to stop employees pilfering. Not like now where is it a lot cheaper and business owners cover every angle of their store.

It certainly is a coincidence that they told the cops separately they were both in the Red Rooster on the same day and location wise it would have been a good staging post on the road to Darwin if transporting a big quantity of weed was the real objective here. Theres a definite feeling that Lees is not telling the full truth and nor Murdoch either. And then you bring in the eyewitness at the first road house who said he saw Falconio arguing with someone out in the forecourt of the Barrows Creek and it makes you wonder. Perhaps Falconio was arguing with Murdoch himself or else another accomplice, after the row the fear was Falconio could drive off with the 200k worth so Murdoch went protecting his haul and it went south from there. One of the other truckers who said he thinks Murdoch was innocent put it nicely- if you're transporting large amounts of weed like that why would you be stopping to commit other crimes along the way, it just doesnt add up.

fryup

Muahahaha wrote: »

Have you read the book about it or from somewhere else? I mean if the cops had no evidence for the rape but still got the prosecutors office to take it to trial just so they could get his DNA that is some serious level of police corruption right there

i mean arresting Murdoch for that rape charge was a sham, from what i gather it was a ongoing investigation and Murdoch was brought in as a suspect under false pretence with the aim of getting his DNA, that's more or less what they said in the documentary

Muahahaha wrote: »

Perhaps Falconio was arguing with Murdoch himself or else another accomplice, after the row the fear was Falconio could drive off with the 200k worth so Murdoch went protecting his haul and it went south from there.

yes something along those lines is closer to the truth i think,

Muahahaha

fryup wrote: »

i mean arresting Murdoch for that rape charge was a sham, from what i gather it was a ongoing investigation and Murdoch was brought in as a suspect under false pretence with the aim of getting his DNA, that's more or less what they said in the documentary

Yeah I just wondered because the program didnt really go into a lot of detail on it whereas if it is what it looks like then that is some serious level of corruption by the cops and the prosecutors office.

Its one thing to bring him in for questioning and get his DNA, a whole other thing to put him on trial for a crime they knew he had nothing to do with. If it was a case of corrupt cops fiddling with DNA then that would have blown things wide open, a bit similar to how things went down in Marking a Murderer.

As said I think there should have been an extra episode or two to flesh these things out, four wasnt enough to cover it all.

dfx-

Is a jury supposed to join the dots or surmise their own theory or judge based on what is presented to them? As a former jury panel member it is very much the latter...

There wasn't any evidence of a drug run, an accomplice, a meeting or physical contact at the restaurant even if they were there at the same time.

Muahahaha

dfx- wrote: »

I

There wasn't any evidence of a drug run, an accomplice, a meeting or physical contact at the restaurant even if they were there at the same time.

Theres was no evidence of a drug run on this occasion but the program said that is pretty much what he did- grow dope in a secret location in the outback and then transport it to wherever to be sold, Murdoch admitted that this was his criminal enterprise.

The truck driver who rescued Joanne mentioned seeing three men next to a red car/ute, one of who was "like jelly", possibly Falconio already dead and being moved into another van. Another trucker has said he saw Falconio at a roadhouse having a heated argument with someone. With the Red Rooster no evidence that they were there at the same time but both Murdoch and Lees told police they were there on the day of the murder which is remarkably co-incidental and if it was a dope run they wouldnt be admitting to being there for a meeting.

The alternative view is that Less and Falconio were just driving along in the dead of the night and Murdoch just took it upon himself to murder two people at random with zero motive. The fact that Lees account of how all this happened has a ton of holes in it (no footprints in the desert, her hiding only 35m away despite saying she ran for 10 minutes, a dog couldnt find her despite hours of searching, no gun shot residue found by ballistics, only a small pool of blood, etc) suggests that there was more to this than both Murdoch and Lees are letting on.

Crazed psychopaths who murder randomly do exist but Im not sure Murdoch fits that profile. He was a dope grower and runner and someone who was in need of drug mules. Broke backpackers who would take a risk for a couple of thousand dollars are a perfect fit for that job. Even Murdoch being in Alice Springs raises questions, he lived somewhere deep in the outback growing his weed so Alice was not him nipping out to the shops for a carton of milk, he was hundreds of miles away from his home base. Its a strong possibility that was because he was doing a drug run.

dfx-

Even then, is that not giving extra motive for him to have been the killer. Prepared to do anything, would likely know where they were going to be and where to catch up with them

It's much much more likely to be him in that case than anyone else.

Muahahaha

Oh yeah, for sure. And I think he did it too. But the Joanne Lees story of her and Peter just driving along minding their own business until a crazed murderer showed up to kill them at random isnt adding up. The vast majority of murder victims know their killer be it a friend, family or business associate. Murders of random people by sociopaths just for the sh1ts and giggles are extraordinarily rare. What isnt as rare is a known drug trafficker needing to transport drugs and using backpacker mules to do it. If it was a drug running operation then it would be normal for the trafficker to be following the mules a few miles down the road all the way to the destination, they're not going to risk being double crossed with $200k of product. . That way if there is a cop checkpoint the trafficker has nothing on them and the mules take the hit and go to prison.

Who knows but if there was a shipment of drugs involved then both Lees and Murdoch were never going to admit to it. There is very long prison sentences for drug running in Australia, Lees could have been looking at 15+ years in prison and Murdoch the same on top of his murder charges. In Lees case she shut down all contact with the media, perhaps scared that their constant and probing questions in a frenzied press conference could make her story fall apart. People with nothing to hide would be fine with media engagement to help find their missing boyfriend but if you've something to hide thats a very awkward position to be in.

I got the impression that both of them were not telling the full truth, even the language analysis called Lees' police interviews as being deceptive. This coupled with all the holes in her story about the actual abduction makes it seem there was more going on that just a crazed sociopath deciding he wanted to murder a couple of random backpackers with no motive whatsoever except the desire to kill for fun. We know he was a drug trafficker who was a long way away from home, we know he regulary did drug runs to Adelaide and had an associate there who sold it. And we know an eyewitness saw Falconio arguing with someone at a roadhouse so theres a lot of pieces there that would support the drug mule theory.

If he was just a sociapath out to commit random murderers for kicks then I would have thought a psychological profile of him would have picked up those personalty traits. Pity the program didnt flesh that out.

LennieB

"The alternative view is that Less and Falconio were just driving along in the dead of the night and Murdoch just took it upon himself to murder two people at random with zero motive. The fact that Lees account of how all this happened has a ton of holes in it (no footprints in the desert, her hiding only 35m away despite saying she ran for 10 minutes, a dog couldnt find her despite hours of searching, no gun shot residue found by ballistics, only a small pool of blood, etc) suggests that there was more to this than both Murdoch and Lees are letting on".

Was watching programme - hadn't really known much about the case beforehand so just going on what I saw, but just a small thing on the footprints etc, I can't see how the person who Lees claimed to have ran after her would have spent so long trying to find her, would imagine they would try to get out of there asap in case anyone came along (I know it was nighttime and highway would be quieter ,but still they are not going to hang around too long with a dead body and crime scene) - I think she ran into the bush and wasn't pursued, therefore no other footprints - why she would have said she was I don't know and she was the only witness so would make sense that they would try to get her. Just don't feel she told the complete truth about what happened and think there are others involved.