Australia Australia - Peter Falconio, 28, Barrow Creek, NT, 14 Jul 2001

Joanne Lees back in the spotlight as dramatic new evidence could free the man convicted of killing her boyfriend

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=563626&in_page_id=1879


"The case against Murdoch was based on three crucial pieces of DNA evidence linking him to the crime. These were found on the T-shirt that Joanne was wearing on the night of the attack; on the home-made shackles used to tie her hands; and on the gearstick of Joanne and Peter's Volkwagen Kombi camper van...But what happens if you take away Dr Whitaker's evidence - described by critics as "junk science" - and you are left with one single speck of DNA on a T-shirt as the single thing linking Murdoch to the crime?"

This is another strange one. I'm surprised it doesn't have its own forum here on WS. Bradley Murdoch was convicted of killing Joanne Lees' boyfriend, Peter Falconio, even though no body was ever found and numerous questions remained. Some are mentioned in this article:

"Why, for example, did Murdoch risk driving off with Falconio's body, as he must have done because no body was found at the scene?
How was it that not a single trace of blood was found in his vehicle (although Murdoch did change parts of the vehicle after Falconio disappeared)?
Why, though Joanne's footprints were discovered, was not a single footprint of Murdoch, or his dog, found at the scene? This aspect of the case continues to baffle the Aborigine trackers who searched for them. And why were there no drag marks to show a body had been moved?
Joanne says a violent struggle took place between her and Murdoch, yet the only trace he left was that speck on her Tshirt. Murdoch's vehicle had no front to rear access yet Joanne said she climbed from the front to the back of the vehicle.
And why did Joanne refuse to talk publicly at the time in any detail about the attack even though police urged her to in order to help them try to find her boyfriend?
And why, even taking into account her distress at the time, did Miss Lees manage to get her description of her attacker so wrong?
He was, she said, of medium build and with long hair; Murdoch stands 6ft 4in and had a crew cut. He has no front teeth but Joanne did not notice that. She thought the dog was red and brown coloured; Murdoch's dog is a dalmatian. The plot thickened when hundreds of miles away in Bourke, New South Wales, two petrol station employees were adamant that several days after his disappearance, Falconio came into the filling station and bought a Mars bar."

Any WSers have any theories?

I read Joanne Lees' book, and the thing I found most convincing was her apparent hatred for Murdoch. Could she hate him so much if she knew she was framing him for the crime?

For some reason I dont believe her story...the part that gets me is that the dog never found her while she was supposdely only hiding meters away from from it.....her whole story sounds shonky to me.
I think she had a hand in Peters dissappearance and Murdoch(who is a not a saint I know) has taken the fall for it..wrong place wrong time type of thing...thats my opinion anyway.....I didnt like Miss Lees from the start.
Murdoch was a known drug runner but thats a far cry from kidnapper / murderer and the man is in jail when theres really no evidence of a crime being committed at all....as you said Peters body has never been found.

Other issues are:

Pro Murdoch's guilt:

• He allegedly raped a mother and daughter, using home-made handcuffs exactly like those used on Joanne. The case never went to a conclusion because of some technicality.
• He talked about the ease of disposing of a body in the outback.
• He behaved suspiciously after the case broke, remodelling his van and, I think, disposing of a firearm that one witness knew him to have had.
• His path did cross with that of Peter/Joanne shortly before the incident, as they were in the same restaurant. Bit of a coincidence?

Anti Murdoch's guilt:

• Peter spoke of faking his own disappearance.
• The amount of blood found on the highway was not enough definitely to kill someone, and the pattern by which it was deposited was consistent with someone deliberately bleeding themselves.

I don't know whether the above points are true, half-true, or just rumours. But they show this case to be a complex one with many questions remaining. Has Murdoch really been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

On 14th July 2001, Peter Falconio and his girlfriend Joanne Lees, two English tourists, were allegedly attacked near Barrow Creek in the Northern Territory, Australia, by a gunman who flagged them down whilst they were driving their Kombi van North on the Stuart Highway. Peter Falconio was allegedly shot in the head by Bradley John Murdoch, a known drug runner. Joanne Lees escaped from Murdoch by hiding in the bushes until he left. She then flagged down a road train for assistance. However, she was the only witness to the alleged attack, and within days was emailing another man with whom she had had an affair. She was reluctant to assist police saying that she wanted to be left alone to get on with her life.
Murdoch was imprisoned for the alleged crime, for a non-parole period of 28 years. Falconio's body has never been found. No murder weapon was found, and no evidence was found of any guns having been fired at the scene. Only Lees' own footprints were found there, none having been found belonging to the gunman or his dog. Lees testimony contained numerous inconsistencies and she was treated as a suspect at one point.
A small pool of Falconio's blood was found at the scene covered in a mound of soil.
Murdoch was found guilty on the basis of one small speck of his blood found on Lees T shirt.
Although the jury found Murdoch guilty, doubts remain.

Peter Falconio (Wiki)

Joanne Lees (Wiki)

Timeline (Guardian)

A fascinating case....even though it was 'concluded' in 2005 when Bradley John Murdoch was imprisoned, there are many things that don't sit right when scrutinised. Why would a grieving girlfriend be contacting the man she'd had a relationship with during the trip, within days of Peter's disappearance? Why would she be reluctant to meet Peter's father and brother when they arrived in Australia a few days later?

Lees changed her story several times before ,during and after.......This whole case was built from the ground up by conniving Lees,Hepi,Police,Prosecutors and of course the Media helped it along too..There was no case against Murdoch until Hepi, his druggy mate put him in for the Falconio disappearance so he could get off his own drug charges and Hepi also offered to collect DNA samples from Murdoch's belongings and his dog Jack so he could get an OUT OF GAOL FREE CARD.......Very odd case thats for sure.

A lot of it doesn't sit right with me, but no matter how hard I try, I can't come up with a scenario that fits all the known facts. Was Peter really killed there, or was it actually a set up? Did Peter vanish alive for some reason? No body was ever found, and the pool of blood was only small. Was Peter injured there and kidnapped by somebody? But why would an attacker leave a witness behind when all he had to do was sit it out till dawn? He had several hours of darkness left. If he had searched some more would he have found her? No - something about this case doesn't add up if you ask me!

Hi !! ..its taken a while for this "incident" to find its way into a relevant forum...which is good to see , maybe with exposure here we can find a proper and decent result ...
it is an odd case in that there was no body, no eyewitness or no weapon...very strange in deed...
and to top it all off we have a procession of shady witnesses and even corrupt police and police departments...
...contradiction after contradictions ...hmmm interesting to imprison a person for twenty eight years on really a nothing...

But my main focus here (I for some reason could not post in the relevant thread)
is the pursuit of the following case , as this person will be given the all clear for a horrific crime...this year.
...a person that I believe in my opinion has been employed by the relevant police for a period of time...
I believe in the Internet technology section which involves grooming and misinformation spreading for the relevant police department...

do the relevant police have a checks and balances employment protocol ???
and even consider taking on such a person ?? or was his IT skills what they were after? and not the seriousness of the crime?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-10-17/former-teacher-gets-10-years-in-jail-for-abusing/1495026



Former teacher gets 10 years in jail for abusing girl

Posted Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:40pm AEST

A former primary school teacher who sexually abused an eight-year-old student has been jailed for 10 years in the District Court in Adelaide in South Australia.

The man was arrested last year while training to become a police officer.Craig Stephen Davis, 38, of Salisbury North, was teaching at the Seventh Day Adventist Prescott Primary Southern School.

He indecently assaulted and had unlawful intercourse with an eight-year-old female student.

Judge Michael David said Davis used his position to prey on the girl and sexually abuse her.

It was appalling conduct and he had disgraced his profession, Justice David said.

The judge said Davis had previously taught primary school in South Korea and Queensland.

He had since quit teaching to train as a policeman.

Justice David sentenced Davis to 10 years' jail, with a non-parole period of seven years.

So this guy was going to be a policeman????????????????????????????? Well they do say it takes all sorts but I'd say nobody who has committed a crime like this should be allowed to work as a policeman!!! You teach your kids to trust a policeman but if they did... well.... god knows what could happen...!!!! Disgraceful I say!
Nice avatar by the way, continuum!!!!

Continuum said:

Hi !! ..its taken a while for this "incident" to find its way into a relevant forum...which is good to see , maybe with exposure here we can find a proper and decent result ...
it is an odd case in that there was no body, no eyewitness or no weapon...very strange in deed...
and to top it all off we have a procession of shady witnesses and even corrupt police and police departments...
...contradiction after contradictions ...hmmm interesting to imprison a person for twenty eight years on really a nothing...

Click to expand...

Yes - it was really a nothing! Just a small spot of fluid on Lees T shirt and not much else. Except a whole load of corruption!

Hi Continuum.....Is there a connection between the case you've highlighted and the Peter Falconio case?

my name is josephine said:

So this guy was going to be a policeman????????????????????????????? Well they do say it takes all sorts but I'd say nobody who has committed a crime like this should be allowed to work as a policeman!!! You teach your kids to trust a policeman but if they did... well.... god knows what could happen...!!!! Disgraceful I say!
Nice avatar by the way, continuum!!!!

Click to expand...

well I would be interested to know,how a school teacher gets thrown out of the education system,pending charges... and can still join the police force...?
deals done?? and what deals...?

Daphne said:

Hi Continuum.....Is there a connection between the case you've highlighted and the Peter Falconio case?

Click to expand...

Yes I feel...in a round about way.... mainly in the misinformation...
although again also involvement in a earlier related trial....

my name is josephine said:

Yes - it was really a nothing! Just a small spot of fluid on Lees T shirt and not much else. Except a whole load of corruption!

Click to expand...

Just a small spot of fluid on Lees T shirt

Click to expand...

and the one test on it by the prosecution... and the sample was destroyed... so no chance to verify the results...and that is justice?

my name is josephine said:

Yes - it was really a nothing! Just a small spot of fluid on Lees T shirt and not much else. Except a whole load of corruption!

Click to expand...

having a quick refresh on the court case , there was straight after the case, a junior (number 5) came out and said that the jury was led in the verdict by the judge...god help Mr Murdoch ....

What about the pool of blood on the roadside? Why was this covered in soil? Would an attacker REALLY go to all that trouble? I doubt it very much!

...in the truck drivers statement...the mound of dirt covering the blood on the road was six to eight inches high when he arrived at it...
so if the incident had taken place five to six hours earlier, then that mound over the blood would have had to been almost a foot high...that's allowing for the flow of traffic driving over and spreading the mound...
...is that a decision to hide the blood?? or a signal to draw attention to that spot??

Continuum said:

...in the truck drivers statement...the mound of dirt covering the blood on the road was six to eight inches high when he arrived at it...
so if the incident had taken place five to six hours earlier, then that mound over the blood would have had to been almost a foot high...that's allowing for the flow of traffic driving over and spreading the mound...
...is that a decision to hide the blood?? or a signal to draw attention to that spot??

Click to expand...

I reckon it has to be to draw attention to the spot. Either that or the attacker had an obsessive compulsive tidying up disorder! Attackers don't go round mopping up blood! It has to be to mark the spot, I'd say!