Jump to content

Falconio murder


JackLadd

Recommended Posts

Anybody watch the Channel 4 series on this? Looks like the guy locked away is innocent to me, or at least no way can be convicted. Falconio's g/f was a shifty liar also, but it's a weird one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

Anybody watch the Channel 4 series on this? Looks like the guy locked away is innocent to me, or at least no way can be convicted. Falconio's g/f was a shifty liar also, but it's a weird one.

Very weird : all those witnesses , but he was never there ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuel Camazzola

The amount of information that was withheld was very surprising. The truck driver who picked up Joanne talking about the erratic driving with the car and the guy named 'jelly man'. The other truck driver who got talking to the guy when the roads were closed who had advised he had shaved off his moustache and gave the impression he had shot his dog after an identity of the suspect had been released. 

 

The lack of forensic evidence at the crime scene is a strange one along with the couple who are certain the witnessed PF in their store. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a re-trial is granted. 

 

Is Joanne Lees based in the UK again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart Lyon

The girlfriend looked shifty to me! 2 days after the incident she sends an email to her lover saying they can meet in Germany later in that year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter
7 hours ago, JackLadd said:

Anybody watch the Channel 4 series on this? Looks like the guy locked away is innocent to me, or at least no way can be convicted. Falconio's g/f was a shifty liar also, but it's a weird one.

On tonight, last episode, the boy convicted is one scary dude but could be innocent.

A lot of twists and turns in the story, like the witness that spotted the victim in his town after the event.😕.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuel Camazzola
1 hour ago, Harry Potter said:

On tonight, last episode, the boy convicted is one scary dude but could be innocent.

A lot of twists and turns in the story, like the witness that spotted the victim in his town after the event.😕.

You can get final episode on demand now. 👍 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it all in a one'r last night. One of the worst bits for me was she picked out Murdoch's photo AFTER she'd seen his mugshot on the internet via a BBC news story but it was deemed admissible at the trial.  Only her footprints at crime scene, no sign of the victims, Murdoch or the dog she said he had. They argued away the dna as unreliable also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been watching this and I’ve been struggling with Joanne Lees behaviour. I find it fascinating  that someone would behave the way she has. Her lack of emotions it quite something. I have lost friends (not a partner) and I’ve been a snivelling mess. Her composure makes her seem like she has something to hide, even if she doesn’t.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Bradley did it but it seemed strange that they didn't mention any sort of alibi whatsoever for the timings around the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn

No doubt she is weird and only a complete lack of self-awareness would make her wonder why people doubted her. The emails about meeting that other fella in Berlin painted her as a right callous bitch.

 

But you’ve got to say, it was pretty laughable the way they dropped in at the very end of part 4 that, er, yes he was in Alice Springs on the day the incident happened and, er, yes they did eat in the same restaurant. They were clutching at straws to explain how his DNA ended up on her t shirt.

 

Generally speaking, the case had a lot of holes in it. But I reckon Murdoch did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found the part interesting where they suggested Murdoch was on a "supplies run" so would be strange for him to behave this way when he wouldn't want to draw attention to his activities. The DNA elements of the case are pretty suspect - i find it strange there was not more evidence. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy

I think he probably did it but I agree that the evidence presented at the court should not have secured a conviction.  The G/f was a  very odd character, totally nonplussed about her boyfriends disappearance and probably murder.  I don't think Falconio did a disappearing act for insurance.  However why was he murdered ?  What was the motive if Morgan did it?  This didn't make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auld Reekin'
3 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

No doubt she is weird and only a complete lack of self-awareness would make her wonder why people doubted her. The emails about meeting that other fella in Berlin painted her as a right callous bitch.

 

But you’ve got to say, it was pretty laughable the way they dropped in at the very end of part 4 that, er, yes he was in Alice Springs on the day the incident happened and, er, yes they did eat in the same restaurant. They were clutching at straws to explain how his DNA ended up on her t shirt.

 

Generally speaking, the case had a lot of holes in it. But I reckon Murdoch did it.

 

Funnily enough, I took the opposite view on that and thought that if this had come out at Murdoch's trial it would've (or should've) greatly weakened the prosecution's case. For me, the programme very ably demonstrated how easy it would've been for Murdoch's DNA to be transferred to Lees' t-shirt entirely accidentally and solely through their proximity within a short time period on the same day in the same place. What was much more "laughable" to me was how little of Murdoch's DNA was present on the t-shirt, given the very close and direct contact that he and Lees were alleged to have had during his manhandling and binding of her.

 

I'm not saying Murdoch was innocent, but the prosecution case against him - relying so heavily on very dubious DNA "evidence" - came over as being deeply flawed and compromised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
12 minutes ago, Auld Reekin' said:

 

Funnily enough, I took the opposite view on that and thought that if this had come out at Murdoch's trial it would've (or should've) greatly weakened the prosecution's case. For me, the programme very ably demonstrated how easy it would've been for Murdoch's DNA to be transferred to Lees' t-shirt entirely accidentally and solely through their proximity within a short time period on the same day in the same place. What was much more "laughable" to me was how little of Murdoch's DNA was present on the t-shirt, given the very close and direct contact that he and Lees were alleged to have had during his manhandling and binding of her.

 

I'm not saying Murdoch was innocent, but the prosecution case against him - relying so heavily on very dubious DNA "evidence" - came over as being deeply flawed and compromised.


I agree on the last bit. He should have been cleared, even though I think he did it (if that makes sense).

 

 Btw, how funny was that bit where the facial recognition expert tried to pretend that the massive blur of CCTV was Murdoch’s face :rofl:’In my view, that’s him.’ It’s a ****ing bunch of pixels love. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auld Reekin'

Whoops...

Edited by Auld Reekin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auld Reekin'
11 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


I agree on the last bit. He should have been cleared, even though I think he did it (if that makes sense).

 

 Btw, how funny was that bit where the facial recognition expert tried to pretend that the massive blur of CCTV was Murdoch’s face :rofl:’In my view, that’s him.’ It’s a ****ing bunch of pixels love. 

 

Yup.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had never heard of the case but this thread peaked my interest. Done a fair bit reading but not watched the tv doc.

The tv doc was made by a struck off lawyer.

The guy in jail had a long list of charges including drugs, assault and kidnap. according to one article i read he was convinced due to "conclusive dna evidence"?

Theres odd things about it, the random target, the shifty gf, her getting away in the outback etc but it seems like it was a tragic death but they got the right guy.

have i missed anything major?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wonder how honest the editing of these type of documentaries is. If the premise is to go no further than create doubt then they achieve that in spades. If their purpose is to actually establish innocence, guilt or an alternative killer then they fail utterly in that...

 

My observations on this show: 

- Why no contacting of Nick/Steph?

- Where is the Ute - was it found/ checked for evidence?

- As so often, it does sound like the pressure to solve the case may have got to the authorities - I mean taking the manacles into an interview with a suspect?!!

- the conviction seems to be based on circumstantial and even some dodgy evidence. I think it would've been a "Not Proven" in Scotland.

Edited by Spellczech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, if you watch this on Channel 4 online, at the bottom in the section "People who watched this also watched....." there is a documentary called The Imposter (or such like) which is pretty ****ed up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jelly man revelation seemed to be there and gone again as soon as it was covered whereas other things were repeated a lot. Lee's behaviour gave me the impression of someone who got a kick out of deception.  Her broad smile when asked by an interviewer a good bit later if she had a part in his death was a bit unsettling and inappropriate.

 

don't often see the outback/ northern territory - looks amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Darwin at the time of the court case (what a media circus that was) and the overwhelming view of the locals was that Murdoch was guilty as sin and if he'd somehow got away with it he wouldn't make it out of Darwin alive. Not seen the program but I'm sure the DNA evidence was quite conclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, graygo said:

I was in Darwin at the time of the court case (what a media circus that was) and the overwhelming view of the locals was that Murdoch was guilty as sin and if he'd somehow got away with it he wouldn't make it out of Darwin alive. Not seen the program but I'm sure the DNA evidence was quite conclusive.

 

Not per blood expert Professor Barry Boettcher, one of the most eminent in the field in Australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Not per blood expert Professor Barry Boettcher, one of the most eminent in the field in Australia.

 

Sorry yes, I was meaning the feeling in Darwin at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, graygo said:

 

Sorry yes, I was meaning the feeling in Darwin at the time.

 

Well when you look at him I can see why people thought, yup it's him. It might have been him, just not enough evidence to convict from what I saw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonedinoz
On ‎11‎/‎06‎/‎2020 at 05:45, Helzibob said:

I’ve been watching this and I’ve been struggling with Joanne Lees behaviour. I find it fascinating  that someone would behave the way she has. Her lack of emotions it quite something. I have lost friends (not a partner) and I’ve been a snivelling mess. Her composure makes her seem like she has something to hide, even if she doesn’t.  

Many said the same about Lindy Chamberlain back in the early 80's and were convinced as I was, that she was guilty of murdering her baby at Ayers rock.

 

She went to jail, still protesting her innocence, and ultimately the evidence surfaced to prove she was innocent.

 

People handle trauma and grief differently, so I now never make a judgement on how I think I would react.

 

Like most of Australia, back then although being convinced of her guilt,  I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Brown
6 hours ago, maroonedinoz said:

Many said the same about Lindy Chamberlain back in the early 80's and were convinced as I was, that she was guilty of murdering her baby at Ayers rock.

 

She went to jail, still protesting her innocence, and ultimately the evidence surfaced to prove she was innocent.

 

People handle trauma and grief differently, so I now never make a judgement on how I think I would react.

 

Like most of Australia, back then although being convinced of her guilt,  I was wrong.

 

I must admit, I thought behaviour was bizarre. As if she didn't give a shit, like bored adolescent.

I found it disturbing, in view of what had or supposedly had happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
11 hours ago, maroonedinoz said:

Many said the same about Lindy Chamberlain back in the early 80's and were convinced as I was, that she was guilty of murdering her baby at Ayers rock.

 

She went to jail, still protesting her innocence, and ultimately the evidence surfaced to prove she was innocent.

 

People handle trauma and grief differently, so I now never make a judgement on how I think I would react.

 

Like most of Australia, back then although being convinced of her guilt,  I was wrong.

The Lindy Chamberlain story was fascinating. She got pilloried by the media because she was " cold" and calm in news conferences and people were also suspicious of her religious beliefs.  Imagine if they had social media back then, she would have been more pilloried even more. The film about the case is brilliant . " A cry in the dark" and the book its based on " Evil Angels" is excellent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ricardo Shillyshally

I watched it and could not believe how one sided it was. A total hatchet job on Joanne Lees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2020 at 02:04, maroonedinoz said:

Many said the same about Lindy Chamberlain back in the early 80's and were convinced as I was, that she was guilty of murdering her baby at Ayers rock.

 

She went to jail, still protesting her innocence, and ultimately the evidence surfaced to prove she was innocent.

 

People handle trauma and grief differently, so I now never make a judgement on how I think I would react.

 

Like most of Australia, back then although being convinced of her guilt,  I was wrong.

Hadnt heard of that case either. Wish i still hadnt, horrible.

 

Who takes a 2month old camping in the outback though? 

 

Ive actually been to alice springs and camped in the northern territory. Its harsh and full of beasts. Camping with a 2month old alone would be difficult enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonedinoz
10 hours ago, Alan_R said:

Hadnt heard of that case either. Wish i still hadnt, horrible.

 

Who takes a 2month old camping in the outback though? 

 

Ive actually been to alice springs and camped in the northern territory. Its harsh and full of beasts. Camping with a 2month old alone would be difficult enough.

Merlyl Streep no less played Lindy Chamberlain in the movie Evil Angels about the saga.

Still can’t resist saying in a very bad AussieAmerican accent ‘ A  Dingo took my baybeee..’ every time I see Meryl on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonedinoz

Then with the greatest of respect, I suggest you are more easily influenced by conspiracy theories than most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure if the guy is guilty or not tbh but if what has been presented in the documentary is true there is no way he should have been convicted. And if he has done it, it’s not went down how she’s described.

 

Her story did not tie up with the evidence at the scene whatsoever. She’s apparently crawled for 10 minutes in the dirt but is found 30 meters away from the roadside, without minimal dirt on her t shirt. No trace of this man or his dog’s footprints who has apparently been trying to find her for hours, yet her footprints are present. He’s apparently been manhandling her but only the only trace of his DNA is a tiny spec on the back of her t shirt. 

 

Not to mention her IDing him in a witness album after already seeing his picture online, the detective taking the manacles he had apparently used into the interview room amongst other baffling things which were deemed admissible at court or left out altogether. 
 

It doesn’t add up at all, doubtful if we’ll ever found out what really happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siphiwe Tshabalala
10 hours ago, maroonedinoz said:

Then with the greatest of respect, I suggest you are more easily influenced by conspiracy theories than most.


I’m not influenced at all. There hasn’t been a body found, it’s as good a theory as anything else.

 

Someone knows something and isn’t letting on within the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...