[GfK]

I guess now its over we're free to discuss this. I'm talking about the murder of Peter Falconio. Guy called Bradley Murdoch has recently been sentenced to a 28-year stretch. Fair play for murder. But, did he really do it?

I remain unconvinced.

I don't doubt that he was there - his DNA was found at the scene. But I find it odd if not remarkable that one man could tie up TWO people and then murder one of them. While person A was being tied up, what was person B doing? Forming an orderly queue? I think not.

Joanne Lees also claimed she untied herself (which to be fair she demonstrated in court), and escaped into the Australian Bush for several hours with Murdoch in pursuit. This just does not ring true either. I can't quite put my finger on it.

And when she showed up at court recently holding a camcorder and laughing and joking with the press - is that really how one would normally conduct themselves at the trial of their partner's alleged killer?

I've thought all along that she knows more about what happened that night, and I can't help feeling that she was 'meant' to escape, if you see what I'm getting at. I'm sure that the fact that she was having an affair at the time of Falconio's murder is swaying my opinion somewhat.

What does anyone else think about this bizarre case?

[Skintt]

Originally Posted by GfK

But I find it odd if not remarkable that one man could tie up TWO people and then murder one of them. While person A was being tied up, what was person B doing? Forming an orderly queue? I think not.

IIRC, she claimed Murdoch flagged them down, and Peter Falconio got out the car and was shot by Murdoch who then held the gun to Joanne Lees and forced her out the car. But yeah, myself and a lot of people I know remain dubious about the whole thing.

[Gary Bagshawe]

Hmm, I feel I must agree with you. There has been something about her whole demeanor that just does not fit. Walking into court in a top that is 2 sizes too small laughing and waving at the press, I say again "Things that make you go HMMM!

[RobertP]

I have not taken an interest in the case but I will say this - If you have ever done jury service you know that you see more than just the evidence.

Also having done it a couple of times I can tell you a jury is biased not to convict as it is the safe option. One I was on it was obvious guilt but it took 6 hours to convince one woman 5 police witnesses were unlikely to all be lying.

She would have to be very good to convince a jury to convict.

Hmmm should have watched the news closer - assume it was a jury trial?

[Steep]

A drug running criminal stops a vehicle, shoots one occupant and would have shot the other had she not escaped. He got what was coming to him and an innocent man died, pretty simple in my mind.

What kind of person she is or how she chooses to dress is neither here nor there, thank god juries have to decide on the facts not appearances.

[Mr THX]

Originally Posted by Steep

What kind of person she is or how she chooses to dress is neither here nor there, thank god juries have to decide on the facts not appearances.

Agree totally..........talk about Kangaroo Court (No pun intended)

[GfK]

Originally Posted by Steep

What kind of person she is or how she chooses to dress is neither here nor there, thank god juries have to decide on the facts not appearances.

Body language often speaks louder than words.

[Matty]

at the time of the incident there was o lot of rumbling that she was lying, but her demonstration of escapology and general fiestyness gives the impression that maybe she was capable of escaping?

[CT]

This guy was also charged with the abduction and rape of a woman and her 12 year old daughter in 2002. He was acquitted, and he'd also have been acquitted of this one if the jury listened to the conspiracy theorists and not the evidence.

Joanne Lees was a fair suspect for this at one stage given her story and tbe fact that no offender had been traced, I was the first to doubt her story and I'm sure she had a bad time under police questioning. The fact that this guy has since been arrested, charged and covicted with this awful murder, must have been a huge weight off her - no wonder she was smiling at court!

People don't always behave as we expect them to, especially under the sort of stress she was and had been under.

You have to read between the lines here. This guy would have killed both of them without a doubt, but when she escaped and he couldn't find her he knew he had to get rid of the body from the scene and he knew there was a witness out there who could identify him which she eventually did, despite the fact that he changed his appearance considerably after the event. There was also LOTS of DNA connecting him to Joanne Lees.

Evidence planting accusations are the last resort of a struggling Defence. Planted DNA would soon show up as just that to the forensic examiners. Material transfer takes place naturally, it's virtually impossible to simulate it. No doubt the defence had all the exhibits independently forensically examined anyway.

This guy now languishes exactly where he should be - just not for long enough.

[SammyC]

To be honest, we can only go on what is printed in newspapers etc, and they can hardly be considered the best source of balanced and impartial evidence.

The jury saw all the evidence and they came to the verdict. We have to assume that they came to the correct verdict on the available evidence otherwise there is no point having a jury system and we might as well just use hearsay and conjecture.

[Garnock]

Originally Posted by SammyC

To be honest, we can only go on what is printed in newspapers etc, and they can hardly be considered the best source of balanced and impartial evidence.

The jury saw all the evidence and they came to the verdict. We have to assume that they came to the correct verdict on the available evidence otherwise there is no point having a jury system and we might as well just use hearsay and conjecture.

Now that makes sense to me.

A jury can make a mistake but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt since they have heard all the evidence.
( OJ notwithstanding )