The strange case of Peter Falconio

Just stumbled across this site... So will park it up to come back to:

http://falconio.weebly.com/

Andrew, I'm working on transferring all the earlier posts - 3 here so far.

My computer crashed in the middle of transferring another lot; I'll have one more go tonight but will leave it till tomorrow if the same thing happens again.

Don't worry about it, Freedom. That's a pain in the ass task that CF gave you

I can't remember what I posted or where it was moved to be honest.

I know where they are - another 6 are now here. It's a straightforward job except when my computer (which I've only had since October) keeps freezing and crashing.

P.S. I think this is the lot now.

Andrew wrote:Don't worry about it, Freedom. That's a pain in the ass task that CF gave you

I can't remember what I posted or where it was moved to be honest.

Keeps her out of trouble

Don't worry though Freedom just leave it as it is we can add to the thread now.

I won't touch it, I promise!

A funny story on the subject of computers crashing. I was at work and was setting up new properties for rating purposes. It wasn't rocket science but it was fiddly, time consuming and needed concentration.

Thankfully I had someone to answer the phone so I could get on with the job. I set up about 20 accounts, pressed send and the system crashed and I lost the lot. I jumped up saying "I've had enough of this" and walked to the window, intending to get a breath of air. My boss thought that I was going to jump out; the look on his face was priceless.

This case intrigues me. Again, mainly because of the character of Joanne Lees. She just didn't act normally or typically of someone placed in that situation.
I've watched her in interviews and she comes across as cold. It doesn't mean I think she is guilty - just that her manner and behaviour seems odd.....
The body has never been found and there are lots of things I've read which says her story does not add up. I wouldn't be surprised if Bradley Murdoch did not do it. I don't think he is alive though. It is very intriguing.

Murdoch is still alive helenmeg. he will never be released as Australia has a no body/no parole rule.

The ex lawyer who is one of the people saying that Murdoch didn't do it, has himself been convicted of drug taking which puts me off him a bit.

But I had a funny feeling about Joanne Lees at the time and felt she could have accidentally killed him in a physical fight and then made up the story of the murder and attempted kidnapping. When she returned to Australia recently to plug her book - officially the reason was to appeal to people to look for the body - I thought of Kate McCann and the truthful book and I remembered my initial suspicions of Joanne.

HelenMeg was referring to Peter Falconio not being alive. That's how I read it anyway.

Yes I was actually although I didn't make it very clear!
I don't find Joanne very appealing but still find it hard to think that she killed him.. And if she did I don't think she would have done s good job in hiding the body. But also I can't believe that Murdoch 's motive was to rape Joanne and if it was not that then what was his motive?

It always reminds me of that woman who claimed road rage.  Had a huge argument and killed him then claimed someone chased them through the lanes and killed her boyfriend Lee Harvey in a road rage attack. She was the subject of one of those fake tears programmes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracie_Andrews

Yes, I remember that case - someone called Tracie Andrews who lived in West Midlands. I think she is still in Jail now.
Joanne Lees was remarkably composed and cool (on the outside at least) for someone so young who had been through such an ordeal.
When someone's behaviour is so different from the norm then it rings bells...

I just dont know about Joanne Lees - but I think maybe she's just one of those people who dont show emotion. I hope that one day we get to hear the truth

You'll see from the Wikipedia link that Tracie Andrews was released in 2011, Helenmeg.

A new (I think) 4 part series about the case. Here's a link to the first part. I haven't seen it yet but I'm told it's very good and there are parallels with the McCann case.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/murder-in-the-outback

I am watching this 4 part C4 series and recommend it. Can't wait to see part 3 tonight.

I didn't know that Joanne had what she told the police was a brief fling with a man she met in Australia (think in a youth hostel) and that contact continued between Joanne and this man on the outback trip. Telephone logs show many calls and significantly, only a couple days after the alleged incident happened. The police were led to believe it was a fling and meant nothing to her relationship with Peter.

I note I posted on this case 3 years ago and suggested an accidental killing after a row. Now they had been together 4-5 years - a violent row could have erupted if he found these calls on her phone.

The evidence that led to Murdoch being convicted was his DNA on Joanne's T shirt. I can't explain that. But I don't see his motive. OK he was a minor drug dealer. he could have waved down their camper van to rob them. Why would he want to kill both of them? And under Oz law convicted murderers don't get parole unless they reveal where the body has. After years in prison, why wouldn't he tell the truth to know he would get out at some stage?

yes parallels with the McCanns. Joanne wrote a book, behaves coldly about the man she 'loved', inconsistent story.

The programme used statement analysis etc in part 1 and experts agree Joanne very suspicious. remember this used to look at McCanns (but not by the police!)

I watched until the last 3 minutes of the first episode and then the i-player broke down. I shall catch up with it and the second episode tonight.

It's weird about the DNA on Joanne's shirt - how could that have got there? Could there be a mistake?

The bit I've always found particularly suspicious is her account of running and hiding and the attacker searched "for hours" and then gave up. I know it was pitch black but it's possible he had a torch in his truck and he did have a dog and Joanne was only a few yards off the road.

Freedom wrote:I watched until the last 3 minutes of the first episode and then the i-player broke down. I shall catch up with it and the second episode tonight.

It's weird about the DNA on Joanne's shirt - how could that have got there? Could there be a mistake?

The bit I've always found particularly suspicious is her account of running and hiding and the attacker searched "for hours" and then gave up. I know it was pitch black but it's possible he had a torch in his truck and he did have a dog and Joanne was only a few yards off the road.

A mistake or he was framed? this was a high profile case like the McCanns. the police were under pressure to find the culprit. It wasn't good for tourism - again compare the McCanns. Could they police have looked for a suitable low life to frame?

I agree very suspicious that he didn't find her when he had a dog and very unlikely he didn't have a torch in his truck. And anyway why look for her.? His only motive would have been robbery and why not search their van at his leisure. their passports and cash were surely of interest.

If he had shot Peter, he would have been anxious to stop a witness to the crime from getting away.

Freedom wrote:If he had shot Peter, he would have been anxious to stop a witness to the crime from getting away.

But why would he have shot Peter in the first place as he didn't know him from Adam as the saying goes. he could have robbed the pair at gunpoint, taken their phones and driven off

I suppose that Peter could have tackled him and the gun went off accidentally. 

I don't believe that he was shot though.

I've seen the first two now and, unusually as they haven't yet been on TV, the other two are also available on the i-player. I'll probably watch them tonight when I can't sleep because of my neighbours who for some reason feel the need to run water at all hours of the night!

Yes, the interviews with Joanne are reminiscent of the McCanns - I suppose it isn't uncommon though with people whose stories don't add up to say things like questioning me isn't helping to find out who did this.

I hope that some possible explanation will be given as to how the DNA could be faulty.

I have now seen the last two parts and yes there is a section in the last part where the DNA evidence is examined and the scene recreated (according to Joanne's version of how it happened) to see if it is feasible.

I won't say any more for the benefit of those who haven't seen it yet but it was very interesting.

There was also a bit about how Brad Murdoch's name was blackened by the press before he came to trial - talk about ruining the chances of him being judged impartially.

My opinion remains the same - the wrong person is in jail for this crime.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8510435/Joanne-Lees-stepfather-says-Bradley-John-Murdoch-INNOCENT-outback-slaying-Peter-Falconio.html?ito=push-notification&ci=22235&si=10306854

Good for him. Some people support their relatives even when it's blindingly obvious they aren't telling the truth.