Printable version of thread

Posted by: Crazy Chris 7th June 2020, 06:33 PM

A very in-depth 4 part investigation in to the attack on Joanne Lees and Peter Falconio in the Aussie outback in July 2001. She escaped but he was murdered, supposedly by Bradley Murdoch who was convicted of the crime. Many people found holes in Joanne's story though, including some legal professionals such as Andrew Fraser. He thinks there's much more to this case than meets the eye. Ep.1 looks at the crime and crime scene with Ep.2 looking at the relationship, Joanne Lees and her version of events. Ep3. looks at the case against Murdoch in detail and Ep.4. a look at the DNA evidence which convicted him and sums everything up. Falconio's body was never found. Theories are that Joanne killed him or he wanted to disappear.

All 4 episodes available on All4 from 10.15pm.

Posted by: King Rollo 7th June 2020, 10:05 PM

Having watched the first episode,I can't understand how he was found guilty but there's a lot we haven't been told yet. I'm looking forward to seeing how this progresses.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 11th June 2020, 07:19 AM

Well after all 4 episodes it's fair to say we're not any wiser really as to what happened. Parts of her story don't add up. There wasn't enough blood on the road for someone to have bled to death and in fact it was shown in tests to contain animal DNA as if it had been mixed for a fake death scene.

Joanne's now 45 and lives in Huddersfield, West Yorks, but makes annual trips to the Outback too. She was working with a local sculptor to erect a statue monument to him at the scene.

The possible sighting a week after the incident is interesting with the couple at the garage saying they're 200% sure it was him. The woman's a court clerk so considered very reliable. Could he have faked his death with help from Joanne or someone else? Could she not even know this?

Posted by: King Rollo 11th June 2020, 08:31 PM

It's still a big mystery. Her story about hiding in a bush close to the side of the road for 5 hours and not being found sounds very dubious when she said the attacker had a dog with him.

Peter Falconio may well have faked his own death but I'm not sure why if there was no insurance policy.

We were never told in the programme where Murdoch claimed to be at the time of the attack. I'm assuming he was unable to provide an alibi.

Whether he did it or not,I don't think he should have been found guilty based on the evidence presented.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 11th June 2020, 09:49 PM

QUOTE(King Rollo @ Jun 11 2020, 09:31 PM)