Murder in the outback... Joanna lees & Peter Falconio

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
I got the impression its very biased against Lees however i do feel she isnt a reliable witness at all. There is a lot about it that doesnt add up, if shes guilty then why would she do it in the middle of nowhere relying on strangers to pick her up? The outback is deadly. Then again why were there no signs of anyone but her? The area is so glat i find it difficult to understand how she couldve hid from someone.
A part of me is wondering whether they got into something dodgy and someone hit Peter and took him away and left her out there as punishment or something and warned her not to tell.
 
Oooh I remember when it happened so I'll definitely be watching. I watched an interview she did not long after it happened and she came across so strangely, really cold and controlled, like she was giving a performance. Perhaps it was nervousness but I finished the interviewing thinking that she'd definitely been involved.
 
Curlyone said:
You should give it a go! A lot of what others have said is very valid. Certainly raises a lot of questions.

Having watched the whole thing now I would agree that the case against Murdoch is weak. Whether or not Joanne has any involvement is another question.
Click to expand...
I agree it is very weak re Murdoch.
 
Does anyone think he is still alive???

I agree completely about her being very strange in interview and cold at times but I have to sympathise with her. Every case that has any form of doubt, people say “that’s not how someone who’s been through XYZ would behave” but how do we know how to behave in a situation like that.
 
AutumnSpring said:
Does anyone think he is still alive???
Click to expand...

The two people who claim to have seen him in the weeks following his disappearance seem totally convinced. Then there is the part in the doc about Falconio and a life insurance policy, but to me that subplot felt a bit contrived.

The reason I'm so sceptical about this doc is not for a lack of doubt that the case would hold up today but for the simple fact that the guy leading this C4 investigation, Andrew Fraser, comes across as a bit desperate. He's a disgraced former lawyer, openly admits he lost everything after going to prison, lost his license to work, etc. Just feels a bit like he needed something to fall back on. Purely my own scepticism...
 
Well....I live local to Joanne Lees, and the Falconio family, and I have met her a handful of times in different situations.

She is very cold, she is a naturally cold person and she has, what I can only describe as, ’evil‘ eyes.

Do I think she did it? No.
Do I think she had something to do with it? Yes

i am looking forward to tonight’s episode, the whole thing really intrigues me.
 
Things don’t add up. One moment she had her legs bound, then she’s running through the bush. The guy she was talking to at the road house, the other fella talking to the older Aussie chap when the road was closed.
The way she was planning on meeting the man she had an affair with just days after event.

so odd
 
CherryAcid said:
I got the impression its very biased against Lees however i do feel she isnt a reliable witness at all. There is a lot about it that doesnt add up, if shes guilty then why would she do it in the middle of nowhere relying on strangers to pick her up? The outback is deadly. Then again why were there no signs of anyone but her? The area is so glat i find it difficult to understand how she couldve hid from someone.
A part of me is wondering whether they got into something dodgy and someone hit Peter and took him away and left her out there as punishment or something and warned her not to tell.
Click to expand...


This is so interesting! I've always wondered "Why though?! What did she stand to gain??". Very interesting theory pal!
 
I remember watching a crime show about it years ago and there was this one Australian female TV reporter who had Joanne's back up until a certain point ... she said there were just so many things that didn't stack up about her behaviour. Including wearing that 'cheeky monkey' t shirt at one point (court? press conference?). Just so weird.
 
I do not believe for one second Peter faked his own death. If it was the case, why make it appear murder and send an innocent man to jail?

I do not believe at this point Joanne had involvement but I've had doubts. Her whole demeanor was just so odd during the police interviews, as was the correspondence with 'Steph' shortly after Peter's disappearance arranging to meet later that year.
 
Sticks&Stones said:
I do not believe for one second Peter faked his own death. If it was the case, why make it appear murder and send an innocent man to jail?

I do not believe at this point Joanne had involvement but I've had doubts. Her whole demeanor was just so odd during the police interviews, as was the correspondence with 'Steph' shortly after Peter's disappearance arranging to meet later that year.
Click to expand...
I think because they didn’t want NT to be seen as a dangerous place with a murderer on the loose.
 
My thoughts are the police have stitched Murdoch up. The fact they took evidence into the interview room. Like what?!! They got a drug dealer off the streets and the glory of solving the case and lessened the impact on tourism in the area. I do wonder if the DNA was planted on Lees top? The re-enactment was interesting about where DNA would show up given the actions described by lees.
I watched a dramatisation of the case on you tube after watching the documentary. Worth a watch if you’re a bit obsessed like me! And it has the lovely Bryan Brown from the film cocktail in it! 😆 there’s a bit in there where he says about the police not wanting to show themselves up like they did with the case of the baby who was taken by a dingo. I think the police were desperate to show they’d solved it.
Joanne Lees baffles me. I don’t think she was telling the whole truth. I don’t think she murdered Peter but there’s definitely another story. Possibly relating to drugs. Or the other man! God I wish I knew!
 
Not even the Aboriginal Trackers could find his body though ... and they are amazing at their craft.

I think he did fake his death. It would not be hard to hide out in Australia, work on a farm in the middle of nowhere doing all sorts, then skip to Asia where he'd never be found.

I'd be interested to know if he ever did take a life insurance policy out and if so, who the benefactor was.
 
Ohflogoff said:
I think because they didn’t want NT to be seen as a dangerous place with a murderer on the loose.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I was meaning why would Peter fake his own death and stage it to look like a murder, as opposed to an accident. It just doesn't add up for me.

It's just all so bizarre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top