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

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
Reverend said:
Perhaps I'm naive, but I can't believe anyone would be that cruel to their family to fake their death like that.
Click to expand...

I agree. As for whether Murdoch was guilty I'm still unsure, but the behaviour of the police was certainly suspicious at times (the officer taking the cable handcuffs into the jail for seemingly no reason).

I don't think Lees was involved but her behaviour was certainly strange on several occasions.
 
Sticks&Stones said:
I agree. As for whether Murdoch was guilty I'm still unsure, but the behaviour of the police was certainly suspicious at times (the officer taking the cable handcuffs into the jail for seemingly no reason).

I don't think Lees was involved but her behaviour was certainly strange on several occasions.
Click to expand...

There are some very odd people in the police. 99.9% are honest and upright, but there are a few who have engaged in criminal activity like domestic violence, stalking (and I've had known people who have partner who are police and been in that situation) and/or do weird things. I hope that that wasn't in this case.

As for Joanne Lees, the brain is a very sensitive piece of equipment. The fact that she has never married and lives a very private life may be an effect on what happened to her.
 
Well after watching all four episodes the last couple of nights, I think I'm more confused that ever.

I don't however, think Bradley Murdoch is responsible. I think he was someone who it was convenient to set up for it and the police would be only too happy to get a fairly high profile drug trafficker behind bars.

There are so many holes in Joanne's story, she was so defensive in interviews that on its own makes her seem suspicious.
I do wonder if she was involved in Peter's disappearance/death? Not that she did it herself, but arranged it with someone. Did she want to maybe leave the path clear for herself and the other guy she'd been seeing, though it does seem a very extreme way to go about it.
Realistically what would Bradley Murdoch have had to gain from killing Peter and (allegedly) disposing off his body, and how on earth would Joanne REALLY have been able to hide in the bush so that neither him (a native Aussie) or his dog were unable to find her?

Then you had the lawyer, who by his own admission had been dodgy as hell and was clearly a bit of a media bleep.

The guy that was absolutely convinced he'd seen Peter afterwards and behaving somewhat oddly did seem very sure, and then there was the guy that Peter had previously worked with and who claimed that Peter had as good as told him that he was going to do that.
If Peter did do that then it must have absolutely destroyed his family. His poor Dad in particular looked like a broken man 😔
 
I don't think Peter Falconio faked his death. No one could be that cruel to their family.

It's alleged that Murdoch had been taking some of the stuff he had been transporting, and ended up a bit paranoid, thinking that the Kombi had been tracking them. Not quite sure how....
 
Just watched this all tonight. I’m on the fence but I was confused about the timeline - the truck driver said he was driving and saw the red car driving away, then she burst out of the bush onto the road. Didn’t they say at the beginning that she waited in the bush for hours and then “murdoch” gave up and left? So did she just happen to burst out of the bush at the time the first lorry going past was there to get her? Sorry if I’ve missed something..
 
I watched all four episodes last night, it seemed to raise more questions than it answered.
Why didn't the trucker tell police about the red car and jelly man? Seems like a crucial part of the story he kept quiet about.
Why didn't the couple who claim to have seen Peter go straight to the police, and would they have at all if she hadn't been overheard?
I do think he might have faked his death, people disappear and cut off contact from their families all the time, just because it seems they were a close family doesn't mean he didn't have something to hide from them. By faking his death it could give them some closure rather than if he just disappeared.
There is definitely something strange about Lees but if she had a cold personality anyway who knows if she's hiding something or that's just how she is
I don't think Murdoch is guilty, if he had had a different defence who had picked up on these indiscrepancies he might not have ended up in prison
 
I don’t think Murdoch is guilty at all and believe that the police needed to arrest and convict someone for the crime and used him as he was a good scape goat because of his high profile drug trafficking, So this was a win win for them. It also made sure that the tourism wouldn’t be hit hard as they had someone behind bars for the crime that had hit the world.

I do believe the police put his dna on wee Lee’s top to frame him. And don’t believe the cctv video is off him. The only reason I believe Lee pointed Murdoch out on the suspect list was because a month earlier she saw his face in the paper after being arrested for it.

The man in the cafe and his staff were both adamant that Lee and Peter had came in for a sandwich (something that Lee denied) But why would the man and his staff lie? They have no reason too. He also spoke about a man fitting the description of what Lees had told the police the suspect had looked like including the wee dog, come in not long after them and said that Lees had got up and spoke with this man outside. Was it to pay him off? Was it to finalise plans? Was he a hit man that she had arranged? From this evidence I do believe Lees knew the attacker and this is the reason she denied going there.
Whether or not she arranged for this to happen, or that they may have been involved in some kind of drugs trafficking that went wrong ie they lost drugs, owed them money, or trying to get away from them? Whatever the reason she knew this person.
Lee and Peter were both high that evening as lee had mentioned in her statement that they had both smoked drugs so they obviously had got the drugs from somewhere so knew where to get it from.
So could this have been a hit man after them both ? Or could Lees have had this arranged so that she was free to be with brad? I’m not sure. But this could be why she is so cold and off in her interviews.
They also found a dog killed not long after down the road which fitted the description of the man in the cafe and off Lees.
But what I don’t understand is why take the body? Why not leave him and her there? As then they will have to get rid of the body if they had killed him. Also there wasn’t any footprints other than lees no dog/ no other persons nothing. I don’t believe for a second that they wouldn’t have been able to find lee as there was nowhere to hide and the land was flat. I think whoever it was that did it left her there because it was agreed that she was to be left and not killed as why not shoot her in the car? Why tie her up?
There is something about lee that is odd I think she is defo hiding something.
 
Renegadedancer said:
I watched this , it didn’t need to be on for four nights.
Click to expand...
Agreed it was a slow documentary they could have covered it in 90 mins!

I think Lees had something to do with it but I don't feel the doc offered any more insight into what actually happened.. They mainly talked about the evidence and how some of it can be discredited.
 
I’ve just finished the first episode, I think I was too young at the time so didn’t pay much attention and I don’t remember much about it.

does anyone else get weird vibes from the truck driver?
 
I've finally finished watching this (whoever said it could have been covered in 90 mins was dead right!) but I am SO on the fence. I remember the case well as I'd done the same trip only a couple of years before and I've always thought it was a strange case but that they'd got the right man in the end. However, now a huge part of me thinks that Murdoch is was used as a scape goat. There are just so many discrepancies in the evidence against him from the DNA to the motive to the lack of evidence at the scene. Joanne Lees is also a strange fish - as I said earlier no-one knows how someone is going to react in the aftermath of an event like that but there is something very off about her. She's very cold, controlled, seemed bored by the whole process, seemed deliberately evasive, lied on oath, walked into court smiling at all the press. But but but what possible motive could she have had for killing him or being involved in his death? To be with Steph/Nick? Seems a bit extreme. And there was no evidence of her and Peter being anything other that occasional weed smokers (as lots of back packers are) so I don't think there's a drug angle. As I say, I'm completely perplexed!
 
Dizzy said:
I've finally finished watching this (whoever said it could have been covered in 90 mins was dead right!) but I am SO on the fence. I remember the case well as I'd done the same trip only a couple of years before and I've always thought it was a strange case but that they'd got the right man in the end. However, now a huge part of me thinks that Murdoch is was used as a scape goat. There are just so many discrepancies in the evidence against him from the DNA to the motive to the lack of evidence at the scene. Joanne Lees is also a strange fish - as I said earlier no-one knows how someone is going to react in the aftermath of an event like that but there is something very off about her. She's very cold, controlled, seemed bored by the whole process, seemed deliberately evasive, lied on oath, walked into court smiling at all the press. But but but what possible motive could she have had for killing him or being involved in his death? To be with Steph/Nick? Seems a bit extreme. And there was no evidence of her and Peter being anything other that occasional weed smokers (as lots of back packers are) so I don't think there's a drug angle. As I say, I'm completely perplexed!
Click to expand...

I’ve just finished watching them too. I am also perplexed. She seemed like an actress playing a character, it didn’t feel like she was genuine? I think she knows more than she’s let on, but I don’t know if she did it? I think Murdoch must have been involved somehow but the evidence doesn’t seem strong enough.

I’m also convinced the lorry driver had something to do with it, why would he tell her to make sure she’s got a story straight (I’m positive I heard him say that)? If they were telling the truth, they wouldn’t need to get their story straight. He just seemed a strange character.
 
I've always felt she had something to do with it. Call it intuition; call it something else. But I am absolutely convinced of that. There were some things in the series that I hadn't seen before; her smugness and rudeness alone were just so 'off.' She must thank her lucky stars every day that she managed to get away with it.

Good on that advertising guy and ex-Lawyer for doing all that work on this investigation. Sadly, it will prove fruitless as the guy who's locked away is dying of cancer and will likely never be pardoned. I doubt it'll even get to trial again; I have a feeling that those who were involved (alongside Lees), have long passed.

I think Peter told her he wanted out of the relationship when they returned home - which must have come as a huge shock to her as she (allegedly) wanted to get married on the way back home), - so she pretended all was well and then hung him out to dry over a drug deal. Maybe she intended to run off with this Nick guy who was maybe involved in Peter's disappearance (via the red car?); maybe as a result of that she decided to break it off all contact with him and create this new life without him? He's back in London now, where he works in IT.

MrsJones83 said:
I’ve just finished watching them too. I am also perplexed. She seemed like an actress playing a character, it didn’t feel like she was genuine? I think she knows more than she’s let on, but I don’t know if she did it? I think Murdoch must have been involved somehow but the evidence doesn’t seem strong enough.

I’m also convinced the lorry driver had something to do with it, why would he tell her to make sure she’s got a story straight (I’m positive I heard him say that)? If they were telling the truth, they wouldn’t need to get their story straight. He just seemed a strange character.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did say that. I think he was just concerned that maybe she was tied up in something that had got a bit bigger than she could have realised. It may have been a subtle hint not to dob anyone in, or she could be in grave danger. I think he was just a typical Aussie trucker; I didn't get any 'off' feeling about him.

I wonder what ever came of this:

No Cookies | NT News

No Cookies
www.ntnews.com.au www.ntnews.com.au

^ A part of me does also think he faked his death though. It would not be hard to do, especially if he had helpers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top