Murder In the Outback
Discussion
Started off well, interesting to see how they will fill the other 3 eps.
As with Lindy Chamberlain, mysogynistic Australian medja has a real problem believing the testimony of a woman in a trial,
they are are all lying, devious shrews.
They will have to go some to convince me Murdoch is innocent
As with Lindy Chamberlain, mysogynistic Australian medja has a real problem believing the testimony of a woman in a trial,
they are are all lying, devious shrews.
They will have to go some to convince me Murdoch is innocent
Didn’t see the episode, but Peter was in the year above me at high school.
He was a nice guy , parents ran a post office and newsagents, really nice people.
Sad story and I’m not sure we will ever know the true facts, but there are too many unanswered questions to make me believe she was not complicit in his death.
He was a nice guy , parents ran a post office and newsagents, really nice people.
Sad story and I’m not sure we will ever know the true facts, but there are too many unanswered questions to make me believe she was not complicit in his death.
The red car / wobbly man story from the trucker is very odd in that it wasn't reported at the time.
It seems highly unlikely it wouldn't be included in his account considering he mentioned the moving unusual headlights up the road at the time.
The ex-defence lawyer seems to be a man who has destroyed his own reputation and is desperately trying to claw it back by being vindicated, so God knows what has been said between him and the trucker.
It seems highly unlikely it wouldn't be included in his account considering he mentioned the moving unusual headlights up the road at the time.
The ex-defence lawyer seems to be a man who has destroyed his own reputation and is desperately trying to claw it back by being vindicated, so God knows what has been said between him and the trucker.
Been interesting so far, I have the last part to watch later
It leaves some questions for sure, if he did not do it how did his DNA end up on her top plus he was seen at a filling station not far away.
I guess the only person who really knows the truth is Joanne plus by all accounts she was having an affair.
It leaves some questions for sure, if he did not do it how did his DNA end up on her top plus he was seen at a filling station not far away.
I guess the only person who really knows the truth is Joanne plus by all accounts she was having an affair.
Several things seem weird in this documentary.
I found Lees reaction in the interview to be very odd. The way she carried herself was like a petulant child to be honest. Unhelpful, and it came across like she was inconvenienced by the officer going over her account of what happened. Her statement in the press conference was odd as well, how she wanted to get on with her life etc. The man you've been with for 5 years, who you said you hoped to marry, is missing presumed dead.
The email trail to "Steph" - you only change your name if you're trying to conceal who you are. The email about planning to meet in Berlin - again your boyfriend/future husband of 5 years is missing presumed dead, but you're moving on? That's sketchy as hell.
In terms of the guy who did it, from what I can gather they only found his DNA, his blood, on a patch on her t-shirt. I don't know how you could account for that as the blood is visible on the t-shirt she was wearing when she was brought to the police in the first place. But I don't think they found his DNA in the camper van? Even though in both versions of what Lees said, he was in the camper.
At the moment I think both Lees and Murdoch were involved. He may not have murdered him, but he was involved. And I would think that, right now, Lees knows far more than what she's let on.
I found Lees reaction in the interview to be very odd. The way she carried herself was like a petulant child to be honest. Unhelpful, and it came across like she was inconvenienced by the officer going over her account of what happened. Her statement in the press conference was odd as well, how she wanted to get on with her life etc. The man you've been with for 5 years, who you said you hoped to marry, is missing presumed dead.
The email trail to "Steph" - you only change your name if you're trying to conceal who you are. The email about planning to meet in Berlin - again your boyfriend/future husband of 5 years is missing presumed dead, but you're moving on? That's sketchy as hell.
In terms of the guy who did it, from what I can gather they only found his DNA, his blood, on a patch on her t-shirt. I don't know how you could account for that as the blood is visible on the t-shirt she was wearing when she was brought to the police in the first place. But I don't think they found his DNA in the camper van? Even though in both versions of what Lees said, he was in the camper.
At the moment I think both Lees and Murdoch were involved. He may not have murdered him, but he was involved. And I would think that, right now, Lees knows far more than what she's let on.
The police interview concentrated on the supposed inconsistencies in her story.
It should be pointed out that she doesn't need to prove her innocence, she was not a official suspect
or person of interest, she could have gone down the "no comment" route and engaged a lawyer to be present.
Again the media cites her non typical female behaviour, her glum demeanor, lack of tears,
even a decision to wear a tight t-shirt as a sure sign she's not behaving enough like a grieving partner and got stuff to hide.
I agree, the disgraced lawyer has a longing to crack this case and redeem his reputation.
While the conclusions of the experts who examined her statements and interviews for signs of deception
of lying were interesting, it remains to be seen whether such opinion based " science " would be admissible
or convince a jury.
We shall see where it goes tonight.
It should be pointed out that she doesn't need to prove her innocence, she was not a official suspect
or person of interest, she could have gone down the "no comment" route and engaged a lawyer to be present.
Again the media cites her non typical female behaviour, her glum demeanor, lack of tears,
even a decision to wear a tight t-shirt as a sure sign she's not behaving enough like a grieving partner and got stuff to hide.
I agree, the disgraced lawyer has a longing to crack this case and redeem his reputation.
While the conclusions of the experts who examined her statements and interviews for signs of deception
of lying were interesting, it remains to be seen whether such opinion based " science " would be admissible
or convince a jury.
We shall see where it goes tonight.
sgtBerbatov said:
Several things seem weird in this documentary.
I found Lees reaction in the interview to be very odd. The way she carried herself was like a petulant child to be honest. Unhelpful, and it came across like she was inconvenienced by the officer going over her account of what happened. Her statement in the press conference was odd as well, how she wanted to get on with her life etc. The man you've been with for 5 years, who you said you hoped to marry, is missing presumed dead.
The email trail to "Steph" - you only change your name if you're trying to conceal who you are. The email about planning to meet in Berlin - again your boyfriend/future husband of 5 years is missing presumed dead, but you're moving on? That's sketchy as hell.
In terms of the guy who did it, from what I can gather they only found his DNA, his blood, on a patch on her t-shirt. I don't know how you could account for that as the blood is visible on the t-shirt she was wearing when she was brought to the police in the first place. But I don't think they found his DNA in the camper van? Even though in both versions of what Lees said, he was in the camper.
At the moment I think both Lees and Murdoch were involved. He may not have murdered him, but he was involved. And I would think that, right now, Lees knows far more than what she's let on.
Agree with most of that. She is extremely odd. If Murdoch knows she was involved, why hasn't he pointed the finger? I found Lees reaction in the interview to be very odd. The way she carried herself was like a petulant child to be honest. Unhelpful, and it came across like she was inconvenienced by the officer going over her account of what happened. Her statement in the press conference was odd as well, how she wanted to get on with her life etc. The man you've been with for 5 years, who you said you hoped to marry, is missing presumed dead.
The email trail to "Steph" - you only change your name if you're trying to conceal who you are. The email about planning to meet in Berlin - again your boyfriend/future husband of 5 years is missing presumed dead, but you're moving on? That's sketchy as hell.
In terms of the guy who did it, from what I can gather they only found his DNA, his blood, on a patch on her t-shirt. I don't know how you could account for that as the blood is visible on the t-shirt she was wearing when she was brought to the police in the first place. But I don't think they found his DNA in the camper van? Even though in both versions of what Lees said, he was in the camper.
At the moment I think both Lees and Murdoch were involved. He may not have murdered him, but he was involved. And I would think that, right now, Lees knows far more than what she's let on.
She doesn't strike me as if she's some kind of criminal mastermind. Far from it, given her bumbling, petulant child demeanour in interview.
This from 2006: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407718/I-...
Much as it pains me to quote the Daily Wail, they are reporting her words. This snippet about her banging Nick Reilly behind Peter Falconio's back
"I did love Pete with all my heart and when that happened I did overstep the boundaries of friendship, but it made me, like, love Pete even more and value what we did have," Miss Lees said."
The old "I love you so much I'm going to bang another fella" line. Yeah right, love. She's a wrong 'un.
The big red flag for me is that there are absolutely no traces of any other footprints in the bush than those of Joanne Lees, yet Bradley Murdoch and his dog are supposed to have hunted her for hours. It stinks.
Yes, I agree, the appeal lawyer seems incredible dodgy, as does the road train driver witness, clearly an alcoholic, interviewed on screen drinking from a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20, during the middle of the day, as if that's the totally normal kind of image you would want to portray when posturing yourself as a key witness in a case that attracted global interest.
Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 9th June 13:41
MYOB said:
Is this a repeat? I'm pretty sure there was a similar programme some years back. I'm sure the girlfriend was involved in the script.
The previous program was a dramatisation of the event, with Lees being played by Joanne Froggatt [sp], I think. This is a documentary, which from what I've seen seems to have been paid for by the defence. The ex defence lawyer is extremely shady, seemed quite proud that he'd successfully represented some absolute scum.AshVX220 said:
The previous program was a dramatisation of the event, with Lees being played by Joanne Froggatt [sp], I think. This is a documentary, which from what I've seen seems to have been paid for by the defence. The ex defence lawyer is extremely shady, seemed quite proud that he'd successfully represented some absolute scum.
Aah, thanks for the clarification. I'll look out for it on catch-up TV. For me it was the scan document and every expert who saw it convinced she was lying and fabricating the events she described (including her body language and verbal account)
The lack of footprints at the scene, confusing running for 10 minutes into what transpired sprint to a tree 35m away, no sign of Falconios body, no signs on her of a struggle, the gun she described sounds more like a childs toy and loads more. As someone posted above she comes across as a proper wrong 'un, making plans with your bloke on the side to visit him in Berlin 5 days after your partner has been murdered for gods sake. Unfortunately she's never going to let on what really went happened.
The lack of footprints at the scene, confusing running for 10 minutes into what transpired sprint to a tree 35m away, no sign of Falconios body, no signs on her of a struggle, the gun she described sounds more like a childs toy and loads more. As someone posted above she comes across as a proper wrong 'un, making plans with your bloke on the side to visit him in Berlin 5 days after your partner has been murdered for gods sake. Unfortunately she's never going to let on what really went happened.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff