Current The PETER FALCONIO murder BRADLEY MURDOCH & the ROMAN HEINZE factor.

[Kurve]

Named and image in the press so, meet Roman Heinze the Salt Creek attacker and the photofit of Peter Falconio's murderer. #uncanny.

 

[Kurve]

Bradley John Murdoch (born 19 February 1958) is an Australian criminal serving life for the July 2001 murder of English backpacker Peter Falconio. He will be 74 years old when eligible for parole in 2032. Murdoch is being held in Darwin Correctional Centre. He has lodged two appeals against his conviction; both were unsuccessful. He is forbidden to talk to the press.

Despite advantages in admitting guilt over the years and offering to reveal the location of Peter Falconio's body, Murdoch has never wavered in declaring his innocence.

The Project TV next week features a segment on the case "Did they get the right man?"

 

[sprockets]

I have a LOT of faith in the justice system in Australia. It's not that often that we get it wrong, although sometimes we do. If the jury says he's guilty, in my eyes he's guilty until there's a new trial or unless I KNOW better. As for The Project, they're 'shock jocks' and if I had to choose who I trust to get things right, our justice system wins by a lap in a one lap race.

 

[SendSloaneHome]

There is absolutely no doubt they got the right man.

 

[annawinter608]

Couldn't agree more, sprockets. He has consistently claimed to have been framed every time he's been in deep trouble, which is pretty often.

He really, REALLY didn't want to have his DNA tested.

And if the police were seriously framing him, they'd hardly be so subtle as to drop a small amount of DNA on a shirt and a hair tie and leave it at that. Seriously?

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/13/australia.world1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

I have a LOT of faith in the justice system in Australia. It's not that often that we get it wrong, although sometimes we do. If the jury says he's guilty, in my eyes he's guilty until there's a new trial or unless I KNOW better. As for The Project, they're 'shock jocks' and if I had to choose who I trust to get things right, our justice system wins by a lap in a one lap race.

More often than not they get the right bloke and I think in this case they probably have but it's interesting the question of whether they did regardless of recent events in SA, have persisted since he was convicted. These guys tomorrow on The Project could be complete tools but I'm looking forward to what they've got to say.

 

[annawinter608]

It would be interesting to know which other bodies scattered across Australia bear Bradley Murdoch's DNA. He hides bodies well, I'll give him that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

It would be interesting to know which other bodies scattered across Australia bear Bradley Murdoch's DNA. He hides bodies well, I'll give him that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe that's why he won't say where Peter Falconio is, something at the site could lead investigators to more crimes. They've been putting the pressure on, every time he gets comfortable in prison they move him somewhere else and he has to start all over again as the new kid on the block.

 

[annawinter608]

Maybe that's why he won't say where Peter Falconio is, something at the site could lead investigators to more crimes. They've been putting the pressure on, every time he gets comfortable in prison they move him somewhere else and he has to start all over again as the new kid on the block.

I recently read Sue Williams' "And then the darkness" about the case. It's an interesting read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

I recently read Sue Williams' "And then the darkness" about the case. It's an interesting read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've read a couple on this, Bloodstain and Dead Centre but hadn't even heard about this one. I'll check it out, thanks.

 

[annawinter608]

You're welcome. I think I've read bloodstain - and I think the author is mentioned in the sue Williams book as having it in for Joanne lees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

You're welcome. I think I've read bloodstain - and I think the author is mentioned in the sue Williams book as having it in for Joanne lees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never thought Joanne Lees was lying, the venom directed at her still shocks me a bit over facebook and blogs. They just won't give it up, same thing with Kate McCann and Lindy Chamberlain way back .... meh it's cruel.

 

[annawinter608]

I never thought Joanne Lees was lying, the venom directed at her still shocks me a bit over facebook and blogs. They just won't give it up, same thing with Kate McCann and Lindy Chamberlain way back .... meh it's cruel.

I agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

Andrew Fraser on his side ... of Snouts in the Trough. I thought he'd been disbarred.

 

[Lebbo73]

I never thought Joanne Lees was lying, the venom directed at her still shocks me a bit over facebook and blogs. They just won't give it up, same thing with Kate McCann and Lindy Chamberlain way back .... meh it's cruel.

Lindy Chamberlain was found guilty twice by a jury so I can see why people on Facebook and blogs won't give it up. Not that I think she is guilty.
Joanne Lees is a completely different situation and totally undeserving of all the vitriol she has copped.

 

[Kurve]

Just telling a friend, I trust science. If I had my life over again my education would be in the sciences, it's humans much as I love them, that fail. This is a very very big deal in WA right now.

Leading WA DNA scientist was sacked in August and the department kept it quiet until two days before Christmas. Interestingly, around the time the alleged CSK was charged.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-scientist-27-criminal-cases-in-doubt/8403618

 

[sprockets]

Just telling a friend, I trust science. If I had my life over again my education would be in the sciences, it's humans much as I love them, that fail. This is a very very big deal in WA right now.

Leading WA DNA scientist was sacked in August and the department kept it quiet until two days before Christmas. Interestingly, around the time the alleged CSK was charged.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-scientist-27-criminal-cases-in-doubt/8403618

When DNA is the smoking gun you just can't afford to make mistakes or, it seems in that case, not stick to protocols. If people have been wrongly convicted because of this guy he needs to be locked up.

 

[Kurve]

When DNA is the smoking gun you just can't afford to make mistakes or, it seems in that case, not stick to protocols. If people have been wrongly convicted because of this guy he needs to be locked up.

Very upsetting for a lot of people but a great example of why DNA is good as a tool/evidence but not to be relied on entirely to secure a conviction.

 

[sprockets]

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...d/news-story/5d4176600b91d8d9246fb2f365ac4079

"... The spokesman said Mr Webb's breaches did not compromise evidence, so no incorrect results were ever given to the police or the DPP. ..."

 

[Run n Spread]

I have read a couple of books on this back in the day.

Take out the DNA evidence and the case is shaky. This was poorly argued by the defence imo. They went a Police Stitch up when they would have been better going error (contamination) as certain elements of clothes were mixed together inappropriately. Also the DNA was tiny not masses of blood but a thumb nail. The Red Rooster explanation (both were at a packed RR) in Alice on the same day (could of brushed against her or left his DNA on a chair from a cut hand and she sat in the same spot. They aren't the cleanest of places FF restaurants. Also there have been many mistakes with testing. It ain't the be all and end all most claim.

Also some inconsistencies:
1) Where Murdoch was travelling between Alice Springs and his next confirmed siting on the way to Broome (can't remember exact details) he would have had to be travelling at an average of about 110km/h. If he drove off road (he was running drugs) in the dark that is simply unforeseeable.

2) This what I don't get. Between around 8pm - midnight when JL was found by the truckies there were witnesses driving past.
Witness 1 said they saw 2 cars the Kombie JL and PF were travelling in and a ute (possibly Murdochs). they said there was no sign of life or people anywhere. Witness 2 said they saw a silver car drive off and a Kombie parked on the road. Also saw no one around.

Yet when Police looked at the scene first the Kombie was in the bushes. So who the hell moved it? The killing allegedly happened at 8-830pm so if the second witness saw it much later WTF moved it. Lees claimed Murdoch did but how?

Also if Murdoch shot Falconio and him and his dog (a dalmatian which Lees said was a Cattle dog <may have been mistaken>) searched for her then drove off then why didn't the witnesses see the flashlights or Murdoch searching her and how the hell did he move a body that quick. And why no traces in his ute or the Kombie? The lack of a body thou isn't unusual, the area is massive and in the middle of nowhere. Could literally be anywhere.

Finally when Aborignal trackers inspected the scene they only found a trace of Joanne Lees, no one else.

Lees also only positively identified Murdoch after been shown a photo online back home after previously struggling with a description in the dark.

 

[Run n Spread]

To me my best guess is this is some sort of Drug Deal gone wrong. There has been a dispute PF has been assaulted and died (no sign of bullet fragments or tissue anywhere near the scene to indicate a shot), Lees panics and runs off and thinks she hears footsteps, a gun shot in her panic. Also possibly mis identifies the culprit.

Now the killer could be admitted drug dealer BM or someone else. I'm not sure, given all the evidence the jury weren't told if it was all put on the table I'd say Not Guilty, not enough proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

I have read a couple of books on this back in the day.

Take out the DNA evidence and the case is shaky. This was poorly argued by the defence imo. They went a Police Stitch up when they would have been better going error (contamination) as certain elements of clothes were mixed together inappropriately. Also the DNA was tiny not masses of blood but a thumb nail. The Red Rooster explanation (both were at a packed RR) in Alice on the same day (could of brushed against her or left his DNA on a chair from a cut hand and she sat in the same spot. They aren't the cleanest of places FF restaurants. Also there have been many mistakes with testing. It ain't the be all and end all most claim.

Also some inconsistencies:
1) Where Murdoch was travelling between Alice Springs and his next confirmed siting on the way to Broome (can't remember exact details) he would have had to be travelling at an average of about 110km/h. If he drove off road (he was running drugs) in the dark that is simply unforeseeable.

2) This what I don't get. Between around 8pm - midnight when JL was found by the truckies there were witnesses driving past.
Witness 1 said they saw 2 cars the Kombie JL and PF were travelling in and a ute. they said there was no sign of life or people anywhere. (possibly BMs). Witness 2 said they saw a silver car drive off and a Kombie parked on the road. Also saw no one around.

Yet when Police looked at the scene first the Kombie was in the bushes. So who the hell moved it? The killing allegedly happened at 8-830pm so if the second witness saw it much later WTF moved it. Lees claimed Murdoch did but how?

Also if Murdoch shot Falconio and him and his dog (a dalmatian which Lees said was a Cattle dog <may have been mistaken>) searched for her then drove off then why didn't the witnesses see her and how the hell did he move a body that quick. And why no traces in his ute or the Kombie. The lack of a body thou isn't unusual, the area is massive and in the middle of nowhere. Could literally be anywhere.

Finally when Aborignal trackers inspected the scene they only found a trace of Joanne Lees, no one else.

Lees also only positively identified Murdoch after been shown a photo online back home after previously struggling with a description in the dark.

honestly the red rooster explanation would not create reasonable doubt in my mind, perhaps if they could show they found DNA from 20 other people at RR who she brushed shoulders with?

 

[Run n Spread]

honestly the red rooster explanation would not create reasonable doubt in my mind, perhaps if they could show they found DNA from 20 other people at RR who she brushed shoulders with?

Mistake with testing then. I just think take that one thumb nail of blood out and the case falls apart. There is just not enough proof.

And yes there were inconsistencies with Lees' story. Yet a lot of it could be panic. You flee for your life in a foreign country, running from a maniac, your partner goes missing it's cold and you're alone and frightened and yet certain things you are expected to remember word perfect?

Or maybe she has omitted details and is lying. Who knows?

I go with the former. But certain things don't add up.

 

[Run n Spread]

BTW I'm not going off. Reading some books if I was on a jury I probably would've convicted based on the evidence they were presented with and the stupid defence explanation.

But there is a hell of a lot they were simply not told.

 

[sprockets]

Mistake with testing then. I just think take that one thumb nail of blood out and the case falls apart. There is just not enough proof.

And yes there were inconsistencies with Lees' story. Yet a lot of it could be panic. You flee for your life in a foreign country, running from a maniac, your partner goes missing it's cold and you're alone and frightened and yet certain things you are expected to remember word perfect?

Or maybe she has omitted details and is lying. Who knows?

I go with the former. But certain things don't add up.

A couple of books > a trial by jury? Come on... DNA evidence is DNA evidence and must be taken into account. Along with all the other evidence, what is the chance that she picked up his DNA from sitting in a chair that had his blood from a cut finger as well? Is there ANY evidence that he cut his finger and it bled onto a chair that she then sat on it?

BTW http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/north...d/news-story/6dcc1002059b1e5e5de446d2422b0a1f

 

[Run n Spread]

A couple of books > a trial by jury? Come on... DNA evidence is DNA evidence and must be taken into account. Along with all the other evidence, what is the chance that she picked up his DNA from sitting in a chair that had his blood from a cut finger as well? Is there ANY evidence that he cut his finger and it bled onto a chair that she then sat on it?

Not saying that. Whatever I think is irrelevant anyway.

In my defence thou these were well researched and put together.

A trial does omit certain facts. To a point also it's not an undertaking for truth but an adversarial contest. You put your side I put mine and some voters (the jury) can determine what version of the truth they accept. (not like the jury are spectators at the event they are making decisions on evidence presented).

What is weird about this case is you can not conclusively say what happened and prove enough elements to be certain. Where as in other cases you can easily establish a chain of events saying

Event a happened leading to be and c and here is the concrete evidence that pinpoints each fact and establishes a chain. This case to me is a bunch of circumstance and assumption thrown together, which may be correct but hardly engenders confidence.