Australia Australia - Peter Falconio, 28, Barrow Creek, NT, 14 Jul 2001

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

kemo said:
If Murdock and Joanne were in such "intimate" contact that blood was transferred, the case is pretty well settled. The DNA evidence trumps everything else: random sightings by witnesses, inconsistencies in Joanne's recollection, and Murdock's adamant denials.

The claim that somehow Murdock somehow cut himself at the "Red Rooster" around 10:30 AM and around 3:30 PM, Joanne had contact with a drop of this blood and got it on her T-shrt is absurd. If the wait-staff there was so negligent that blood would not be cleaned during a 5 hour period, the blood would have dried completely and would not have transferred.

True, the Lab in Darwin was not "accredited"; whatever the legal ramifications of that may be, but even if the Scientist were completely incompetent and got the 16 out of 16 marker sites completely wrong, there would only be about 4 or 5 people in the WORLD who would fit that DNA profile. What are the odds that one of them fit the description of the perp, drove a vehicle that fit the description of the perp's vehicle, and was known to be in the vicinity when the crime occurred? One in Billions.

Without the DNA, the case would be pretty weak, I agree, but with it, the case is rock solid.

The real mystery is "where is Peter's body?" The only thing I can think of is that Murdock, realizing that he was in trouble after Joanne escaped, retrieved Peter's body and put it in his Pick-up (that's "yank-lish" for ute) and drove with it many KM's until he found a suitable spot in the desert to dump it.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that MurdocH cut himself in the Red Rooster....therefore the staff weren't at all remiss in not cleaning up. It was said the stain on Joanne's t-shirt was most likely from a 'weeping' hangnail.
There WAS a report in one of the books that an Irishman whose DNA was on the police database was questioned because he also had 16 markers.
 
kemo said:
What caught my attention of this case was the possibility of someone being "falsely convicted". I believe that participation in sites like this can make a difference in exposing injustice when it has occurred. In this particular case, I feel justice has been served.
Click to expand...

Thank you Kemo...so you have a finite opinion on this case..."Guilty as charged ?
your opinion has been noted!!!
that lets you move on to other cases...
 
my name is josephine said:
So this guy was going to be a policeman????????????????????????????? Well they do say it takes all sorts but I'd say nobody who has committed a crime like this should be allowed to work as a policeman!!! You teach your kids to trust a policeman but if they did... well.... god knows what could happen...!!!! Disgraceful I say!
Nice avatar by the way, continuum!!!!
Click to expand...

Hi Josephine ..."going to be a policeman" ,yes
after leaving the teaching (under serious accusations) he was admitted to police training...reason? I wonder,
serious enough that he received imprisonment ...
not with standing of the damage that was caused to that child...
 
Odd strange ...running a Plagiarism Checker ,why do I get a ninety percent strike rate...??
...once an offender ...always an offender...
interesting....
 
kemo said:
If Murdock and Joanne were in such "intimate" contact that blood was transferred, the case is pretty well settled. The DNA evidence trumps everything else: random sightings by witnesses, inconsistencies in Joanne's recollection, and Murdock's adamant denials.

The claim that somehow Murdock somehow cut himself at the "Red Rooster" around 10:30 AM and around 3:30 PM, Joanne had contact with a drop of this blood and got it on her T-shrt is absurd. If the wait-staff there was so negligent that blood would not be cleaned during a 5 hour period, the blood would have dried completely and would not have transferred.

True, the Lab in Darwin was not "accredited"; whatever the legal ramifications of that may be, but even if the Scientist were completely incompetent and got the 16 out of 16 marker sites completely wrong, there would only be about 4 or 5 people in the WORLD who would fit that DNA profile. What are the odds that one of them fit the description of the perp, drove a vehicle that fit the description of the perp's vehicle, and was known to be in the vicinity when the crime occurred? One in Billions.

Without the DNA, the case would be pretty weak, I agree, but with it, the case is rock solid.

The real mystery is "where is Peter's body?" The only thing I can think of is that Murdock, realizing that he was in trouble after Joanne escaped, retrieved Peter's body and put it in his Pick-up (that's "yank-lish" for ute) and drove with it many KM's until he found a suitable spot in the desert to dump it.
Click to expand...

What motive do you suggest?
 
kemo said:
If Murdock and Joanne were in such "intimate" contact that blood was transferred, the case is pretty well settled. The DNA evidence trumps everything else: random sightings by witnesses, inconsistencies in Joanne's recollection, and Murdock's adamant denials.

The claim that somehow Murdock somehow cut himself at the "Red Rooster" around 10:30 AM and around 3:30 PM, Joanne had contact with a drop of this blood and got it on her T-shrt is absurd. If the wait-staff there was so negligent that blood would not be cleaned during a 5 hour period, the blood would have dried completely and would not have transferred.

True, the Lab in Darwin was not "accredited"; whatever the legal ramifications of that may be, but even if the Scientist were completely incompetent and got the 16 out of 16 marker sites completely wrong, there would only be about 4 or 5 people in the WORLD who would fit that DNA profile. What are the odds that one of them fit the description of the perp, drove a vehicle that fit the description of the perp's vehicle, and was known to be in the vicinity when the crime occurred? One in Billions.

Without the DNA, the case would be pretty weak, I agree, but with it, the case is rock solid.

The real mystery is "where is Peter's body?" The only thing I can think of is that Murdock, realizing that he was in trouble after Joanne escaped, retrieved Peter's body and put it in his Pick-up (that's "yank-lish" for ute) and drove with it many KM's until he found a suitable spot in the desert to dump it.
Click to expand...

Even if we were all to believe the DNA analysis result was correct, and that the blood (or more correctly haemoserous fluid) on Lees T shirt was that of Murdoch, how does this prove he murdered Falconio at Barrow Creek? All it proves is he had contact with Lees, either directly or indirectly. The last witness sighting of Lees and Falconio together was at Aileron, South of Barrow Creek. Nobody ever witnessed Falconio further North than this, and we only have Lees testament that Peter went further than Aileron.
 
Cappuccino said:
I agree with Kemo, and the motive I would suggest is rape. He killed Falconio because he was intending to rape his gf and most likely then kill her too.
Click to expand...

This is a common theory but with one rather large hole in it. Murdoch was a drug runner who took very great care NOT to draw attention to himself in any way. Frequently changed routes, vehicles etc and made the journey as quickly as possible to leave no trail - paid for stuff in cash so he couldn't be tracked. His business was making him a lot of money so why would he risk all this for one lustful encounter? He had girlfriends and enough money to buy such services if required. I don't buy the rape theory - sorry!
 
He had previous convictions for aggravated sexual assault on a mother and daughter. I don't think violent sex offenders are always logical about their offending behaviour, their need for sexual violence is compulsive regardless of how it may affect their drug running activities.
 
Cappuccino said:
He had previous convictions for aggravated sexual assault on a mother and daughter. I don't think violent sex offenders are always logical about their offending behaviour, their need for sexual violence is compulsive regardless of how it may affect their drug running activities.
Click to expand...

No - he was ACCUSED of this crime but found not guilty.
 
Hmmm...it actually got a bit further than an accusation. There was apparently enough to charge him but I can see no record of a conviction.
 
So - here's a summary of what we have on this so far:

Murdoch feels the need to rape somebody so he makes sure he has the right equipment for the job - i.e. manacles and several rolls of tape, plus a bag.

One night, whilst travelling between Alice Springs and Broome, he spots Lees and Falconio in their kombi and follows them up the road for several miles, after ditching his trailer, before flagging the vehicle down. This involves him making a detour off his route.

Falconio sees nothing wrong in stopping for a complete stranger on a deserted road miles from anywhere. He stops gets out, chats with the gunman and comes back to the vehicle for his cigarettes and asks Lees to rev the engine. She does this but hears a bang which she NEVER said was a gunshot.

The gunman then points his gun at her but does not shoot her. He does not indicate what he wants. He struggles with her, punches her in the temple, -( which injuries a doctor never found) - tries to tape up her mouth and legs with different types of tape but fails. He puts manacles on her hands which are behind her back. Then he puts a bag on her head then shoves her into his ute with a silent dog which sheds no hair. She scrambles between the seats and escapes out of the back. Her hands are behind her back but she is able to feel the roof of the vehicle. The police fail to find the type of vehicle described by Lees in the whole of Aus. The gunman leaves no DNA on her apart from one small speck of fluid, despite having struggled with her, punching her, and tying her up.

She runs into the bushes leaving footprints. The man and his dog search for her with a torch. They fail to find her and fail to leave any footprints. The man goes back to the vehicles and tidies up. Shovels a mound of soil onto the blood and somehow manages to heave Falconios bleeding body into his ute without leaving any drag marks or drips. Then he moves the kombi into the bushes and walks back from its hiding place, leaving none of Falconios blood on it anywhere, even though he has been heaving a dead body about.

He drives off the way he came, stopping at the service station for some shopping before rehitching his trailer and continuing the journey. At some point he disposes of Falconios body.

Meanwhile back at Barrow Creek.... Lees hides in the bushes for five hours without once being bitten or scratched, and manages to stay warm throughout those hours, in the middle of winter. Then, when the time is right, she flags down a roadtrain for rescue.

She fails to phone her mother. She fails to phone the Falconios. She is reluctant to answer the police questions and even more reluctant to speak to any of the press. A description of Falconio is not forthcoming. She emails her secret lover asking to meet him in Berlin. When the Falconio family fly out she refuses to meet them. She shows no emotion at the loss of Falconio. Only when an offer of money is on the table does she agree to an interview. When this interview makes her look less than rosy she blames her mother for being swayed.

Yes - sounds like a simple case of thwarted rape to me!!! Not!!
 
That's great, Daphne, but I'm not really the type to lean on a jury verdict as stand alone evidence of guilt in the first place, so it doesn't do anything to change my perception of this case.

I'm not really seeing anything here which makes me think its a miscarriage of justice.
 
Cappuccino said:
That's great, Daphne, but I'm not really the type to lean on a jury verdict as stand alone evidence of guilt in the first place, so it doesn't do anything to change my perception of this case.

I'm not really seeing anything here which makes me think its a miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...


Well give us a bit of time (we're only three pages old) and you might....
 
It wasn't proved that Murdoch was ever at Barrow Creek. It wasn't proved that Falconio was ever there either. There was no gunshot residue, and therefore no evidence of any weapon having been used. The whole case hinged on the testimony of one person - Lees - who for a time was a suspect herself. She only agreed that Murdoch was the gunman after she had seen his picture on the internet. Lees was proved to be a liar in court when it was revealed that her relationship with Falconio was not as rosy as she had painted it as it was revealed she had a relationship with a second man. Murdoch's name was put forward as a suspect by his ex-friend and co-drug-runner James Hepi with whom Murdoch had had a falling out. There was nothing at all to indicate that Falconio had been murdered at Barrow Creek, or that he was ever there. Falconio visited his tax accountant the day before he disappeared where he was informed he OWED tax not the other way around. You think this is sufficient to indicate a murder by Murdoch? You don't think that the evidence of the blood pool might indicate an assault not a murder? Or a possible planting of the blood then?
 
Daphne said:
Well give us a bit of time (we're only three pages old) and you might....
Click to expand...

Hi Daphne ...looks like some people have a fixation with child sex...
do you think they get some disgusting pleasure on pursing some thing that never happened and was thrown out of court???

cheap thrills? for these child molesters...or in there filthy smoke screen to stop us talking about the Falconio case???

again I will post again...this animal walks free this year... and I will let it be know...this animal is unsafe in our community... in public or here on the net!!!

Former teacher gets 10 years in jail for abusing girl

Posted Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:40pm AEST



A former primary school teacher who sexually abused an eight-year-old student has been jailed for 10 years in the District Court in Adelaide in South Australia.

The man was arrested last year while training to become a police officer.

Craig Stephen Davis, 38, of Salisbury North, was teaching at the Seventh Day Adventist Prescott Primary Southern School.

He indecently assaulted and had unlawful intercourse with an eight-year-old female student.

Judge Michael David said Davis used his position to prey on the girl and sexually abuse her.

It was appalling conduct and he had disgraced his profession, Justice David said.

The judge said Davis had previously taught primary school in South Korea and Queensland.

He had since quit teaching to train as a policeman.

Justice David sentenced Davis to 10 years' jail, with a non-parole period of seven years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 707 (members: 169, guests: 538)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
538
Total visitors
707
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,359
Messages
18,238,240
Members
234,354
Latest member
Ber135
Back
Top