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

[Continuum]

And you really want to know why Chris Malouf got through like the Phantom???
...it is well know in the Territory...who he was , and who he worked for...:silenced:

'Mr Cook made a sworn statement to a detective in Alice Springs about a week later. But he revealed that the suspect had boasted to him that he had been given a written indemnity by a police sergeant to inform other police that he had been checked and eliminated from their enquiries.

Mr Cook said: “He showed it to me. He told me how he was stopped by two armed cops, who dragged him out of his car before he was able to show them the card. I told him I thought he was lucky not to get shot.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...twist-in-Brit-backpackers-outback-murder.html

 

[kemo]

When I first read of this case, I was intrigued. The case had raised a lot of interest in Australia and the UK may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice and a false conviction.

A few hours of googling led me to the basic facts of the case and I came to the very quick conclusion that the defendant, Murdoch’s account of events of that day was a lie. He claims to have not known the victims and his only connection was that their stay in Alice Springs had overlapped by a few hours and they had eaten in the same Restaurant (hours apart). However, his bodily fluids were on Joanne's T-Shirt and Joanne was able to provide an accurate description of both Murdoch and his vehicle (thereby ruling out just a chance physical contact). There was a significant intimate contact between Murdoch and Joanne.

Barrow Ck skeptics have honed in on the possibility that Peter is not really dead (and the whole caper being only a rouse to promote his disappearing act). I find this extremely unlikely. The amount of Peter's blood found at the scene (approximately .25 liters) is quite significant. It could only occur through a serious injury or by a skilled medical professional with a venous catheter or other medical device. This could not be done with a small self-inflicted wound. The amounts of bleeding from gunshots vary considerably since much of the bleeding is internal and the blood only leaks out if the wound is "downhill" from the collected blood. Bleeding from a chest wound would very likely stop if the body is turned on its back to permit "dragging". The amount of blood is very consistent with a gunshot.

If Peter wanted to "disappear", Australia would be a poor choice of location since it has no land borders and the only way to leave would by flying (with rather thorough documentation checks at the arriving airport). He would be pretty much "stuck" in Australia. If he wanted to stay in Australia, why "disappear" when he already had a work permit. He would be forced to live an Underground existence working whatever job is available to those without documentation. Why? Oh, he went through all of that so that he could dodge a $3000 tax bill? That is absurd. Still, if he actually pulled this stunt off, he would find himself famous once the story of his "death" hit the media. His picture would be on every newspaper and on nightly news throughout the country. Someone would have recognized him. He is dead and almost certainly died at the scene at Barrow Creek.

Much has been made of the "inconsistencies" in Joanne's account of events. Anyone who follows True Crime knows that victims and witnesses often have imperfect memories. Overall, I find her account pretty consistent. The only detail she apparently got wrong was the dog.

I can think of two cases in the US where someone tried to abduct a couple and one member of the couple got away. This happened when the perp did a lousy job of securing the victim. Just like this case. Even cold blooded killers panic and get clumsy. I don't see any real problem with her account.

The big "red flag" on this case is the lack of a body. In the two cases I am aware of where one member of a couple escaped, the perp high-tailed it out of their real fast. This is the expected behavior. Taking the time to load the body and move the Kombie seems quite risky; a "Good Samaritan" or Law Enforcement could stop and offer assistance. The most likely explanation is that the perp decided to stick with his initial plan to hide the victims vehicle and take the bodies and dump them along a desert Highway.

A critical tool in solving a crime (or any problem) is Occam’s razor (Google it). It boils down to the "rule" that the explanation with the fewest complexities is usually correct. That Peter and Joanne were attacked by a sexual predator on a lonely highway at night and that predator accidentally shed some blood on one of the victims during the crime seems a straight-forward explanation of known facts. Some elaborate plot to either fake Peter's death or for Joanne to murder him, utilizing a makeshift set of handcuffs and apparently employ the assistance of some accomplish in a region they had only arrived in that day, seems non-sensei cal and unlikely.

In many ways, I find the greater mystery to be “why would anyone really believe Murdoch is not guilty?" Peter and Joanne seem to me to be perfectly decent normal people while Murdoch appears to be, shall we say, "No choirboy". One can be a sleezeball yet innocent of a particular crime, but a natural impulse is not to give one the benefit of the doubt. As a Yank who has never been to Australia, I may not be sensitive to Nationalist sentiments and rivalries.

There appears to all sorts of rumors and minutiae that supporters of Murdoch's innocence have raised as cause for doubt of the verdict, but very little attention is being paid to what appears to be dominate fact of the case: Murdoch's body fluid was found on Joanne's T-shirt.

I feel a bit of an interloper here and my opinions are only irritating to people who have already made up their mind. Still, I offer up my thoughts in good faith to whoever might be interested.

 

[my name is josephine]

When I first read of this case, I was intrigued. The case had raised a lot of interest in Australia and the UK may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice and a false conviction.

A few hours of googling led me to the basic facts of the case and I came to the very quick conclusion that the defendant, Murdoch’s account of events of that day was a lie. He claims to have not known the victims and his only connection was that their stay in Alice Springs had overlapped by a few hours and they had eaten in the same Restaurant (hours apart). However, his bodily fluids were on Joanne's T-Shirt and Joanne was able to provide an accurate description of both Murdoch and his vehicle (thereby ruling out just a chance physical contact). There was a significant intimate contact between Murdoch and Joanne.

Barrow Ck skeptics have honed in on the possibility that Peter is not really dead (and the whole caper being only a rouse to promote his disappearing act). I find this extremely unlikely. The amount of Peter's blood found at the scene (approximately .25 liters) is quite significant. It could only occur through a serious injury or by a skilled medical professional with a venous catheter or other medical device. This could not be done with a small self-inflicted wound. The amounts of bleeding from gunshots vary considerably since much of the bleeding is internal and the blood only leaks out if the wound is "downhill" from the collected blood. Bleeding from a chest wound would very likely stop if the body is turned on its back to permit "dragging". The amount of blood is very consistent with a gunshot.

If Peter wanted to "disappear", Australia would be a poor choice of location since it has no land borders and the only way to leave would by flying (with rather thorough documentation checks at the arriving airport). He would be pretty much "stuck" in Australia. If he wanted to stay in Australia, why "disappear" when he already had a work permit. He would be forced to live an Underground existence working whatever job is available to those without documentation. Why? Oh, he went through all of that so that he could dodge a $3000 tax bill? That is absurd. Still, if he actually pulled this stunt off, he would find himself famous once the story of his "death" hit the media. His picture would be on every newspaper and on nightly news throughout the country. Someone would have recognized him. He is dead and almost certainly died at the scene at Barrow Creek.

Much has been made of the "inconsistencies" in Joanne's account of events. Anyone who follows True Crime knows that victims and witnesses often have imperfect memories. Overall, I find her account pretty consistent. The only detail she apparently got wrong was the dog.

I can think of two cases in the US where someone tried to abduct a couple and one member of the couple got away. This happened when the perp did a lousy job of securing the victim. Just like this case. Even cold blooded killers panic and get clumsy. I don't see any real problem with her account.

The big "red flag" on this case is the lack of a body. In the two cases I am aware of where one member of a couple escaped, the perp high-tailed it out of their real fast. This is the expected behavior. Taking the time to load the body and move the Kombie seems quite risky; a "Good Samaritan" or Law Enforcement could stop and offer assistance. The most likely explanation is that the perp decided to stick with his initial plan to hide the victims vehicle and take the bodies and dump them along a desert Highway.

A critical tool in solving a crime (or any problem) is Occam’s razor (Google it). It boils down to the "rule" that the explanation with the fewest complexities is usually correct. That Peter and Joanne were attacked by a sexual predator on a lonely highway at night and that predator accidentally shed some blood on one of the victims during the crime seems a straight-forward explanation of known facts. Some elaborate plot to either fake Peter's death or for Joanne to murder him, utilizing a makeshift set of handcuffs and apparently employ the assistance of some accomplish in a region they had only arrived in that day, seems non-sensei cal and unlikely.

In many ways, I find the greater mystery to be “why would anyone really believe Murdoch is not guilty?" Peter and Joanne seem to me to be perfectly decent normal people while Murdoch appears to be, shall we say, "No choirboy". One can be a sleezeball yet innocent of a particular crime, but a natural impulse is not to give one the benefit of the doubt. As a Yank who has never been to Australia, I may not be sensitive to Nationalist sentiments and rivalries.

There appears to all sorts of rumors and minutiae that supporters of Murdoch's innocence have raised as cause for doubt of the verdict, but very little attention is being paid to what appears to be dominate fact of the case: Murdoch's body fluid was found on Joanne's T-shirt.

I feel a bit of an interloper here and my opinions are only irritating to people who have already made up their mind. Still, I offer up my thoughts in good faith to whoever might be interested.

I haven't made up my mind what happened but I do have a lot of doubts about her story. I'm not sure either how anybody would be able to lift a dead body into the back of a truck singlehandedly.

 

[my name is josephine]

Don't you think it is odd that he did all this tidying up, - covered the pool of blood with soil, parked the kombi in the bushes before walking back to his own vehicle, took the body for disposal - all very calm and methodical - but only has a half hearted attempt at finding the main witness to his crime?
Surely it should be one or the other? Either remove all traces of the crime including the main witness, or leave utter mayhem behind - a body a pool of blood and a kombi, along with the witness and scarper fast?
Either he was a cold calculating killer who was going to ensure a tidy scene devoid of clues, or he was a crazed loony who didn't care about the state of the crime scene. But the picture she paints of the attack he seems to be neither one sort or another!!
He starts off methodical but then seems to flip halfway through!!

 

[fruity]

He claims to have not known the victims and his only connection was that their stay in Alice Springs had overlapped by a few hours and they had eaten in the same Restaurant (hours apart).

Respectfully snipped.

It's very interesting that he says he stopped at a Red Rooster to get a barbecue chicken for himself and some chicken nuggets for his dog.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-twist-in-falconio-case/2006/04/11/1144521327716.html

convicted murderer Bradley John Murdoch is allergic to chicken.

The Bulletin magazine says the former truck driver and drug courier refused to be served chicken in his holding cell during his trial over the murder of British backpacker Peter Falconio.

Murdoch also has a standing medical certificate at Darwin's Berrimah jail that says he must never be served chicken with meals, the magazine says.

 

[fruity]

Not only his it seems:
DNA belonging to the director of the Northern Territory's forensic unit was found on handcuffs allegedly used to bind Peter Falconio's girlfriend, a court was told today.

Forensic biologist Carmen Eckhoff admitted the cable tie restraints had been contaminated with DNA from laboratory director Peter Thatcher.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...onio-case-cuffs/2005/11/02/1130823253903.html

... and ?

I'm not sure what the significance of this is? DNA contamination could have undermined the case, yes, but thankfully it didn't since the other evidence was so strong.

Are you suggesting that somehow Murdoch's DNA contaminated the handcuffs too? That he worked in the forensic biology laboratory?

ETA or that Murdoch's DNA was planted? Because that didn't happen.

If someone had deliberately placed Murdoch's DNA on the cable-tie handcuffs it would have "blown" the later low copy DNA test in the UK.

(From the forensic expert Carmen Eckhoff).

 

[Continuum]

Red Rooster Claim

During Murdoch's committal hearing, Lees mentioned that she and Falconio had stopped at a Red Rooster restaurant in Alice Springs. Murdoch claimed to have stopped at the same restaurant to buy chicken for himself and his dog, "First thing in Alice, pulled into the Red Rooster... Chicken roll, box of nuggets for Jack...full chicken for the trip." Grant Algie suggested that Murdoch might have cut himself and inadvertently left blood at the restaurant which later transferred to Lees' shirt, explaining the presence of his DNA there.

In April 2006, The Bulletin reported that Murdoch had refused to be served chicken while incarcerated during the committal and trial, claiming he was allergic to it, and that he has a standing medical certificate at Berrimah Prison requesting that he never be served chicken.

However, when he was arrested in South Australia (on charges later thrown out of court) for the alleged rape of a woman and her daughter, part of his grocery shopping contained a roast chicken, thus proving he was prepared to buy chicken for either him and/or his dog. Hence, the Bulletin article demonstrates nothing about Murdoch's disposition towards chicken.

No were in the Quote was mention that the chicken was for himself to eat...
the chicken was broken up to feed Jack for the trip to Broome...as the chicken nuggets were the dogs treat in town....

As for the Bulletin...at the time of releasing this supposed information,they were dragged over the coals to "please explain" how they were supposed to know a prisoners private medical records...
as of now...The Bulletin... it has gone ...like the bulltin they were ...

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/murdoch-bradley.htm

 

[fruity]

Red Rooster Claim

During Murdoch's committal hearing, Lees mentioned that she and Falconio had stopped at a Red Rooster restaurant in Alice Springs. Murdoch claimed to have stopped at the same restaurant to buy chicken for himself and his dog, "First thing in Alice, pulled into the Red Rooster... Chicken roll, box of nuggets for Jack...full chicken for the trip." Grant Algie suggested that Murdoch might have cut himself and inadvertently left blood at the restaurant which later transferred to Lees' shirt, explaining the presence of his DNA there.

In April 2006, The Bulletin reported that Murdoch had refused to be served chicken while incarcerated during the committal and trial, claiming he was allergic to it, and that he has a standing medical certificate at Berrimah Prison requesting that he never be served chicken.

No were in the Quote was mention that the chicken was for himself to eat...
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/murdoch-bradley.htm

Re the bolded and underlined. Sorry, but you need to read a little more carefully. Semantics. Poor comprehension. And if that was the case his lawyers would have argued it in court. He would have clarified that it was all for the dog.

Besides that, their visits to Red Rooster were hours apart. How does a small drop of blood on a chair of door handle stay wet for hours? It doesn't. It dries and doesn't smear onto the shirt of a person he attacked.

Also, please explain how his blood was on the gear stick of the kombi if he had nothing to do with it. He says he was not at Barrow Creek.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1520213.htm

Eleanor, Rex Wild, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions has picked up where he left off yesterday afternoon. And he's gone into the detail, the very fine detail of Bradley Murdoch's movements, and the timing of his actions in Alice Springs on July the 14th, 2001.

And in particular he's asked him what time he got there, various places that he'd gone and what time he left. And why it took so long for him to apparently do the things that he did while he was there.

Bradley Murdoch has said that he arrived in Alice Springs that Saturday at about 10:30 in the morning and went to Red Rooster. From there he went to a car wash, to a barbeque shop and a Repco store, then he picked up some groceries and got some fuel, and he says he left Alice Springs at about three o'clock that afternoon.

Rex Wild said to him, you know, 'Why did you take so long in Alice Springs when you had earlier said in evidence that you didn't want to go to Alice Springs at all because you avoid police?' Bradley Murdoch has admitted that these trips that he made were running cannabis from South Australia to Broome. He said that in fact he hadn't wanted to go to Alice Springs on the Friday night, the night before, because he wanted to avoid the usual police patrols you see at night time.

ELEANOR HALL: Anne, what's the relevance of Mr Murdoch being in Alice Springs for a long time?

ANNE BARKER: Well he's admitted that he was there the day that Peter Falconio and Joanne Lees were there and it's the prosecution case that he'd gone up to… followed them to Barrow Creek, about 300 kilometres north and shot Peter Falconio dead at around eight or nine o'clock that night.

But he's saying that he left Alice Springs in fact at three o'clock that afternoon, and gone up the Tanami Track, which is only 20 kilometres north of Alice, and back into Western Australia.

So very much the case that Rex Wild is pursuing today is to go to the timing of his actions and to test the accuracy of his statements. And so he's asked him many questions about what he did and what time he left and so on.

.....

ELEANOR HALL: And what are they seeing in terms of Mr Murdoch's response? How's he answering these questions from the prosecution?

ANNE BARKER: He's surprisingly calm in fact, and relaxed for someone who's facing a murder charge and the possible rest of his life in jail. But he says of course that he wasn't at Barrow Creek.

He's admitted that he did go to the Alice Springs truck stop where there was a security video that showed a man there later that night. He's admitted that he has been to that truck stop before, but denied that he was there on that occasion. And he said that he had spent many hours driving up the Tanami Track and was around Yuendumu at eight o'clock that night when the prosecution alleges the attack happened, near Barrow Creek.

 

[fruity]

Anyway the point is - take away the cable ties as evidence. Take away the chicken as evidence. There's still plenty of evidence to prove he's guilty. Focusing on whether he said the chicken was for him or not is attacking a straw man.

 

[Ausgirl]

Great post, kemo - and you've summed up my thoughts on the blood amount, precisely.

As for Falconio's body - search and rescue here have a hard enough time finding living people, let alone a dead body. It could be anywhere, it's big country out there in NT..

I do not think Murdoch is 'innocent' as such. But really, I just don't know what to think about this case. Occam's Razor doesn't take into account the convolutions people can and do create when covering up the truth about a crime. I've seen it time and again, in crimes where nothing is as straight-forward as it seems on presentation of the 'facts'. IE, it's only straight-forward if you choose to ignore all the bits which are not.. and in many of those cases in point, I've suspected police corruption on some level..

I -do- think there are a few too many convolutions (including but not limited to Lees' behaviour and statements) in this particular case to accept anything at face value.

However, I don't think the bald truth will ever come out. And I doubt Falconio's remains will ever be found, as I think therein lies a deal of said truth. For his family's sake, I hope I'm wrong about that.

 

[Continuum]

Besides that, their visits to Red Rooster were hours apart. How does a small drop of blood on a chair of door handle stay wet for hours? It doesn't. It dries and doesn't smear onto the shirt of a person he attacked.

Also, please explain how his blood was on the gear stick of the kombi if he had nothing to do with it. He says he was not at Barrow Creek.

Sorry...but not one iota of blood was found on any of the items...

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...oIH4Dw&usg=AFQjCNHiGSd8elL8jZyHooAw5Ay_e7gYYg

 

[Continuum]

Sorry...yours is a claim....and mine is a quote....

but you need to read a little more carefully. Semantics. Poor comprehension.

...and I luv you too....

 

[fruity]

Sorry...but not one iota of blood was found on any of the items...

This is from the link you gave earlier:

Northern Territory Director of Public Prosecutions Rex Wild, QC, said in court there are three pieces of evidence linking Murdoch to the scene of the crime. His DNA was a match with bloodstains on Joanne Lees's t-shirt, a smear of blood on the gearstick of the couple's car, and DNA located on tape used by the killer to bind her wrists.

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/murdoch-bradley.htm

Edited to take your link out of the quote, my computer gave a dangerous file alert when I clicked on it. Please do not post links to anything likely to infect or corrupt the computers of others.

 

[fruity]

Sorry...yours is a claim....and mine is a quote....

A quote which conveniently ignored and misinterpreted information which doesn't fit with your wild conspiracy theory. Information which only adds to the proof of his guilt and if it was taken away, his guilt would still be proven 100%.

Like I said, it's attacking a straw man.

My 'claim' is in line with the findings of science and the law. I'm okay with that. There is no reasonable explanation for Murdoch's blood to be on her clothes, on the cable ties he used to bind her wrists and in the car, especially when he says they never met and he wasn't anywhere near the car. That's why he was found guilty of murder.

 

[Continuum]

This is from the link you gave earlier:

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/murdoch-bradley.htm

Edited to take your link out of the quote, my computer gave a dangerous file alert when I clicked on it. Please do not post links to anything likely to infect or corrupt the computers of others.

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/murdoch-bradley.htm

Edited to take your link out of the quote, my computer gave a dangerous file alert when I clicked on it. Please do not post links to anything likely to infect or corrupt the computers of others.

Sorry to hear that ...may I suggest you upgrade your computer then....
this is a common google search link/site...
and maybe you should take it up with google....

 

[Continuum]

This is a interesting article concerning police in Sydney,a conversation between police,criminal and anti corruption lawyer,Chris Murphy. It is called directing traffic, otherwise known as being given the green light to sell drugs - as long as the police get their cut.it is not only Sydney,every state in Australia has similar stories.

WARNING CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s385613.htm

Very interesting ,as Chris is a very high profile lawyer...
and was involved in the current Waterhouse/Singleton issue...
and his main issue was to stamp out bullying in all facets of life...
I must make a note of finding the link....
but yes, 4 Corners are on the ball here.... thanks for posting it...

 

[Continuum]

Does seem odd.... there's Malouf saying "That was me" "I was there" and yet police took no notice even though he fitted Lees description!! What a bunch of no-hopers!

no-hopers??? maybe they were told not to...??????

according to JEDDA who signed statutory declaration of events....the issue was not chased up...

 

[Continuum]

•Patrick Barkham

•The Guardian, Saturday 28 July 2001 01.38 BST
•Article history
Australian police are examining holiday snaps from two British backpackers who played pool with a truck driver resembling the man wanted for the ambush of tourists Joanne Lees and Peter Falconio.Cheshire police dispatched the pictures and a statement to the Northern Territory police after Portia Wilson and Suzanne French, both 33 and from Croft, near Warrington, reported meeting Ms Lees and Mr Falconio and posing for photographs with three truckies in Pimba, a remote roadhouse 550 miles south of Alice Springs.
"I saw the e-fit on the TV and thought 'God, he looks familiar'," said Ms Wilson. "Then I saw the picture in a newspaper and recognised him as the man in the bar."
The women told police that one of the drivers, a man called Len, matched the photo-fit of the gunman who flagged down Ms Lees and Mr Falconio at Barrow Creek, 185 miles north of Alice Springs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian

 

[fruity]

Sorry to hear that ...may I suggest you upgrade your computer then....
this is a common google search link/site...
and maybe you should take it up with google....

It's up to date, that's why it picked up the threat. My husband is an IT manager so this laptop is probably more sensitive with better detection than most other computers.

Just in case, I checked the pdf link on my work computer. It still warned me that it's a dangerous file, and I work for a government department so while their programs are good, they're not brilliant.

If your computer doesn't give you an alert perhaps you're the one who needs to upgrade .

Can you please replace the link with one which doesn't give an alert? If your link is reputable it will be available in more than one place.

 

[Continuum]

•Patrick Barkham

•The Guardian, Saturday 28 July 2001 01.38 BST
•Article history
Australian police are examining holiday snaps from two British backpackers who played pool with a truck driver resembling the man wanted for the ambush of tourists Joanne Lees and Peter Falconio.Cheshire police dispatched the pictures and a statement to the Northern Territory police after Portia Wilson and Suzanne French, both 33 and from Croft, near Warrington, reported meeting Ms Lees and Mr Falconio and posing for photographs with three truckies in Pimba, a remote roadhouse 550 miles south of Alice Springs.
"I saw the e-fit on the TV and thought 'God, he looks familiar'," said Ms Wilson. "Then I saw the picture in a newspaper and recognised him as the man in the bar."
The women told police that one of the drivers, a man called Len, matched the photo-fit of the gunman who flagged down Ms Lees and Mr Falconio at Barrow Creek, 185 miles north of Alice Springs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian

about where JEDDA and his children first spotted them...hmmmm