Not sure if we're allowed to talk about this, but here goes.

[johnny_t]

Normally I'm pretty good with being able to guess in advance as to who's done what in high-profile murder cases, either guessing at the guilty (OK - normally the person who's crying most at the press conference) or when people have been given a bum ride, a la Colin Stagg, Sion Jenkins, or that bloke who was fitted up for killing Jill Dando (who's time is still to come, you mark my words).

However, it is bothering me that I cannot get a handle on this Peter Falconio case down under at the moment. My initial thoughts, and I keep returning to them, is that the boy faked his own death, and the girl was somehow in on it and is covering for him, and that maybe the story has run away from her a bit. However, I have to doubt that now, as I can't believe she wouldn't have cracked under the pressure.

I don't think that she hit him round the head with a shovel herself, or anything like that, but something seems suitably screwy about the whole thing that I don't quite buy the story about this Bradley Murdoch just killing him at random, and even if he is found guilty I'm still not sure I'll completely believe it. Maybe the death was faked and she wasn't in on it, but I really can't seem to work it out.

Anyone else got any theories ??

 

[Freddie]

I was in touch with an old school friend who lives down there and she said nobody believes that girl--neither do i really.

 

[pickles]

He does not appear to have had a motive for faking his own death. Even if he did it's a bit fanciful to assume that some cobber would conveniently come along a road that sees about 2 cars a day to take the rap

Defence has a bit of a problem with the fact that they have found Murdochs DNA in a blood spot on her shirt as well

 

[Freddie]

He does not appear to have had a motive for faking his own death. Even if he did it's a bit fanciful to assume that some cobber would conveniently come along a road that sees about 2 cars a day to take the rap

Defence has a bit of a problem with the fact that they have found Murdochs DNA in a blood spot on her shirt as well

But that evidence is from one man 12000 miles away in the uk who claims to be an expert on getting matches like this and also witness's claim they saw the pair and the defendant in the same cafe 12 hours earlier----infact thats the only thing they have cause nothing else matches at all, as regards why they would have done it she has already scooped hundreds of thousands of pounds in newspaper fees one of them was 50,000 pound alone

 

[johnny_t]

He does not appear to have had a motive for faking his own death. Even if he did it's a bit fanciful to assume that some cobber would conveniently come along a road that sees about 2 cars a day to take the rap

Defence has a bit of a problem with the fact that they have found Murdochs DNA in a blood spot on her shirt as well

True, but then again, 'Howling Mad' murdoch doesn't seem to have a motive for the killing either. they may well have encountered him on their journey, but that doesn't mean he did any killing. I think the thing that bothers me most is the story of her escape seems completely unbelievable, as well as several other holes in the whole thing.

 

[Paul_GPvR]

didnt she cheat on her boyfriend whilst in sydney on their tour!?

 

[Freddie]

Yes

 

[pickles]

The Weatherby lab in Yorkshire specialises in low copy DNA which was on the handcuffs as well as blood on her shirt and is recognised as the best lab in the world. The forensic scientist Jonathan Whitaker is recognised as a leading expert and is used by defence and prosecution teams

Even Murdoch admits he looks like the CCTV images as doe's his father who told him so. the case against him is very strong and a uk jury would almost certainly convict him.

On his own admission he is a drug runner who travels armed. The most likely motive was rape and murder, but at the end of the day it's a matter of faith isn't it, you can believe the evidence or ignore it, thats what juries are for

 

[johnny_t]

That's my main problem, I guess. There is some evidence that points to Murdoch being guilty, but then again, there are enough question marks to make it far from being 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I don't think you need a motive for wanting to disappear - In fact, the only surprising thing is that more people don't do it. Thing is though, he'd need an accomplice, and if that accomplice was Joanne Lees, or even Bradley Murdoch, then I think either of them would have got fed up covering for him by now.

 

[pickles]

It's a very complicated way to disapear . He could have just pretended to get lost in the sea or desert . Happens all the time in Australia, but i suppose it's a possibility, I personally don't find it very believable. Most crime is exactly what it looks like on the surface.

 

[Freddie]

There is absolutly no evidence at all the dna evidence this man claims is contraversal and that is the only thing which there is, the cctv footage is rubbish and could be anything, but the main thing is her story which NONE of it makes sense or can be veryfied

 

[pickles]

What doesn't make sense or can't be verified.

He pulled them over, shot the boy, tied her up, she escaped in the dark whils't he was loading the dead guy into his motor, he couldn't find her and ran off leaving a large bloodstain in the road behind him which the police photographed and Dnae'd proving it was Falconios

 

[Freddie]

How she could escape the car--actually proved impossible due to make and makes her story invalid.

How he couldnt see her in the dark when she was 10 meters max from him with no cover and this she said he never bothered searching for her AFTER he is supposed to have just killed someone and tried to abduct her, THE LAST THING HE WOULD HAVE WANTED WAS A WITNESS HE WOULD HAVE SPENT ALL NIGHT TRYING TO FIND HER.

The dna of his could have come from anywhere it is so small, and being as he grabbed her---tied her up---threw her in his car--SHE would have been absolutly plastered in his dna not a very microscopic amount

The list is endless and the only link is a small microscopic piece of dna which could have got to her clothes from anywhere and i bet there was more dna from other people all over her and her/his things

 

[johnny_t]

One further possibility, I suppose, is that he did do it, but it isn't as random as they are making out - A bit like the various 'road rage' killings in the late '90s where they was almost always more to it than just some stranger getting the old red mist come down. If he gets found guilty, he may have nothing to lose by spilling the real story in that case.

Things that don't add up though:

Why complicate things when you are on a drug run
Why shoot him straight away, but just tie her up for later
Why take the body with you - Nothing says guilty like a body in the boot
How did she get her hands back in front of her
How did not only him and his dog not find her, the aboriginal trackers and their dingos found no trace of anything untoward either the next day


It don't make no sense !! Ho hum, supposed to have a verdict by Friday anyway.......

 

[pickles]

Well like I said earlier, evidence is like religion you either believe or you don't. No one can ever be sure. Personally I think he is looking pretty guilty, especially due to the dna, there's no real evidence anything got contaminated, just lots of shouting which is what lawyers do when theye are on thin ice, so you can't hear the cracks appearing. The defence is having to come up with stuff like they bumped into each other in a restaurant which is a bit pathetic IMHO. Plus all this conspiracy theory stuff which is a bit far fetched if he just wanted to disapear. Apparently 30,000 people a year disapear in oz every year so i can't see why he had to do something so complicated

Plus you can't ignore, the bloodstains, they obviously got there somehow. I suppose it's possible she paid Murdoch to get rid of him and it went wrong, but why bother she could just have left him seeing as they wern't married in the first place and Murdoch would have fessed up to that by now for revenge if nothing else

Perhaps we should go for a forum vote.........

At the end of the day it's up to the jury and i don't envy them, if they believe the forensics they will convict him but if they don't they would have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Either way I think it will give them a few sleepless nights