Falconio verdict

[karabulut]

I can't help thinking there's something very weird about this whole case....and I can't put my finger on it,but I keep thinking there's something definitely 'dodgy' about the girlfriend.

Or am I just being 'Mr Suspicious'..?

[coyn]

She was having a fling with another man and that is bound to create suspicion in some peoples minds, but why would she kill him?

If she didn't want to be with him anymore why wouldn't she just say "sorry peter it's over" and leave him.

Also, Bradley Murdoch was tried a couple of years ago for abducting a woman and her 12 year old daughter on a lonely road in almost identical circumstances to this and raping them both, the jury found him not guilty through lack of concrete evidence.

If he is an innocent man he is extraordinarily unlucky to be charged with two almost identical crimes

[spaced]

I agree, there is something "fishy" about the whole thing. I am convinced that she knows more than she lets on. She didnt seem to upset when the whole thing occured. very strange.

[kick3m0n]

thank god you two weren't on the jury. Really, the evidence against Murdoch was fairly overwhelming and his so called alibi non existent. Whether you feel Miss Lees was "suspicious" or not is niether here nor there, and a lack of sobbing and wailing does not make her guilty of anything. Just think of the distraught folk we've seen on tv making appeals for their partners/childs abductor/ murderer to be found....only for them later to be convicted of the crime. Peters family have all stood shoulder to shoulder with Joanne, and the police never actually doubted her story, it was just dumb sections of the media, who knew relatively little of the detail of the case.

[kick3m0n]

coyn, sorry, first sentence should read "thank god you weren't on the jury", not "you two"

[johnlambert]

I just dont trust that woman, there is something not quite right about her, forget about her having a fling with someone else, that doesnt make her a bad person but................... does anyone remember that road rage incident a couple of years ago in England when the girlfriend alledged that her boyfriend had been stabbed by another driver who fled the scene and it turned out to be her?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Acknowledging that it can be wrong, the DNA evidence suggested Murdoch was a million billion times more likely than anyone else to be the perpetrator, which I think is fairly good odds by anyone's standards.

I get the impression that a lot of people just don't like the fact that Joanne Lees seems to be quite a self-controlled individual, and the fact that she'd cheated on her partner has coloured people's opinions.

[johnlambert]

Waldo, I got the impression that she wasnt telling everything well before we discovered about her indescretion, she has always looked like the cat who got the cream, trust me on this one, my spider sense is tingeling all over

[WaldoMcFroog]

Well, before we discovered her indescretion she *was* hiding something - namely that indescretion!! ;-)

[Drusilla]

Women can't win in these situations. If we break down and cry endlessly, we are dismissed as hysterical; if we keep it together, we are not viewed as strong and stoical, as a man would be, but are denigrated as hard, unfeeling and suspicious.
I would also suggest it was the DNA evidence that got the conviction, not Joanne Lees' testimony.
Deep down, I think a lot of men are troubled this woman had an affair behind her boyfriend's back and would like to see her punished in some way.
She seems strong and independent and a lot of neanderthals in society today cannot cope with such women and would rather we were less threatening and more submissive.
Personally, I admire her and wish I had her strength of character. I find it amazing that a convicted male drug runner, murderer and attempted rapist can find so much sympathy.

[jno]

reminds me of the dingo baby case - Lindy Chamberlain didn't weep and wail like those killers faking emotions on TV appeals, so everyone thought she was guilty and her dingo story was rubbish. It later proved to be true. She just didn't fit preconceptions of the way mothers are supposed to behave.

waldo, I'm a bit baffled by this million billion stuff, which I also read. There aren't a million billion people in the entire universe. Where could they conjure up such a figure from? What meaning could it possibly have?

[Drusilla]

I've just re-read my post and apologise for sounding a hard a**se. I promise to simper for the rest of the day. Tea and biscuits anyone?????

[luckyboy]

As previously stated it was the DNA that done it.

I had my doubts too, but this was a lot down to misinformation by the media, something i hasten to add a lot of people should take into account more often, before they jump in with both feet on any one issue, and play the mr/mrs outrage from chipping sudbury.. its for the best.

[jno]

don't apologise Drusilla, you were spot on. You think if you simper a bit more nobody will ever guess you are Drusilla the Killer?

[gary baldy]

With Drusilla on this . This poor women had been through an horrific experience and then just because she didnt grieve in the way the (male dominated) media expected her (whatever that is - we all grieve in different ways) and then had the cheek to not look like the back end of the bus there is something 'dodgy' about her. you should be ashamed of yourselves for saying this. People who came into contact with straight after the event say she was in deep shock and much traumatised - who knows what was going on behind her facade. Even though she had 'an indescretion' the lads parents stuck by her throughout the case and never doubted her. Those who doubt her are guilty of being sucked into a cynical and in my opinion evil media witch hunt on this poor women.

[brachiopod]

Good words, well said, Drusilla. Because she didn't fit the media's pre-conceptions of how she should be, they chose to highlight her affair and put a "there's something dodgy about her" emphasis on the story by highlighting her 'affair'. So bloody what is what I say (about the 'affair', that is)

I'll pass on the tea, thanks, dear. I'm off for a boozy clients' Christmas lunch in a minute. Wahaay!!

[stevie_c2it]

I would concur with much of what�s already been posted. The DNA evidence that came to light in early part of the trial was the clincher. I think though, I can understand some of the �unease� directed towards Joanne, not because she had an affair behind her boyfriends back, rather that she demonstrated an elaborate ability to deceive. The circumstances of which (coded emails, fake names and alibi�s to account for her time etc) are unfortunate given the nature of her boyfriends subsequent murder. I think the press coverage has been pretty cruel and unhelpful though, and the fact that his family have stood by her speaks volumes.
I suspect her secretly contacting her lover to arrange getting together only days after her boyfriends death, is what led to the suspicions, and does seem a little cold in hindsight.

[Englishbird]

Again agree with kick3m0n and Drusilla et al. I think the only 'strange' thing is that she doesn't fit pre-concieved idea's of how you're supposed to react in that situation.

I for one would say that in the most extreem situations I've been in I haven't reacted the way I thought I would.

I'm glad his family can start putting it behind them and hope Mudoch tells them where Peter's body is.

[marcoddy]

I am with the conspiracy theorists here. There is something "not quite right" about the whole thing.

Her story massively changing, it not being possible to crawl from the front of the van to the back (as she claimed) the man having long hair (as she claimed) the aborigionals not being able to find any tracks other than from her.

The DNA evidence that convicted him is quite compelling, but what about the things that don't add up? traumatised yes, but so traumatised to see long hair that didn't exist? or beleive that you had strugged into the back from the front if it were impossible to do so?

I honestly can't think what hapenned, all i know is that there's things about it that obviously don't add up.

[gary baldy]

As with all conspiracy theories it is based on half baked mis-truths and paranoid ramblings. This woman is only guilty of going on holiday with someone she didnt love any more. The mind can play tricks - especially after a very traumatic experience - so maybe her story did have inconsistencies. This Murdoch fella did it - no argument! I deplore the language being used in the press to day eg. "Lees vindicated". Vindicated of what exactly!?! She was never ever accused of anything by anyone except the rabid dogs of the media. Not that she cares what is said - but put your 'conspiracy' rubbish where it belongs and let this poor woman try and rebuild her life.

[stevie_c2it]

There is one thing left about this case that still worries me though. After my last post I revisited what�s been revealed regarding the trial evidence, and without the DNA traces there would not have been a conviction, and in all probability, a trial if brought, would have collapsed. The inconsistencies in the other evidence (bearing in mind Joanne is the only witness) would have prevented the possibility of a guilty verdict. Don�t get me wrong I�m not saying he is innocent in the slightest, simply that based on her testimony a conviction would have failed. Compare the original accounts of the description of Bradley Murdoch, his Vehicle and his dog, and her initial accounts as to what took place, with the later changes in story. The point is, his legal team intends to appeal, and will no doubt attempt to discredit the DNA evidence. I am guessing, but suspect it will be on the grounds that they will claim that intense media scrutiny on this case (home and abroad) may have led to mistakes (deliberate or otherwise), or that pressure for a conviction has led to tampering with evidence (far fetched, but not unknown). This one has a few twists and turns yet to run.