Solved The Peter Falconio Disappearance

[BonzaRam]

Just want to point something out here that has been deduced wrongly. Having lived and worked at Desert Oaks Resort (Erldunda), Cnr Stuart and Lassiters Hwy, i can say without doubt that you can go for hours without seeing another vehicle on the road during the daytime and at night it could be anywhere from an hour to 8 hours without seeing another vehicle on, possibly longer.

The other thing to point out at is the amount of DNA found on the gear knob was such a small amount that LCN testing was used, testimony was given on it by the same Dr Whitaker of the CSK trial.

And another point, the NT police also have a history of wrongful convictions and stitching people up - Lindy Chamberlain ring a bell?

 

[zedx]

I agree with your assessment of JL here and throughout the thread (which I did read!).

She had an absolutely horrendous experience that night - I can’t imagine much more terrifying than thinking your partner is dead and having a gun pointed at your head in the middle of the night in the middle of the outback in a foreign country. I would not expect her memory to be fullproof or her behaviour to be logical.

I don’t really understand why it is considered odd that BM didn’t chase her. He had a huge mess on the road to deal with, and while the Stuart Hwy isn’t the M5, it does have traffic on it. The last thing he needed was to have someone drive past and spot two vehicles and a body on the road. JL could have been anywhere - hiding close by or still running - he could have found her in 5 minutes or spent hours searching. He had to either take his chances with JL reporting the matter or take his chances with a body being seen. I can see why he cleaned up and left. He also, by his own admission, was doing a drug run - he had limited time to get to his destination.

JL’s adrenaline would have protected her, to a point, from the cold. And if she was just hiding and staying still, that explains why there was limited evidence of scratches and grazes on her. I don’t think JL would have been clear on times; in that situation a minute would have seemed like an hour. BM could have spent 2 minutes looking for her and it may have seemed like hours.

If she knew BM at all, why the unclear identification? Why wouldn’t she have a very clear description of him? And if she was deliberately being vague at that point because there was another story to come out, why would she then confirm it was him after he was arrested? Why wouldn’t she have maintained being vague?

I agree she was a guarded person who simply didn’t react as people believe she should have and that clouds judgement. I also think in the initial stages she felt badly treated by police and the media, and that would make anyone in her situation more guarded and defensive. She was alone, in a foreign country. To me her behaviour is also consistent with someone who is certain in their point of view and feels like they have to fight everyone to get them to take it seriously. I would be getting angry and confused at that as well.

I don’t think the truck driver’s commentary now about the red car is credible at all. His claims that police left it off his statement doesn’t answer why the DPP in the NT ignored it as well. They would have spoken to him, too. Did he just not tell them, or are we to believe that they simply dismissed it? It also took him years apparently to come forward with this information, despite having ample opportunity previously.

JL having an affair is not, in my view, remotely a motive for her killing or hiring someone to kill PF. Yes, it does happen, but in all the instances of cheating that happen, the proportion of people who murder their partners as a way out is miniscule. Usually this is also when they feel trapped (I am NOT justifying it - just providing a common element from the various cases). There is nothing in JL’s history that suggests she is this type of person, and she and PF were not in the sort of relationship she couldn’t just leave.

I am not fussed that she communicated with her lover. She felt completely alone and like she couldn’t trust anyone. It is completely understandable (if a bit off putting) that she sought out the one situation that gave her a bit of comfort.

I feel terrible for her for what she went through and for how people have treated her over the years. She might not be someone I would choose to be friends with, but that doesn’t make her someone who would assist in framing a person for murder, let alone being a murderer herself.

I have read - elsewhere not here; I’m not tackling anyone here about this at all - that people think BM is innocent because they have gone to prison and met him and he seems like a nice genuine guy. JFC. Even if you don’t believe he murdered PF he is not a nice guy. He is a despicable lowlife. Some of these people also point to the fact that he maintains his innocence. Right, because all killers confess and if they don’t they are obviously innocent.

Also want to add, i dont find it strange his dog did not find her. It wasn't a trained tracking dog. It was dark, in a strange place in the middle of nowhere and I would imagine it could sense fear and aggression in the humans around him. I feel the dog would have been very scared and not wanted to venture out into the darkness.
As for BM, he had a history of violent and aggressive acts, for which IIRC he had already spent jail time for. He lived a rough criminal lifestyle.

 

[ms finch]

Just want to point something out here that has been deduced wrongly. Having lived and worked at Desert Oaks Resort (Erldunda), Cnr Stuart and Lassiters Hwy, i can say without doubt that you can go for hours without seeing another vehicle on the road during the daytime and at night it could be anywhere from an hour to 8 hours without seeing another vehicle on, possibly longer.

The other thing to point out at is the amount of DNA found on the gear knob was such a small amount that LCN testing was used, testimony was given on it by the same Dr Whitaker of the CSK trial.

And another point, the NT police also have a history of wrongful convictions and stitching people up - Lindy Chamberlain ring a bell?

I don’t disagree that you may not see another car for ages, but it’s unpredictable, and I don’t see it logical that he would chase JL into no-mans-land while a body is in plain view on the highway. Faced with a choice of which one, I see it as completely plausible that he abandoned JL and dealt with the other and hot footed it out of there. It was a response to the claims that it makes no sense he didn’t chase her; I think it makes perfect sense.

In addition I have read that there were witnesses who drove along the highway and saw the Kombi parked during the night. So there was traffic. Lights can be seen a long distance, so what’s to say BM didn’t abandon his search of JL when lights appeared in the distance?

Low count DNA testing was in its early stages, but that doesn’t make it unreliable. The defence had ample opportunity to challenge any evidence at trial and it was determined that BM was guilty. And I would also ask, what are the chances that the person identified in the testing just happened to be someone who was in the area at the time and had reason to be there? This isn’t a situation where BM claims he was a drug runner in Queensland and the prosecution has had to argue that he had a change in routine. That area was part of his routine.

Yes, the NT police and system was shocking with Lindy Chamberlain. But I don’t think that’s evidence they were likely to be in this instance. That was decades prior. There is no reason to believe that one matter influenced behaviour in another. It’s possible, but it is no more likely that it did than didn’t. They were pretty awful to JL initially, and to me they would have been the opposite if they were worried about repeats of the Chamberlain case.

What about this matter suggests there is any hallmark of the Chamberlain case specifically in the way it was handled? This appears to be based on the general notion that NT police did it before so could do it again, and because one of the scientists was the same one. So people can’t make mistakes and learn from them and do better next time?

 

[ms finch]

Also want to add, i dont find it strange his dog did not find her. It wasn't a trained tracking dog. It was dark, in a strange place in the middle of nowhere and I would imagine it could sense fear and aggression in the humans around him. I feel the dog would have been very scared and not wanted to venture out into the darkness.
As for BM, he had a history of violent and aggressive acts, for which IIRC he had already spent jail time for. He lived a rough criminal lifestyle.

I saw your post earlier about how your dog probably would have pooped itself. One of mine might have chased JL - but only if she had a steak in her pocket. Lots of dogs prefer to stay close to their masters as well.

I’ve seen people comment also on the lack of dog hairs on JL. The truck driver/s helped her clean up. Evidence was lost then. Also, we have no idea how much interaction she had with the dog and therefore have no baseline reference to determine how many hairs should be on her.

 

[ms finch]

I don’t disagree that you may not see another car for ages, but it’s unpredictable, and I don’t see it logical that he would chase JL into no-mans-land while a body is in plain view on the highway. Faced with a choice of which one, I see it as completely plausible that he abandoned JL and dealt with the other and hot footed it out of there. It was a response to the claims that it makes no sense he didn’t chase her; I think it makes perfect sense.

In addition I have read that there were witnesses who drove along the highway and saw the Kombi parked during the night. So there was traffic. Lights can be seen a long distance, so what’s to say BM didn’t abandon his search of JL when lights appeared in the distance?

Low count DNA testing was in its early stages, but that doesn’t make it unreliable. The defence had ample opportunity to challenge any evidence at trial and it was determined that BM was guilty. And I would also ask, what are the chances that the person identified in the testing just happened to be someone who was in the area at the time and had reason to be there? This isn’t a situation where BM claims he was a drug runner in Queensland and the prosecution has had to argue that he had a change in routine. That area was part of his routine.

Yes, the NT police and system was shocking with Lindy Chamberlain. But I don’t think that’s evidence they were likely to be in this instance. That was decades prior. There is no reason to believe that one matter influenced behaviour in another. It’s possible, but it is no more likely that it did than didn’t. They were pretty awful to JL initially, and to me they would have been the opposite if they were worried about repeats of the Chamberlain case.

What about this matter suggests there is any hallmark of the Chamberlain case specifically in the way it was handled? This appears to be based on the general notion that NT police did it before so could do it again, and because one of the scientists was the same one. So people can’t make mistakes and learn from them and do better next time?

To add: I may have misinterpreted your reason for bringing up the low count DNA, which may have been more about why there wasn’t more DNA.

I don’t understand the assumption that there should have been. How long did BM spend in the Kombi - probably not long? What was he wearing - this could have impacted transfer? What is to say that he didn’t wipe the area down before he left? This wasn’t his first experience with police or crime, so he wouldn’t have been a complete dill in that regard in my view.

 

[BonzaRam]

I don’t disagree that you may not see another car for ages, but it’s unpredictable, and I don’t see it logical that he would chase JL into no-mans-land while a body is in plain view on the highway. Faced with a choice of which one, I see it as completely plausible that he abandoned JL and dealt with the other and hot footed it out of there. It was a response to the claims that it makes no sense he didn’t chase her; I think it makes perfect sense.

In addition I have read that there were witnesses who drove along the highway and saw the Kombi parked during the night. So there was traffic. Lights can be seen a long distance, so what’s to say BM didn’t abandon his search of JL when lights appeared in the distance?

Low count DNA testing was in its early stages, but that doesn’t make it unreliable. The defence had ample opportunity to challenge any evidence at trial and it was determined that BM was guilty. And I would also ask, what are the chances that the person identified in the testing just happened to be someone who was in the area at the time and had reason to be there? This isn’t a situation where BM claims he was a drug runner in Queensland and the prosecution has had to argue that he had a change in routine. That area was part of his routine.

Yes, the NT police and system was shocking with Lindy Chamberlain. But I don’t think that’s evidence they were likely to be in this instance. That was decades prior. There is no reason to believe that one matter influenced behaviour in another. It’s possible, but it is no more likely that it did than didn’t. They were pretty awful to JL initially, and to me they would have been the opposite if they were worried about repeats of the Chamberlain case.

What about this matter suggests there is any hallmark of the Chamberlain case specifically in the way it was handled? This appears to be based on the general notion that NT police did it before so could do it again, and because one of the scientists was the same one. So people can’t make mistakes and learn from them and do better next time?

"but it’s unpredictable, and I don’t see it logical that he would chase JL into no-mans-land while a body is in plain view on the highway"

I am not disputing the the guilt of BM. sloppy police work or not... but I will the challenge the unpredictable vehicles bit, especially for BM as he was very familiar with driving that stretch at night. Yes i agree with you that can see headlights from a long distance away, especially road trains, of which there are very few on the roads at night. Its not so much the roos you look out for on the road at night but rather the cattle... but alas you still get wary travelers driving at night up there, but not many. In fact it took 5 hours before she saw a truck and ran out to flag it down...

 

[BonzaRam]

To add: I may have misinterpreted your reason for bringing up the low count DNA, which may have been more about why there wasn’t more DNA.

I don’t understand the assumption that there should have been. How long did BM spend in the Kombi - probably not long? What was he wearing - this could have impacted transfer? What is to say that he didn’t wipe the area down before he left? This wasn’t his first experience with police or crime, so he wouldn’t have been a complete dill in that regard in my view.

I brought up the LCN testing because it was used for an infinitesimal amount of DNA in the same way it was in the BRE case. It shows a precedent that was main aspect of showing beyond reasonable doubt.

Having said that it is not unreasonable to expect there to be more DNA evidence seen as we know that human skin and hair is constantly shedding (thanks to the BRE case). Personally i would have expected for them find some DNA of someone, anyone, on the hair tie found on his gun holster but hey that may have nothing to do with the case.

 

[ms finch]

"but it’s unpredictable, and I don’t see it logical that he would chase JL into no-mans-land while a body is in plain view on the highway"

I am not disputing the the guilt of BM. sloppy police work or not... but I will the challenge the unpredictable vehicles bit, especially for BM as he was very familiar with driving that stretch at night. Yes i agree with you that can see headlights from a long distance away, especially road trains, of which there are very few on the roads at night. Its not so much the roos you look out for on the road at night but rather the cattle... but alas you still get wary travelers driving at night up there, but not many. In fact it took 5 hours before she saw a truck and ran out to flag it down...

Oh yes, the cattle! A friend of mine was hurtling along there one night (probably doing something like 160kmh), very tired. Suddenly he sees something on the road ahead of him and slams on the brakes. The car skids and his recollection is that all he can see is this huge beast looming up at him, and he’s practically wetting himself thinking he’s going to slam into it. He stopped practically touching it and the cow then just sat down in front of his car! He pulled over and had a nap. He said, “I was beyond caring whether some murderer was going to come and attack me at that point.”

It took 5 hours before JL says she saw a truck and went down to flag it down. What is to say there wasn’t one in the meantime but she was too terrified to move and/or didn’t register it? And that also doesn’t mean there weren’t other vehicles. I think she would have avoided other vehicles because she didn’t know if it was BM or not; a truck she could distinguish as being someone else. I think it would have taken a lot of courage for her to move, and it may have taken her time to gather that.

 

[ms finch]

I brought up the LCN testing because it was used for an infinitesimal amount of DNA in the same way it was in the BRE case. It shows a precedent that was main aspect of showing beyond reasonable doubt.

Having said that it is not unreasonable to expect there to be more DNA evidence seen as we know that human skin and hair is constantly shedding (thanks to the BRE case). Personally i would have expected for them find some DNA of someone, anyone, on the hair tie found on his gun holster but hey that may have nothing to do with the case.

If it was typical that more DNA was at crime scenes, I would think that low count DNA would be less prevalently used. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the question, but I don’t think it is evidence that BM was the wrong person or that it didn’t play out as JL recalls. We shed a lot of DNA, but it doesn’t necessarily survive that well.

 

[sprockets]

I brought up the LCN testing because it was used for an infinitesimal amount of DNA in the same way it was in the BRE case. It shows a precedent that was main aspect of showing beyond reasonable doubt.

Having said that it is not unreasonable to expect there to be more DNA evidence seen as we know that human skin and hair is constantly shedding (thanks to the BRE case). Personally i would have expected for them find some DNA of someone, anyone, on the hair tie found on his gun holster but hey that may have nothing to do with the case.

BM's DNA was also found elsewhere at the scene or around the vehicle and it wasn't low copy.

As for JL, dope use can lead to paranoia.

 

[BonzaRam]

BM's DNA was also found elsewhere at the scene or around the vehicle and it wasn't low copy.

As for JL, dope use can lead to paranoia.

There were four DNA samples

1) the stain from the back of JLs’ T shirt - best sample, pretty much undeniably his but there was evidence BM had been eating in a roadhouse(?) that JL and PF stopped at after him which gives a possible way of transfer.
2) a swab from the gear stick - minute mixed sample
3) a swab from the steering wheel - minute mixed sample
4) a sample from the manacles - minute mixed sample

2,3 and 4 were LCN tested.

 

[ms finch]

There were four DNA samples

1) the stain from the back of JLs’ T shirt - best sample, pretty much undeniably his but there was evidence BM had been eating in a roadhouse(?) that JL and PF stopped at after him which gives a possible way of transfer.
2) a swab from the gear stick - minute mixed sample
3) a swab from the steering wheel - minute mixed sample
4) a sample from the manacles - minute mixed sample

2,3 and 4 were LCN tested.

Regarding the stain on JL’s T-shirt, and the explanation that was offered for it - I thought that was laughable.

According to BM he went to Red Rooster several hours before JL/PF and had a weepy sore on his hand (? I think it was his hand). He claims that he must have touched something that JL’s T-shirt then came into contact with.

This assumes that: in that time the area wasn’t cleaned AND the DNA survived; JL’s T-shirt touched the same area as his; and there was enough contact to create transfer of enough DNA for testing.

In addition to this, we learn BM is allergic to chicken, so much so that it is on his information with regard to prison meals. His explanation for his visit to Red Rooster is that he was getting food for his dog. Now, I don’t dispute that some owners would do that for their animals - my cat loves cooked white fish so if I get fish and chips I get him a fillet and take the batter off for him.

BUT, I find it hard to believe that someone who was allergic to chicken would have introduced his dog to chicken in the first place, let alone gone to a chicken specific place for his dog. This also means there is no chance of him eating in the Red Rooster - he would be in and out getting take away - which reduces the likelihood of DNA transfer to surfaces in a survivable way that then transfers to JL. I think about how much I touch with my hands when I am getting takeaway - it isn’t much.

Also, did Red Rooster have a drive through?

It is so remote. This apparent chain of events to explain the DNA seems to have been the only option anyone could come up with to challenge the DNA evidence against him to attempt to create reasonable doubt. They had a problem with explaining the DNA on the T-shirt specifically. I don’t regard it as having any credibility.

 

[BonzaRam]

Regarding the stain on JL’s T-shirt, and the explanation that was offered for it - I thought that was laughable.

According to BM he went to Red Rooster several hours before JL/PF and had a weepy sore on his hand (? I think it was his hand). He claims that he must have touched something that JL’s T-shirt then came into contact with.

This assumes that: in that time the area wasn’t cleaned AND the DNA survived; JL’s T-shirt touched the same area as his; and there was enough contact to create transfer of enough DNA for testing.

In addition to this, we learn BM is allergic to chicken, so much so that it is on his information with regard to prison meals. His explanation for his visit to Red Rooster is that he was getting food for his dog. Now, I don’t dispute that some owners would do that for their animals - my cat loves cooked white fish so if I get fish and chips I get him a fillet and take the batter off for him.

BUT, I find it hard to believe that someone who was allergic to chicken would have introduced his dog to chicken in the first place, let alone gone to a chicken specific place for his dog. This also means there is no chance of him eating in the Red Rooster - he would be in and out getting take away - which reduces the likelihood of DNA transfer to surfaces in a survivable way that then transfers to JL. I think about how much I touch with my hands when I am getting takeaway - it isn’t much.

Also, did Red Rooster have a drive through?

It is so remote. This apparent chain of events to explain the DNA seems to have been the only option anyone could come up with to challenge the DNA evidence against him to attempt to create reasonable doubt. They had a problem with explaining the DNA on the T-shirt specifically. I don’t regard it as having any credibility.

Not that it changes the outcome but I reckon I could think of a reason why a drug dealer would go to a food outlet they are allergic to.

 

[ms finch]

Not that it changes the outcome but I reckon I could think of a reason why a drug dealer would go to a food outlet they are allergic to.

Sure. But in his case he was running drugs between Sedan in South Australia and Broome.

He did quite a bit in Alice Springs. He went to Red Rooster, BBQs Galore, Repco, filled up at the BP, visited a car wash.

There is another problem with his Red Rooster evidence. He testified at the trial that some of the chicken was for him - that he got a BBQ chicken for himself and some nuggets for his dog. It emerged later - after he had been found guilty - that he was allergic to chicken. There was a rumour he was refusing chicken in court holding cells and someone in the media got their hands on the medical information at the prison; it was subsequently confirmed he is allergic to chicken. Murdoch THEN changed his story to all of the chicken being bought for his dog.

Even IF the allergy was diagnosed after the infamous Red Rooster situation, why wouldn’t he say that? And why would he refuse chicken in the holding cells but get on the stand afterward and rabble on about getting chicken without covering that off? If the prosecution had cottoned on, they could have asked him about it there and then and he would have exposed himself as a liar in open court.

Whoops. #fail What a dingbat. He isn’t even a good liar.

 

[zedx]

Sure. But in his case he was running drugs between Sedan in South Australia and Broome.

He did quite a bit in Alice Springs. He went to Red Rooster, BBQs Galore, Repco, filled up at the BP, visited a car wash.

There is another problem with his Red Rooster evidence. He testified at the trial that some of the chicken was for him - that he got a BBQ chicken for himself and some nuggets for his dog. It emerged later - after he had been found guilty - that he was allergic to chicken. There was a rumour he was refusing chicken in court holding cells and someone in the media got their hands on the medical information at the prison; it was subsequently confirmed he is allergic to chicken. Murdoch THEN changed his story to all of the chicken being bought for his dog.

Even IF the allergy was diagnosed after the infamous Red Rooster situation, why wouldn’t he say that? And why would he refuse chicken in the holding cells but get on the stand afterward and rabble on about getting chicken without covering that off? If the prosecution had cottoned on, they could have asked him about it there and then and he would have exposed himself as a liar in open court.

Whoops. #fail What a dingbat. He isn’t even a good liar.

My friend became allergic to chicken at 57 years of age, quite out of the blue. She now has to carry an eppi pen with her at all times. I thought it was really strange but after googling apparently it is quite common. Also I have a Chinese Crested dog, I have been warned to keep her away from chicken as this breed is quite often allergic to it and quite a few on our FB page have actually died from eating chicken!!

 

[ms finch]

My friend became allergic to chicken at 57 years of age, quite out of the blue. She now has to carry an eppi pen with her at all times. I thought it was really strange but after googling apparently it is quite common. Also I have a Chinese Crested dog, I have been warned to keep her away from chicken as this breed is quite often allergic to it and quite a few on our FB page have actually died from eating chicken!!

My “Wow” was about your dog. I am so glad you know to keep her away from chicken. How awful for the people who don’t know that and accidentally harm their dog!

I was quite surprised about the chicken allergy when it first came out and I too looked in to it and was equally surprised at how common it is. The things you learn following crime matters.

I followed this case really closely when it was unfolding. I read everything I could on it, and a friend of mine went to some of it. It has been awhile so some of it I have had to refresh my memory about.

The Red Rooster incident in particular - JL testified at the committal that they had been to Red Rooster (in recounting their movements). BM had ample time to concoct the story in the trial. He testified and, according to the friend of mine who was there, he was arrogant and manipulative and sounded like a lying a**hole. That’s one of the things that we don’t get from reading stuff.

 

[Kurve]

His dog isn't wearing a collar in the pics I've seen. I wonder if he might have used home made looking manacles as a temporary dog collar when he needed one out in the bush? If those were the same as what he used on Lees in his gear, does anybody know how he explained it?

I don't doubt he's responsible but I'm trying to settle on the motive which might be relevant to another unsolved case in WA.

If Lees was his intended target, does anybody remember where the prosecution said he probably saw her first?

 

[ms finch]

His dog isn't wearing a collar in the pics I've seen. I wonder if he might have used home made looking manacles as a temporary dog collar when he needed one out in the bush? If those were the same as what he used on Lees in his gear, does anybody know how he explained it?

I don't doubt he's responsible but I'm trying to settle on the motive which might be relevant to another unsolved case in WA.

If Lees was his intended target, does anybody remember where the prosecution said he probably saw her first?

The theory the prosecution had was that Murdoch saw Lees when she was driving and Peter was asleep in the back at some point on the highway leaving Alice Springs. I don’t believe they pinpointed a precise location. According to Lees she and Peter stopped and watched the sunset and smoked a joint at Ti Tree, and I think after that Peter was awake.

The manacles were reported as being the same as ones in his possession by Hepi during the trial, and by the woman and daughter he (allegedly) abducted and r*ped to the police. Police also found the same manacles in his possession.

Murdoch’s explanation of this was that everyone was lying and police had set him up. Nobody indicated that they had ever asked him about the manacles when they saw them.

 

[ms finch]

I have been rereading a lot on this case over the last few days to try to find information that might be relevant to another case. In the intervening years since I last read this, I have had a traumatic experience that I thought might shed light on Joanne Lees’ apparently confusing and inconsistent evidence for anyone who is interested in the impact it can have.

My experience was nowhere near as traumatic as hers, but I did have trauma issues with my memory that, as I reread the books, seemed to have some parallels with hers, and may provide some insight.

WARNING: Suicide

I was at my place with a paramedic friend discussing my concern for a another friend’s mental health issues and what I could do to help when I received a series of concerning text messages that led me to believe he was about to do something. I went into full blown panic mode and we called the police and raced off to his house. Unfortunately we and the police were too late and he had hanged himself.

Some of my memories of that period and the aftermath are extremely vivid. I can see details I would never expect to recall on a normal day. These ones are, according to people who were with me, 100% accurate. Other memories are non existent of incomplete - I literally have a complete blank or just see flashes of things. And still others seem real, but I will find out that my details were wrong.

One such example of the latter: At my friend’s house, from the direction we were coming, we arrived and parked on the left and had to cross the road to his place on the right. In my memory we parked, I leapt out of the car, looked both ways and saw a red car and crossed the road hurriedly. According to my paramedic friend (who was driving), I started to leap out of the car as we drove up the hill and he had to slam on the brakes to avoid me injuring myself. I then hurled myself across the road without looking and was nearly run over.

An example of incomplete memory: I recall when my paramedic friend was with me trying to get in to the shed, and I have flashes of the door of the house and the shed. But I couldn’t tell you when he joined me or how many times I ran between the house and the shed.

I remember when his housemate appeared - I know he was wearing long trousers and a top, but I couldn’t tell you a damn thing about them. I remember he was holding his phone. What I remember clearly is what I said to him about what was going on, because that is what I was focused on.

I was absolutely convinced as well that I was holding it together well, but according to my paramedic friend I was pretty hysterical when we were at the shed. Then, afterward, I rang my sister at work. I have no memory of this conversation, but according to her I brightly chatted to the receptionist who knew who I was, asked for my sister, apologised profusely for interrupting my sister’s work day and then said, completely matter of factly, “Look, I know you are busy but X has killed himself and I was wondering if you could come over?” Then I hung up the phone leaving my poor sister wondering WTF was going on.

There is heaps more that, if I relayed it, would make you all think I was bananas. The next two days are all like that for me, and I was surrounded by people I felt safe with, supporting me and looking after me. I was not alone, nor amongst strangers, as Joanne was.

It was explained to me by my psychologist that what happened with my memory is normal. Some things will be vivid and accurate, some things will be not there and some of the memories that aren’t there my brain will subconsciously replace with other information, whether that’s because of what I knew or because something imprinted on me and my brain just shoved it in to fill the gap. I won’t even know it has happened. There are also perception issues, especially with time and movement.

I could tell people what had happened afterward, in basic terms, but if someone had asked me for minute details I would not have been able to provide all of them and I would have some of them wrong without even realising it. I remember when I was trying to recount the details of that day, I kept having an argument with myself about whether I went to the shed or the house door first. Each time I tried to piece it together, something popped up that made me think both options were wrong. Depending on what day you asked me, I went to one or the other first.

Joanne, in my view, would no doubt have experienced all this. She was then up for hours and interrogated relentlessly to provide details, in a way that would have placed her under pressure to fill in gaps, and she was expected to be sure of herself. She was never given a psychologist to work through her trauma with.

It makes perfect sense to me that her memories of certain things would be inaccurate, though she would think they were accurate. It also makes sense to me that her memory would have evolved over time as she tried to figure out gaps.

The best example I have is of the fact that she got from the front to the back of the car somehow. I suspect that her true memory is of being in the front then being in the back and her brain simply assumed she crawled through and filled that in. It was only when someone said that couldn’t have happened that she was forced to reassess. The issues with memory also explains why she couldn’t properly identify the dog and why the car description initially was not perfectly accurate.

I don’t think she’s lying at all, is my point. I think this can all be explained by trauma. So I think elements of her evidence may be unreliable, but I’ve also never thought her evidence was necessary for it to be proven to be Murdoch anyway. The evidence she did provide is not contradictory to it being Murdoch and is similar enough to him to be supportive, which is the crucial part. I think the police made mistakes in presenting her initial information as absolutely accurate rather than using words like, “Similar”. It led people to believe she was certain when she probably wasn’t.

 

[zedx]

I have been rereading a lot on this case over the last few days to try to find information that might be relevant to another case. In the intervening years since I last read this, I have had a traumatic experience that I thought might shed light on Joanne Lees’ apparently confusing and inconsistent evidence for anyone who is interested in the impact it can have.

My experience was nowhere near as traumatic as hers, but I did have trauma issues with my memory that, as I reread the books, seemed to have some parallels with hers, and may provide some insight.

WARNING: Suicide

I was at my place with a paramedic friend discussing my concern for a another friend’s mental health issues and what I could do to help when I received a series of concerning text messages that led me to believe he was about to do something. I went into full blown panic mode and we called the police and raced off to his house. Unfortunately we and the police were too late and he had hanged himself.

Some of my memories of that period and the aftermath are extremely vivid. I can see details I would never expect to recall on a normal day. These ones are, according to people who were with me, 100% accurate. Other memories are non existent of incomplete - I literally have a complete blank or just see flashes of things. And still others seem real, but I will find out that my details were wrong.

One such example of the latter: At my friend’s house, from the direction we were coming, we arrived and parked on the left and had to cross the road to his place on the right. In my memory we parked, I leapt out of the car, looked both ways and saw a red car and crossed the road hurriedly. According to my paramedic friend (who was driving), I started to leap out of the car as we drove up the hill and he had to slam on the brakes to avoid me injuring myself. I then hurled myself across the road without looking and was nearly run over.

An example of incomplete memory: I recall when my paramedic friend was with me trying to get in to the shed, and I have flashes of the door of the house and the shed. But I couldn’t tell you when he joined me or how many times I ran between the house and the shed.

I remember when his housemate appeared - I know he was wearing long trousers and a top, but I couldn’t tell you a damn thing about them. I remember he was holding his phone. What I remember clearly is what I said to him about what was going on, because that is what I was focused on.

I was absolutely convinced as well that I was holding it together well, but according to my paramedic friend I was pretty hysterical when we were at the shed. Then, afterward, I rang my sister at work. I have no memory of this conversation, but according to her I brightly chatted to the receptionist who knew who I was, asked for my sister, apologised profusely for interrupting my sister’s work day and then said, completely matter of factly, “Look, I know you are busy but X has killed himself and I was wondering if you could come over?” Then I hung up the phone leaving my poor sister wondering WTF was going on.

There is heaps more that, if I relayed it, would make you all think I was bananas. The next two days are all like that for me, and I was surrounded by people I felt safe with, supporting me and looking after me. I was not alone, nor amongst strangers, as Joanne was.

It was explained to me by my psychologist that what happened with my memory is normal. Some things will be vivid and accurate, some things will be not there and some of the memories that aren’t there my brain will subconsciously replace with other information, whether that’s because of what I knew or because something imprinted on me and my brain just shoved it in to fill the gap. I won’t even know it has happened. There are also perception issues, especially with time and movement.

I could tell people what had happened afterward, in basic terms, but if someone had asked me for minute details I would not have been able to provide all of them and I would have some of them wrong without even realising it. I remember when I was trying to recount the details of that day, I kept having an argument with myself about whether I went to the shed or the house door first. Each time I tried to piece it together, something popped up that made me think both options were wrong. Depending on what day you asked me, I went to one or the other first.

Joanne, in my view, would no doubt have experienced all this. She was then up for hours and interrogated relentlessly to provide details, in a way that would have placed her under pressure to fill in gaps, and she was expected to be sure of herself. She was never given a psychologist to work through her trauma with.

It makes perfect sense to me that her memories of certain things would be inaccurate, though she would think they were accurate. It also makes sense to me that her memory would have evolved over time as she tried to figure out gaps.

The best example I have is of the fact that she got from the front to the back of the car somehow. I suspect that her true memory is of being in the front then being in the back and her brain simply assumed she crawled through and filled that in. It was only when someone said that couldn’t have happened that she was forced to reassess. The issues with memory also explains why she couldn’t properly identify the dog and why the car description initially was not perfectly accurate.

I don’t think she’s lying at all, is my point. I think this can all be explained by trauma. So I think elements of her evidence may be unreliable, but I’ve also never thought her evidence was necessary for it to be proven to be Murdoch anyway. The evidence she did provide is not contradictory to it being Murdoch and is similar enough to him to be supportive, which is the crucial part. I think the police made mistakes in presenting her initial information as absolutely accurate rather than using words like, “Similar”. It led people to believe she was certain when she probably wasn’t.

So sorry you lost your friend, it definitely was a traumatic experience for all involved.
What you are saying is absolutely true. I have just done a short physiology course (online) and one of the sections was regarding memory and perception. In a nut shell it explained pretty much as you have said above, but a huge point was that our life and experiences 'train our brains expectations', so quite often we don't actually see or remember what actually happened, because our brains expect that something is going to be a certain way (as we want it to be or as it has been all our life) and so our brain inserts that memory, even though it may be wrong. A simple example is those paragraphs doing the rounds of FB, which are spelt wrong except for a couple of key letters. Its all mumbo jumbo but our brains recognize the patterns and so we are able to read them.

 

[ms finch]

So sorry you lost your friend, it definitely was a traumatic experience for all involved.
What you are saying is absolutely true. I have just done a short physiology course (online) and one of the sections was regarding memory and perception. In a nut shell it explained pretty much as you have said above, but a huge point was that our life and experiences 'train our brains expectations', so quite often we don't actually see or remember what actually happened, because our brains expect that something is going to be a certain way (as we want it to be or as it has been all our life) and so our brain inserts that memory, even though it may be wrong. A simple example is those paragraphs doing the rounds of FB, which are spelt wrong except for a couple of key letters. Its all mumbo jumbo but our brains recognize the patterns and so we are able to read them.

Yes! I was told that the reason I thought I crossed the road as normal is precisely because that’s what I normally did. My brain just inserted that memory because it wasn’t paying any attention to what I was actually doing at the time.

Joanne got Murdoch’s description pretty reasonable in my view given my own experience. I was convinced that the police officer I remembered with the crowbar was a huge guy with a beard. Actually he was a small guy who was clean shaven. I suspect that is expectations, as you described: I just imagined a big strong burly bloke would be doing that so that’s what I recalled.

It’s also staggering how coherent someone can be when we think they shouldn’t. I asked my sister’s work colleague how her new house was FFS. It was exactly the sort of thing that happened to Joanne. My sister was racing out the door and her colleague was like, “But your sister sounded fine. It can’t be that bad.”

I also lost my temper, repeatedly. I can see Joanne was angry with the media, but I also think she was lashing out at something, anything, because of how she was feeling. And it does get exhausting repeating the story. I got really angry with people who wanted to know things after the first day or so. I was like, “Just GO AWAY.” And these people were not hoardes of journalists wanting to pick apart my every word; they were well meaning.

I also had freedom to be myself. She didn’t. I wouldn’t have known how to grieve or process around a whole lot of strangers being shunted from place to place.

It was just staggering to me when I read it all again how much I emotionally understood it, rather than just intellectually.

(And thanks.)

 

[Tues]

Regarding the stain on JL’s T-shirt, and the explanation that was offered for it - I thought that was laughable.

According to BM he went to Red Rooster several hours before JL/PF and had a weepy sore on his hand (? I think it was his hand). He claims that he must have touched something that JL’s T-shirt then came into contact with.

This assumes that: in that time the area wasn’t cleaned AND the DNA survived; JL’s T-shirt touched the same area as his; and there was enough contact to create transfer of enough DNA for testing.

In addition to this, we learn BM is allergic to chicken, so much so that it is on his information with regard to prison meals. His explanation for his visit to Red Rooster is that he was getting food for his dog. Now, I don’t dispute that some owners would do that for their animals - my cat loves cooked white fish so if I get fish and chips I get him a fillet and take the batter off for him.

BUT, I find it hard to believe that someone who was allergic to chicken would have introduced his dog to chicken in the first place, let alone gone to a chicken specific place for his dog. This also means there is no chance of him eating in the Red Rooster - he would be in and out getting take away - which reduces the likelihood of DNA transfer to surfaces in a survivable way that then transfers to JL. I think about how much I touch with my hands when I am getting takeaway - it isn’t much.

Also, did Red Rooster have a drive through?

It is so remote. This apparent chain of events to explain the DNA seems to have been the only option anyone could come up with to challenge the DNA evidence against him to attempt to create reasonable doubt. They had a problem with explaining the DNA on the T-shirt specifically. I don’t regard it as having any credibility.

I have been involved as a group admin concerning this case since 2007 and for starters Brad Murdoch is not allergic to chicken! Regarding the Red Rooster scene, Brad was there approx. 30 minutes before Falconio and Lees went there, Brad made a take away order of a whole chicken and a large box of nuggests for his dog,Jack. The DNA in question was described as 'a small watery, weepy type of mark similar to one which would have seeped from a torn cuticle, the size of this sample is very small, the rest of the shirt is unremarkable forensically speaking' Did Brad lean against one of the booths with his hand holding the back of the seating where Falconio and Lees sat and ate a meal soon after? Very possibly.
This entire case is a farce - FREE BRADLEY MURDOCH.

 

[Registered User]

I have been involved as a group admin concerning this case since 2007 and for starters Brad Murdoch is not allergic to chicken! Regarding the Red Rooster scene, Brad was there approx. 30 minutes before Falconio and Lees went there, Brad made a take away order of a whole chicken and a large box of nuggests for his dog,Jack. The DNA in question was described as 'a small watery, weepy type of mark similar to one which would have seeped from a torn cuticle, the size of this sample is very small, the rest of the shirt is unremarkable forensically speaking' Did Brad lean against one of the booths with his hand holding the back of the seating where Falconio and Lees sat and ate a meal soon after? Very possibly.
This entire case is a farce - FREE BRADLEY MURDOCH.

So, who dunnit? Joanna?

 

[Tues]

So, who dunnit? Joanna?

I'm not convinced there even was a murder.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

So, who dunnit? Joanna?

Couldnt have been JL alone as she didnt leave the scene so she couldnt have disposed of the body and if she had help i think it would have come out by now.

I think it was associates of BM, the type of people who dont talk.