Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That guy was asleep, if I recall the episode correctly.AFAIK there was at least one co-driver in his truck( this being the #$%& guy who cleaned her up at the road station), at this point he has not mentioned/confirmed red car. Why wasn't he questioned about this in the documentary?
Why did the UK police show a JL a picture of Murdoch and others after she knew he was arrested for the crime? Is this procedure or sloppy police work given that they had been pursuing Murdoch for awhile?
The reasoning for then possibly running some drugs is due to it being common around those parts by all reports.Unfortunately many theories postulated are in the 'internet sleuth' style of reverse deduction: start with the crime scene and then backfit things that could somehow make it fit.
Lees and Falconio being drug runners is the perfect example. What shred of evidence is there for this? Who were they working with or for? What evidence is there for that, how did these two tourists from the other side of the world come into contact with them and start working for them?
If backpackers were used to move drugs surely someone would have said something in the last 20 years. Stone silence. How does someone like Murdoch who was paranoid about being followed - suddenly decide to deal with a couple English backpackers..
The reasoning for then possibly running some drugs is due to it being common around those parts by all reports.
For example PF & JL are sitting outside a watering hole smoking some Alice Malice, or whatever they call it up there and BM or someone else smells it. The next step is approaching them and asking them if they want to earn a little extra cash. The chance to earn some extra spending money out there are next to none. So maybe a common answer is tell me more etc..
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Interesting, thanks for sharing.We'd need more than this though obviously to say that's what was really going on.
We'd need more than this though obviously to say that's what was really going on.
I haven't seen the list. Does any one have access to it??By admission, they were smokers and apparently stoned when Murdoch pulled them over. Does anybody recall the police finding any marijuana, loose or otherwise in the kombi, how much of it there was and where it was? Does anybody remember if in the list of stuff they took out of the kombi and inventoried how many packets of cigarettes, loose tobacco and papers were found? Any smoking or rolling kit at all?
I don't recall seeing any. So where was their smoke/paraphernalia? I'm not sure Murdoch would have been interested enough to steal a little bit of personal.
He drove me crazy the way he filmed with one side of his face not visible. He looked and sounded like Paul Hogan does Phantom of the Opera! Crikey!Yeah I know but I quite like him in a very laid back common sense kind of way
There are a large number of strange things in her testimony. For example, the man and dog could not find her after searching for ages and the fact she had no sign of frostbite when it was about zero degrees that night and she says she was out there for hours. Also nobody has ever heard of or seen a utility where you can get from the front seats directly into the back. There were many more problems but it's a while since I read the books.
Thanks Penfolds, your right the time line of events does not makes sense, where was Pete whilst all this was happening to Joanne? If hypothetically, others were involved and after being shot Pete was taken up to the road and put into the 'little red car' (which the truck driver allegedly saw), it would have mean't the little red car came along much later than the alleged shooting. Which does not make sense as it would have still left Pete by the side of the road for hours. Also why didn't Joanne not see the little red car? I think that knocks the sighting of the little red car out of the water. The only feasible scenario here would be that if others were involved they pulled up directly behind BM's ute (so they couldn't be seen)and immediately took Pete away. But in that case, why did only BM let Joanne see HIS face?? And I still don't understand the moving of the Combi?? It didn't look hidden!Exactly!
NT Police had access to the nations database of vehicles yet couldn't find one which matched the description given by Lees and said it during their interview to which Lees deflected as she had no explanation.
Look at her timeline of events, she claims theyre pulled over, Pete gets out, she gets behind the wheel to rev the engine, hears a bang and the gunman appears, at this point in time PF must be still lying on the road between the assailants ute and the rear of the Kombi, yet when she's marched to his cabin and placed inside she doesn't see PF nor does she see him between then and when she miraculously makes her way into the utes tray.
So where is Pete, he couldn't have been moved already as there was no time between gunshot and her capture and he wasn't moved whilst she was looking out the windscreen of the cab, for this to fit he must have been lying there the whole time, who leaves a body lying on the ground on the side of the road for that long and what was the assailant doing during this time.
The only other thing she claims he did was search for her after she escaped and moved the Kombi, she hadn't escaped at this point so he wasn't searching for her, there is no other evidence other than the bloodstain of PF and no drag mark evidence so Pete didn't get put anywhere other the back of the ute and Lees was yet to find her way in there to escape so he couldn't have been in there yet.
We are to believe BM leaves PF lying on the side of the road dead whilst he restrains Lees, puts her in his ute, moves the Kombi, searches for her and then decides he better hide his murder victim in his now vacant ute tray.
It makes no sense at all when you think about it and that's before you even consider the lack of additional footprints, the time she claims to have been hiding whilst he searched, the weather conditions and her state when discovered.
This is one of those scenario's given whereby you have to want to believe it even though logic, common sense and probability strongly suggest otherwise.
But, but, but DNA they say, that's right, she had BM's DNA on her, the Kombi and lets say it was her hair tie, it still doesn't prove BM pulled the trigger, just that he was there and I have no doubt he was, but I don't believe he's the murderer he's convicted of being.
Should he have done jail time, no doubt, but he shouldn't be kept forever just because he cant say where PF is because i genuinely don't believe he knows.
Thanks Penfolds, your right the time line of events does not makes sense, where was Pete whilst all this was happening to Joanne? If hypothetically, others were involved and after being shot Pete was taken up to the road and put into the 'little red car' (which the truck driver allegedly saw), it would have mean't the little red car came along much later than the alleged shooting. Which does not make sense as it would have still left Pete by the side of the road for hours. Also why didn't Joanne not see the little red car? I think that knocks the sighting of the little red car out of the water. The only feasible scenario here would be that if others were involved they pulled up directly behind BM's ute (so they couldn't be seen)and immediately took Pete away. But in that case, why did only BM let Joanne see HIS face?? And I still don't understand the moving of the Combi?? It didn't look hidden!
it has been mentioned some where, that forensics could make out the 'pattern' of the blood on the road, meaning they did not know what type of wound could have caused the blood to fall onto the road in that way, they didn't think it could have been from a gun shot wound.Has everyone seen the picture of the blood stain on the road, from the TV show.
To me it looks like a pint of blood, the same volume as in a blood collection bag.
It looked to me like an odd pattern.
Yep, Bulls Transport ran 2up from Darwin to Adelaide, the reason you run 2up is to keep moving, in order to keep moving one has to sleep whilst the other drives.
Think about it, old mate wouldn't have woken over the gradual stopping due to the red car which is why he wasn't mentioned, but standing on the anchor as a woman runs out in front of the truck would certainly get your attention.
She recognised it and the police obtained her DNA from it off memory.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk