• Creator
    Topic
  • #51181
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    JimmyT revisits the murky world of the TV “investigation” of the Peter Falconio murder … Those of you who’ve been transfixed by the unexplained mysteries and “new evidence” presented by the Channel Seven documentary series about the disappearance of Peter Falconio and the subsequent hounding of Joanne Lees, may be interested in the definitive book about the …
    https://www.flatchat.com.au/falconio-facts-and-fictions-how-they-got-it-so-wrong/

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #51248
    Esmeralda
    Flatchatter

    I think the British Reporter got it right. They were warned not to travel at night down that road. They did anyway, because like the reporter said “he thinks it was a drug courier gone wrong, Someone new of it, and wanted control”. I think the blood was not from a gun shot but a stabbing as no bullet casing found or gunshot residue. Also the truck drivers who picked up Joanne said she was terrified and rightly so, and they had witnessed driving down to the area they saw a ‘jelly man’ which indicates to me a man was hijacked and being pushed and shoved by the two men with him, who may have taken him away and ergo no body found . Joanne would not be so silly as to confess to being a drug courier. No further investigation into her Sydney lover which was of concern, or of Murdoch’s partner in drug trafficking, who seemed to know a lot about Murdoch’s wrist ties, etc.

    #51250
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    That’s the wornderful thing about conspiracy theories – people take a lack of evidence as “proof”.

    There has never been any suggestion, apart from for those flimsy theories that have no basis in fact, that Joanne Lees or Peter Falconio were involved in drug running (although Bradley Murdoch definitely was).

    Plenty of people travel that road at night after being advised not to do so.  If you had ever visited any of the accommodation or facilities available at that time (I have) you would know why they decided to keep going.

    A revolver doesn’t eject shell casings and someone who took the time to hide a body wouldn’t be so stupid as to leave a shell from an automatic lying around. Where was the gunshot residue going to be found?

    The “Jelly Man”, not mentioned in eight previous interviews with police, may just be a local drunk. The Aboriginal communities on either side of the road there are “dry” and when you go up any track far enough you will encounter a sign that says if you are found with alcohol in your vehicle, it will be impounded (I know becasue I have seen them with my own eyes). So, if the Jelly Man ever existed, there are plenty of logical theories why people would be manhandling him into their car and not wanting to engage with passers by.

    The other, more usual reason for not confessing to being a drug courier is that you aren’t one.

    And, pray tell, what are your conspiracy theories about a struck-off and jailed former coke-head lawyer trying to make a name for himself (and a buck) by cobbling together some BS theories about a tragic case in which one young person’s life was lost and the other’s destroyed.

    Want some facts about the man behind this so-called documentary? Look here.

    This series was originally made for British TV, where these conspiracy theories meet a more gullible audience, partly due to their complete lack of understanding about the vast extent and nature of the Outback.

    We should be a bit smarter than that.

    #60980
    Knobby
    Flatchatter

    What can I say? The media never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

    Here is a fact – Murdoch’s DNA was not just located mixed with Falconio’s on Lees’ shirt it was also located on the inside sticky surface of the makeshift shackles he made and put on Lees’ wrists. These were cut off Joanne by the truck driver who picked her up and placed in his toolbox where they were collected by police at Barrow Creek. (This chain of evidence was covered by statements and witness accounts tested and cross examined in court).

    I love how Chanel 7s story only briefly mentions DNA evidence in the first part (calling it disputed) then there is no further mention. Clearly they did not want to talk too much about it as Murdoch has lost 2 appeals that I know of questioning the DNA evidence.

    This is a testament to the forensic collection and chain of evidence that has been appropriately scrutinised in court more than once.

    People have faults and not everyone is going to play the stereotype victim on a time of crisis. But the science does not lie it can only be tested.

    Comments made anonymously with inside knowledge.

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.