Australia: A 32-year-old man has been jailed for life for murdering British backpacker Caroline Stuttle in Bundaberg in south-east Queensland on alleged evidence possibly trumped up while he was in prison?

But was he made a scapegoat for the "20 billion dollar tourist industry? And were the alleged statements made by Previt consistent with true confessions made by a guilty person?

In other words did Previt make the alleged statements?

Ian Douglas Previte sat expressionless in the dock as he was found guilty by the Supreme Court jury of robbing and murdering Miss Stuttle in 2002.

But did he lack expression? Or was he stunned to become the next victim of a greedy Australian tourist industry? Government and corporate interests, which includes the mainstream media, all desperate to release the tourist industry from the bridgeblock due to a killing of a backpacker in far north Queensland.

The judge said Miss Stuttle should have been enjoying a holiday of a lifetime but instead Previte threw her off Bundaberg's Burnett River traffic bridge for a "miserable few dollars and killed her in the most terrible way".

But Ian Douglas Previte should have been enjoying his life but instead Previte went down for a murder he most likely never committed.

Alleged to have thrown Miss Stuttle off Bundjaberg's Burnett River traffic bridge but was he made a scapegoat for the "20 billion dollar tourist industry?

When asked if he wanted to say anything about his sentencing, Previte shook his head. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 10 years for robbery to be served concurrently.

Previte was charged with the murder and robbery of the 19-year-old after a 10-month police investigation.

Miss Stuttle's father Alan, brother Richard and former boyfriend Ian Nelson attended the trial. Alan Stuttle spoke to the media outside the court.

"We are so relieved that this matter has finally be put to sleep and I think it's important now that we all move forward," he said.

He said his family had endured two-and-a-half years of pain and anguish.

Prosecutor Peter Feeney told the jury the petite 19-year-old could only have been thrown from the nine metre-high Burnett River Traffic Bridge because her head barely came up to the railing.

"There was an episode of considerable violence on the walkway," Mr Feeney said in his opening address to the Supreme Court murder trial in Bundaberg?

Allegedly: "Previte ignored her screams of terror and forced her over the railing."?

Mr Feeney said Previte, "a drug addict"? Had been sitting on a bench on the bridge about 9pm as Ms Stuttle walked by and had stalked her, intending to snatch her bag to get money for drugs?

Notice that Previte was labelled a "drug addict" but not the accused? If he did take drugs Previte was not unlike three quarters of other Australians? This was the first unfair statement made against the accused.

According to the prosecutor if he was a drug addict then he was also desperate? And could not be trusted? That is if he was a drug addict. Nevertheless any Australian could be labelled as drug addict and should the jury have been alert to the fact that he was this or that. He was a human being first and he was being accused.

He said Previte bashed her and threw her over the railing?

Witness

But there were no witnesses?

Ms Stuttle died instantly when her skull was fractured and her spine severed.

INCONSISTENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

Mr Feeney said, " Previte had made three confessions to the killing, once to jail inmates, once to police, and in writing on a picnic table at Baldwin Swamp, Bundaberg."

A) The one to jail inmates is irrelevant as this material was gained illegally after the fact from desperate prison informers in conditions that were not consistent with being described as normal in terms of living in the community. In other words a set-up.

B) Once to police, well where is the signed statement and how was it gained? The papers fail to report.

C) And in writing on a picnic table at Baldwin Swamp, Bundaberg?

Again where is the proof? Someone made a mark on a table?

All these facts need to be published so that the community can understand the relevance of the alleged evidence. Juries can be bamboozled into thinking that this evidence is enough to convict a person for life but when closely examined perhaps not.

Ms Stuttle, of York in England, was on a working holiday with a childhood friend and had only been in Bundaberg, 350 kilometres north of Brisbane, for three days when tragedy struck.

She was returning to the caravan park where she was staying after calling her boyfriend in England from a pay phone.

Ms Stuttle's brother Richard attended court. Outside court, Mr Stuttle said the family missed his sister daily.

"It gets a little bit easier, but it's still very, very difficult most days," he said.

Her 65-year-old artist father, Alan Stuttle, a contemporary of David Hockney, said visitors to Queensland should not be deterred by what happened to his daughter.

"I don't want people to put a barrier up, to say: 'I daren't go to Bundaberg because of this'," he said.

"Youngsters have to have the freedom to enjoy their lives and not be worrying about security. If we hide, we let the elements that will always kill children win."

What about that this is a statement clearing the way for the tourist industry to get on with 20 billion a year industry no matter who went down for the killing?

Alan Stuttle travelled to Bundaberg to attend the trial.

But the statement by Alan Stuttle brought to you by the corporate media is typical of the tourist industries attempts to clear its name and that's all.

While he was in Australia he planed to paint the places his daughter told him about in text messages she sent home.

"The main thing for me is to see that justice is being done, because the murder of your child you'll never ever wash it off," he said.

"It's always going to be there. I've sold all my places in Yorkshire. I couldn't bear going back to my old house and old gallery. Hopefully I've not got too many more years to live. It ruins your life."

Justice Peter Dutney has warned the jury to be dispassionate about the case, and not to make Previte a scapegoat for the killing.

But indeed Previte was made a scapegoat for the killing wake up Australia before you become the next corporate victim. The fact is they don't care who they get as long as the gate to Australian tourism remains open.

Well Mr Alan Stuttle I hope justice was done for you and your family if the real killer takes another backpacker somewhere down the track then justice will not be done for them.

Is someone going to make sure what was put to the jury was consistent with the guilt of the accused?

Your guess is as good as mine because in Australia today there is no Legal Aid to appeal the worst case.