Joanne Lees has, in spite of all these factual misgivings listed above about her own credibility and her account of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Peter Falconio, been granted leave to testify in court - albeit against a man whose past life style tends to pre-judge him.
May be sensational - but
The trial of Bradley John Murdoch may be sensational - but for the wrong reason. This trial has had serious flaws in it - decide for yourself
Pride and Prejudice versus facts and truth.Trial of Bradley John Murdoch
Since the disappearance of Peter Falconio there are a number of questions that seem to remain unanswered, yet a trial for murder has materialised and a suspect stands accussed of Mr Falconio's murder. Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, the basis of the trial seems impossible. For a fair trial, leading to a solid conviction, the case against Bradley Murdoch has to be proven. Yet, here are the issues that remain unresolved.
1. Peter Falconio's body has not been discovered - so is he dead? There is a considerable difference between seeing the actual remains of a dead person and making the giant leap forward and presuming he is deceased. Who claimed that Peter Falconio is, in fact, dead? Even Joanne Lees has never stated that she has ever seen the wounded or dead body of Peter Falconio! There is not a shred of hard, definitive forensic evidence to clearly show that Mr Falconio is in fact deceased!
2. Some time after the disappearance of Peter Falconio two witnesses claimed to have seen him, looked at him at a distance of some two or three metres or less, recognised him from the photographs in the newspaper and one witness even followed him out of the store from where he purchased a Mars bar. Both of these witnesses have not sought any recognition or reward for what they declared they saw with their own eyes and if they are not lying, how can the trial of Murdoch take place for an event that could not have occurred?
3. Human blood was found on the road where Peter Falconio was allegedly shot. DNA was extracted from that blood sample and used to identify Peter Falconio by comparing it with the DNA extracted from the Asthma "Puffer" identified as belonging to Mr Falconio, found at the scene of the crime. This comparison in itself does not prove that the blood is that of Peter Falconio - it only proves that these two two blood samples are from the same person. Has the blood sample found on the road ever been compared directly with a known sample of Peter Falconio's blood/hair/tissue OR compared to his real parent's DNA for conclusive identification?
4. Why has the blood sample taken from the road been found to contain DNA from animals? Since no road kill animals were ever found at the crime scene, how did the animal contaminate blood get mixed with Peter Falconio's blood?
5. Was the purpose of mixing animal blood with human blood used to prove that a murder occurred at that particular place? It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate to police detectives that a shooting indeed took place but where no traces of blood were in evidence to corroborate such a story. A sufficiently adequate spillage of blood would be required to justify such a story. However, there appears to be a distinct lack of spillage of human blood at the crime scene so was the scene engineered to look like a shooting had taken place?
6. Joanne Lees stated that the kidnapper had a handgun. If this is so it is difficult to understand how she was able to fight off or resist the kidnapper's attempts to wrap tape around her head and to place a bag over her head. He would only have to threaten to use the gun and, if he had already killed Mr Falconio, proposition Miss Lees with the same fate if she did not comply with his demands. Yet Miss Lees stated that she struggled to such an extent that the kidnapper failed to bind her up properly and that he finally resorted to striking her on the right temple in order to control her. It seems unbelievable that a man who moments earlier had no compunction executing a man in cold blood using a handgun would then hesitate to use it again, but rather tolerate questioning and physical resistance from a woman who he could so easily have threatened with it if she didn't comply with his demands?
7. Joanne Lees stated that she had been bound by a pair of handcuffs, fabricated from tie-wraps and tape. Supposedly, Murdoch had placed these handcuffs on her. Her hands were bound at this stage of her attempted abduction, behind her back. However, one version of events that she originally gave to the interviewing police officer soon after her escape was that she was able to identify the vehicle canopy by feeling the canopy with her hands. How did she accomplish this feat?
8. Joanne Lees stated that she hid from her attacker in the bushes where she remained for a number of hours. The event took place during the night. To gauge the sort of exposure she would have had to endure, while dressed very lightly and unable to move to keep herself warm in case her kidnapper found her, one only has to look at the map at:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2001/07aaubl_pg.gif
to see the temperature chart for that area. The green colour indicates that the temperature at the place of the abduction was around the 0 to -3 degrees Celsius (and this is erring on the warmer side of the temperature spectrum for the Barrow Creek/Alice Springs area). The actual temperature was probably closer to -5 degrees Celsius. Surely, a person in the situation would rapidly loose body heat, start to shiver, suffer from cramp, etc. And yet Miss Lees survived this extreme exposure apparently unblemished! Yet, strangely, there is no account of her suffering from any symptoms of excessive exposure from the cold, neither from the lorry driver who rescued her, in her own report or from the police statements - how come?
9. As stated above, Joanne Lees hid from her attacker in the bushes where she claimed he passed within a few feet of where she was hiding. Her footprints were identified yet no other footprints of any other description were ever discovered at the scene of the alleged crime. Why not? Have the expert trackers not done a very good job - locating only Joanne's footprint(s) but unable to find a single or even partial impression from her kidnapper's shoes? Remembering that it was he who was walking about the area looking for her, a man of some 6feet 4 inches in stature who would certainly leave behind a large footprint or two. Surely the trackers would have found some evidence of these huge footprints? Strange that they didn't?
10. Then there is the anomaly of the dog that Joanne said the kidnapper owned. Again, the tracker's found no evidence of any dog being present at the crime scene. Are they missing all the vital clues that Miss Lees' stated should be there?
11. The next point of issue is the actual kidnapper and his dog's combined incompetence. Joanne claimed that although he came close to her neither he nor the dog was not able to locate her in the dark. This was in spite of the fact that she was in a place where the slightest movement would have given away her presence. She also had admitted to taking drugs that same evening of the kidnapping yet had all the composure and stamina necessary to avoid detection from both dog and kidnapper! Such incredible luck and good fortune for her!
12. The next point of intrigue with Miss Lee's account of events is the method by which she was able to manipulate her body to bring the handcuffs from behind her back to being in front of herself. She seems to be a remarkably able woman, capable of avoiding capture from her hunter and his dog, surviving the extreme cold for hours on end and then able to figure out how to manipulate the handcuffs - notwithstanding that she had been drug taking only hours before this event and that she must have been tired, it being the small hours of the morning. Remarkable indeed! Such composure bearing in mind the fact that her boyfriend Peter might be lying dead or dying close by. Even more remarkable is that after demonstrating such mental competence in escaping from her would be rapist/kidnapper/killer she never indicated any concern about her fiancée Peter Falconio - the man she was deeply in love with (so she claims) and for all accounts was lying shot close by. The man she was to marry. Joanne Lees could have implored the lorry driver to at least take a cursory look around for him so did she?
13. Immediately after her rescue Joanne could have used the media to help find Peter or lookout for her kidnapper. She declined to hold a meeting with the press and media and did little if anything to indicate any concern for his predicament or his situation - why not? Is this the responsible actions one would expect from a woman in love toward her deeply missed fiancée? What possible rationale would there be to deliberately delaying getting help and assistance to find either Peter or his accused killer?
14. Joanne Lees has fortunately for all to see, demonstrated the caring, concerned person she really is - that is, caring for herself, her future and showing little or no concern for the missing husband to be Peter Falconio. Her real motives and thoughts were exposed when she had to eventually admit to the fact that within 48 hours of Peter's disappearance, she was in secret communication with "Steph" her secret lover. Deception and secrecy combined seems to be a key trait in this lady's modus operandi as amply demonstrated by the lengths she had gone to hide her secret love life from Peter Falconio and the rest of the world. Yet, she would have you believe that she was really only in love with Peter Falconio while at the same time covering her tracks of her secret love affair. It takes great strength and resolution to deliberately lie under oath while being subjected to rigorous questioning in court but this lady did it! That is unless you are a habitual liar and well versed in the art of lying. Then it becomes much more difficult to distinguish the truth from lies - fact from fantasy. Only when confronted with overwhelming evidence of her lying was she forced to confess to her secret love affair - a fact that she had previously vehemently denied and tried to cover up. The fact is this lady was bear-faced and deceitful enough to try and mislead the legal proceedings in a place of justice amply demonstrates what she is capable of. What then, is the creditability to be afforded to Miss Lees version of events?
As the one and only key eye-witness whose actions have ranged from:
* down right blatant lying in court
* deceit and deception while conducting a secret love affair behind her fiancées back
* citing an incredible escape from her would be kidnapper's vehicle while being handcuffed behind her back
* being able to touch the canopy top with the same hands while handcuffed behind her back
* escape detection from the self-same kidnapper and his dog by hiding in the undergrowth
* inexplicably unable to account for the fact that expert trackers were unable to find any evidence whatsoever of kidnapper and dog's presence at the scene of the purported crime BUT did find her footprints
* exhibit mental and bodily dexterity to extricate her bound hands from behind her back while enduring extreme cold and mental horror
* implausible survival during extreme cold sub-zero temperatures for a number of hours while scantily dressed AND after a recent session involving taking drugs
* deliberately delayed and frustrated the usage of press and media exposure during the first critical 48 hours following the alleged crime
* immediately communicating with her secret lover within two days of her fiancée's disappearance - such was her concern for Peter Falconio.
Joanne Lees has, in spite of all these factual misgivings listed above about her own credibility and her account of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Peter Falconio, been granted leave to testify in court - albeit against a man whose past life style tends to pre-judge him.
Would or could you believe Joanne Lees account of events given the above facts? If the basis of a verdict of "guilty " is "beyond reasonable doubt" then the jury will have a difficult time to convict Bradley Murdoch based on the above lack of credibility of the prosecution's key witness, no body and no firm forensic evidence to prove that the dead body of Peter Falconio ever existed.
This will then pose a significant problem for the police - what really happened to Peter Falconio?
Related:
No Murder Weapon, No Body, No Place or Time of Death
No one else was there and this is her story believe it or not. She was quite capable of inventing an attacker and binding her own hands to make it look like there had been an attack but there was and adventure a misadventure. Tears can be manipulated and manufactured. She was entwined in the relationship maybe Peter would not let her out?
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=60354&group=webcast
Unfaithful Lees admits taking drugs, court told
Joanne Lees who was stoned out of her brain on dope and who'd had a recent affair had a better motive for the killing and could easily have committed the crime herself. So why wasn't she the main suspect?
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=60319&group=webcast
Pride and Prejudice versus facts and truth.Trial of Bradley John Murdoch
Since the disappearance of Peter Falconio there are a number of questions that seem to remain unanswered, yet a trial for murder has materialised and a suspect stands accussed of Mr Falconio's murder. Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, the basis of the trial seems impossible. For a fair trial, leading to a solid conviction, the case against Bradley Murdoch has to be proven. Yet, here are the issues that remain unresolved.
1. Peter Falconio's body has not been discovered - so is he dead? There is a considerable difference between seeing the actual remains of a dead person and making the giant leap forward and presuming he is deceased. Who claimed that Peter Falconio is, in fact, dead? Even Joanne Lees has never stated that she has ever seen the wounded or dead body of Peter Falconio! There is not a shred of hard, definitive forensic evidence to clearly show that Mr Falconio is in fact deceased!
2. Some time after the disappearance of Peter Falconio two witnesses claimed to have seen him, looked at him at a distance of some two or three metres or less, recognised him from the photographs in the newspaper and one witness even followed him out of the store from where he purchased a Mars bar. Both of these witnesses have not sought any recognition or reward for what they declared they saw with their own eyes and if they are not lying, how can the trial of Murdoch take place for an event that could not have occurred?
3. Human blood was found on the road where Peter Falconio was allegedly shot. DNA was extracted from that blood sample and used to identify Peter Falconio by comparing it with the DNA extracted from the Asthma "Puffer" identified as belonging to Mr Falconio, found at the scene of the crime. This comparison in itself does not prove that the blood is that of Peter Falconio - it only proves that these two two blood samples are from the same person. Has the blood sample found on the road ever been compared directly with a known sample of Peter Falconio's blood/hair/tissue OR compared to his real parent's DNA for conclusive identification?
4. Why has the blood sample taken from the road been found to contain DNA from animals? Since no road kill animals were ever found at the crime scene, how did the animal contaminate blood get mixed with Peter Falconio's blood?
5. Was the purpose of mixing animal blood with human blood used to prove that a murder occurred at that particular place? It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate to police detectives that a shooting indeed took place but where no traces of blood were in evidence to corroborate such a story. A sufficiently adequate spillage of blood would be required to justify such a story. However, there appears to be a distinct lack of spillage of human blood at the crime scene so was the scene engineered to look like a shooting had taken place?
6. Joanne Lees stated that the kidnapper had a handgun. If this is so it is difficult to understand how she was able to fight off or resist the kidnapper's attempts to wrap tape around her head and to place a bag over her head. He would only have to threaten to use the gun and, if he had already killed Mr Falconio, proposition Miss Lees with the same fate if she did not comply with his demands. Yet Miss Lees stated that she struggled to such an extent that the kidnapper failed to bind her up properly and that he finally resorted to striking her on the right temple in order to control her. It seems unbelievable that a man who moments earlier had no compunction executing a man in cold blood using a handgun would then hesitate to use it again, but rather tolerate questioning and physical resistance from a woman who he could so easily have threatened with it if she didn't comply with his demands?
7. Joanne Lees stated that she had been bound by a pair of handcuffs, fabricated from tie-wraps and tape. Supposedly, Murdoch had placed these handcuffs on her. Her hands were bound at this stage of her attempted abduction, behind her back. However, one version of events that she originally gave to the interviewing police officer soon after her escape was that she was able to identify the vehicle canopy by feeling the canopy with her hands. How did she accomplish this feat?
8. Joanne Lees stated that she hid from her attacker in the bushes where she remained for a number of hours. The event took place during the night. To gauge the sort of exposure she would have had to endure, while dressed very lightly and unable to move to keep herself warm in case her kidnapper found her, one only has to look at the map at:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2001/07aaubl_pg.gif to see the temperature chart for that area. The green colour indicates that the temperature at the place of the abduction was around the 0 to -3 degrees Celsius (and this is erring on the warmer side of the temperature spectrum for the Barrow Creek/Alice Springs area). The actual temperature was probably closer to -5 degrees Celsius. Surely, a person in the situation would rapidly loose body heat, start to shiver, suffer from cramp, etc. And yet Miss Lees survived this extreme exposure apparently unblemished! Yet, strangely, there is no account of her suffering from any symptoms of excessive exposure from the cold, neither from the lorry driver who rescued her, in her own report or from the police statements - how come?
9. As stated above, Joanne Lees hid from her attacker in the bushes where she claimed he passed within a few feet of where she was hiding. Her footprints were identified yet no other footprints of any other description were ever discovered at the scene of the alleged crime. Why not? Have the expert trackers not done a very good job - locating only Joanne's footprint(s) but unable to find a single or even partial impression from her kidnapper's shoes? Remembering that it was he who was walking about the area looking for her, a man of some 6feet 4 inches in stature who would certainly leave behind a large footprint or two. Surely the trackers would have found some evidence of these huge footprints? Strange that they didn't?
10. Then there is the anomaly of the dog that Joanne said the kidnapper owned. Again, the tracker's found no evidence of any dog being present at the crime scene. Are they missing all the vital clues that Miss Lees' stated should be there?
11. The next point of issue is the actual kidnapper and his dog's combined incompetence. Joanne claimed that although he came close to her neither he nor the dog was not able to locate her in the dark. This was in spite of the fact that she was in a place where the slightest movement would have given away her presence. She also had admitted to taking drugs that same evening of the kidnapping yet had all the composure and stamina necessary to avoid detection from both dog and kidnapper! Such incredible luck and good fortune for her!
12. The next point of intrigue with Miss Lee's account of events is the method by which she was able to manipulate her body to bring the handcuffs from behind her back to being in front of herself. She seems to be a remarkably able woman, capable of avoiding capture from her hunter and his dog, surviving the extreme cold for hours on end and then able to figure out how to manipulate the handcuffs - notwithstanding that she had been drug taking only hours before this event and that she must have been tired, it being the small hours of the morning. Remarkable indeed! Such composure bearing in mind the fact that her boyfriend Peter might be lying dead or dying close by. Even more remarkable is that after demonstrating such mental competence in escaping from her would be rapist/kidnapper/killer she never indicated any concern about her fiancée Peter Falconio - the man she was deeply in love with (so she claims) and for all accounts was lying shot close by. The man she was to marry. Joanne Lees could have implored the lorry driver to at least take a cursory look around for him so did she?
13. Immediately after her rescue Joanne could have used the media to help find Peter or lookout for her kidnapper. She declined to hold a meeting with the press and media and did little if anything to indicate any concern for his predicament or his situation - why not? Is this the responsible actions one would expect from a woman in love toward her deeply missed fiancée? What possible rationale would there be to deliberately delaying getting help and assistance to find either Peter or his accused killer?
14. Joanne Lees has fortunately for all to see, demonstrated the caring, concerned person she really is - that is, caring for herself, her future and showing little or no concern for the missing husband to be Peter Falconio. Her real motives and thoughts were exposed when she had to eventually admit to the fact that within 48 hours of Peter's disappearance, she was in secret communication with "Steph" her secret lover. Deception and secrecy combined seems to be a key trait in this lady's modus operandi as amply demonstrated by the lengths she had gone to hide her secret love life from Peter Falconio and the rest of the world. Yet, she would have you believe that she was really only in love with Peter Falconio while at the same time covering her tracks of her secret love affair. It takes great strength and resolution to deliberately lie under oath while being subjected to rigorous questioning in court but this lady did it! That is unless you are a habitual liar and well versed in the art of lying. Then it becomes much more difficult to distinguish the truth from lies - fact from fantasy. Only when confronted with overwhelming evidence of her lying was she forced to confess to her secret love affair - a fact that she had previously vehemently denied and tried to cover up. The fact is this lady was bear-faced and deceitful enough to try and mislead the legal proceedings in a place of justice amply demonstrates what she is capable of. What then, is the creditability to be afforded to Miss Lees version of events?
As the one and only key eye-witness whose actions have ranged from:
* down right blatant lying in court
* deceit and deception while conducting a secret love affair behind her fiancées back
* citing an incredible escape from her would be kidnapper's vehicle while being handcuffed behind her back
* being able to touch the canopy top with the same hands while handcuffed behind her back
* escape detection from the self-same kidnapper and his dog by hiding in the undergrowth
* inexplicably unable to account for the fact that expert trackers were unable to find any evidence whatsoever of kidnapper and dog's presence at the scene of the purported crime BUT did find her footprints
* exhibit mental and bodily dexterity to extricate her bound hands from behind her back while enduring extreme cold and mental horror
* implausible survival during extreme cold sub-zero temperatures for a number of hours while scantily dressed AND after a recent session involving taking drugs
* deliberately delayed and frustrated the usage of press and media exposure during the first critical 48 hours following the alleged crime
* immediately communicating with her secret lover within two days of her fiancée's disappearance - such was her concern for Peter Falconio.
Joanne Lees has, in spite of all these factual misgivings listed above about her own credibility and her account of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Peter Falconio, been granted leave to testify in court - albeit against a man whose past life style tends to pre-judge him.
Would or could you believe Joanne Lees account of events given the above facts? If the basis of a verdict of "guilty " is "beyond reasonable doubt" then the jury will have a difficult time to convict Bradley Murdoch based on the above lack of credibility of the prosecution's key witness, no body and no firm forensic evidence to prove that the dead body of Peter Falconio ever existed.
This will then pose a significant problem for the police - what really happened to Peter Falconio?
Related:
No Murder Weapon, No Body, No Place or Time of Death
No one else was there and this is her story believe it or not. She was quite capable of inventing an attacker and binding her own hands to make it look like there had been an attack but there was and adventure a misadventure. Tears can be manipulated and manufactured. She was entwined in the relationship maybe Peter would not let her out?
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=60354&group=webcast Unfaithful Lees admits taking drugs, court told
Joanne Lees who was stoned out of her brain on dope and who'd had a recent affair had a better motive for the killing and could easily have committed the crime herself. So why wasn't she the main suspect?
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=60319&group=webcast 
Comments
Display the following 3 comments