He was 28 years old at the time of the disappearance, although Falconio's body has never been found, Bradley John Murdoch was convicted of the murder on 13 December 2005. The case attracted considerable public and legal attention worldwide.
Lees stated that while travelling at night along the Stuart Highway near Barrow Creek (between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek) in the Northern Territory on 14 July 2001, the pair were stopped by a man waving for the couple to stop their Volkswagen "Kombi" van and indicating trouble with their vehicle's exhaust. Falconio got out of the van to investigate, and shortly afterward Lees heard what she believed was a backfire. Later, she believed that Falconio had been shot. Earlier that evening, they had passed a burning branch in the middle of the road. Lees remembers this as being 'abnormal' and of notable significance, as they had not seen this before and she considered it to be a warning of what may have happened. However, in Australia it is not unusual in dry country, particularly in the winter and spring for fires to start by vehicle exhausts or carelessly thrown cigarettes.
At the committal hearing in December 2004 Lees told the court that her assailant then tied her wrists together behind her, put a sack over her head and forced her into his ute. She also stated that the person forced her between the seats of his vehicle and into the rear of his vehicle. She said she escaped from his ute and fled into the dark, hiding under bushes, while he tried to find her with a torch. Expert Aboriginal trackers, called from a nearby settlement could find no sign of tracks other than Lees' in the vicinity. Tracker Teddy Egan stated, "I see tracks where she run and fall down beneath tree. She lie there, hiding". It was also noted that a pool of Falconio's blood that had been covered in soil had attracted no ants or flies, considered to be much more out of the ordinary by Territorians than a roadside fire.
Falconio's body has not been found despite a massive police search. Much doubt has been cast on how Lees may have been able to escape from her bindings, as when she flagged down a passing truck for assistance, her hands were in front of her body. Lees however was able to demonstrate in court how easily she was able to bring her bound hands from behind to front. Police, however, found no vehicle that was able to be accessed from the front seats to the rear canopy area without leaving the vehicle.
Some two years after the disappearance, Bradley John Murdoch, a man living in Adelaide and charged with rape, was found to have a possible connection to Barrow Creek on 14 July 2001. Murdoch was found not guilty of the rape but Northern Territory police applied for extradition to face charges of abduction and murder. Lees identified his photograph as being the man who abducted her after being shown a photograph of a person in custody in Adelaide by a journalist in the UK, and the DNA from the bloodstains on Lees' clothing matched Murdoch's DNA.
Bradley Murdoch's jury trial began on 18 October 2005 in the Darwin branch of the Northern Territory Supreme Court, where he was tried for the murder of Falconio and assaults on Joanne Lees. The trial concluded in May 2006 with the conviction of Murdoch on all counts. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 28 years.
Northern Territory Director of Public Prosecutions Rex Wild said in court there are three pieces of evidence linking Murdoch to the scene of the crime. His DNA was a match with bloodstains on Joanne Lees' t-shirt, a smear of blood on the gearstick of the couple's car, and DNA located on tape used by the killer to bind her wrists. These assertions have all been disputed by Murdoch's defense team, who are Grant Algie and Mark Twiggs.
Grant Algie and Mark Twiggs, the lawyers representing the accused, Bradley John Murdoch, argued the following:
|“||Peter Falconio faked his own death, and that when Peter Falconio and Joanne Lees stopped by the side of the road near Barrow Creek, it was to meet with a third man, of description unknown, in order to take Peter Falconio away, alive.
Police planted evidence, with the assistance of Murdoch's former drug-running partner James Hepi, who had both motive and opportunity to frame Murdoch, after Murdoch had been central to Hepi's arrest.
Algie and Twiggs pointed to the absence of blood at the crime scene, the mix-ups with DNA, the lack of a body, apparent sightings of Falconio in the days thereafter, inconsistencies in Lees' testimony, the poor police procedures in handling evidence, and the lack of a positive identification of Bradley John Murdoch.
The defence suggested that sometimes, for reasons best known to themselves, people just disappear. The defence said that sometimes they are found again, sometimes not.
Rex Wild stated that this is what really happened:
|“||Bradley John Murdoch saw Joanne Lees and Peter Falconio while in Alice Springs, and believed that they were following him. So he drove behind them as they travelled along the Stuart Highway, and then stopped, so as to get rid of them, because he feared that they may be spying on him and may contact police in relation to his drug-running.
After stopping them, he panicked and killed Peter Falconio, making sure that there was no blood anywhere by making a shot directly to his head, then abducted Joanne Lees, binding her with cable ties, and putting her in the back of his vehicle.
After putting Lees in the back of his vehicle, Murdoch was trying to dispose of the body when Joanne Lees escaped into surrounding shrubland. Murdoch then searched for her with his dog and a flashlight, but after five hours of searching, he gave up.
Murdoch then buried Falconio in an unknown place in the Central Australian outback, having wrapped Falconio's head with Lees's denim jacket so as to prevent any blood getting in the vehicle.
Then Murdoch panicked, and, rather than driving through the bush straight to Broome, he drove all the way back to Alice Springs, where he was spotted on closed circuit television at the truck stop, getting supplies before heading out to Broome, where he travelled non-stop at great speed, taking amphetamines to keep himself awake and alert.
Murdoch then altered his physical appearance as well as his vehicle's appearance so as to avoid detection, and immediately stopped running drugs because he feared that he might be linked to the murder.
Wild suggested that there was no evidence whatsoever of any police corruption, and urged jurors to dismiss any suggestions as an unfounded conspiracy theory that was "plucked out of thin air". He suggested that all of the evidence points to one obvious conclusion: that Murdoch killed Falconio. He stated that while no body has been found yet, it will be eventually, that it was only a matter of time, but that it "may be quite some time".
Wild stated that Joanne Lees should be expected to have mild discrepancies with Murdoch's appearance, such as the length and colour of his hair, not noticing his teeth, the description of his car, and other inconsistencies, because Lees was under a lot of stress and pressure during the incident.
He asked the jury to ignore the evidence of the sightings of Peter Falconio and to dismiss them as inaccurate, highlighting discrepancies in the stories of the various people who were said to have seen him alive in the days after the attack. He stated that the DNA did match, and that there was no chance that it was not Murdoch's DNA and hence the jury must find him guilty.
Wild said that Murdoch was a methodical killer, and that the crime was premeditated to "get rid of" someone, and suggested that he may have thought that Lees was travelling alone, since Falconio was asleep in the back when she drove by. Mr Wild stated that the methodical actions to get rid of any evidence suggesting Murdoch committed the offence, as well as quickly getting away suggests the acts of someone with extreme premeditation, and that it was the work of an obsessive methodical person, a man just like Murdoch.
Wild asked the jury to ignore coincidental evidence that seemed to suggest that Murdoch didn't do it, stating that he had ample time to change the evidence to fit the story, to later suggest that he didn't do it.
Chief Justice Brian Ross Martin, the trial judge, made the following instructions to the jury:
|“||How you approach the evidence is a matter entirely for you. There are many issues that have been raised for your consideration. You may or may not find it necessary to resolve all the issues. You may or may not be able to resolve all of the issues. You must put aside the flamboyant suggestions of counsel that we do not need experts from the mother country to teach us colonials a thing or two.
Please put aside all the hyperbole and concentrate on the evidence before you. That's why you look at all the evidence, not just the experts. The question to be considered by you is whether you are satisfied the accused's blood came to be on the T-shirt in the course of attacking Miss Lees. Are you satisfied that the DNA came to be on the item because of contact in the course of the accused attacking Miss Lees? Or is it a reasonable possibility that the DNA came to be on the item through an innocent contact, or through some form of contamination either deliberate or accidental?
The judge said that if the jury was satisfied that the blood came from Murdoch, the Crown put the case that it was deposited while he was attacking Miss Lees.
|“||Ladies and gentlemen, if that's your view, if you are satisfied the Crown's submission is correct, and you are satisfied that the man who attacked Miss Lees killed Peter Falconio, then the Crown will have proved its case of murder.
You must not reason that because of those other activities the accused is the type of person who is likely to have committed the offences charged. It provides the setting for the accused's travel and explains why he was on the road that weekend. If, from a consideration of all the other evidence, you are satisfied it was the accused and his vehicle at the truck stop, it will follow that you are satisfied that the accused has not been truthful with you and others.
During Murdoch's committal hearing, Lees mentioned that she and Falconio had stopped at a Red Rooster restaurant in Alice Springs. Murdoch claimed to have stopped at the same restaurant to buy chicken for himself and his dog, "First thing in Alice, pulled into the Red Rooster... Chicken roll, box of nuggets for Jack...full chicken for the trip." Grant Algie suggested that Murdoch might have cut himself and inadvertently left blood at the restaurant which later transferred to Lees' shirt, explaining the presence of his DNA there.
In April 2006, The Bulletin reported that Murdoch had refused to be served chicken while incarcerated during the committal and trial, claiming he was allergic to it, and that he has a standing medical certificate at Berrimah Prison requesting that he never be served chicken.
Subsequent to his conviction, Murdoch appealed the conviction and sentence. On 10 January 2007, the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal (NT CCA) dismissed both limbs of the appeal.
Murdoch then applied for Special Leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. On 21 June 2007, the High Court refused to grant Special Leave. Under the Australian judicial system, Murdoch has now exhausted all opportunities of appeal.
Subsequent to the High Court of Australia refusing to grant Murdoch's application for Special Leave, there has been media speculation that Murdoch will lodge a further appeal.
Perth-based QC Tom Percy is believed to be preparing Murdoch's appeal.
The appeal comes after the collapse of the case against Sean Hoey, who was acquitted in December 2007 of 58 charges, including 29 murders, related to the Omagh bombing in 1998.
The NT Department of Public Prosecutions said they had not been notified of the action, and the Northern Territory Police would not comment.
Evidence against both Murdoch and Hoey was given by Dr Jonathan Whitaker of Britain's Yorkshire-based Forensic Science Service using a controversial technique called low copy number DNA. At Hoey's trial in Belfast, however, several experts said the low copy number DNA technique used to identify the accused was unreliable, and the judge was highly critical in his assessment of Dr Whitaker's evidence.
British police suspended use of the technique, but it has now been resumed following a review by the Crown Prosecution Service which concluded that "the CPS has not seen anything to suggest that any current problems exist with LCN".
The findings have been questioned by other forensic experts, including Allan Jamieson, director of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow, who gave evidence at the Omagh trial questioning the validity of LCN.
"THE BARROW CREEK INCIDENT"
Falconio - v The Barrow Creek Incident Brian Wyborne - Huntley Esq N.A.I.S. | 07.03.2008 11:01 | Analysis | World Separating the fact from the fiction
We have reason to believe that there were at least three persons involved in the undertaking of, The Barrow Creek Incident. In Whatever context. Therefore if, A represents The suspect. B represents Miss Lees. and C represents Mr Falconio we have four probable case scenarios. Each must be thoroughly investigated, not one more to the detriment of the other. The first scenario is that, A The Suspect and, B Miss Lees and, C Mr Falconio conspired together to fake the death of C Mr Falconio, And in so doing placed the evidence at the scene to convince an authority that it would appear that Mr Falconio was shot and that the evidence was placed at the scene to convince an authority that it would appear that Miss lees was deprived of liberty. The police published witness timeline, the statements made by the witnesses up that timeline and the type of evidence found at the scene and, why there is a lack of certain evidence fully support this case scenario. Therefore, this case scenario is the one with the highest probability factor. The Second case scenario, is that A The suspect and B Miss lees conspired together to take the life of C, Mr Falconio and in so doing left the evidence at the scene convincing an authority that it would appear that C, Mr Falconio was shot, and that the evidence was placed at the scene to convince an authority that it would appear that B, Miss lees was deprived of Her liberty. However, The police published witness timeline, the statements made by the witnesses and the type of evidence found at the scene and, why there is a lack of certain evidence. does NOT support this case scenario, but in fact contradicts it. The Third case scenario is that, A The suspect independent of any assistance from B, Miss Lees Or C, Mr Falconio actually shot C Mr Falconio and deprived B Miss Lees of her liberty leaving the evidence at the scene convincing an authority on both counts. Again the Police published timeline, the statements made by the witnesses and the type of evidence found at the scene and, why there is a lack of certain evidence. does NOT support this case scenario, but in fact contradicts it. The Fourth case scenario is that A The suspect and C Mr Falconio conspired together to fake the death of C Mr Falconio and deprived B, Miss Lees of liberty. And In so doing placed the evidence at the scene to convince an authority that it would appear that C Mr Falconio was shot, but left the evidence convincing the authority that B, Miss Lees was deprived of her liberty. Yet again, the police published timeline, the statements made by the witnesses and the type of evidence and why there is a lack of certain evidence, does NOT support this case scenario, but in fact contradicts it. If we follow with a demonstration of the suspect and target vehicles being moved up the model of the Stuart Highway. According to the witness statements. A to G, ONLY. This will establish the scenario’s that could apply. Please bear in mind that, All other witnesses were NOT witness to anything actually taking place, On the Highway on that evening. Therefore their views would only be A Characterization of “The Suspect”. Characterization is not a crime.
The Death or Deception of Mr Peter Marco Falconio.
In the re-enactment the vehicles were taken to or from the scene of crime on 'carriers' and placed in the position as defined by the statement given by Miss Lees. But not necessarily as defined in the statements made by the witnesses D. E. and F. Did the investigations authority have the witness accounts at the time of the re-enactment? Obviously not or the witnesses at Aileron would have been entered into the timeline. Was this why they may have been unable to re-enact the scene of crime accordingly? They failed to drive the vehicles up the witness timeline and into the s.o.c. in order to establish whether the account given by Miss Lees, either did or did not match the statements and or evidence found at the scene. For had they done this they would have established that the evidence did not match her initial statement or the witness accounts given. Thus confirming that the statement made by witness 'E' who was driving south, actually fits the evidence and case scenario that is that the Kombi was on the western side of The Highway, and that the second vehicle (The Suspect) was leaving the scene. Therefore, if the Suspect was leaving the scene, he could not put the Kombi into the Bush as he was leaving and could not drive both vehicles; technically he had left the scene, leaving only Miss Lees. Remember, Miss Lees had her hands tied in front of her in the position in which she was found, her hands were tied apart, they were NOT bound together (Thus enabling her to manipulate the steering wheel of the Kombi). Witness 'F' believes that they saw torchlight: this was one hour 'After' The suspect had left the scene with or without Mr Falconio Dead or Alive.. If indeed he was there at all. The evidence found and the statements made therefore confirm that only the footprints of Miss Lee's could have returned to the Highway from the Kombi, after she alone parked it in the Bush. If, The Kombi was found 104 mtrs from where Miss Lees said she was hiding from the assailant. Therefore the Kombi was close enough for Miss Lee to take refuge in and the lights of the passing Vehicles of witnesses “E” “F” And “G” would have been sufficient to light the way. The assailant could not have put the Kombi in the bush, If he had done so, he would have been seen, either driving up the highway in the Kombi or walking back to his own vehicle by witness 'E’. As the suspect had, only 15 minutes between witness 'D' and witness 'E' to carry out all the manoeuvres as defined in the statement of Miss Lees, This being Murder, Binding, Gagging, Kidnapping, Escape, Search and removal of the key piece of evidence from the scene, and the fact that the suspect would take approximately 5 minutes To Park the Kombi and walk back to his own Utility Vehicle within this 15 minutes time-span tells us that Miss Lees' case scenario timed out. Therefore If Miss Lees put the Kombi in the Bush as established by the evidence and the statements made, then she was free to leave the scene had she chosen to do so. If she was free to leave the scene she was not a victim of the crime but was party to the events that led up to the death or the disappearance of Mr Peter Marco Falconio. Miss Lees had to appear to be a victim, otherwise she would be The Prime Suspect. Note that, while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and the evidence in itself does not lie. This also applies in reverse as the presence of evidence is not evidence of presence. If it is believed that the evidence may have been placed at the scene to pervert the course of justice. The evidence indicates the involvement of two or more persons. Miss Lees gave a statement and a description of the suspect in the Queensland Incident of which was televised But Not that of Mr Bradley John Murdoch, Why! Mr Murdoch cannot give an accurate statement if he was not there. If he made one up he would be perverting the course of Justice. Miss Lees has made a claim against the Northern Territory Government for compensation for being the victim of a crime. If the evidence and witness accounts clearly establish, Beyond Reasonable Doubt That she Was Party to the undertaking of...
"The Barrow Creek Incident".
That claim would be fraudulent and, Fraud, is a Federal Offence? If we are led to believe it took three and a half hours To get from Alice Springs to the scene of 'The Barrow Creek Incident' With Exception of the 30 minute break at Ti-Tree, Yet take the suspect over four and a half hours to get from Barrow Creek back to Alice Springs? What route could he have taken to add the extra hour and half to the return journey, or any journey off the Stuart Highway of up to 45 minutes each way in order to establish a victim drop zone, and a new search footprint. As This should be, standard operational procedure.
General Summary Of: The Falconio/Lees Case. Feasibility Study, and Geographical Profile.
In order to establish the, Time, Distance and Speed, Trigonometry of the timeline, we need to establish the first Key piece of evidence that is “Beyond Reasonable Doubt. In this particular case, this is witness point “C” The Ti-Tree Roadhouse at 6.22pm,Because a purchase was made at that time. As this was a purchase for fuel we then reverse the clock in order to consider the time taken to put the fuel into the vehicle. Before making the actual payment. The average time taken to do this would be at least 7 to 12 minutes. Bringing us back to 6.10pm. Therefore, A statement made by witnesses “C” in support of that purchase, is in all probability. a statement of fact. Such as, The Kombi arrived at approximately 6 pm.(The time of sun-set) If the occupants of said vehicle watched the sunset prior to Re-fuelling.they have confirmed the E.T.A. at this location.
If witness 'A' is considered to be the first witness and witness 'B' the second witness, and so on, why were there no witnesses at Alice Springs, (defined as 'A'), in order to establish the start of the witness timeline? If there are no witnesses so defined at Alice Springs, What information was used to establish the, estimated time of departure from this point, For example, The statement made by Miss Lees, or the time being written in a departure book. If this is the case, Then the start of the witness timeline cannot be considered a statement of fact, thus making The time of departure, suspect! The start of the witness timeline can only be, from the location of the first witness, being at point 'A’, which is not at, Alice Springs, but North of. So what, If anything, took place prior to point 'A’ First witness, Bearing in mind that Miss Lees was heading for Broome via Darwin, and it is purely a coincidence that the Present Suspect comes from Broome, did either party meet at the Tanami Junction? Or if the Suspect or his vehicle was not witnessed in Alice Springs prior to the incident, was this the point of, First Contact, (Eye Or Physical) Why! Did Miss Lees or Mr. Falconio know the suspect? If we accept 4pm as an estimated time of departure from Alice Springs and 6pm as an estimated time of arrival at Ti-Tree. This tells us that the distance of 198 km was covered in 2 hours, giving us a minimum speed of 99 kph for the Kombi. So If witness “A” saw a Kombi being driven North at 4.30 pm then witness “A” should Be located at approximately 49.5 km North of Alice Springs. There is the need to consider that witness 'A' has given an estimated gap of, 20 minutes between the two vehicles, with an estimated minimum speed of, 99 kph for the Kombi, To conform to the police timeline. This would be equal to a road distance of 33 kms, we need to consider the visibility of the Kombi at that distance in order to establish the point of visual contact, for the suspect to have known the number of occupants and target suitability of the lead vehicle. As the suspect could not have established the target suitability over this distance he must have done so at anything up to 20 minutes prior to this point. This Being at The Tanami Junction. If witness 'A' has by all accounts established this 20-minute gap and, witness 'B' a gap of 20 minutes also (i.e. 33 km Respectively) this would indicate that the driver of the second vehicle, (The Suspect) was not trying to catch up with the lead vehicle. Why? On the basis that vehicles tend to be driven at a constant speed over such distances, we can estimate witness 'B' to be driving South at 132 kph, (only 82 Miles per hour) minus The 99 kph of the Kombi being driven North, This confirms the 33 klm. Given by witness 'A. So How Did the Suspect know where and at what time the lead vehicle was going to be at or near a particular location? How would the suspect know whether or not the occupants of the target vehicle were going to stop over for any number of hours, or at any given place on route? For example, at the Ti Tree Roadhouse or Barrow Creek, Etc.. Ti Tree Roadhouse, Witness point 'C' at, 6.22 pm. For the Kombi to reach the Ti Tree Roadhouse and for Mr Falconio or Miss Lees, to pay for the fuel at this time, they would have to arrive by 6..00pm, based on a 4pm departure from Alice Springs, the driver would still have to assume the minimum speed 99 kph in order to conform to the timeline. (If the Kombi and its occupants arrived at the Ti Tree Roadhouse Before 6.00pm Their speed would have been greater than 99kph and the gap Between the vehicles defined by "A" would be greater also.) not in time but in distance. By the time Mr Falconio or Miss Lees returned to the Kombi after making the purchase it would be approximately 6.25pm, However, Miss Lees said they stopped to watch the sunset, A conservative estimate of, only 20-30 minutes to watch the sunset would apply if we were to consider the time required to actually refuel the Kombi before making the payment. The fact that the Kombi remained at the Ti Tree Roadhouse for at least 30 minutes allowed "The Suspect' time to close the gap defined by witness “A” and in all probability supported by Witness “B” Giving Mr Falconio only 1 hour 10 minutes to arrive at the scene of 'The Barrow Creek Incident' 98.7 klm North, at 7.40 pm just before witness 'D'. at 7.45 pm. And also time to make up a set of bindings. According to Miss Lees He was in the Back of the Kombi. The stopping of the vehicles as defined in the statement made by Miss Lees, Does NOT coincide with the position as defined in the statement made by witness 'D'. The suspect vehicle would have been in an overtaking position at the point at which the suspect knew, that the driver of the Kombi was going to stop. He 'The Suspect' would still be in motion. Therefore the driver of the suspect vehicle having passed the Kombi is highly unlikely to have carried out a reverse park manoeuver on an unrestricted stretch of highway. If his intention was to physically stop the target vehicle and it's occupants from progressing any further. However the position of the vehicles defined by witness 'D' clearly indicates that the suspect may have driven up to the lead vehicle and flashed his headlights to indicate to Mr Falconio or Miss Lees Or Both that this was a suitable place to stop. On a Geographical profile, the 'Flags' would indicate the evidence that should have been found at the scene, if the statement made by Miss Lees were to be true. Therefore if we remove the 'Flags' that do not apply, (i.e. The lack of evidence found at the scene) then add the 'Flags' that do apply, this would indicate the key person who played an active role. According to the photographic evidence at The Shell Roadhouse, after the incident. the driver of the utility appears to have the canopy of his vehicle tied securely down, thus indicating that he would normally drive with it in this manner. So at what point did he untie the canopy to put Miss Lees into the back of the vehicle while at the scene of crime? Or to allow, Miss Lees, to escape from. Miss Lees, has contradicted her initial statement by changing it to, I climbed through a hole behind the bucket seats and into the tray, this would indicate that she was in the cabin of the utility and not in the tray. Establishing therefore that she was not dumped into the back of the suspect vehicle in the first instance, but may have been sitting in the cabin while the bindings were being put on her wrists. Miss Lees walks into and out of the bush leaving the lip balm lid as evidence and footprint evidence to support her story. However the suspect did not have to get out of his vehicle and there is no evidence to support that he did. If there is No actual evidence to prove that, Miss Lees was forced into the Utility vehicle, and No actual evidence to prove that, The Suspect, had entered and driven the Kombi, it may be because she was not forced into and, he did not have to drive the Kombi for it to be found in the bush after the event, this confirms the lack of evidence found in support of the case scenario as presented by Miss Lees. The amount of blood found at the scene, was not enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that for all intents and purposes in law, Mr Falconio is indeed deceased, as the quantity of blood found at the scene was estimated to be between half a pint and one pint, which is equal to, or less than that given at a blood donor session. Mr Falconio worked for a company called PFIZER who manufacture Surgical products, of which includes, Canula's used for the extraction of blood, the same product would be a standard part of an International first aid kit. As would syringes. And these are pre- requisite of drug users. Irrespective of the fact that Mr Falconio worked in the buildings section of this company, he would still have interaction with employees through the staff social facilities. Three different types of tape and the cable G-ties were used for the undertaking of “The Barrow Creek Incident” All these items are used in the Building Industry And, Mr Falconio has a degree in building management. Footprint evidence found, or in part the lack of, clearly indicates that the only person, according to the timeline, who could have walked away from the Kombi back to the highway, was indeed Miss Lees, Thus confirming that she was free to leave the scene, making her a party to the events that took place on that evening and establishing that she was not a victim, but a perpetrator. If Miss Lees was party to the taking of Mr Falconio's Life or the Faking of his death she would have to appear to be a victim, and the evidence would be in place, in both aspects. The DNA found on Miss Lee's top may have occurred at any time throughout the tour of Australia prior to the Incident. The DNA only proves that a contact may have been made between Miss Lees and The Suspect, but not that of Mr Falconio and the Suspect. Therefore, The DNA was NOT found on the victim. Who is, for all intents and purposes in law, Mr Peter Marco Falconio. Mr Vince Millar arrived at the scene and 'rescued' Miss Lees and took her to the nearest place of safety, being the Hotel at Barrow Creek, run by Mr Les Pilton and Miss Helen Jones, with at least six customers in the bar, did either of these persons telephone the police or medical services. If not Why Not ? Did Miss Lees at any time imply that it was her problem and to let her deal with it ? This would explain why the police did not believe her when she first telephoned them. Note that the three persons involved in the crime individually as a partner or collectively had only 15 minutes between witness “D” and “E” to carry out. Murder, Kidnapping, Escape, Search, removal of suspected victim, and, clear most of the incriminating evidence from the scene. Therefore the case scenario as presented by Miss Lees, Timed Out,Is This why, Miss lees. Imposed Restrictions.Banned reporters.Told the police they were not looking in the right place. Said she communed with peter every day. (Which she can only do if he is still alive) Had her hands bound apart in front of Her. ( The same width as the Kombi steering wheel) Answered only questions, of Her Own choosing. Changed her statement, on more than one occasion, as new evidence came to light. Sold Her Story to the media. Made a claim against the government for compensation. Returned to Australia and the scene of crime without police being notified, Refuse to talk to the police further in respect of the investigation. Changed her address and employment to break the evidence of any communication between Mr Falconio and herself after the fact.
The mistake was driving the Kombi at it's maximum speed, confirming that the occupant/s, had to be at or beyond a certain point of the highway on the evening in question.
Any reference to The Suspect is not a reference to any person assumed to be The Suspect until the burden of proof establishes Beyond Reasonable Doubt that such person was at that location at that time.
Therefore The Suspect in this case is still at large!
Full article and related matters of Identity Theft were posted on arafura.org under the heading of "The Barrow Creek Incident" but has since taken over / removed by,The Northern Territory,
Brian Wyborne - Huntley Esq N.A.I.S.
In early 2005, the Australian horror film Wolf Creek was shown at the Cannes Film Festival and shown on national release in the United Kingdom and Ireland on 16 September 2005. It was released in Australia on 3 November 2005 (apart from the Northern Territory, where it was released in January 2006 after the trial had finished so as to not unduly influence the jury). The film was advertised as being based on "true stories", although the producers have said that it is not directly linked to any specific stories.
In March 2007, Channel Ten in Australia showed Joanne Lees: Murder in the Outback, an account of the murder, covering the period from the night of Falconio's death through to sentencing, from Joanne Lees' perspective. It was also shown by ITV1 in the UK on 8 April 2007, and by Tv1 in New Zealand on 10 June 2007.
Peter Falconio was an English tourist who went missing in Australia in 2002. Falconio was last seen near a place called Barrow Creek. Police say that he is dead. A big trial decided that a man called Bradley John Murdoch had killed Peter Falconio. This is one of Australia's greatest murder mysteries.
Peter Falconio and his girlfriend Joanne Lees had been fighting with each other. Lees was going to leave Falconio because she had a new boyfriend in Australia. Some people think that Lees wanted to kill Falconio because of this. Some people think that she might have asked Murdoch to kill Falconio for her.
Bradley John Murdoch sold drugs to people. Falconio and Lees liked to use drugs. It is thought that they knew each other, and that Falconio and Lees bought drugs from Murdoch. Falconio owed a lot of money in taxes, and he was scared. Falconio had told people that he wanted to fake his own death. Many people say they saw Falconio over a week after police say that he died. It was known that Murdoch had hurt people before this. He had once shot at some aborigines just for fun. He had told people that he thought he was being followed and was going to get rid of them. Some people think that he raped some women too.
This remains a great mystery and many people have different stories as to what really happened. A movie called Wolf Creek was made that is similar to the story. The movie was not allowed to be shown until after the trial.