Talk:Murder of Peter Falconio

Untitled
Oh yeah, just between you and me, the guy who did the back packer murders is not the same guy that did this one. That's probably because he wasn't murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.206.130 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Unsigned comment above from 203.26.206.130  -- Longhair | Talk 11:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Ivan Milat

 * Uhm, I hate to break it to you lot, but Ivan Milat was incacerated in 1996, five years before this occured. Jachin 21:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Who says that Ivan Milat did the back packer murders? Silly fellow. 203.122.214.140 15:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Other Theories
The first thing that came to my mind when Joanne Lees 'escaped' the 'murderer' of Falconio was that she was involved somehow. In that desolate stretch of bush, it would be impossible to flee a vehicle equipped with spotlights on foot. IMPOSSIBLE. So we can deduce that the murderer must have let her go, at extreme risk to his own liberty. That would mean either the murderer was exceptionally deranged and / or stupid, or that he knew her.

Joanne Lees' image as a poor innocent victim was played on dramatically by her in the media initially, but as time went on the story of her drug abuse and sex romps with at least one known person (Only known as 'Nick' at this point.) on her holiday came forward.

I'm going to swap the Ivan Milat theory with the Nick theory, ie: that she had her boyfriend whacked, pending further information. Jachin 21:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you but wonder why Murdoch hasn't given evidence that Lee's involved.--Dakota 04:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's assuming he is legitimately the male in question, if there was a male. Or, deductively, we can also state that if he did, well, his game is up then isn't it?  :) Jachin 04:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In my mind, the biggest issue is Joanne Lees escaping. Okay, so she could escape her bonds, but like seriously, that area is barren desert wasteland, in the middle of nowhere, where maybe 10 cars go past per day tops - and we were talking about the middle of the night where I think they had 1 car all night, and that was luck. There's nowhere to hide out there, at least not againt someone with a gun and a truck. Forget the dog and a torch. Shoot at her and try to run her over. He could have fired 300 shots out there and nobody would have heard it. Okay, yes, she could have escaped. There's 3 likely ways for her to escape:

1) Kill him. 2) Make it to her car (or his car) and drive off. 3) Run out on to the road and stop a passing motorist to help her.

Yet she is claiming that she stopped a motorist 2 hours after he'd left? Why did he just up and leave? Why didn't he fire a single shot at her? Why go after her with a dog (whether it was a cattle dog or just a dalmation is another matter entirely - dalmations aren't exactly great hunters). Why not get in his car and run her over?

And given that she escaped from her hand ties to jump out of the truck, why didn't she then take them off her wrists in the 5 hours that she was hiding from him? How hard can it be to break free from cable ties? If you've got 5 hours, I bet you can do it. Especially if you're clever enough to escape from the back of a truck.

Not to mention the whole thing with the physical description being way off. From memory, she described her attacker as mid 20s with long dark hair, that he had a cattle dog and drove a white ute - Press release on the day after the murder has the description of 45 years old and the photofit is uncannily similar to Murdoch - don't write without actually checking the actual details. Yet Murdoch is 49 years old, has almost no hair, is dead ugly, has a dalmation and while I couldn't find anywhere what his car was, it was neither white nor was it a ute. He had some kind of a 4 wheel drive vehicle. So how can you be that far off? It's not even in the ballpark.

So either she made the whole thing up or else she was stoned. If she was stoned, how can you accept her evidence? And if she made it all up, then either she's the killer or else Falconio is still alive.

I don't know why people think its so preposterous to think that Falconio is still alive. He had massive debts, his family were falling apart, his girlfriend was cheating on him and he had just lost his job. Maybe he went off to live in Colombia or something and deal drugs. Maybe this whole thing is a big invention.

Lees probably didn't murder him though. I reckon it was probably an accident (if he died). Probably just arguing over the infidelity, then something happened and he's dead. The rest was just an invention.

Why consider the possibility of a 3rd person? There were no gun shots at the scene. Nobody saw a vehicle go past (other than a very unreliable witness, and Joanne Lees), roadblocks didn't pick up anyone and nobody saw a car go past. There was nowhere to hide. That manhunt was pretty exhaustive, yet it didn't pick up anything - in 18 months.

And Murdoch wasn't picked up because he fitted the description. He was picked up because he may have been in Barrow Creek at the time. So that part has been reported incorrectly there.

There actually were a couple of people who fitted the description, who were arrested and held for questioning. There were at least 2 that had the same kind of vehicle, the same dog and fitted the basic description. But they couldn't find anyone who had also been in Barrow Creek.

So who is to say that these 2 that fitted the description a bit better didn't just lie about where they were travelling?

Way too many questions. Can't see how he can be found guilty.203.122.214.140 16:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You forgot the fact she had no head injuries, yet claimed to have been punched in the face and the fact she claimed she was pushed from the cab of the car into the back cage along the ground of the cabin. Anyone who's been in a ute knows that there's a quater inch of steel in the way on ground level, and no utes of that make or model come out with opening rear windows, so it's again another instance of Lee's talking shit.

They have video footage of HER and her man at a gas station, which she is denying, under oath. I personally think they should charge her with purjury and throw the book at her. She deserves to be in gaol as much as Falconio's alleged murderer, if he was actually murdered.

Her drug scattered brain and psychopathic lies are costing us tax payers millions. Jachin 08:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah man, whenever a discussion is labeled "Other theories" it's a safe bet that there's the usual crackpot collection of stupidity, conspiracy theories, and outright slander. --Fpetran (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you Fpetran. Listed above your comments (eg: by Jachin) are unsubstantiated, slanderous claims by people who have no access to the evidence, have not witnessed the trials and, in my view, are grossly unqualified to make any sort of comment about this case. --121.218.67.123 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You shoot your entire imbecilic argument in the head with the silly claim about "10 cars go past per day, tops".  I've driven the Stuart Highway several times and never passed less than 10 cars per hour,  in quiet times.  Thats less than freeways overseas but still a lot more traffic than "10 cars per day".Eregli bob (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradictionary evidence
Can someone outline, and syndicate to the Joanne Lees page, the amount of contradiction that's been going on in evidence given by Ms Lees? I know that's a hefty task considering she flip flops on her statements almost hourly ... Jachin 04:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's been any more flip-flopping in this trial than any other. Sure, Lees has forgotten and / or changed many details of the night of the crime, but it was 4 years ago. Witnesses do that all the time. The defence has a good legal team onside. It's their job to make her flip flop as much as they possibly can. -- Longhair | Talk 08:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If I had a copy of the court transcripts I could do it, but that won't be published in full until after the trial is over. I just get snippets from what is reported in the media.

A few quick ones:
 * She says that she left Alice Springs at 4:30pm to get to Barrow Creek by 6:30pm, which would mean travelling at an average speed of 175 km/h, when the top speed of her Kombi Van is 80 km/h.
 * She denies being at a roadhouse between Alice Springs and Barrow Creek, yet she and Peter Falconio were both identified there by 3 persons at about 4pm.
 * She denies being at Red Rooster, yet was witnessed there at 1pm.
 * She denies seeing Bradley John Murdoch at Red Rooster, yet he was also witnessed there at about 1pm.
 * She claims that she and Peter Falconio were a happy couple, yet they were witnessed arguing several times on the final day.
 * She was having an affair with a guy called Nick which she says Peter Falconio didn't know about, yet they were overheard talking about it.
 * She says that Murdoch punched her in the head, yet she had no head wounds at all.
 * She says that Peter Falconio was shot prior to Murdoch coming for her, yet no bullets were found, nor any residue.
 * She managed to escape from her ties while hidden in the back of the car, yet in 5 hours of hiding, still had the ties on her hands when she ran out on to the road.
 * She says that she identified Murdoch immediately, yet her description of the attacker was of a young man with long dark hair and a cattle dog driving a white ute, which is nowhere near like Murdoch, his dog or his car. She then said that she actually only identified him from a UK web site.
 * She says that they stopped because a man was waving them down, yet she then says that they had stopped off for a joint just minutes earlier. Did they stop off for a joint with the man who flagged them down?  Or was she smoking dope with Falconio and there was no 3rd man?
 * She says that Falconio was shot while she stayed at her car, yet she didn't try to escape or drive off before Murdoch could come back to capture her.
 * She says that she never saw Falconio being killed, nor did she see his body. So where did Murdoch put it in those 5 seconds before he was supposed to have captured her?  Just make the body disappear?

So will Joanne Lees be prosecuted for the murder if Murdoch is found not guilty? That'd be interesting if she was. 203.122.214.140 16:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
The article does appear to be somewhat heavy on the defence case, which is outlined in very great detail, but does not go into the same detail on the prosecution case. I think it could be better balanced. David | Talk 11:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * it would be interesting to include in the article a discussion of just why some australians seem so desperate to believe that the accused did not commit the crime. For the record, I have no opinion on Murdoch's guilt or innocence, but it seems clear to me that some Aussies editing the article are desperate to show that Joanne Lees was the culprit. Uucp 21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I included all relevant media links. It just so happens that the media is not reporting very much about him being guilty at the moment. If you wish to include articles that were presented before the trial, from when Murdoch was first discovered, then I am sure that you will find a lot of information that makes it sound like he did it. Feel free to add parts that suggest that he did it. I am confident that I have included all of the prosecution arguments in the article already.

Put simply, Prosecution case is that he was there, and his DNA matches. Full stop.

Defence case is that he took a different route, DNA was planted and was unreliable, his description doesn't match, there were no witnesses, and no way for her to escape.

That's just how it is being presented. I haven't included any theories in there. If you want theories, then I can go on for ages about that. Personally, I think that Peter Falconio is still alive, and that Murdoch helped to fake his death. I think that Murdoch knew Lees and Falconio because he was selling drugs to them. And I think that Lees for her part was supposed to make up this silly story so that Falconio could escape happily, but then it got too much media coverage, and now she is kind of stuck and having to turn on Murdoch. That's what I think happened. But that would be NPOV. What is listed there is quite neutral. 203.122.218.47 02:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Murder?
Should we really be calling this a murder when there is no body? I think that we should call this an "alleged murder" until it is proven in a court of law to be a murder (or until there is a body found, or a coroner's report etc). I nearly removed the tabs like "British murder victims" because he is yet to be established as actually being dead yet. At the completion of the court case, however, if Murdoch is found guilty, then I think it would be reasonable to consider Falconio to be dead. But right now, I don't think that we can say that. So should those links be there? Or should they be removed until the completion of the trial?203.122.218.47 13:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh and on that same line of thought - can we call someone "disappeared" AND "murdered" at the same time? I would have thought it was one or the other. Surely he is right now disappeared, and if someone is found guilty of the murder (be it Murdoch, Lees or someone else), then legally we can say that he has been murdered (regardless of whether he is actually dead or not). Similarly of course if there is a body found, and a coroner's report states that he was murdered, then that constitutes proof that he was murdered. But without a body and without anyone being convicted, I'm just not convinced that we can say that he was murdered. We can say "allegedly murdered", but can't say definitely murdered. For all we know, Falconio could be sitting on a beach in Barbados right now, watching all of this. 203.122.218.47 13:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Verdict?
Before Murdoch was found, I thought that Lees was probably guilty, or else Falconio wasn't dead, but I didn't think that Lees would ever get caught. When they found Murdoch, I never for a moment thought that he was guilty, but I thought that he'd be found guilty, just like Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant and heck even Lindy Chamberlain briefly was, due to trial by media. But the way that this trial has progressed, from the moment that the defence managed to convince the judge during the April 2005 voir dire to dismiss the hand ties DNA evidence due to the contamination from the forensics officer, it was all looking like Murdoch would get off. All the way through the trial, what with Lees' credibility being trashed, seeing the links between drug dealer and drug users, Falconio's huge tax debt, and all of the rest, I thought that not only was my hunch that Falconio was still alive vindicated, but it was looking like Murdoch would get off. It was looking like that right up until yesterday, when Murdoch's former business partner testified against Murdoch, saying how he had a hand gun and that he'd boasted about how he could have killed Lees. And then today's lot, with his ex-girlfriend saying that he told her he had to get rid of someone, and secondly that she thought that he was the killer, I thought that maybe Murdoch might actually be found guilty. Not only that, but I started to think that maybe he was after all. But then what's with the judge ordering the jury to ignore all of that evidence? 2 of the 3 articles that talk about it don't even mention it, and the one that does has it in small print at the bottom. Maybe the newspapers want us to believe that it's not open and shut. Maybe they want us to believe that there's still a hope that Murdoch will be found guilty. But you know, with the judge now ruling twice on major issues that evidence couldn't be used, I think that there's a very good chance now that Murdoch will be found not guilty.

At this stage, well, it'd take a huge leap from prosecution to catch this one up. DNA is their only real link, and, as that unsolved murders article says, DNA evidence by itself cannot ever be used to prove guilt, because of its unreliability. It needs to be attached to some other form of evidence. For prosecution to win this one from here, they'll need to get something clearer to pin the DNA on him. Finding Falconio's body would be handy. But saving that I think that they need to be able to prove that a) Murdoch and Lees could not have bumped in to each other in Alice Springs Red Rooster b) That the hand ties could not have touched Murdoch while in prison and c) That Murdoch definitely took the road that goes through Barrow Creek. After all, he was on his way to Broome, and you wouldn't normally go through Barrow Creek on your way to Broome, especially not if he's drug running.  You'd think that he'd take a more direct route.  Oh, and a motive would be handy.  The suggestion that Murdoch thought he was being followed is possible, but why kill someone when you think you are being followed?  I don't think so.  And again, why let the other one go free?

If anyone wants to take a bet, at this stage I'd probably give you 3-1 odds, maybe up to 5-1 that Murdoch will be found not guilty. The next step will be whether or not prosecution will then try to go after Lees. Its fairly unlikely, but possible. I think it'd certainly be interesting if they did go after Lees.

Sorry, a bit of dialogue there, but that's just my personal opinion.

Forgot to sign. 203.122.218.47 15:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Tax debt?
Everybody mentions "huge" but I have not seen an amount anywhere. From what I read he did pay taxes but not as a foreigner so it was not enough (how much could he have earned?) and apparently this happens regularly without repercussions if the person leaves the country long enough. Iamjames007 09:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This article from The Australian seems to explain it all.

Apparently Peter Falconio was in Australia on a work visa. When processing his tax per week on his income, his various employers had calculated it presuming that he was an Australian resident. Therefore, were he to lodge a tax return, he would have owed money.

I imagine it is in the order of $3,000 - $5,000 or thereabouts.

Not really enough for him to want to fake his own death over.

And while technically people can go to jail for tax evasion, he would get an awful lot of leeway. I think that they get 5 years to pay back the tax.

Good point there. Perhaps the part about the tax should be amended and specified somewhat. It's obviously relevant towards the whole "Did he fake his own death?" angle, but if he were to have faked his own death, there would need to be a much bigger reason than that. 59.167.139.163 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

James Hepi
I have noticed in the last week or so that the defence team keep making references to James Hepi, who Murdoch used to run drugs with (apparently there were only two of them). My current understanding is the following:
 * James Hepi and Bradley John Murdoch ran drugs from South Australia to Western Australia from 1997-2001, alternating who did the drug runs, and sometimes both going together.
 * In 2002 Bradley John Murdoch told police about James Hepi running drugs.
 * Presumably James Hepi was convicted of this, although I haven't seen it explicitly stated anywhere.
 * Bradley John Murdoch was not convicted of drug running (after all, he had a clean record prior to the alleged rape).
 * This presumably means that police/DPP granted Murdoch an indemnity from prosecution.
 * Next to Joanne Lees, James Hepi was the Crown's premier witness.
 * James Hepi lied to the Supreme Court during this trial when talking about Murdoch, and the judge ordered that Hepi's statements be ignored by the jury.
 * Whilst media only touched on this, it was pretty obvious that that is what "unreliable witness" means.
 * In 2003, Murdoch told parents etc that he believed that James Hepi had set him up for it.
 * James Hepi had motive to frame Murdoch, to get revenge on him for testifying against Hepi for drug running.

Now, the question then is whether or not defence are going to suggest that Hepi was the alleged attacker. I haven't seen a photo of Hepi, but if he knew Murdoch well enough, he could feasibly have made himself look like Murdoch just to frame him. But the problem with that idea is that Hepi was convicted of drug running after the alleged murder (but before Murdoch was suspected of it). Therefore, I don't think that the defence will be able to suggest that Hepi did the murder.

The thing is that Hepi's credibility has already been shot to pieces. He had motivation to set the whole thing up. Police and law enforcement bodies wanted to save face by having *someone* to prosecute (similar to the Ivan Milat case, or the Martin Bryant case) so that public can retain faith in the police. And of course we've already gone over why police couldn't easily suspect Joanne Lees - 1) she's a tourist and 2) it had too many similarities to the Lindy Chamberlain case.

So I think that defence are probably going to suggest that Joanne Lees did the murder, but that Hepi then came in, after the fact, and helped police to target Murdoch. But I think that defence are also going to keep the other 2 options open - that there may have been another man, or else that Peter Falconio faked his own death.

I have listed 6 defence theories, but it looks like there are only really 3 of them:
 * Joanne Lees killed him.
 * Someone else killed him.
 * Peter Falconio faked his own death.

And adding that police/James Hepi and possibly others helped to frame Murdoch.

But how do we word this? And what if defence are going to suggest directly that James Hepi was responsible? I doubt it, but you never know.

Maybe James Hepi warrants his own page. 203.122.225.241 14:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Small error
"a 300,000 square kilometre radius" - this does not make sense. Not knowing the intent of this statement I can't fix it, but I'm guesssing it's a 300,000 square kilometre area. --57.70.19.227 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will fix.  I will put "300,000 kilometre radius".  Some news reports make errors like that and its not always obvious. I mean you could put either "300,000 square kilometre area" or "300,000 kilometre radius" but I think radius is better, since they used that in the reference. Zordrac 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You could put either, but if you put radius you'd be making a small error into a very big one indeed -- you'd be out by a factor of about a million. Think about it: 300,000 kilometres is at least a hundred times the width of Australia. A 300,000 kilometre radius would be equivalent to 282,743,338,823 square km, if my maths is right; the total surface area of Australia is only 7,686,850 sq km and that of the entire land mass of the world is apparently 148,647,000 sq km. There just isn't enough space on the face of the earth for a 300,000 kilometre radius. Flapdragon 16:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Lucky I put area then. I will have to presume that that's what the news report meant. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 18:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 300,000 square kilometers is still a HUGE area. Thats a block 550km by 550km. And this was searched using a metal detector over 6 days? Impossible. I am certain that this refers to meters squared, which is an area 550m by 550m, which is still a lot to go over with a metal detector. --Dumbo1 12:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Google
By the way, did you know that of 110,000 google links, this is number 6? It'd actually be number 5, if it was called Peter Falconio, which is what the majority of people searching click on. Suggest a rename/move to that name, and move trial data to R v Murdoch. Can anyone respond to that suggestion? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Defence theory (singular)
I have changed the defence theories section from several to 1 solitary theory, and at present I have it pretty short (there is a thought that we should probably merge a lot of the updated evidence from a week by week basis in to something succinct as well).

Put simply, their theory is quite simply that Peter Falconio faked his own death, which is what I have been saying all along. There is some evidence of the existence of a third man there, who Peter Falconio was seen with at Bourke 8 days later (not proven evidence, but nonetheless some evidence), and they are stating that he is the person that they met with. The lawyer today argued that nobody would have taken a dead body in their car - it would have been a lot safer to have left the dead body there in the bushes, because then you wouldn't have your fingerprints on it, or have blood in your car or anything like that. They've also pointed out that if you took a body in your car, there is no way to have avoided having blood in your car, and that, no matter how much you cleaned your car, some of that blood would remain, hence making it ridiculously risky for someone to have taken the body away like that.

The defence hasn't finished summing up yet - they just started today, but that's the gist of it. Until they finish summing up, I have just included a small section under "Defence theory" (rather than the previous heading "defence theories") but I will expand that as the summations continue. Similarly I will do the same thing with the prosecution theory.

One point in all of this is that if it is proven that Peter Falconio faked his own death, and that Joanne Lees assisted him and lied to police to try to convict an innocent man as part of it, what kind of penalty would Joanne Lees (and Peter Falconio and the third man, if they are ever found) get? Would they get jail time for it? I don't honestly know what the penalties are for that kind of thing. But I suspect that if that is the angle, then prosecution won't prosecute Joanne Lees, at least not if they believe defence, and at least not until they find Peter Falconio alive.

Its certainly an interesting case. I was actually quite surprised to find that they were summing up so quickly. Looks like there is a real chance that it will all be wrapped up in time for Christmas. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is strange that people attribute rationale to a murderer, "nobody would have taken a dead body", "making it ridiculously risky", etc. so they like us to think that a murderer has no other flaws than that (s)he has killed someone.
 * How does anybody know what a person thinks after he has committed a murder? Especially when it is not premeditated (like this case) would the murderer immediately start thinking rationally?
 * James007 12:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you saying that it is not premeditated. How can it not be premeditated if he waited on the side of the road for several hours in order to "get rid of" someone? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 19:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I can read in the press he flagged them down while overtaking them, in my view that is not waiting, but then again I haven't murdered anyone. Also sometimes premeditated means drinking and driving and other times just picking up gun seconds before shooting someone is premeditated.
 * James007 09:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is accepted by both sides that this was not a random act. Prosecution is arguing that he followed them to try to "get rid of them".  The early speculation (pre-trial) was about him waiting, and, whilst this might be possible in Sydney or Melbourne, in the middle of nowhere, 2km from Barrow Creek, which itself has a population of 11, with the combined population in a 200 km radius being under 500 people, I think that it is fair to say that he was deep in the heart of nowhere.  They said that there are an average 5 people who drive past that stretch of road PER DAY.  5 per day is nothing remotely random.  If he was there trying to randomly pick someone up, and only wanting to rape women, on average his length of wait would be about 2 1/2 days.  And I would hazard a guess that most people wouldn't wait that long.  There was nothing random about it.  If he did it, it was planned, and he targetted them because he thought that they were going to dob him in for drug running.  Neither side is professing a theory of randomness.  Nobody believes that.  That was what Joanne Lees said, but it was just a theory that she presented (presuming that she was telling the truth of course).  It doesn't make any sense at all. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Judge's summation etc
The judge's summation from today as good as said that the judge belives that Peter Falconio faked his own death. Its almost as if I had rung them all up and told them that! LOL. See: WP:WORLD :). Of course, this is a jury trial, and hence just because the judge thinks that Murdoch is innocent doesn't mean that he will be found not guilty.

But what this means is that, well, if I can just postulate a bit here:
 * If Murdoch is found guilty, in spite of all of the evidence that he was not guilty, defence will almost certainly lodge an appeal, and there will be a retrial. Whilst I think it is ridiculously unlikely that he will be found guilty, if it happens, then there will be an appeal, you can be sure of that!  And an appeal would likely focus on the DNA evidence, reliability of witnesses, planting of evidence and so forth - in other words things that they touched on during the trial but really could have gone a lot deeper with.  And an appeal would probably be even longer.
 * If Murdoch is found not guilty, I think that the prosecution has a good case for suggesting that the judge was biased. He has consistently ruled in favour of the defence in this case.  Indeed, they could also probably argue that the media has been very biased and influenced the case, with 95% of media stories released during the trial being in favour of defence (Yet, ironically, from the time that Murdoch was captured until the trial started, the vast majority of media reports suggested that he was guilty).
 * In the unlikely event that there are no protests, at this stage I don't think that there is any realistic chance of Joanne Lees being prosecuted for the murder. Indeed, I think that police would be looking for Peter Falconio, dead or alive.  Once his body is found (if he is dead) then I imagine that the trial will be reopened, with either Joanne Lees charged with the murder, Bradley John Murdoch re-charged (you can do that in Australia, even if he is found not guilty first time, on the basis that they didn't have a body first time around), or else prosecute someone else.  If Peter Falconio is found alive at some time in the future, then it will obviously be re-opened, and in that case I think that Falconio, Lees and whoever the 3rd man is (if there is a 3rd man) will all be prosecuted for whatever the charges are relating to faking their own death.

So I guess if prosecution really considers it, their best option would probably be to hold back on an appeal until a body is found. Then they keep their options open. If a body is found, then appeal. If he is found alive, then charge him and Lees and anyone else involved. So I think that's what will probably happen.

As for Murdoch being found guilty, well, I actually don't think that the jury will take long to find him innocent. Might be all over by Monday.

As for this article, I think that what we should do is to get the court transcripts when they are released (you'll be able to download them off the government web site) and post links to the transcripts, and then get bits out of the transcripts in to the R v Murdoch article, and then just really seriously shorten this article, and rename it to Peter Falconio (get rid of the "disappearance" bit) and do it like that. I mean, if Murdoch is found not guilty, then Falconio becomes notable in his own right. If Falconio is alive, then he is very notable. Therefore, "disappearance" is not appropriate. That's my opinion at least.

Should know in a few days. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And so it is over. I kinda figured that he would be convicted because when a judge goes out of his way for the defence it is to make sure that they get a fair chance to present their case even against very incriminating evidence.
 * James007 12:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow I am shocked. I bet he'll appeal. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well his lawyer says he's going to but I'm willing to bet it'll just be a waste of time. They couldn't convince 6 men and 6 women even with all the cautions and remarks by the judge in their favor.
 * There was a lot of bias in the trial. Whilst the bias seemed to mostly be in his favour, there is enough to suggest that it was not a fair trial.  Being able to use disqualified DNA evidence for one thing was a big factor.  They have grounds for appeal.  Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Broken links galore
Just a note here that most of the news reports (the older ones at least) are now broken links. So what do we do with them? They were used as references at the time. But it seems that most news agencies remove their reports after a week or so (or whatever the timeline is). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 06:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Tense
Given that someone has been convicted of this man's murder, it seems a bit strange to refer to him in the present tense. It is quite possible that a body will never be found, and that he won't ever turn up alive. When does it become appropriate to use past tense? Morwen - Talk 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the whole article will need to be reworded. Feel free to go through it and change tense. You can also add bits about the relevance of different statements to what the result was. By the way, you should look at the link I added with the timeline. Stuff from that should be added to the article. This whole article will need to be redone. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. You can also say that he murdered Peter Falconio. Although I think its better to say "he was convicted of the murder" since there's no confession. But legally we can now say he murdered Peter Falconio if we wanted to. He can't sue us if we say that now. Prior to his conviction, he could have sued us if we'd said that. We can now put Peter Falconio in category murder victims and all of the rest too. Indeed, we can rename this to "Peter Falconio murder" too if you like. We can do all of that now. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article really does need quite a bit of help. I won't put a cleanup header on it considering the attention it's likely to be getting at the moment, though I will if it isn't dealt with soon. It reads like a disorganised timeline of he-said-she-said, and comes across as being biased in favour of Murdoch. Particularly now that a verdict has come in, I think rewriting the whole thing as a retrospective rather than news piece would be helpful. Ambi 08:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Splitting hairs?
I'm not sure whether I'm overly pedantic, but what does Murdoch's prior charge of rape have as far as relevancy to this article? It was a charge, not a conviction; in this case there were no allegations of sexual assault of any person by Murdoch or any other person; therefore I believe it is moot and purely POV tilting. By all means, incorporate it into the Murdoch article, but in this instance I believe it is not relevant.

Furthermore, where did the section on what most Australian's think happened go? I recall there being a detailed section on theories, the current 'animal blood' situation to bolster the size of the blood samples left at the scene would tie in very well with the 'hoax' theory, as well as the theory of Lees' involvement, which most Australians per various news run polls (although the media can be trusted naught more than a drunkard from a local pub) are allegedly in favour that Peter Falconio is still alive, or was not murdered at the scene as well as Lees' involvement somehow.

There are still too many unanswered questions with this case to write it off as solved by throwing Murdoch in gaol, Lees' compulsive lying added fuel to the fire with the entire situation and there is more than circumstantial evidence in my opinion to draw fire on the conviction of Murdoch. However these things are expected as soon as the media, public and politicians call for blood, a blood sacrifice must be offered to appease them. Jachin 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * well you got to make up your mind, if Murdoch's previous charges are POV then "what Australians think" is by definition POV. The verdict has been given, if there is an appeal you can start by adding the old theories back, until then Murdoch killed Peter. 212.79.87.141 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Error in Article
Police spent over six days covering a 300,000 square kilometre area with metal detectors to try to find a murder weapon, but were unable to find anything. 300,000 square meters is a lot of lad to cover with a metal detector. 300,000 square kilometers is impossible. --Dumbo1 12:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The error in the article is still there! Can someone check the figure in the article and provide a citation, or the offending paragraph will be removed. --Dumbo1 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A source has been found and the article was wrong. The area searched was 300,000 square meters. The article has now been changed. --Dumbo1 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like a typo to me. 123.2.168.215 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncited claims
I removed this: It is still commonly believed and held by an exceptionally large proportions of Australians that Peter Falconio is still alive and / or the wrong person is in gaol for the crime committed. I concede that there are Australians who doubt that Murdoch killed Falconio, but claims like 'commonly' and 'exceptionally large proportion' shouldn't be included unless they can be documented. --Calair 01:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

R v Murdoch
I think that ALL evidence and other details from the court case should be moved to R v Murdoch (the court case article) and a link be placed here to that page.--58.167.198.129 08:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Trackers
This article does not mention, in relation to defense evidence, that aboriginal trackers doubted this story, I think this should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.121.158 (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

BBC website
What is the citation for the suggestion that Murdoch's picture was on a BBC website before the police showed it to Joanna Lees? 83.67.63.189 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Proof of Falconio's death?
I'm aware that a conviction for murder is possible even in the absence of a body, but I'm still mystified as to how Murdoch came to be convicted of Falconio's murder.

In order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of murder, don't you first have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged victim is dead? An overheard gunshot and a relatively small bloodstain on the road surely do not constitute proof.

There have been cases where a person has been charged with murder, and the supposed "victim" has turned up alive and well (see Leonard Fraser), so I'm highly sceptical about the standard of proof used in cases like this. 217.155.20.163 20:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Excess Number of EL
There are loads of External Links here - shouldn't this list be dramitically cut? Surely only news articles which are referenced shoudl be included - pages upon pages of News Reports are clearly inappropiate. -- Rehnn83 Talk 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Joanneleesfrontpage.jpg
Image:Joanneleesfrontpage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

References needed for claims about living people
I have removed the 'Evidence heard in the trial' section as it contained a number of serious claims about living people and was totally unreferenced. I think that if any part of this section is restored it would need a citation which proves that it was actually raised in court and, if appropriate, whatever the response to the claim was. Without references there was no way of telling if this material was genuine or had been made up - much of it looked like speculation. --Nick Dowling 10:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bjmurdochmugshot.jpg
The image Image:Bjmurdochmugshot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I propose the merger of R v Murdoch & Peter Falconio & Bradley John Murdoch (per WP:BLP1E) into a single article. I suggest Peter Falconio disappearance best covers the events. Any objections? 58.8.5.127 (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, although feel that Murder of Peter Falconio is a more suitable title. We might as well include the article on Joanne Lees in that lot too while we're at it. -- Longhair\talk 08:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but I'm not sure about the title. Murder of Peter Falconio would probably be better in a legal sense, but Disappearance of Peter Falconio would possibly more accurately cover it since he is technically still missing even if it is just his body. My vote would go towards the latter to be honest. And while we're at it, I agree that all those other articles mentioned should merge into it. I can't understand why Joanne Lees has her own article anyway, since this case is all she is notable for. I'm in total agreement about a merger, we just need a discussion on the title before it happens. Sky83 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

see also Articles for deletion/Joanne Lees 58.8.12.235 (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

DNA DNA DNA
You can carry on about how someone thought they saw her etc etc. But the fact is his DNA was there, which he had no excuse for. If she had been involved he would have done a plea bargain on those grounds. The jury sat thru all the evidence and the defences arguments to try and get their client off. they found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.--Biebersbro (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mate you are right. Whether its JFK, 9/11, Aliens or faked moon landings, there will always be fools and idiots who waste their lives supporting fringe conspiracy theories 121.218.67.123 (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Chicken refusal?
What has refusal to eat chicken got to do with this article subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.146.73 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been removed now, but it was important because Murdoch initially said that his DNA may have gotten onto the t-shirt when both parties visited a Red Rooster restaurant on the same day. He said he went there to buy chicken for himself and his dog. Once he was in gaol, he said he couldn't be served chicken as he is allergic to it, casting doubt on his DNA transfer argument. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-twist-in-falconio-case/2006/04/11/1144521327716.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieRedmond (talk • contribs) 09:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted it and explained the link. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 22:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Peter Falconio → Murder of Peter Falconio – Standard naming convention. Article is not about Peter Falconio but rather his murder. Sro23 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Article probably needs a minor rewrite to reflect the change of subject, but it would be in line with WP:ONEEVENT. Kb.au (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and Kb.au. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Overhaul
I have just conducted a major renovation/consolidation/overhaul of this page, primarily by moving trial-specific content away from the Joanne Lees and Bradley John Murdoch biography pages, particularly given the new title of the article which focuses that detail here. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Images of vehicles
Images of vehicles can be included to better illustrate what a Kombi is, which explains the circumstances of the murder, and what a 4WD looks like without being images of the actual vehicles which are unlikely to be under a licence to reuse.--Darrelljon (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

First source
Hello, I noticed that the first link "Falconio detectives swoop on trucker" is a link completely irrelated to the topic. The source here goes to sports? Found it on an archive here, replacing it on the reference 180.150.62.146 (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Queen vs Murdoch source
Noticed that this source was a permanent dead link, yet I found a replacement Hope this helps, editing now! :) 180.150.62.146 (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It's been proposed before but I am proposing Joanne Lees be merged into Murder of Peter Falconio article since her notability is entirely the subject of this.--Darrelljon (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Don't merge. Joanne Lees is a notable author allegedly paid an advance of GBP250 000  for one of the Top 100 books of 2006, the subject of a telemovie (Joanne Lees: Murder in the Outback), a victim of crime and a murder suspect. WWGB (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Weren't the book and movie mentioned about the Murder of Peter Falconio more than Joanne Lees?--Darrelljon (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)