Bradley Murdoch

[godoubleblues]

After Wolf Creek, John Jarrat would be a walk up start for Murdoch.

very good he was

"I could tell you. But then I'd have to kill you. [laughs] " replying to Ben when asked what he did

[McAlmanac]

The only way to make judgement about the jurors' decision is to sit in court every day as they had to.

True, but what if the author sat in court everyday also? Would that not give the story some weight? All I'm really saying at the moment, is that don't rely on justice to be accurate.

The jury has to answer to the court; the author has to answer to his/her editor, who has dollar-based targets.

[ORDoubleBlues]

Do agree with you Punk that you don't necessarily believe what the media throws down your throat because if you did you would believe that Michelle Leslie was a muslim for starters.

[Punk Rooster]

The jury has to answer to the court

This didn't help Lindy Chamberlain though, the most famous wrongful conviction that I know of (& in the NT...). Bradley Murdoch ain't no starry-eyed innocent, don't get me wrong, but I think if Ms Lees can't even distinguish what type of dog he had, surely that's enough to put doubt into the minds of anyone about the rest of her tale, which didn't dwell too much on the fact she was having an affair? What did he even have to gain from pulling over a couple of British tourists, & shotting one of them, while letting the other one go? Don't you think the dog may have found Ms Lees?

[Magpiespower]

Do agree with you Punk that you don't necessarily believe what the media throws down your throat because if you did you would believe that Michelle Leslie was a muslim for starters.

Look at what the Adelaide media did with the 'Family' murders.

[MightyEagles]

I think that Punk doesn't know what he is on about, has Punk went to the trial everyday, I think not. I've been on a Jury, so I know what goes on inside the Jury Room (not that one though).

[Punk Rooster]

I think that Punk doesn't know what he is on about, has Punk went to the trial everyday, I think not. I've been on a Jury, so I know what goes on inside the Jury Room (not that one though).

Sorry for having an opinion, ME. I will toe the party line & take as gospel, everything printed by the media. With you expertise with regards to Law, what's your judgement on the matter?

[Pseudo]

Guilty or not, conspiracy theories aside, shouldn't we concentrate on the important issue - i.e. Ms. Lees' knockers?

[ORDoubleBlues]

Ancient history but don't know if anyone remembers an article nearly 5 years ago in Saturday Advertiser (out same day as channel 31 function at old 'heaven' nightclub) where a woman claimed that she felt she was original target of Murdoch.

Hope no one took that seriously as I know said woman and she's a nutjob who will make anything up for attention.

[Sky Pilot]

This is all very interesting. I've always wondered how Murdoch disposed of Falconio's body after he allegedly shot him behind the Kombi while the hornbag Lees revved up the engine from the drivers seat? Surely there are unanswered qusetions here and you really wouldn't trust the NT police in anything would you? I drew an acting miscellanous balnk file when I tried to google her up to see what she was up to these days so maybe someone can elaborate on this?

[Dogwatcher]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/joanne ... 6089242194

[overloaded]

What a load of carp!

He is Guilty. End of thread!

[Sky Pilot]

Good work Dogwatcher!

[ORDoubleBlues]

This Sunday on Sunday Night at 6.30pm I think it is. Don't know what they are going to come up with but may be interesting.

Gee, I can see my mother and I are going to have some real scraps over this

[Johno6]

edit**

wrong one and hoax anyway

[overloaded]

maybe they might re-open the case on Monday morning

[Dogwatcher]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/conv ... 6105190394

[CK]

One interesting possible connection was only very briefly touched on in the story.

A sample of Murdoch's DNA was found on Joanne Lees' t-shirt, which was crucial to the conviction.

Murdoch openly admitted that he was running marijuana as a primary source of income in the NT at the time and that in his words, why would he jeopardise that by killing someone.

Unknown to Lees at the time of the disappearance, Peter Falconio had a one-way ticket to Thailand for the next few weeks after the disappearance. Exactly why he was going to Thailand is unclear, but it could be for holiday reasons. It could have also been for other, less legal reasons.

Was it at all possible that, obviously unknown also to Lees, that Falconio and Murdoch were known to each other and had possibly been both involved in activities unknown to Lees? She also admitted they had both been smoking marijuana on the night, so it was certainly not unfamiliar to Falconio.

Could well all be complete pie-in-the-sky and so far off beam that its ridiculous, but a lot of stranger theories have been put forward. It could possibly explain why Murdoch's DNA was on an article of clothing owned by Lees, if he ever handled it without her knowledge (eg through handling items in a bag or the like). It could also explain why no body was ever found - because Falconio did not die, but went into hiding and was picked up later by an accomplice of the two.

Equally, its quite possible Murdoch was the killer of Falconio and there is no substance to any of the above.

[The Sleeping Giant]

People love a conspiracy theory I guess, even when there is no doubt of guilt.

[CK]

People love a conspiracy theory I guess, even when there is no doubt of guilt.

Yep, like I said, equally its totally possible that Murdoch did kill him and there is no substance to any of it, but then again, a high proportion of the Australian population, at the time, were adamant Lindy Chamberlain killed her daughter also.