SA Footy

Interesting reading in the paper today, a lot of evidence suggests that the Police/Prosecution have made the story fit the facts. 2 glaring anomalies- Joanne Lees said he had a red heeler, he had a dalmation. He had a hard* top ute tray, not a soft top. Now I'm not saying it's not possible he covered his tracks, but how could a properly directed jury reach this verdict? Going by what was written in the paper, it appears that Ms Lees story doesn't stack up at all. Where could she have hidden in the bush? Why would the person involved, who was concerned that he saw her, drive off & leave her? Let's not forget the fact that she was having an affair with someone in Sydney. Also , throw in the speculation that Peter Falconio may have wanted to disappear. It appears that Murdoch has been convicted of the Murder because he is guilty of Trafficking Drugs. Also, the NT Police don't want to look like a bunch of Hicks & say "we don't know who did it". I intend to get the book & have a good read of it. I'm not really saying he's guilty or innocent, I'm just saying that the evidence appears to be inconclusive. I guess I'll reserve judgement until I've read the book. In comparison, the Snowtown Murders were open & shut. All they had to work out was who did what.

Apparently Peter Falconio is alive and well as he posts here on safooty!
I reckon his dalmation couldve been rolling around in the 'red' dirt..........
I also think Murdoch aint guilty.
I also think the dingo ate the baby.
I dont care.
I would like to see lees's norks!

MUNGO JERRY wrote:Apparently Peter Falconio is alive and well as he posts here on safooty!

Exactly, now set Murdoch free!

Punk, I'm glad you've brought up the fact about her Sydney fling because let's face it, once you've had an affair, it ain't the ultimate love that Lee's is suggesting it is.
Interesting that the amount of Lee's DNA that was found on Murdoch's shirt could have got there by an innocent brush past.
Must admit that my initial instinct was that Lee's was in on it.

Punk Rooster wrote:

MUNGO JERRY wrote:Apparently Peter Falconio is alive and well as he posts here on safooty!

Exactly, now set Murdoch free!

That's Peter Falconia here, but a pseudonym is likely - nothing to do with you Pseudo.

spell_check wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:

MUNGO JERRY wrote:Apparently Peter Falconio is alive and well as he posts here on safooty!

Exactly, now set Murdoch free!

That's Peter Falconia here, but a pseudonym is likely - nothing to do with you Pseudo.

So Pseudo did it?

MUNGO JERRY wrote:I would like to see lees's norks!

Hubba hubba!

Hopefully now her notoriety will earn her a nice sum to pose in the buff for one of the less salubrious gentleman's magazines...

Punk Rooster wrote:So Pseudo did it?

No, but I wouldn't turn down a chance to see those norks....

Pseudo wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:So Pseudo did it?

No, but I wouldn't turn down a chance to see those norks....

How could Psuedo have done it?,he sh1ts himself when the Bays hit the front!

(See avatar above)

P.S- Psuedo,I could go a bit of bawdy Pom myself

Pseudo wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:So Pseudo did it?

No, but I wouldn't turn down a chance to see those norks....

havent seen her for a while, are they any good?

burn in hell murdoch!!!

Jimmy wrote:
havent seen her for a while, are they any good?

burn in hell murdoch!!!

So you want Murdoch to burn in hell, despite the fact he may not have done it? You want to see Lees norks, despite the fact she may have had some part in it? Food for thought- "Northern Territory Police" & "Lindy Chamberlain"...

Well Punky,
1: Even if he didnt do it I'd rather see hill-billies like that locked up any way.
2: If she did have a part in it,she has lied pretty well for a long time.
3: If Jo-anna Lees has a movie made about her (no doubt),who will play Murdoch?
That's the pressing question.

Booney wrote:Well Punky,
1: Even if he didnt do it I'd rather see hill-billies like that locked up any way.

So he hets 20 years for being a hillbilly?

Booney wrote:2: If she did have a part in it,she has lied pretty well for a long time.

So, she gets off on the account of being a good liar? I think she's a poor liar dealing with inept police.

Booney wrote:3: If Jo-anna Lees has a movie made about her (no doubt),who will play Murdoch?
That's the pressing question.

Jo-anna Lees would be played by Shannen Doherty, Murdoch by Robert Redford & Falconio by Vince Vaughan.

Nasty piece of works - where he belongs. These conspiracy books are written purely to make money not through any sense of justice, to be taken with a very large pinch of salt

Punk Rooster wrote:

Booney wrote:Well Punky,
1: Even if he didnt do it I'd rather see hill-billies like that locked up any way.

So he hets 20 years for being a hillbilly?

Booney wrote:2: If she did have a part in it,she has lied pretty well for a long time.

So, she gets off on the account of being a good liar? I think she's a poor liar dealing with inept police.

Booney wrote:3: If Jo-anna Lees has a movie made about her (no doubt),who will play Murdoch?
That's the pressing question.

Jo-anna Lees would be played by Shannen Doherty, Murdoch by Robert Redford & Falconio by Vince Vaughan.

punky, very good choices, but id go with lindsay lohan for lees, and that dodgy guy from the sopranos as falconio...but im a bit stuck on who would play murdoch, maybe ron pearlman???

The only way to make judgement about the jurors' decision is to sit in court every day as they had to. As Mick points out, the indecent haste of the authors would point to their motives being less than altruistic.

McAlmanac wrote: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. As previously mentioned, Lindy Chamberlain's case is an example, there was a conviction overturned recently in the US, for a guy accussed of murdering his Mother in-law (not really a crime, I know ) & raping his neice. He was convicted on DNA evidence. This same evidence cleared him, & he was just lucky his wife stuck by him (very rare for women these days). So Mick, in that case also, it was a conspiracy theory right up until he was cleared, then it became a miscarriage of justice. Throwing in "conspiracy theory" is a cheap way of painting those who don't believe the evidence stacks up, as crack pots. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if the Police decided that Brad Murdoch was guilty of "something", so let's make hime fit the crime.

Do you know this bloke?

mick wrote:Do you know this bloke?

Nah Mick, I just don't swallow* everything the media forces down our throats

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