Talk:Murder of Peter Falconio

message: 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)
replies: text: Unsigned comment above from 203.26.206.130  -- Longhair | Talk 11:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :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)
thread_title: Ivan Milat

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other Theories

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Contradictionary evidence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: 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)
thread_title: Murder?

message: 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)
thread_title: Verdict?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tax debt? 

message: 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)
thread_title: James Hepi

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Small error 

message: 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)
thread_title: Google

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken links galore 

message: 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)
thread_title: Tense

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Splitting hairs?

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks like a typo to me. 123.2.168.215 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in Article

message: 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)
thread_title: Uncited claims

message: 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)
thread_title: R v Murdoch

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trackers  

message: 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)
thread_title:  BBC website 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proof of Falconio's death? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Excess Number of EL 

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Joanneleesfrontpage.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: References needed for claims about living people

message: 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bjmurdochmugshot.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
thread_title:  DNA DNA DNA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have reinserted it and explained the link. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicken refusal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overhaul

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images of vehicles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Queen vs Murdoch source 

message: 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)
replies: text: – (View AfDView 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal