| Murder in the Outback 12:33 - Jun 11 with 4923 views | StokieBlue |
Anyone watched this?
I don't usually go for these crime documentaries but ended up watching the whole thing. I've not fact-checked anything but from the documentary I don't see how the conviction could in any way be deemed safe. So many loose-ends and dubious interpretations of evidence whilst other evidence was seemingly totally ignored. Doesn't mean he didn't do it of course, just a lot of questions there.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/murder-in-the-outback
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |  |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:41 - Jun 11 with 4145 views | GeoffSentence |
I started watching it last night, just the first episode. Clearly you need to be careful about one-sided reporting and cherry picking of facts with these sort of documentaries, but nevertheless it is fascinating.
I can remember it from when it happened. looking forward to seeing how she explains how she got her tied hands from behind her back to in front of her. I recall that being the focus of much attention at the time. |  |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:49 - Jun 11 with 4129 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Agreed, very circumstantial. Although the DNA link is still hard to get away from, no matter how small. |  |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:49 - Jun 11 with 4130 views | StokieBlue |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:41 - Jun 11 by GeoffSentence |
I started watching it last night, just the first episode. Clearly you need to be careful about one-sided reporting and cherry picking of facts with these sort of documentaries, but nevertheless it is fascinating.
I can remember it from when it happened. looking forward to seeing how she explains how she got her tied hands from behind her back to in front of her. I recall that being the focus of much attention at the time. |
Report back your thoughts when you've seen the rest.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:50 - Jun 11 with 4124 views | StokieBlue |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:49 - Jun 11 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Agreed, very circumstantial. Although the DNA link is still hard to get away from, no matter how small. |
Even the DNA was dubious except from that one sample which was very strange. It's also not enough for a conviction in Australia on it's own as they pointed out.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:04 - Jun 11 with 4083 views | Herbivore |
I was left thinking he still did it. Their description of how he the DNA could have otherwise ended up on her top was really implausible for me. Also, whilst they picked apart the science employed by the prosecution they employed some dubious science or science with a wide margin for error of their own to try to cast doubt. In the round you could argue there's reasonable doubt there, but I do still find aspects of it quite compelling and some of the doubts they introduced don't really get to the heart of the case against him. |  |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:04 - Jun 11 with 4083 views | Bluefish |
Can't be as scandalous as Steven Avery. I believe a next step is due today for him but they just want him to die in jail it seems
The innocence files on metflix is great |  |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:14 - Jun 11 with 4060 views | StokieBlue |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:04 - Jun 11 by Herbivore |
I was left thinking he still did it. Their description of how he the DNA could have otherwise ended up on her top was really implausible for me. Also, whilst they picked apart the science employed by the prosecution they employed some dubious science or science with a wide margin for error of their own to try to cast doubt. In the round you could argue there's reasonable doubt there, but I do still find aspects of it quite compelling and some of the doubts they introduced don't really get to the heart of the case against him. |
Agreed on the use of science.
I thought her interview with the police and the fact she actually lied under oath in court about her friend "Steph" should have had further analysis, especially the perjury.
I thought there was enough doubt that he could have gotten another trial, especially given a major part of the evidence (the CCTV analysis) seemed horrible (the documentaries attempt was no better). There was other stuff which didn't seem reasonably addressed by the prosecution and other stuff that the judge told the jury to ignore which seemed like it should be taken into account.
As you say, added reasonable doubt rather than a smoking gun. Also not sure how much of the documentary checks out - I've not fact checked it.
SB [Post edited 11 Jun 2020 13:14]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:19 - Jun 11 with 4045 views | GeoffSentence |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:50 - Jun 11 by StokieBlue |
Even the DNA was dubious except from that one sample which was very strange. It's also not enough for a conviction in Australia on it's own as they pointed out.
SB |
Some years back they had a bit of a scandal in Australia when a number of cases that were based on DNA evidence had to be re-opened due to the unreliability of that evidence, there were issues with the way it was collected, kept and the potential of tampering with it if I recall correctly. There were something like 7000 convictions that were thrown into doubt as a result, which may be why DNA evidence is not relied upon for conviction there.
Anyway, it does highlight that whilst the possibility of DNA matching a persons actually belonging to some one else might be billions to one against, the chances of cock-up or conspiracy is much, much less. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Murder in the Outback on 13:20 - Jun 11 with 4042 views | Herbivore |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:14 - Jun 11 by StokieBlue |
Agreed on the use of science.
I thought her interview with the police and the fact she actually lied under oath in court about her friend "Steph" should have had further analysis, especially the perjury.
I thought there was enough doubt that he could have gotten another trial, especially given a major part of the evidence (the CCTV analysis) seemed horrible (the documentaries attempt was no better). There was other stuff which didn't seem reasonably addressed by the prosecution and other stuff that the judge told the jury to ignore which seemed like it should be taken into account.
As you say, added reasonable doubt rather than a smoking gun. Also not sure how much of the documentary checks out - I've not fact checked it.
SB [Post edited 11 Jun 2020 13:14]
|
The documentary left out other details that are relevant in building a circumstantial case. For example, they know he left Alice Springs at a time consistent with being at the crime scene when it took place. He also apparently has an allergy to chicken, which makes the story about an accidental transfer of his blood to her top in a fried chicken shop even more implausible.
It's a tricky one. I kind of got why she was defensive to be honest even if it made her come across badly, but whilst they picked holes in aspects of her account there isn't another plausible account of what happened. Her description of the suspect looks like him, he was in the area, his DNA was on her clothes and possibly elsewhere
at the crime scene (though this evidence was far less reliable). On the balance of probabilities I'd say he did it, but beyond reasonable doubt is trickier. I'm on the fence as to whether there is sufficient doubt for him to not be convicted. | |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:23 - Jun 11 with 4033 views | farkenhell |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:41 - Jun 11 by GeoffSentence |
I started watching it last night, just the first episode. Clearly you need to be careful about one-sided reporting and cherry picking of facts with these sort of documentaries, but nevertheless it is fascinating.
I can remember it from when it happened. looking forward to seeing how she explains how she got her tied hands from behind her back to in front of her. I recall that being the focus of much attention at the time. |
I recall she demonstrated that, at the invitation of the defence team, early on in the trial. Took her only a few seconds from what I remember.
As you quite rightly say, you need to be very careful about one-sided reporting, particularly bearing in mind that all of the facts and evidence will have been analysed meticulously by the judge, jury and both teams of lawyers in a trial of many days. |  | | |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:43 - Jun 11 with 3998 views | Chrisd |
Interesting how those interviewed at the end of episode 3 give their own opinion of the conviction and it was split pretty much 50/50. I was expecting it to favour one side more than the other. Her behaviour was very bizarre at times during that whole process. [Post edited 11 Jun 2020 15:31]
| |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:51 - Jun 11 with 3976 views | Broomy99 |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:04 - Jun 11 by Herbivore |
I was left thinking he still did it. Their description of how he the DNA could have otherwise ended up on her top was really implausible for me. Also, whilst they picked apart the science employed by the prosecution they employed some dubious science or science with a wide margin for error of their own to try to cast doubt. In the round you could argue there's reasonable doubt there, but I do still find aspects of it quite compelling and some of the doubts they introduced don't really get to the heart of the case against him. |
Secondary and tertiary transfer of DNA is VERY common. Every contact leaves a trace in both directions - Edmond Loccard.
Even within labs that have weekly cleans you would expect some contamination to occur on occasion and as DNA testing gets more and more sensitive, trace DNA as opposed to blood or semen etc. Loses it’s evidential weight.
Some of the practices highlighted in that docu were shocking, and in my opinion, definitely not safe to convict on.
The stats that they reported for the DNA ‘match’ for example were in relation to the population of the Northern Territory, which is sparse to say the least. That data should have been reported differently and as a consequence the value would have been hugely diminished. | | | |
| Murder in the Outback on 14:04 - Jun 11 with 3935 views | Herbivore |
| Murder in the Outback on 13:51 - Jun 11 by Broomy99 |
Secondary and tertiary transfer of DNA is VERY common. Every contact leaves a trace in both directions - Edmond Loccard.
Even within labs that have weekly cleans you would expect some contamination to occur on occasion and as DNA testing gets more and more sensitive, trace DNA as opposed to blood or semen etc. Loses it’s evidential weight.
Some of the practices highlighted in that docu were shocking, and in my opinion, definitely not safe to convict on.
The stats that they reported for the DNA ‘match’ for example were in relation to the population of the Northern Territory, which is sparse to say the least. That data should have been reported differently and as a consequence the value would have been hugely diminished. |
I'm referring particularly to the blood found on her top, which was the strongest piece of DNA evidence. They didn't have the suspect's DNA on record so I'm not sure how it could have got there through contamination at the point they generated the DNA profile from the sample. | |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 14:19 - Jun 11 with 3892 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Murder in the Outback on 12:50 - Jun 11 by StokieBlue |
Even the DNA was dubious except from that one sample which was very strange. It's also not enough for a conviction in Australia on it's own as they pointed out.
SB |
I agree, and I know that... I watched the programme. I am just talking from a personal perspective of where I felt the guilt lies. | |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 15:26 - Jun 11 with 3797 views | cbower |
Murdoch must have had a pretty poor defence lawyer as it seemed they brought little of what could have questioned a conviction into play. The DNA is the clincher but if he manhandled her in the way she says, I do find it hard to believe that only one tiny spec would be found on her clothing. The stuff on the cable tie maniicles that were taken to the prison to potentially show him is now questionable as are the low grade samples found in the vehicle. Her ID of him when his pic had been internationally circulated for a month before is strange and she clearly changed her mind from time to time about the exact details of the incident and that is being very kind to her. Certainly there is enough to raise significant doubt about the absolute security of conviction of this self confessed "Rat-Bag".
Her behaviour and inconsistency makes me uncomfortable. Arranging to potentially meet a "lover" in Berlin barely 24hrs after the incident whilst still apparently hoping Falconio was still alive is dubious to say the least. The stuff with the tape around her ankles during the police interview was a joke.
On balance, he probably was involved. As for his sole guilt there are questions for sure. The role of Joanne Lees and voracity of her account? Only she knows for sure |  |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 15:34 - Jun 11 with 3782 views | eastangliaisblue |
I agree with what the reporter said at the end. I think he done it, but the investigation and trial, are both a bit dubious in how they were carried out.
The one thing that gets me though is what was his motive? It just doesn't make any sense to kill/kidnap while you're drug running. I was scratching my head at that. |  | | |
| Murder in the Outback on 17:27 - Jun 11 with 3676 views | ronnyd |
The Aussie forensic teams don't come out very well in this programme. The same could be said of the Lindy Chamberlain case, (whose baby disappeared at Uluru) in 1980. Not only that, the trial by the media that followed was a total farce. | | | |
| Murder in the Outback on 22:57 - Jun 11 with 3537 views | Ryorry |
I watched eps 2, 3 & 4, and thought it was about as unsafe a conviction as I've ever seen. J. Lees also struck me, from the footage shown, as one of the least credible witnesses I've ever seen.
The SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis report) which concluded that the statements she gave to police "are all indicative of a false account" was withheld from the trial - the jury never got to even hear about it, let alone see it.
The analysis of footage taken at the petrol station which had placed Murdoch in the vicinity of the crime, showed that the blurry image of the figure supposed to be Murdoch was several inches shorter than the real Murdoch.
A recreation of the crime showed that J Lees would have had large areas of her body & clothing glowing with her attacker's DNA under UV light. As it was, she had none, apart from the spot on the back of her T-shirt.
Experts on the docu said that had today's standards required for conviction been in place back then, Murdoch would have walked free.
https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/news/how-joanne-lees-escape-bradley-john-mu (posted mainly for the info re 'SCAN' report).
Edit: PS Herbivore - they did have Murdoch's DNA on record, in fact that was also very controversial - he was arrested as prime suspect for another case, the rape of a mother & daughter, but released without being charged for it. It was claimed that the Aussie police had only arrested him for that as a pretext for getting some DNA off him for the Peter Falconio case. [Post edited 11 Jun 2020 23:04]
|  |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:13 - Jun 11 with 3504 views | Herbivore |
| Murder in the Outback on 22:57 - Jun 11 by Ryorry |
I watched eps 2, 3 & 4, and thought it was about as unsafe a conviction as I've ever seen. J. Lees also struck me, from the footage shown, as one of the least credible witnesses I've ever seen.
The SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis report) which concluded that the statements she gave to police "are all indicative of a false account" was withheld from the trial - the jury never got to even hear about it, let alone see it.
The analysis of footage taken at the petrol station which had placed Murdoch in the vicinity of the crime, showed that the blurry image of the figure supposed to be Murdoch was several inches shorter than the real Murdoch.
A recreation of the crime showed that J Lees would have had large areas of her body & clothing glowing with her attacker's DNA under UV light. As it was, she had none, apart from the spot on the back of her T-shirt.
Experts on the docu said that had today's standards required for conviction been in place back then, Murdoch would have walked free.
https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/news/how-joanne-lees-escape-bradley-john-mu (posted mainly for the info re 'SCAN' report).
Edit: PS Herbivore - they did have Murdoch's DNA on record, in fact that was also very controversial - he was arrested as prime suspect for another case, the rape of a mother & daughter, but released without being charged for it. It was claimed that the Aussie police had only arrested him for that as a pretext for getting some DNA off him for the Peter Falconio case. [Post edited 11 Jun 2020 23:04]
|
Re your edit, that was a couple of years after Peter Falconio disappeared by which time they'd already got the DNA profile from the clothing. When they initially scanned their databases there was no match. The accusation was they engineered his arrest (and charge) so they could get a DNA sample to match to the profile they already had from the Falconio case once he'd been identified as a suspect.
Re the rest of it, you seem to have watched it entirely uncritically. Much of the 'science' offered by the defence in the documentary wouldn't get close to being offered as evidence in a court, certainly not in the UK. | |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:38 - Jun 11 with 3473 views | Ryorry |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:13 - Jun 11 by Herbivore |
Re your edit, that was a couple of years after Peter Falconio disappeared by which time they'd already got the DNA profile from the clothing. When they initially scanned their databases there was no match. The accusation was they engineered his arrest (and charge) so they could get a DNA sample to match to the profile they already had from the Falconio case once he'd been identified as a suspect.
Re the rest of it, you seem to have watched it entirely uncritically. Much of the 'science' offered by the defence in the documentary wouldn't get close to being offered as evidence in a court, certainly not in the UK. |
Re your first para - I thought that was what I was saying, but do see it's a question of timeline re which happened first.
Re your second - it's not a case that I was familiar with before watching the docu (tho I'd heard about it of course), so I went entirely on the evidence as presented in the docu. I thought the point it made re the evidence Murdoch that was convicted on then not being adequate to convict him now, telling. So much was left out of the trial too - I just focussed in my post on the most glaring points, not all of the points the docu made. | |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:49 - Jun 11 with 3454 views | Herbivore |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:38 - Jun 11 by Ryorry |
Re your first para - I thought that was what I was saying, but do see it's a question of timeline re which happened first.
Re your second - it's not a case that I was familiar with before watching the docu (tho I'd heard about it of course), so I went entirely on the evidence as presented in the docu. I thought the point it made re the evidence Murdoch that was convicted on then not being adequate to convict him now, telling. So much was left out of the trial too - I just focussed in my post on the most glaring points, not all of the points the docu made. |
The timeline is crucial. They had a DNA profile of an unknown male on her clothing who would essentially be prime suspect. The profile didn't match anyone on their database. Murdoch was arrested on another case 2 years later and they then got his DNA and it matched the profile they'd taken. Evidentially, that's pretty solid.
There's also stuff that was left out of the documentary that supports the conviction. Probably worth spending a bit of time looking at it all a bit more before declaring it about as unsafe a conviction as you've ever seen. | |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:54 - Jun 11 with 3445 views | Ryorry |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:49 - Jun 11 by Herbivore |
The timeline is crucial. They had a DNA profile of an unknown male on her clothing who would essentially be prime suspect. The profile didn't match anyone on their database. Murdoch was arrested on another case 2 years later and they then got his DNA and it matched the profile they'd taken. Evidentially, that's pretty solid.
There's also stuff that was left out of the documentary that supports the conviction. Probably worth spending a bit of time looking at it all a bit more before declaring it about as unsafe a conviction as you've ever seen. |
So how do you account for the absence of his DNA apart from the one clear spot of blood on the back of her T-shirt? That just doesn't stack up.
And "about as unsafe a conviction as (I've) ever **seen**" going on that TV docu is what I meant. I didn't believe a word she said going on that footage of her being interviewed that they showed. | |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:58 - Jun 11 with 3435 views | Herbivore |
| Murder in the Outback on 23:54 - Jun 11 by Ryorry |
So how do you account for the absence of his DNA apart from the one clear spot of blood on the back of her T-shirt? That just doesn't stack up.
And "about as unsafe a conviction as (I've) ever **seen**" going on that TV docu is what I meant. I didn't believe a word she said going on that footage of her being interviewed that they showed. |
There were other partial DNA matches. Whether they were evidentially sound is up for debate. If you were sold by the actor dunking his hands in invisible ink then 'recreating' the event with another actor then fair enough. I found it somewhat dubious. | |
| |
| Murder in the Outback on 21:36 - Jun 12 with 3220 views | Ryorry |
They're repeating the whole lot on 4Seven (freeview) right now if anyone wants to see for themselves. Just come to the end of ep 1 - 2, 3 & 4 follow on after the ads. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
