Bradley Murdoch – how DNA may have misled the jury

Andrew L. Urban.

When juries in a circumstantial case are told of DNA, they assume that it’s a solid piece of evidence, unquestionable. The prosecution relies on this assumption and tells its story as if every DNA sample was like a brick. The case of Bradley Murdoch’s conviction for the murder of Peter Falconio is a strong example of why this is not so; even DNA can lead to unsafe convictions, as revealed in Channel 7’s investigative documentary mini series, Murder in the Outback,* which concluded on Sunday, July 19, 2020. 

On July 14, 2001, British backpackers, Peter Falconio & Joanne Lees are attacked as they drive through the night on a remote highway in the Australian outback.

Bradley Murdoch was found guilty of killing Peter Falconio, but debate continues as to whether he was correctly identified. This is one of the key elements that cast doubt on the conviction, diligently explored in the four part series. The other, even more central to the jury’s deliberations, is the DNA.

The series (with help from former defence lawyer Andrew Fraser, former The Times journalist Roger Maynard and co-producer Victor Susman among others) investigates the case 18 years after the event, presenting a comprehensive overview of the story and the prosecution’s case before turning to Dr Brian McDonald, a Molecular Geneticist who has 30 years’ and a thousand cases of experience in the testing, analysis and interpretation of DNA data.

“When I started looking at the DNA evidence it became clear there was very little clear evidence at all,” says Dr McDonald in Episode 4.

“What was presented in court was four samples:
the stain from the back of Joanne Lees’ T shirt
a swab from the gear stick
a swab from the steering wheel
a sample from the manacles (used to tie her wrists)

The T shirt sample is the only one that was clearly Murdoch’s, according to Dr McDonald. “A single source … the likelihood that is him is very very high. The likelihood that it is someone else is very very low. But it does not tell us how it got there. It certainly doesn’t tell us that there was contact between Mr Murdoch and this T shirt.”

Elsewhere in the series, the investigators discover where Murdoch’s DNA may have been transferred to the back of Joanne’s T shirt: a roadside eatery where he had been before Lees and Falconio had also stopped there … the back of chair, for example.

“All the other samples, the steering wheel, the gear lever and manacles are complex … very small amounts of DNA and multiple individuals contributing to them … low level mixtures. The chance of identifying anyone clearly is very very small. The types of mixtures in the combi van would probably not exclude a large proportion of the population.”

But that is not what the jury heard. They just heard “DNA”.

Then there is Robert Brown, a local, who swears he saw Peter Falconio in his remote shop after the news of the murder hit the papers. He knows it was Falconio because he was just looking at his photo in the paper when Falconio walked in. “I look at him and … bang … I just seen him in the paper.”

Murder in the Outback – all four episodes available to view online until July 2021.

FOOTNOTE:
On 24 December 2007 Ronan O’Connell of the West Australian reported “Doubt over DNA conviction tool”.

It said that WA legal groups have called for an immediate review of a controversial forensic DNA test used to help convict outback killer Bradley John Murdoch after British police suspended their use of the technique amid serious doubts about its accuracy. Law Society president Maria Saraceni and Criminal Lawyers Association vice-president Philip Urquhart said they had grave concerns about the reliability of so-called low copy DNA tests, which allow the analysis of tiny particles a millionth the size of a grain of salt.

This entry was posted in Case 12 Bradley Murdoch. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Bradley Murdoch – how DNA may have misled the jury

  1. Alan P., Sydney says:

    Murdoch had a falling out with his drug running partner James Hepi. The latter sent clothing and cigarette butts from Murdoch to the police. He also said Murdoch told him he killed Falconio and showed him his pistol. Hepi was facing a marijuana rap, so his “evidence” was to help him.

    It’s very hard to believe that Murdoch, who was on a 3,400km drug run, would kill a total stranger and let the only witness run away. Lees said she hid under a bush for some five hours.

    I have been in similar outback conditions and the trees and bushes have small leaves to conserve water in this semi-desert landscape. Most of the bushes have many small branches low down. It would be impossible to hide there.

    The best book on this mystifying case is Dead Centre by Robin Bowles.She investigated the case thoroughly. Bowles found that the couple were having arguments. and were going to part in Darwin. A clairvoyant gave Bowles a possible scenario. She suggested Lees went to the loo at a roadhouse.On leaving she spied a wallet full of money on the ground.The owner and a couple of friends gave chase and pulled the couple up in their van. Falconio got out. It is surmised that Falconio was roughed up, taken away, shot and buried.The authorities were desperate to convict someone because it would damage the tourist industry for people to think that a mad killer was on the loose.

  2. Brian Johnston says:

    To Grant Stevens: You write about a traumatic experience in darkness. Where is the evidence considering Lees lied and other events occurred. You wrote that her trauma could have affected her memory. There was no memory involved. She lied.

  3. Shirley Anderson says:

    Joanne Lees described the hand gun as being silver. Several witnesses who knew Murdoch and about various guns he had testified that Murdoch did have a silver handgun. Murdoch tried to have this evidence thrown out before the trial but wasn’t successful. You can read the Judge’s decision by downloading
    The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 79
    PARTIES: THE QUEEN
    v
    MURDOCH, Bradley John (No 5)

  4. Shirley Anderson says:

    The description of Bradley Murdoch’s appearance by someone who knew him prior to Falconio’s disappearance matches the description that Joanne’s Lees provided, and it matches the description that was provided by the female store owner of the man who entered their store shortly after midnight at the truck stop. All three description are of a long straggly hair and a Mexican type of mustache.

    Each of the witnesses provided their statements in court. A witness also stated that Murdoch changed his appearance soon after arriving in Broome on 16th.

    • denise young says:

      Murdoch, according to his friends and girlfriends never grew his hair long!
      JL changed her description of the so called assailant three times!
      Murdoch can be ruled out as being the man in the video at 00.03 by the timeline. He was in Broome at 06.00 that morning, which would mean he would have less than six hours to arrive in Broome at the time he was seen ( by several people ).
      The distance is approx 1800 klm’s which equates to 300 KPH, every hour.
      The question begs, why go back to the Alice when he was part of the way to Broome already?

  5. Felix G Smith says:

    What was the motive?
    Do you think that when Murdoch drove right next to the van that he spotted a woman and thought to get rid of the guy so that he could rape the woman? That is what I see as the motive besides a possible robbery.

    By saying that DNA isn’t 100% watertight you give me the impression that you are after a 100% certainty of what happened. But that isn’t the aim of a criminal trial nor is it a definition of beyond reasonable doubt.
    The fact that the documentary didn’t mention the one item (the hair-tie) that the police officer in charge of the investigation (a woman) considered so important is indicative of the biased nature of the documenrary. Had you been a woman would you have placed much more emphasis on the hair-tie than the men on here? The combination of the hair-tie and the DNA on the t-shirt is very significant but you aren’t factoring in the former.

    I agree with Chris when he said “But the DNA on the t-shirt was not, and amounts to pretty strong evidence. The transfer option is a pretty low probability explanation. We know eyewitness identification is flawed, but when coupled with DNA and hair tie, this becomes a relatively good case.”

    • andrew says:

      If this comment is argument intended to convince me, it has failed. What you speculate about motive, for example, cannot be taken seriously. It is just your speculation; the jury needs evidence. That which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
      As for the DNA evidence, that is addressed in the article.
      The hair tie? Yes, it is compelling, but only if it can be shown (via evidence) that it was actually taken from Lees by Murdoch. Taken…not found … It places Murdoch in the presence of Lees. It still doesn’t prove he murdered Falconio, though. Not beyond reasonable doubt.

  6. Chris says:

    The use of Steven Van Aperen to attack Joanne Lees was disgraceful and set a poor tone for the series. No, he cannot spot deception. It is well established that the methods he uses do not work. He is a snake oil salesman. Yes, some of the DNA was mixed. But the DNA on the t-shirt was not, and amounts to pretty strong evidence. The transfer option is a pretty low probability explanation. We know eyewitness identification is flawed, but when coupled with DNA and hair tie, this becomes a relatively good case. A lot of the claims made by Fraser were pretty meaningless. Finally, the guy giving evidence this many years later about jellyman, with no earlier record of such evidence, is inherently unreliable simply due to the amount of time, and not the type of new evidence that warrants a new trial. (All IMO, except the part about Van Aperen which is based on studies showing that the methods he uses do not work.)

    • andrew says:

      Yes, yes, but …. I have questions that continue to fester and undermine the security of the conviction. What was Murdoch’s motive? What did he do with the body, given the extensive search of the area? If he had taken it away in his vehicle, DNA would provide evidence. The DNA evidence is not 100% watertight, I gather. Admittedly, I am not thoroughly familiar with this case (before my Wrongful Convictions days) but I do not think his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. But happy to hear argument to convince me.

      • Jo says:

        I understand this is a slightly old post, but I came across it while looking for something on this case.

        I think it is a false assumption that there would have been Falconio’s DNA in Murdoch’s vehicle. It was a long time after the murder that he was arrested, so there was ample time for him to have cleaned his car or for any DNA to have degraded beyond being salvageable.

        Given this, Murdoch could have dumped the body in thousands and thousands of square kms. He was a drug runner who frequently travelled through the outback and knew it reasonably well. He could have picked a random spot about 200kms from the incident, driven 10kms off the road and dumped the body and it would never be found except by dumb luck, especially if he knew of disused mine shafts.

        Further, in the event it is the limited amount of DNA that leads to a query over Murdoch’s guilt, the obvious question is why nobody else’s DNA was found? I don’t think this can be both ways: if Murdoch is innocent due to a lack of DNA, it can’t be ignored that another perpetrator’s DNA didn’t exist at all. Who is this person and how did they avoid getting any of their DNA on Lees or the car?

        Unless the suggestion is that Lees is the perpetrator, a theory that doesn’t hold up to reason. What did she do with the body? Why did she come up with an insanely elaborate plot to get rid of him that involved her having to pull off an oscar winning performance and involving third parties like the truck driver?

  7. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    Felix, you raise some very important points which I acknowledge. Mention is made of the hair tie being of “incriminating evidence”.
    Other tangible evidence also provided at the trial was DNA tested and it has been pointed out how significant the DNA found on Joanne’s clothing was, the DNA found in several locations inside the van was and I believe the DNA found on the shackles used to tie Joanne’s hands was.
    My question to Grant was in reply to his raising it,”Was the hair tie DNA tested”? Grant courteously replied that he was not aware of DNA tests on the hair tie.
    It should be of concern that such a tangible piece of evidence, in this case, taken from Joanne Lee and then found apparently among the possessions of Bradley Murdoch may not have been DNA tested. Yet it becomes “a significant piece of incriminating evidence”!
    Nothing to “justify” here, sorry Felix, but my thanks to Grant for bringing it to our attention, “this significant piece of evidence”.
    The authors of the documentary deserve mention for their research.
    The CCRC, well I think Andrew has covered it.

  8. Felix G Smith says:

    The jury who found Bradley Murdoch guilty of Peter Falconio’s death, and the attack on Joanne Lee’s, were presented much more than than the DNA evidence that you write about.

    Those on here who weren’t aware of the hair-tie before yesterday’s comment by Grant Steven’s are now trying to justify the omission of that evidence from the documentary. Bradley couldn’t explain how is it that he had Joanne’s hair-tie in his possession.

    Whenever a documentary omits a significant piece of incriminating evidence then my suspicion is aroused about the integrity of information that is prevented in the documentary and its purpose.

    • John S says:

      This is getting rather heated! The hair tie is interesting evidence, but not compelling unless we can be certain it was from Lees (which I’m not yet), and if it can prove Murdoch murdered Falconio (which I doubt it ever could). The fact that it was left out of the documentary isn’t too surprising as it would distract from the real deal: did Murdoch kill Falconio? Even the DNA doesn’t prove that beyond any doubt.

      In any case, how and when did Murdoch even get the hair tie, interesting questions given that the shackles were brought to the prison Murdoch was held in at the time – making that evidence very questionable. The case is far from simple, the NT police did not do a good job of it (like Azaria case).

      Apart from lack of motive and a body (or even any evidence of body being moved, etc), what evidence was there even of a gunshot or a weapon, questions also not covered by the documentary which I think are of interest to cover.

      Incriminating evidence is simply that: incriminating, and only of interest to perhaps those ready to damn and assume guilt of those charged if they look likely. It’s a witch hunt mentality at its worst, and sensationalist otherwise. To ‘carry on’ about it in light of sensible examination is verging vexatiousness.

  9. Felix G Smith says:

    “In order for the Commission to be able to refer a case back to the appeal court, we will almost always need to identify some new evidence or other new issue that might provide grounds for a fresh appeal.”

    .https://ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/what-we-do/

    I could have used the word “identify” instead of “find”. Then my question can be rephrased as follows:

    What do you think a CCRC will indentify that will overcome the DNA evidence, the hair-tie, the description of the ute, the description of the dog, and the fact that Bradley was known to be in the area about the same time?

  10. Felix G Smith says:

    What do you think a CCRC will find that will overcome the DNA evidence, the hair-tie, the description of the ute, the description of the dog, and the fact that Bradley was known to be in the area about the same time?

    Did the documentary mention that it rained after Lees was picked up by the truckie? Was this info passed onto the experts who expected more blood at the scene of crime?

    • andrew says:

      The CCRC doesn’t find anything; it would be a body to review cases brought to it by those who claim to have been wrongfully convicted and if the CCRC deems it a valid application, refers the case to the relevant appeals court for a further appeal. It is a process intended to provide an avenue for a FURTHER right to appeal.

  11. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    Thank you for your reply Grant and also for the link to the Guardian article.
    However, unlike you, I would be surprised that this alleged piece of evidence may never have been DNA tested and although I was not present at the ‘Murdoch trial’ I am not surprised he rejected this piece of evidence. If this was “the nail in the coffin” so to speak and given the scientific responses related to other DNA findings I am now not surprised that the “hair tie” was omitted from the documentary recently shown on Channel 7.
    This is a further reason for pursuing a CCRC in every Australian state. There may be reason to doubt the outcome of a circumstantial murder conviction on such a vital piece of untested evidence.
    For whatever Bradley Murdoch has done prior to his arrest,yes, he should be accountable but, given all his prior admissions, I have my doubts he murdered Peter Falconio.

    • Felix G Smith says:

      Jerry Fitzsimmons,
      Since you are treating the hair-tie as not being of much significance I am not surprised at you statement “I have my doubts he murdered Peter Falconio.” A woman has a personal attitude and preference towards the type and style of a hair-tie she would use. Did you look online about Mary Jane style of hair-ties? I did. I noticed that they are patterned and colorful. A woman who has that preference would readily recognise that hair-tie which went missing after her struggle with a man who tried to cover her head.

  12. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    Andrew, once again you bring to our attention a recent viewing of the Bradley Murdoch conviction (circumstantial) for the murder of Peter Falconio, thank you.
    I also must concur with Grant Stevens that a hair tie was provided as evidence during the trial (“a trophy”) which was rejected by Bradley Murdoch.
    My question to Mr Stevens is; was the hair tie tested for DNA from either Joanne or Bradley and if so, was it presented as DNA evidence in the trial?
    Again, I concur with Mr Stevens when he says, and I quote “…To many people have been locked up on the basis of mistaken identity or because of some other failure in the human memory retrieval processes”.
    I think particularly of Sue Neil-Fraser who is one of those “many people” and yet another ‘circumstantial’ conviction.
    In all our opinions, which should be respected, we must never forget that there are some tormented souls out there who having sat on juries (under oath not to disclose) and now when hearing or seeing what some of these ‘cold case’ investigations are uncovering must ponder, ‘what if’.
    We should therefore collectively support the notion that there is nothing to be gained by ignoring the call for a CCRC in all states of Australia and strive to be a part of restoring a diminishing respect towards all our law enforcers for the sake of true justice.

    • Grant Stevens says:

      I am not aware of DNA tests on the hair tie. I think that the hair tie was recognised by Lees to be hers because of an identifying feature of a particular style called ‘Mary Jane’ hair tie.

      Refer to these two paragraphs in another news article

      “Then a detective – the one Gwynne had chosen for her acute attention to detail and who had sifted through thousands of Murdoch’s belongings – discovered a small, round, Mary Jane hair tie.

      “It was the hair tie that was taken from Joanne Lees when she struggled to survive and keep her life. [Murdoch] had it wrapped around his shoulder holster, inside his belongings. I think it was a trophy but no one will ever know.”

      https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/we-know-who-did-this-how-solving-peter-falconios-changed-a-detectives-life?__twitter_impression=true

      It is surprising that the 4 part Episode documentary left out this significant piece of evidence.

  13. Grant Stevens says:

    Despite Murdoch’s DNA in several locations including inside the van, and despite the finding of Lees’ hair tie in Murdoch’s possession, there are people with inaccurate opinions that Lee’s lied; about ants (who don’t come out during a cold mid-winter’s night to chomp on someone’s blood); about witnesses who mistook another person for Peter Falconio; about a failed lawyer who doesn’t understand that human memory cannot be trusted to be accurate, etc.

    I wonder when will people in general accept that one cannot rely on witness statements. Too many people have been locked up on the basis of mistaken identity or because of some other failure in the human memory retrieval processes.

    • Susan Manning says:

      The hair tie was not lees. Simple thats why it wasnt used in evidence. It was a common black elastic one not what she described as a plattered 3 stranded tie. It had no link to lees.

  14. owen allen says:

    I pray for Jesus to Bless wrongfully convicted people worldwide. Their families friends and supporters Bless them Jesus and give them strength and bring justice.
    I pray in your name Jesus. AMEN.
    Owen the Michael.

  15. Peter says:

    I would like to know what happens now. Do the Police take up and run with all this new evidence to investigate.
    A. the red car with 3 male persons one assisted by other 2 others to get in that car
    B. Falconio’s sighting and the vehicle being fuelled in a strange manner
    C.Falconio’s statement to friend about Life Insurance “ Ive got it covered”, has any Insurance Company come forward or been approached, was a claim made and who got the insurance if any.
    D. Has parents and Lee’s Bank accounted been checked in that period
    E. What happened about the affair Lee’s had and going to meet up with him later. Was he ever interviewed

    • Jenn says:

      As a psych nurse for many years it is clear JL has a nasty borderline personality disorder. The way she performs in interviews and what is mentioned of her behaviour towards people trying to help her and how she turned on them it is clear she was very manipulative. BPD love attention I think she lied about recognising BM and the description of his dog she states a “blue heeler” a term she learned from asking what kind of dog a person owned at Barrow Creek and in the workshop in Alice where the Kombi was fixed. She was treated like a movie star in the court hearings and trials. It is also clear that the NT didn’t want a repeat performance of the Chamberlan outcome and a blight on their tourist industry. It so seems Peter Falconio was no angel. Why have we heard no background on him ? Apparently he was a scammer and a small time drug dealer. I can’t believe the jury ignored all the discrepancies in JL time lines and descriptions of the Ute and persons appearance. It is such a set up. Poor Murdoch. He admits to being a criminal but vehemently Denies harming her or Falconio. The people who perpetrated the crime are out there and Lee’s knows she lied but BPD are pathological which is how she was so convincing.

  16. Brian Johnston says:

    [Edited] The author opened his story saying Falconio and Lees were attacked. Where is the evidence.
    There is a lot wrong with this case. I am convinced Murdoch is innocent. I am not able to view the programme though have been told the truck drivers saw 2 men loading a dead weight into a red vehicle and 2 pages of their statement were left out. The dead weight is surely Falconio.
    When Joanne Lees described going into the back of Murdoch’s vehicle she was lying and basing her story on her experiences with a kombi.
    A tracker noticed that ants did not eat the blood on the highway. Odd.
    Joanne Lees lied all the way and would not talk to the media. The cops bought her story and she did not want to run the risk of the media catching her out.

    • Grant Stevens says:

      It is extremely irresponsible and insulting to say thar Lees lied.

      Anyone going through such a sudden traumatic experience, in darkness and in the middle of a desert, will have an inaccurate memory of everything that happened and how it happened.

      Why people trust the documentary over the trial evidence is beyond me.

      • John S says:

        I’m not relying on a few selected things shown in such a documentary either, but it does raise significant doubts that have few satisfactory explanations that are beyond reasonable doubt.

        This case is clearly an example of what a CCRC needs to be established for and examining. Given the NT’s record of poor governance and of conducting criminal trials that stand up to scrutiny, there is ample ground to doubt the outcome of this case.

      • Brian Johnston says:

        To Grant Stevens: I did not see the recent documentary film. I formed my opinion years ago. What happened on the road that night is different to what Lees says. She originally described a guy with long hair and a droopy moustache and certainly not
        6′ 4”. She also described a blue heeler. Murdoch had a Dalmatian. Truckies said she was warm when they picked her up. There were no footprints of Murdoch and his dog when he went looking for Lees.
        Lees said Murdoch climbed into the kombi and they fell out the other side. A man of Murdoch’s size does not hop into a vehicle as described. She said he marched her to his vehicle and turned her head so she could not see Peter. She then claimed he put her in the front seat of his vehicle what! so she could watch him dealing with Peter? She gets over this problem by saying she screamed. If she sat in the front she would be covered in dog hair. She then scrambled into the rear of the vehicle. To overcome this problem the story was changed to Lees being pushed into the rear. She saw everything and yet sees nothing.
        Lees lied.

        • denise young says:

          In the first part of the four part mini-series it shows a re-enactment in which Jl is seen sitting in the tray of a ute. She then gets out of the ute, stands up and states that she thought she ran into the bush on her right side. She then states that she could not have done this because he ( BM ) was standing at the right rear corner of the ute ( so he was on her right side ) so thinks she must have run to the left side i.e she crossed over the road into the bush. She then has the audacity to ask the policeman, Can you help me, I’m not sure etc. Really?
          The problem with this scene is that she has said on several occasions that BM was off somewhere else which enabled her to make her escape!
          —————————————————————————-
          Whilst watching the first part on a catchup channel I noticed that the lawyer’s mate on two occasions whilst talking, held in his hand a document. I paused the play and read what was visible. In one sentence JL states that they were doing about 65 MPH when a vehicle pulled up along side . I find this strange for one simple reason, the Kombi’s engine was on its last legs ( according to the mechanic who worked on it, he stated the engine needed a complete overhaul ) For those that have no knowledge of VW Kombi’s. A brand new Kombi has a maximum speed of 65 MPH, so for JL to claim what she did is stretching the truth somewhat. I myself have driven a Kombi and can say this in all honesty, they are woefully under powered.

          • Jenn says:

            Same. We had a couple of later models. T 3s and they were more powerful than the T 2 they had but we only ever pushed it to 100 K per hour on the highway. Also T2 s back fire and JL said the motor was running when PF went around the back with “The man “…a backfiring car can sound like a gunshot. I would say a woman who can’t discriminate between a blue heeler and a Dalmatian wouldn’t know a gunshot from a backfiring car.

      • breez says:

        Absolutely agree re traumatic experiences and memory.

        Lees may not have responded the way many people think she should have. That doesn’t mean she was lying, or that she is cold, or was involved. Enough with the victim blaming!!!

  17. Keith says:

    Thankyou Andrew for including this case on your website. I’m sure you wouldn’t want Murdoch as your son in law however that does not preclude him from getting a fair trial. The series raised a number of points, not the least of which was the lack of clarity by Lees in her interviews. The main issue I could never resolve at the time was her claim that Murdoch bundled her into the back of the ute through the front seats when no Toyota or any other ute is configured that way – they are a cabin and a tray or a twin cab. This was glossed over yet is key to her testimony suggesting she was being loose with the truth.
    Murdoch is a crook but there is sufficient evidence to reasonably doubt that he did it.

  18. John S says:

    There are many strange things about this case, sadly all too familiar to those who remember the Azaria case in the 1980s.

    1. Like Azaria, Falconio’s body never found! Strange co-incidence!

    2. Questionable evidence used: ‘fetal’ blood in Azaria’s case that turned out to be wrong. DNA of Murdoch found in very few places, despite what seemed like an ordeal. The skeric of DNA found on Lee’s t-shirt was the best DNA found. The other DNA was really too mixed to be any good, and likely to have come from Lee’s visit to Red Rooster.

    3. Many other strange things: lack of Murdoch’s foot prints at the scene, uncertain blood found at scene, red car speeding off – never identified! What was Murdoch’s motive? Why would he even stop if he was ‘drug running’?

    Sounds so Neill-Fraser like. Given the Azaria Chamberlain case outcome, could we ever have any faith in any NT trial! I would think not!

    It’s not an open and shut case! But the NT don’t want to look in to it! Bit scrutiny shy, like the Azaria case! Very rough justice in the NT, stay home!

  19. Grant Stevens says:

    Why did you leave our the evidence that Murdoch had in his possession something that belonged to Lees?

    “The item that ultimately convicted Murdoch was a small, non-descript everyday item, an elastic hair-tie.”

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/coming-face-to-face-with-bradley-john-murdoch/8117358

    • andrew says:

      I didn’t leave it out so much as it wasn’t included in the series which is what this story is about. I also point out that the test for a guilty verdict is that the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Murdoch was charged with Falconio’s murder, not Lees’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.