Murder in the Outback, Channel 4 tonight and next 3 nights

[Chicchicchicchiclana]

Anyone else watching?

I was quite gripped by the first part. I sort of remember the case although I was very caught up in the world of having a new baby when it happened back in 2001 and probably wasn't fully engaged with the news.

I do remember reading several fairly long news articles about the case over the years and know that Joanne Lees has always been regarded with suspicion in some quarters.

The thing I'm taking from tonight's episode is - how are they going to explain away the suspect/accused Brad Murdoch's DNA being present on her t-shirt?

Also, the defence lawyer. I don't know about him.

DH and I are also really struggling with the DNA on Joanne’s t shirt.
Also the truck driver who was first on the scene; why is he only talking now about the suspicious red car??

Years ago I read quite a few different books on this case. I certainly don’t think that Joannne had anything to do with it regardless of what the media tried to portray.

No idea why the truck driver is only saying this stuff about the other car and a semi conscious “jelly” man now....surely at the time if this was true he’d have thought it could be
Peter and tell the police?

How did the dna get on her shirt if it wasn’t Murdoch? Could contamination in the lab be possible? Surely not if his sample was taken from him years after the sample was taken from her shirt?

He certainly sounds convincing in his denials. And I take on board the point it’s an odd crime for him to do when he has no previous of that sort of crime....well nothing he’d been caught for I guess.

I do agree that his denials do have a kind of plausibility. But we either have faith in DNA evidence or we don't. I'm intrigued to see how this defence guy is going to play that.

This seems like the kind of fodder that would be shown on the History Channel with UFO conspiracy shows and ones about secret Nazi treasures. So hard to believe the truck driver never mentioned the red car to the police at the time. This series feels like a vanity project for the struck off lawyer

I'm not watching it, but there's a great article in the Radio Times this week by Ginny Dougary who interviewed Joanne Lees in 2006 and has in-depth knowledge of the case. It's written in an even-handed way, but highlights what an odd choice it is by Channel 4 to air this.

"The series consultants are disgraced former criminal defence lawyer Andrew Fraser, who once enjoyed a £100k a year cocaine habit and who served five years in prison in 2001 for involvement in cocaine smuggling, and his business partner Victor Susman who, in 2011, was quoted as saying 'This is just a great story. We see a book deal in this as well as the factual documentary. This is a fantastic opportunity.' They drive the narrative of the investigation, with the hand of Channel 4 almost visibly descending from time to time with counter-points in an attempt at balance."

A C4 dept head acknowledges the consultants are 'completely flawed characters. They would probably say that about themselves and also are unreliable in some ways' but still thinks it's ok for them to investigate this case.

The article goes on to point out that "in each episode, there are moments presented as fresh responses to an old case but which were, in fact, raised at the time and rejected as invalid."
The series looks at the possibility Falconio staged his own disappearance and was an expert in insurance fraud - but doesn't even say whether he had even taken out a policy on his own life or had one cashed in (the presumption is no, otherwise they'd say!).

C4 guy says 'there's a strong sense in Australia that there was something nefarious going on' and talks about how she behaved at the press conference. Dougary contacted a dozen Aus journalists and they all disagreed and one says that it's more suspicious for victims or witnesses of traumatic events to have perfect recall and stories that add up perfectly."

I also wonder about the rape & abduction charge Murdoch was acquitted of too.

Myself, I don't have any extra knowledge of this case but the way this article makes it seem it is in very poor taste imo.

Well said LanaDelBoy, that's the feeling i get from this show

Hmmm. Similar thoughts from me re DNA, new red car story and questionable commentators...

Now am really looking forward to further episodes where I fully expect the defence lawyer and sidekick to make an unconvincing hash of things - which will be interesting tv in itself.

The truck driver said about the car in his police statement at the time. I don't think the police did a good job investigating at all. Joanne is now with Pete's brother which I find odd.

Joanne is now with Pete's brother which I find odd.

That's all the evidence i need, lock her up

Blimey

@Cruddles Did that make you feel clever?

I don't see the point in going over old ground, it's a clear cut case

Did that make you feel clever?

I'm not sure what your comment had to do with the investigation or the show

@Cruddles Joanne Lees is a major part of the case. I find it odd that after losing her soul mate she then chose to get in a relationship with his brother. Is that okay with you?

I don't find it hard she would get with his brother (if it's true). People bond over trauma in these sort of situations.

I feel very sorry for her having this all raked over again.

But I would argue that it's more likely this programme will prove once and for all that they got the right man and she is entirely innocent of anything suspicious. That's the way it seems to be going to me.

I've looked at old Mumsnet threads about the trial (from 2004/2005!) and there was a lot of suspicion about Joanne Lees, even on here, just because she wasn't acting as posters would have wanted .

I'd really like the thread to stay because I do want to discuss the programme with other people who are watching it.

I hope so.

I'm suspicious it will focus on her alleged odd behaviour in press conferences, etc. I think the media hated the fact she wouldn't play the game so turned on her. There's always been the comments that she couldn't have hidden like she said she did, why didn't his dog find her, there weren't footprints, the blood spatter was all wrong for what she said, etc, how could she get her cable tied hands infront of her, she wouldn't have been able to step through like she said.

All of which heavily implies she did it and made some crazy story up and there were definite hints of this last night.

That whole "she wasn't acting as posters would like"

thing just reminds me of the (imo false) suspicions around Madeleine McCann's mother.

A very closed down trauma response is common. Not floods of tears.

Also agree re trauma bonding could well lead to relationship with brother (although not necessarily a great foundation for a long term relationship)

Yes, and also Amanda Knox.

Where is the evidence that she is now in a relationship with Peter’s brother?

Why didn’t the new witness come forward before?

I'm watching it now , she was holding the brothers hand during the interviews and I wondered if they were together now. She is a funny fish but as someone else said so is amanda Knox and I'm sure she is innocent ( obvs proved ) .

I couldn't work out if the guy holding her hand was a new boyfriend or the brother. Yet he was the spokesman for the family. I thought maybe he held her hand just as support but it looked more than that to me. Very odd.

It’s really shitty of channel 4. It’s basically the Most Haunted approach to a long solved case. There’s no substance to it and they know it, but they also know people will watch.