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.

Well tonight’s episode seems to be going down the route I suspected it would. Aspersions being totally cast at Joanne. Pretty shitty.

She smiled when she said she didn't kill him. My dd with ASD smiles or laughs on hearing bad news or being asked difficult questions. Tonight's episode is really one-sided.

Yes she doesn’t act or dress like they think she should therefore she must have done it.

Of course you would have a hazy, incomplete memory of a traumatic event. The police were on such a wind up saying they couldn’t find a gun that fit her description. Why would she remember the details of a gun?

It says it all that the female journalist believed her.

Oh and she was pretend crying too. Because her mascara wasn’t smudged..

I think smiling, even laughing when nervous/stressed isn’t unusual.

She had no motive to kill him. They weren’t married, if she wanted to,split she could just call it off. He had no insurance, she didn’t gain anything from his death.

It can’t have been a spur of the moment killing (by her) as it would have needed too much planning.

Have only watched episode 1 do they explain if there is evidence of PF in the back of the ute otherwise where did he disappear to? It’s really odd, there would surely be loads of evidence against the bloke done for it as he would have removed the body.

They haven’t covered that yet. But iirc the only scientific evidence against him was some of his dna on her T-shirt. Nothing was found in his truck that I remember reading about.

Just read an interesting article about the reliability of the dna technique they used for the dna on her T-shirt as well.

here

I can't stand this ex-defence lawyer.

This appears to be a few men trying hard to paint Joanne as some kind of evil witch but so far there is no actual substance to any of it. It's a very poorly made programme.

I'm appalled at the police "interview" technique shown tonight. I suspect much like the Madeleine McCann case, the police bungled the investigation from the get go.

That link isn't working for me Jacob

I think times have changed so much.
Nowadays I am.sure people any think she has ASd perhaps.

Oh sorry, maybe you need Athens access or something. It’s a journal article about low level dna profiling which apparently is what was used and has been discredited in other cases.

I can’t remember if his ute was “clean” or if it had been scrapped by the time he was a person of interest. Guess it was some time afterwards that they would have been checking it.

Someone above mentioned Amanda Knox, and Joanne Lees reminds me a bit of her.

She doesn't seem like a particularly pleasant person. But that doesn't mean she's a criminal.

There are a lot of inconsistencies

The ex defence lawyer seems to be after his 10 minutes of fame, but his sidekick (forgotten name) comes across as positively gleeful about every tiny piece of "evidence" that backs up their theory that JL was somehow involved. You can almost see him rubbing his hands on his thighs.

Agree that the police interviewers are coming across really badly. What was that nonsense about the gun?!!

I don't understand why everyone seemed to expect her to do media interviews
I would think the majority of people would not do media interviews after going through something like that

There are a lot of inconsistencies. I think she is lying/hiding something but I don't know what.
IF the jelly man was real then who were the two men holding him up?
You're right, I wouldn't want to do the media interviews either, so I don't hold that against her.

I find it odd that after losing her soul mate she then chose to get in a relationship with his brother

I can think of several people who lost their partner and ended up with a very close friend of theirs, so I don't think a brother is that far a stretch, if true.

I gave up after about 40 minutes last night.

Another woman condemned because she didn't wear the right clothes , act "the way you would", or cry dramatically enough, just like Kate, Amanda and Lindy.

I thought the way she was acting in the police interview was odd and could be perceived as guilty but maybe that just how she spoke/acted normally, it would be interesting for someone who knew her before the incident to give an insight into that.

@purpleme12

I don't understand why everyone seemed to expect her to do media interviews I would think the majority of people would not do media interviews after going through something like that

Do you remember Tracie Andrews? Always very keen to give interviews and it emerged that she had actually murdered her boyfriend, and he wasn’t killed in a road rage incident as she described.

No I don't know about her

They didn’t mention Nick Riley then? I missed a lot of tonight’s episode.

Yes, Nick Riley was discussed in some detail.

I think she clocked the media were not on her side from the start and that they were going to potentially twist her words. Maybe she knew she wasn’t coming across well?

I tried to put myself in her position. The police were hell bent on trying to trip her up and find holes in her story. She was getting frustrated that they were focusing on her. I can imagine being very scared they would pin it on me and I think you would close down in that situation for fear of saying the wrong thing.

They had the DNA evidence. Just because she had an affair doesn’t mean she did it. They kept going om and on about the 28 calls in one day. Irrelevant. She may have moved on from her boyfriend. May not have been in love with him but there’s no motive to kill him and no evidence.

The media wound me up the whole time. Whining about her now doing interviews as if they were entitled to hear from her. And then chasing her around after everything she'd been through. The SCAN report was obviously some kind of bogus science as well!

The ex defence lawyer seems to be after his 10 minutes of fame, but his sidekick (forgotten name) comes across as positively gleeful about every tiny piece of "evidence" that backs up their theory that JL was somehow involved. You can almost see him rubbing his hands on his thighs.

Yes, they only introduced him with his name, no comment on his background. Then he says he's only ever done PR and communications, so why is there a TV show giving him coverage on what he thinks of this case? The whole show is shonky. If a person or peoples with legitimate backgrounds in this sort of thing started questioning the police investigation, in a methodical and detailed way, then there'd be a show worth watching. But not these two shysters