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.

I mean that guy who was disputing the height of the suspect in the petrol station by measuring him against the wall in the picture. He was already well away from the wall in the picture and was stooping, bad posture

As if getting your ruler out in that situation proves anything

Exactly. I do wonder sometimes where they find these “experts”.

Re. The DNA, in the court case, DNA Fromm Murdoch was not only found on her tshirt, it was also found on her wrist restraints AND the gear shift for the kombi van.

This is one of the most piss poor documentaries I’ve ever seen.

And it's poor Joanne who has to live with it all being raked over again. Has to put up with people who know her watching it, believing the crap, judging her, whispering behind her back.

This is one of the most piss poor documentaries I’ve ever seen.

Yep! It was comical. Two men with a chip on their shoulder that a woman managed to get one of their own (drug dealer) put away.

Agree it's a rubbish program, first they hinted it was Joanne, then some mystery man who shot his dog, then that Peter faked his death for life insurance, then the police fitted up the suspect with a bogus charge to get his DNA. Gave up at that point. Seems like something that would be on one of those channels no one watches - not C4.

I've recorded to watch , I was a bit put off it's over 4 episodes could they not have done it in 1 or 2 .
Reading the comments on here I'm thinking is it worth it ?

And the completely brushed over the fact BM was tried for abduction and rape of two other women. What a coincidence!

Before it got to that episode they kept saying “there’s no motive”. I thought the motive was obvious from the off- he was abducting JL to rape her. Am I way off the mark here? To me that was a no brainer.

I’m confused as to what happened. Why was peter shot in the first place and the woman tied up? Did the gunman want to steal their possessions.....just seems so bizarre.

Reading the comments on here I'm thinking is it worth it

Not really tbh.

When my great grandmother's husband, died in the war she married his brother.

Yes very odd if Joanne has indeed married Peter's brother.

Why was peter shot in the first place and the woman tied up? Did the gunman want to steal their possessions.

Well the killer won’t explain that so we don’t know but as he put her in the back of his truck I assumed he was stealing her rather than her possessions. I would guess he shot peter so he could kidnap her much easier and leave no witnesses.

Makes me wonder how many other rapes and disappearances he is responsible for.

The fact that neither the defence or the police have ever talked about a life insurance policy suggests there wasn’t one. Not many unmarried guys in their 20s have life insurance. It would have been unusual and I think the defence would have made more of it if it existed.

I think I always assumed Murdoch meant to rape Joanne. So shot Peter and tied her up ready to take her somewhere.

People must be exceptionally hard of thinking people if they can't see a motive.

So far the series has done nothing to change my mind - quite the opposite. Most of us on this thread can see that the lawyer, the writer, and most of the witnesses are just not credible (to put it mildly). We can see huge holes in the supposed new evidence. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case with the general viewing public. I don't buy that it has been harmful to JL or her reputation at all.

Yes if it was supposed to make me think she did it, it has done just the opposite.

I’m shocked at the misogyny and had no idea it was so bad at that time. The program has made me quite angry!

I agree Delatron - it's actually a good expose of the criminally prejudiced behaviour displayed towards JL during the course of the investigation and trial.

I am going to read separately about the "facts that don't add up" as they haven't come up in the programme so far. I don't expect to change my pov.

@Bluemoooon

Why did she say she didn't stop at the first petrol station when the owner saw her. You wouldn't set out into the wilderness without at least considering where you will have to get petrol.

Wasn't Falconio driving? Presumably it was his decision to keep going.

@CheerfuIPotato

I mean that guy who was disputing the height of the suspect in the petrol station by measuring him against the wall in the picture. He was already well away from the wall in the picture and was stooping, bad posture

As if getting your ruler out in that situation proves anything

Exactly. I do wonder sometimes where they find these “experts”.

Oh, I think if you're a struck-off solicitor out to make a quick buck off a TV station you can find someone to say anything you want.

@Walkingtohealth

When my great grandmother's husband, died in the war she married his brother.

Yes very odd if Joanne has indeed married Peter's brother.

Ditto my grandfather, who married one sister, then married her younger sister after she died.

Can of coke and a Mars bar. Definitely Peter as that is a true Brit in action right there

JL is from my neck of the woods. Everyone says she comes over as cold and weird; however that doesn't mean she's guilty of anything.

So they've never found the body? And he was supposedly shot but none of his DNA was found at the scene?

I missed the first episode!

There was blood at the scene which was his blood. I’m sure they said it was his so I assume his dna in the blood?

The stuff they said in this episode about the low level,dna not being admissible in some countries was what I was talking about in an earlier post the other day. So possibly in some countries he wouldn’t have been convicted.

They didn't say it was his blood at the scene

There was barely a mention of the blood at the scene but it was surely PF's.