Falconio/lees

blokes saying he,s innocent,dodgy evidence allegedly

Think the implication in the programme will be that the fella they imprisoned was a fall guy to tidy up the crime so it didn’t affect the tourist industry.

I am looking forward to it.

Another case where public opinion was very much played by newspapers.

Will be nice to watch without bias other than that
I thought him guilty.

Chance, hopefully to see both sides without court rulings
On evidence.

Good start

Part 2 tomorrow I think.

A very flimsy piece of documentary that offers no new evidence or information about the tragic case of the disappearance of Peter Falconio in 2001. The main protagonist is disgraced former lawyer and ex con, who seems to have had a habit, in the past, of "befriending" notorius killers in prison, and trying to make money out of them. The programme consists mainly of Andrew Fraser (the ex-laywer in question) speculating about what he thinks "could have happened", with a few equally woolly contributions form the truck driver who found Joanne Lees and doesn't know any more than he was able to tell the court at the time, and a bloke who coud most accurately be described as "one of Fraser's mates". There are another 3 episodes of this to come. And I for one won't be wasting my time  on them.

If you re going to pick holes in Joanna lees s account then it’s got to be that she reckoned she was hiding for 5 hours & the murderers dog couldn’t find her.thats difficult to believe.

The first episode was a rough overview of what happened and left a cliff-hanger at the end.
It's obvious we will get down to the nitty-gritty in the next 3 episodes.

ye can watch the remaining episodes now on catch up, if you're inclined to

Mrs wants to watch em on tv, so I shall struggle through.

The struck off lawyer seems hell bent on creating reasonable doubt

But if he wants an appeal he will need lots more than that

watched the 1st ep this morning & the lorry drivers 'new evidence' chat, looks pushed

Could have been a different bloke, f words all over.

Had he taken something?


They didn't clarify, unless I missed it, how far away from
crime scene was the guy driving wrecklessly.

Thanks Bap.

not a bother

i was gonna say i've never seen a witness so stoned

I did think last night that the lawyer was unlawyerly with his language, to the point of crude.
Rumpole would've blushed

a convicted druggie interviewing a stoned/ill witness would never look good tbh, Fire

I'm nearly always in favour of the trial being correct,but this one is highly suspect
Lees seems far from trustworthy ,very cold and almost detached. Murdochs conviction starting to look a bit suspect.

Saw episode 2

Shes not a brilliant witness.

Still no rebuttal of dna evidence


Pretting damming that the dna on her shirt links to a guy who
had recently had abduction case against him dropped.

Saw episode 2

Shes not a brilliant witness.

Still no rebuttal of dna evidence


Pretting damming that the dna on her shirt links to a guy who
had recently had abduction case against him dropped.

Only watched it once...

Watched all the episodes last night.cant make my mind up whether she’s deliberately being vague & evasive or just plain stupid.the spot of dna could have been explained by them visiting the same cafe that morning,a re-enactment of the crime scene from lees version of events suggested that she should have had far more of his dna on her clothing than a tiny spot.she d also been ******** another bloke in Sydney prior to them setting off.plenty of alarm bells ringing about the validity of her story..

Lees has a lot of holes in her story/demeanor.

Don't really matter how small the dna was.

It would be up to defence to explain where it came from.

Without explanation he's rather nailed.

The dna issue is addressed in part 4.
I won't spoil it for you

i've watched just the 2; & i now remember what i found so intriguing about the case. Lees norks! No surprise someone else was getting a portion, as she does come across as a dominating type

yeah, what a minx. that top she wore in her 2nd press interview was so out of place.
bunny boiler potential aplenty with her
Also wonder how much life insurance was paid out and who got it?

also did anyone else find the holding hands bits with the deceased bro, unsettling?

I didn't find it unsettling but I did note it as a bit odd

probably the wrong word, Donny. Unseemly maybe better

I guess the idea of the program is to get us to examine her
and not murdoch.

well it's either Murdoch or she knows more, can't see anyone else being turned up. Dunno whether she's just a bit thick; or very devious

Some other bloke in the frame that they can't find

Then he's not even dead, it's an insurance scam.

Must be leaving dna for climax...

getting more suspicious about the bro

4 hours

Well done to lawyer selling this to chanel 4 for money

Nothing there for me, lots of carefully worded smoke screens.

Dna still nails him

Yeah

'There should have been more dna'

Well if Murdoch didn't do it there shouldn't be any. The sat in the same bar seat hours apart to explain the DNA on the shirt seemed desperate straw clutching. Also a remarkable coincidence that Murdoch had been put on the radar by someone who knew him before the DNA was tested. 

I would say Lees seemed more suspicious than I recalled at the time though. Thought she had just been not media friendly, but she seemed actually quite indifferent to the whole business. It would be odd if the only footprints off road were hers, though I didn't hear the police say that was the case.

I just can't see what motive she had to be involved. If she wanted to leave the guy then just leave him, rather than dream up some epic murder mystery that has a lot of ways to go wrong.

Oh he did a good job highlighting inconsistencies, especially in Lees.
and he may well have got murdoch off if he was his trial
lawyer and there was no dna

He made no attempt to interview murdoch drug partner that
named murdoch as a suspect.