|
Re: Murdoch is innocent
Originally Posted by manxfamily
Good post but I still dont know where Mr Kipper was in all of this.
|
Re: Murdoch is innocent
Originally Posted by phoenixinoz
He was with Elvis:D
|
Re: Murdoch is innocent
Originally Posted by Lewis Lapthorn
[list][*]DNA from Lees' t-shirt could have been from when Murdoch and Lees bumped in to each other while at the Alice Springs Red Rooster fast food restaurant earlier that day.
Vash I know Hutch could have hurt your feelings by being a little tactless, but come on mate, quotes like this are getting a bit silly. As for the rape aquital. It was an agreement between the NT and SA, so that he be tried for the more serious crime - in order to receive the harsher sentence. However I do note.. that you include no source for your prepostrous claims about his tax debt. If you look into this, it turns out that he owed no money at home whatsoever. He owned his own home and owed a small amount of tax for a bit of holiday work he'd done in Australia. I can find no reference whatsoever to the 'FACT's you posted and strangely, given the fact that you include 'sources' for everything else, you fail to include one for this. The true facts are this: Falconio was in Australia on a work visa. When processing his tax per week on his income, his various employers had calculated it presuming that he was an Australian resident. Therefore, were he to lodge a tax return, he would have owed money. That would have been in the order of $3,000 - $5,000 or thereabouts which is hardly worth faking your ****ing death over and, as his own accountant pointed out, most poms just **** off home leaving the debt here knowing that they're highly unlikely to be pursued. So to sum up ... relevance of your point - **** ALL. IF you're going to use sources for everything else, at least be consistent. Yep - my bad about the hand-cuffs, she lubricated them with the lip balm, but did swing them from her back to her front, as she demonstrated in court during the trial. Re the body: a) he had shovels b) 'they searched the entire area' - what, like the entire outback, damn that's impressive - hope those aboriginal trackers were on an hourly rate. Lest we forget he had many hours to disappear that body and he could well have used his van to move out a long way away from the scene of the crime and the attentions of the elite aboriginal tracking unit. Here's some quotes (mainly BBC - Google for 'em if you want) "Murdoch moved large amounts of cannabis around Australia, taking amphetamines as he drove through the night." or how about "Murdoch, high on amphetamines, became paranoid about the couple after seeing them several times on the highway while he was on a drug-smuggling run from South Australia to Broome." To sum up, he was on speed - it makes you paranoid and frantic, not stupid - try some, you might like it. Re: moving the body - he's a big mother****er (six four or something and built like a brick shithouse) - any reasonably fit man could lift that amount of deadweight. You move 'em like firemen do, over a shoulder, slightly crouched. Don't assume that just because you can't do something, others can't. Re: the gun thing - well, there are myriad examples of women struggling for their lives under such circumstances - a sweeping assumption about how a stranger would react under those conditions gets us nowhere - as I said, they wouldn't all just accept their fates. And with regard to the gun colour - it was a moonless night but could well have glinted in the car headlights. Re: the dna. They bump into other!!! ROFL! Re: the tape and lip gloss - oh well, if they used the same amazing trackers that searched for the body then that explains everything. Re: the description - well this actually weakens your argument more than mine - if she was double-crossing Murdoch, surely she'd have given a perfect description? Re: Murdoch travelling out of his way - why not? Because you say so? You know him intimately? Re: the video footage - *shrugs*. Re: his appearance - wooo Sherlock, isn't it possible then, that he changed his appearance between doing Falconio and being discovered, hence Lee's incorrect description? Re: the DNA evidence. Yada yada - the defence claim it was unreliable, because, ermm, that's what defence teams do. Let's say it wasn't 1 in 150 quadrillion certain to be Murdoch's DNA, but a more modest 1 in 50,000. Still pretty damn compelling evidence. Re: the 'acquital' for the rape and imprisonment - see Lewis Lapthorn's post. There are questions in this case. Just not many of the ones you ask. I think probably the most interesting of these is the front seat to rear of van thing. Why say it since there was no rear access to the van from the front seats? Maybe he had two vans! Maybe police planted the van with the killing kit and the hidden guns and the identical handcuffs and the shovels. Maybe Elvis was Murdoch's co-driver and he distracted Falconio by singing 'All shook up' whilst Murdoch killed him. And what about those moon-landings - all those shadows are wrong - no way did they really fly to the moon, it was staged in the Nevada desert. Interesting thing I read today, since many 'Murdoch was innocent' posters seem to base their opinion on the way Lee's behaved during the trial. SOURCE . "All I'm saying is that we have a lot of unanswered questions in a confusing case with a mass of conflicting evidence. And that's all I've ever said." And all I'm saying is, it was all so conflicting that the jury, presented with the evidence in court, convicted him in less time than a lawyer takes for lunch. Does this count towards my finals, sir? Please sir... :zzz: |
Re: Murdoch is innocent
Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede
Interesting that you should say this, as I have read nowhere that she actually got out of them (got a source for that, by the way?) - only that she managed to get her hands round from behind her back to her front.
Like so many people, you appear to believe that the outback is some sort of mysterious place where things magically vanish the moment they are taken a few metres from the tarmac. In fact, the outback is flat as a pancake and sparsely decorated with small, low-lying foliage. If he'd dumped the body a mere 200 metres from the road, the Aboriginal trackers would have found it in no time at all. (Were you forgetting that they searched the entire area?) OK, so she hid out for five hours; he didn't search for her that long. My mistake. (Still, why hide out for five hours if Murdoch had already driven away?) But she didn't run "into the bush", since there was no "bush" to run into. We are not talking about masses of forest here; we are talking about mid-sized scrub and trees at the very most. Here's the scene: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...arrowcreek.jpg That patch of greenery on the right would have been her safest bet - but it's not exactly impenetrable, is it? Particularly when your quarry is scared out of her wits and probably breathing like a steam train. Where's the evidence to show that he was "out of his brain on amphetamines and booze"? This is the first I've heard of it. And if he was so "out of his brain on amphetamines and booze" as to be incapable of finding Lees in the scrub, how exactly did he get it together for long enough to stop the couple, murder the boyfriend - taking care to clean up so well that only a tiny drop of blood and a few scraps of DNA could be found, which he successfully achieved despite the obvious visual challenges of a moonless night - tie up the girlfriend, manhandle the girlfriend into the back of his ute, and dispose of the boyfriend's body, leaving no footprints, drag marks or signs of a struggle? Quite a feat. Fine, but how did Murdoch move the body to its hiding place unaided? He must be one impressive bloke to lift a dead weight and carry it across the road to a ute (or whatever he did with it.) And seeing that this would have brought him into close proximity with the body, how did he avoid getting more blood on himself than he did? She actually claimed that he attempted to tie her legs. He would not even have bothered if he didn't have enough tape to do it with in the first place. It has nothing to do with "gutlessly accepting your fate" or "dying like a pussy"; it has everything to do with a realistic response to a dangerous situation. How many people would realistically struggle against a man with a gun who'd just shot their boyfriend? The only explanation I can come up with is that he didn't threaten her with the gun at the time, or wasn't armed with it when he went to tie her legs. Oh, and...
Source. Did he really, indeed? You mean he owned it outright? With no mortgage whatsoever? Not a penny owed on it? Because that would be the only condition under which this little snippet could possibly have any relevance to the topic at hand. Fact: Falconio owed money that he did not have. Fact: Falconio was very keen to avoid paying that debt. Fact: Falconio was sufficiently keen to avoid paying that debt, that he actually investigated the possibility of faking his own death and disppearing. Relevance of home ownership: zero. Variously: (a) weak, (b) inconclusive, and (c) dismissed as inadmissible by the judge:
Source. See also:
Source. Just remind me, please - when and where was he convicted of any such crime? Because I only know of two convictions for Bradley Murdoch:
Source. See also:
Source. The court decided that he is innocent of that crime. The jury reached this conclusion after a mere four hours; three hours less than another jury took to convict him of Falconio's murder. "During the crime"? You're saying that he said this "during" a crime which a court subsequently agreed that he did not commit? Mere hearsay. And "why even mention it"? The prosecution explained this during the Falconio trial:
Source. That's why. "According to the Independent"? Pfffft. I'm more interested in "according to the court records." Do the court records actually contain this impressive list of kit? Was it proved and accepted on all sides that this was the contents of his van at the time of the alleged murder? Who says he's innocent? Not me. I have never claimed that he is innocent of the crime, just as I have never claimed (since I do not believe) that Lees is somehow guilty of it. Yes, circumstantial evidence points towards Murdoch's guilt; no doubt about it. He certainly appears to be the murderer. All I'm saying is that we have a lot of unanswered questions in a confusing case with a mass of conflicting evidence. And that's all I've ever said. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:39 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.