This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The murderer has been given life. Does life mean life in Oz? Or are they namby pandi over these things like us?
In reply to Trangia: The judge has discretion over minimum time to be served (usually 20-25 years) but there is no serving half of your sentence as far as I know. He's unlikely to be seen outside again before 2030.
In reply to Dave C: I did find the case unsettling, not exactly open and shut, I'll read the verdict in more detail before I comment tho.
In reply to Dave C:
20-25 years minimum. Thats what the guy in California served whilst the appeal system ground on before he was executed this morning. On that basis I suppose you could say that they get both life and the death penalty in the USA!
20-25 years minimum. Thats what the guy in California served whilst the appeal system ground on before he was executed this morning. On that basis I suppose you could say that they get both life and the death penalty in the USA!
In reply to Trangia:
Wouldnt that be 'Transportation'?
> The murderer has been given life. Does life mean life in Oz?
Wouldnt that be 'Transportation'?
In reply to Trangia: I think they will be alot harsher prisons as well, lets face it they couldn't get any nicer than over here, not that I've been in one. They don't believe in the plead 'mentally unaware' thing they have in USA and here so much. I know this because I watched a documentary about the OZ system last month, not because I know what I'm talking about. It looked like a prison should.
In reply to dark_star: I'd be very surprised if the giuy doesn't appeal. You're right, it was certainly not open and shut but the case against him did end up being pretty strong (although it's reliance on DNA evidence is it's weak point.)
In reply to Marts: Problem is, they come out and then?
In reply to Trangia:
I've always thought that there was something strange about this case but can't quite put my finger on what it is. Would like to know a bit more before commenting
I've always thought that there was something strange about this case but can't quite put my finger on what it is. Would like to know a bit more before commenting
In reply to Trangia: That was bullshit after all that, killing the guy. If anyone in history had proven to be a rehabilitation case, he was the golden example. Then they killed him anyway, sums up the USA in general for me. Not much hope for anyone else to change thier ways if he hadn't done enough. Completely impossible to get my head around anything at all that country does.
In reply to Dave C:
"The court heard that a genetic sample found on homemade handcuffs used in the attack was 100 million times more likely to have come from Murdoch than anyone else."
a quote from the BBC news. what does this mean? Is the DNA his or not? Surely if it was a match then its definately his not just likely.
"The court heard that a genetic sample found on homemade handcuffs used in the attack was 100 million times more likely to have come from Murdoch than anyone else."
a quote from the BBC news. what does this mean? Is the DNA his or not? Surely if it was a match then its definately his not just likely.
In reply to Tom M Williams:
There's no such thing as an absolute guarantee - it's all probability (and that's avoiding the question about possible contamination of the handcuffs during the forensics!)
There's no such thing as an absolute guarantee - it's all probability (and that's avoiding the question about possible contamination of the handcuffs during the forensics!)
In reply to Dr U Idh: Spot on, the defence tried to discredit the DNA evidence by claiming it had been contaminated.
In reply to Dave C: And much slacker no doubt
In reply to Dr U Idh:
I know it's probability just the way that was worded suggested to me that something was a bit fishy.
I would have thought they would say something like they matched his DNA to the sample found on the handcuffs.
I know it's probability just the way that was worded suggested to me that something was a bit fishy.
I would have thought they would say something like they matched his DNA to the sample found on the handcuffs.
In reply to Tom M Williams: They can't say they actually matched it, because there's a 100 million to one chance that it's someone else's DNA. Statistically speaking, there are about 65 other people in the world that it could have been. Obviously this is just an almost irrelevant technicality, and the contamination issue is much more important.
Just a thought, but what exactly is "beyond reasonable doubt". In a Capital Charge situation is a probability of 1 in a million for DNA matching still sufficient doubt beaing in mind that there are many millions of people in any country? Although a mis-match is highly unlikely, in a country which has the death penalty, maybe the burden of proof should be changed to "beyond any doubt whatsoever"?
In reply to jimbo g:
No. They could say there is a match of the DNA on the handcuffs with his DNA, there is just a possibility its not his but someone elses with the same DNA.
Just sounded a bit strange as its not how they word things like this in the media
No. They could say there is a match of the DNA on the handcuffs with his DNA, there is just a possibility its not his but someone elses with the same DNA.
Just sounded a bit strange as its not how they word things like this in the media
In reply to Trangia:Maybe you'd have to find the other 65 poeple or whatever in the world and make sure they didn't do it,to be beyond any doubt what so ever? I don't know anything about anything to do with forensics or law etc,but that's how it seems to me.
Cheers
Tim
Cheers
Tim
In reply to SFM:
Yes, there is something not quite right about the case. Nobody has ever put forward any motivation for the crime. Why did Murdoch tie up Joanne Lees and shoot Peter Falconio? The implication (in my sordid mind) is that Murdoch was going to sexually assult her, but nobody ever put forward any hypothesis to this effect.
I think the DNA evidence (linking Murdoch to the handcuffs and I think to some of Joanne Lees' clothing) is pretty damming, but without a motive the guilty verdict does seem a bit hollow.
Yes, there is something not quite right about the case. Nobody has ever put forward any motivation for the crime. Why did Murdoch tie up Joanne Lees and shoot Peter Falconio? The implication (in my sordid mind) is that Murdoch was going to sexually assult her, but nobody ever put forward any hypothesis to this effect.
I think the DNA evidence (linking Murdoch to the handcuffs and I think to some of Joanne Lees' clothing) is pretty damming, but without a motive the guilty verdict does seem a bit hollow.
In reply to Marts:
I think you may have the wrong trial Marts. We're in Australia (not the US) and nobody's been sentenced to death.
I think you may have the wrong trial Marts. We're in Australia (not the US) and nobody's been sentenced to death.
In reply to Marts:
And then later...
I think Marts wins both "Uninformed Comment of the day" and "Sweeping Generalisation of the day" award
> (In reply to Trangia) I think they will be alot harsher prisons as well, lets face it they couldn't get any nicer than over here, not that I've been in one.
And then later...
> Completely impossible to get my head around anything at all that country [the US] does.
I think Marts wins both "Uninformed Comment of the day" and "Sweeping Generalisation of the day" award
In reply to Timmd:
That depends. If you used the DNA profile to find a suspect then it's value in convicting the suspect, would be much reduced (Bayes theorem and all that). If however you had a suspect and used DNA evidence to match him to the crime, then that evidence is much more robust. I think that the latter applied here.
Mark
> (In reply to Trangia)Maybe you'd have to find the other 65 poeple or whatever in the world and make sure they didn't do it,to be beyond any doubt what so ever? I don't know anything about anything to do with forensics or law etc,but that's how it seems to me.
That depends. If you used the DNA profile to find a suspect then it's value in convicting the suspect, would be much reduced (Bayes theorem and all that). If however you had a suspect and used DNA evidence to match him to the crime, then that evidence is much more robust. I think that the latter applied here.
Mark
In reply to Trangia:
His previous offences have come out now, including the abduction of a 12 year old that, on the radio, was said to bear resembelence to the Falconio murder/abduction. The judge, after passing sentence, said he believed the jury had reached the right verdict.
His previous offences have come out now, including the abduction of a 12 year old that, on the radio, was said to bear resembelence to the Falconio murder/abduction. The judge, after passing sentence, said he believed the jury had reached the right verdict.
In reply to Trangia:
in reality this "65 other dna matches in the whole world" scenario is unlikly to find another match in australia let alone one who was in the area at the time.
i dont think this is even a argument. As said above the contamination is more arguable but when you consider the guys previous, which is long and pretty horrible, it starts to look more probable.
at the end of the day none of us were in the court room and we are gettin all our info from our wonderfully accurate press. We are never going to know.
generally the legal systems get it right. its pretty unusual for mistakes to be made.
in reality this "65 other dna matches in the whole world" scenario is unlikly to find another match in australia let alone one who was in the area at the time.
i dont think this is even a argument. As said above the contamination is more arguable but when you consider the guys previous, which is long and pretty horrible, it starts to look more probable.
at the end of the day none of us were in the court room and we are gettin all our info from our wonderfully accurate press. We are never going to know.
generally the legal systems get it right. its pretty unusual for mistakes to be made.
In reply to SI A:
Two points. First, you're assuming that genotypes are randomly distributed accross the world; they are not. People who live near to each other are more likely to be recently related and thus share the types of DNA polymorphisms found in these types of analysis. After all, the original use of this technology was in population genetics.
2nd, the point about '65 people' was raised (I think) to illustrate the fact that the conclusions you can draw from a DNA profile are subject to how the information was obtained. i.e. if you randomly test enough people you will eventually get a match. However, the value of this match as evidence is greatly reduced compared to if you had only tested one suspect and found a match.
Mark
> in reality this "65 other dna matches in the whole world" scenario is unlikly to find another match in australia let alone one who was in the area at the time.
Two points. First, you're assuming that genotypes are randomly distributed accross the world; they are not. People who live near to each other are more likely to be recently related and thus share the types of DNA polymorphisms found in these types of analysis. After all, the original use of this technology was in population genetics.
2nd, the point about '65 people' was raised (I think) to illustrate the fact that the conclusions you can draw from a DNA profile are subject to how the information was obtained. i.e. if you randomly test enough people you will eventually get a match. However, the value of this match as evidence is greatly reduced compared to if you had only tested one suspect and found a match.
Mark
In reply to SFM:
i still think there is something suspect about the girlfriend
> (In reply to dark_star)
>
> I'm with you on that one. Something doesn't seem quite right about it all.
>
> I'm with you on that one. Something doesn't seem quite right about it all.
i still think there is something suspect about the girlfriend
In reply to zorro:
A couple in the middle of the australian outback just happen to run into a random psychopath who shoots the boyfriend and ties up the girlfriend. (Presumably because he has some further interest in her, although as someone else posted there has never been any discussion about sexual motives.) But she manages to run & hide from him so he gets bored and goes away.
Sounds rather unlikely, doesn't it.
I watched a documentary about this case a while back - if i remember right, at the time they had been unable to find any evidence of this mystery killer, but had no motive for the girlfriend to have done it.
A couple in the middle of the australian outback just happen to run into a random psychopath who shoots the boyfriend and ties up the girlfriend. (Presumably because he has some further interest in her, although as someone else posted there has never been any discussion about sexual motives.) But she manages to run & hide from him so he gets bored and goes away.
Sounds rather unlikely, doesn't it.
I watched a documentary about this case a while back - if i remember right, at the time they had been unable to find any evidence of this mystery killer, but had no motive for the girlfriend to have done it.
Also, the evidence that would really corroborate her version of events is unfortunately/conveniently missing (ie Peter Falconio's body).
In reply to haze01:
It's difficult, mind you, to think of any version of events that isn't at least fairly unlikely.
jcm
It's difficult, mind you, to think of any version of events that isn't at least fairly unlikely.
jcm
In reply to haze01:
- who has a record of shooting at people and abducting females.
He then shoots one of them & abducts the woman.
A terrible & violent thing to happen; but not unlikely given his previous.
> A couple in the middle of the australian outback just happen to run into a random psychopath
- who has a record of shooting at people and abducting females.
He then shoots one of them & abducts the woman.
A terrible & violent thing to happen; but not unlikely given his previous.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I know, being murdered in the outback is an unlikely situation altogether. But its a well known fact that you are far more likely to be attacked by a person you know than a complete stranger.
To be honest, i haven't seen much recent information about the case or trial. But everything I remember from what was publicised at the time and documentaries i've seen since suggest that Joanne Lees version of events is not accurate. But whether that means she killed him, i honestly don't know. I suspect until the body is found there will always be doubt in many people's minds, despite the conviction of Murdoch for the crime.
I know, being murdered in the outback is an unlikely situation altogether. But its a well known fact that you are far more likely to be attacked by a person you know than a complete stranger.
To be honest, i haven't seen much recent information about the case or trial. But everything I remember from what was publicised at the time and documentaries i've seen since suggest that Joanne Lees version of events is not accurate. But whether that means she killed him, i honestly don't know. I suspect until the body is found there will always be doubt in many people's minds, despite the conviction of Murdoch for the crime.
In reply to KeithW:
Which the jury didn't know about, of course. Unless their system is different from here. I'll never understand why juries aren't told of previous convictions. Imagine clearing someone of an abduction-and-murder allegation and finding out afterwards he's just got out after being convicted of the same thing.
Mind you, Mark's Bayes point applies; presumably the police picked him up at least partly for this reason.
jcm
Which the jury didn't know about, of course. Unless their system is different from here. I'll never understand why juries aren't told of previous convictions. Imagine clearing someone of an abduction-and-murder allegation and finding out afterwards he's just got out after being convicted of the same thing.
Mind you, Mark's Bayes point applies; presumably the police picked him up at least partly for this reason.
jcm
In reply to SI A:
The amount of media interest in this case has been scary. Did you see the front of the metro today? Every time you see the girlfriend in the media she is really attractive. Then today there is an unneccesarily awful picture of her far too close up (all open pores and blue light). Subliminal message from the media anyone?
>
> we are gettin all our info from our wonderfully accurate press. We are never going to know.
> we are gettin all our info from our wonderfully accurate press. We are never going to know.
The amount of media interest in this case has been scary. Did you see the front of the metro today? Every time you see the girlfriend in the media she is really attractive. Then today there is an unneccesarily awful picture of her far too close up (all open pores and blue light). Subliminal message from the media anyone?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I guess that's the reason there. If the police picked him because of his prior convictions, then it's value as evidence is reduced. Perhaps juries aren't trusted to make the distincion (did you not have a thread about that recently).
Mind you, the same could be said of suspects that are picked up from fingerprint or DNA databases; I'm pretty sure that the same evidence can subsequently be used in the trials. Are juries adequately briefed on the implication that this has for it's value as evidence?
Mark
> I'll never understand why juries aren't told of previous convictions.
> Mind you, Mark's Bayes point applies; presumably the police picked him up at least partly for this reason.
I guess that's the reason there. If the police picked him because of his prior convictions, then it's value as evidence is reduced. Perhaps juries aren't trusted to make the distincion (did you not have a thread about that recently).
Mind you, the same could be said of suspects that are picked up from fingerprint or DNA databases; I'm pretty sure that the same evidence can subsequently be used in the trials. Are juries adequately briefed on the implication that this has for it's value as evidence?
Mark
In reply to Minka:
"trial by media". You can't help but make judgements based on what you hear about a case. You just have to realise that you almost certainly don't have all the information and try not to take it as absolute truth.
"trial by media". You can't help but make judgements based on what you hear about a case. You just have to realise that you almost certainly don't have all the information and try not to take it as absolute truth.
In reply to Anonymous:
I don't think the police did pick him up because of previous, as I believe the abduction and rape of the mother and 12 year old daughter was *post* the time he became a suspect (maybe wrong there, as it's awhile since I read the full story). Anyway, he was acquitted as the mother waited 5 days to report it, and had thrown away the daughter's clothes, IIRC. I believe he was a suspect before this, on the grounds that (a) the girlfriend picked him out in photos and (b) his drug-smuggling partner (who thought he's grassed on him) became suspicious when, the day after the news hit, he cut his hair, shaved off his tache and made some alterations to his vehicle, all in a big hurry. The ex-partner dobbed him in partly in revenge for him supposedly being grassed in earlier and partly in the hope of reward money. Can't check all these things at the mo, but that's how I recall it.
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I guess that's the reason there. If the police picked him because of his prior convictions, then it's value as evidence is reduced. Perhaps juries aren't trusted to make the distincion (did you not have a thread about that recently).
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I guess that's the reason there. If the police picked him because of his prior convictions, then it's value as evidence is reduced. Perhaps juries aren't trusted to make the distincion (did you not have a thread about that recently).
I don't think the police did pick him up because of previous, as I believe the abduction and rape of the mother and 12 year old daughter was *post* the time he became a suspect (maybe wrong there, as it's awhile since I read the full story). Anyway, he was acquitted as the mother waited 5 days to report it, and had thrown away the daughter's clothes, IIRC. I believe he was a suspect before this, on the grounds that (a) the girlfriend picked him out in photos and (b) his drug-smuggling partner (who thought he's grassed on him) became suspicious when, the day after the news hit, he cut his hair, shaved off his tache and made some alterations to his vehicle, all in a big hurry. The ex-partner dobbed him in partly in revenge for him supposedly being grassed in earlier and partly in the hope of reward money. Can't check all these things at the mo, but that's how I recall it.
In reply to Dave C:
in the Northern Territory life means life so he is unlikely to ever get outside.
in the Northern Territory life means life so he is unlikely to ever get outside.
In reply to zorro:
Why? Because she behaved calmly ("unemotionally" as the media put it) in the face of the media feeding frenzy?
Because she made them wait for their "news-fest"?
Because she hasn't cooperated with the media so they're turned on her?
The truck driver who picked her up and the police who first interviewed her seemed to have no doubt that she'd undergone a traumatic experience, and that the injuries to her wrists were unlikely to be self-inflicted.
> (In reply to SFM)
> [...]
>
> i still think there is something suspect about the girlfriend
> [...]
>
> i still think there is something suspect about the girlfriend
Why? Because she behaved calmly ("unemotionally" as the media put it) in the face of the media feeding frenzy?
Because she made them wait for their "news-fest"?
Because she hasn't cooperated with the media so they're turned on her?
The truck driver who picked her up and the police who first interviewed her seemed to have no doubt that she'd undergone a traumatic experience, and that the injuries to her wrists were unlikely to be self-inflicted.
In reply to haze01:
A lot less unlikely than the girlfriend having had the boyfriend killed in such a remote place, and necessarily having an accomplice (who wasn't turned up ih the subsequent long investigation) to spirit the body away, then just happening to describe her "fictitious" attacker as being someone who looked remarkarably like a person who was known to be relatively nearby (by Australian standards) and who owned a truck remarkably similar to that used in her "fictitious" account of the abduction.
A guy who, as soon as he hears that the girl's been rescued and describer her attacker, changes his appearnace and the appearance of his vehicle.
When travelling around the far east in the early 80s my wife and I actually rented a car while we were in Oz...everywehere else we survived on public transport or hitching. We were *strongly* advised by numereous Australians that I worked with at the time *not* to hitch and to be very careful in the outback, even in a hire car, as several backpacking tourists had gone missing over the previous few years, and the remoter areas were known as places that attracted "odd" people of various sorts, as being well away from centres of law and order.
> (In reply to zorro)
> A couple in the middle of the australian outback just happen to run into a random psychopath who shoots the boyfriend and ties up the girlfriend. (Presumably because he has some further interest in her, although as someone else posted there has never been any discussion about sexual motives.) But she manages to run & hide from him so he gets bored and goes away.
>
> Sounds rather unlikely, doesn't it.
> A couple in the middle of the australian outback just happen to run into a random psychopath who shoots the boyfriend and ties up the girlfriend. (Presumably because he has some further interest in her, although as someone else posted there has never been any discussion about sexual motives.) But she manages to run & hide from him so he gets bored and goes away.
>
> Sounds rather unlikely, doesn't it.
A lot less unlikely than the girlfriend having had the boyfriend killed in such a remote place, and necessarily having an accomplice (who wasn't turned up ih the subsequent long investigation) to spirit the body away, then just happening to describe her "fictitious" attacker as being someone who looked remarkarably like a person who was known to be relatively nearby (by Australian standards) and who owned a truck remarkably similar to that used in her "fictitious" account of the abduction.
A guy who, as soon as he hears that the girl's been rescued and describer her attacker, changes his appearnace and the appearance of his vehicle.
When travelling around the far east in the early 80s my wife and I actually rented a car while we were in Oz...everywehere else we survived on public transport or hitching. We were *strongly* advised by numereous Australians that I worked with at the time *not* to hitch and to be very careful in the outback, even in a hire car, as several backpacking tourists had gone missing over the previous few years, and the remoter areas were known as places that attracted "odd" people of various sorts, as being well away from centres of law and order.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Partly true. The alleged abduction and rape took place after the Falconio murder, but he was charged with the former before he was charged with murder. He also had a prior conviction for a firearms offence. In any case, the DNA sample was taken only after he became a suspect, so any of the theoretical issues I've been talking about on that score are irrelevant here.
Mark
> I don't think the police did pick him up because of previous, as I believe the abduction and rape of the mother and 12 year old daughter was *post* the time he became a suspect (maybe wrong there, as it's awhile since I read the full story).
Partly true. The alleged abduction and rape took place after the Falconio murder, but he was charged with the former before he was charged with murder. He also had a prior conviction for a firearms offence. In any case, the DNA sample was taken only after he became a suspect, so any of the theoretical issues I've been talking about on that score are irrelevant here.
Mark
In reply to Rob Naylor:
All before somehow planting some of his DNA at the scene of the crime..
In reply to Haze01:
Yes (thank goodness). Have you any idea of how many people it hasn't happened to? If their journey had gone ahead according to what was 'likely' then you'd never even have heard of her.
Mark
> A lot less unlikely than the girlfriend having had the boyfriend killed in such a remote place, and necessarily having an accomplice (who wasn't turned up ih the subsequent long investigation) to spirit the body away, then just happening to describe her "fictitious" attacker as being someone who looked remarkarably like a person who was known to be relatively nearby (by Australian standards) and who owned a truck remarkably similar to that used in her "fictitious" account of the abduction.
All before somehow planting some of his DNA at the scene of the crime..
In reply to Haze01:
> Sounds rather unlikely, doesn't it.
Yes (thank goodness). Have you any idea of how many people it hasn't happened to? If their journey had gone ahead according to what was 'likely' then you'd never even have heard of her.
Mark
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Put your finger on it there Rob. In her statement last night, she stressed that she hadn't co-operated with any of the books that are about to be published. And the meeja hoors don't take kindly to that.
> Because she made them wait for their "news-fest"?
>
> Because she hasn't cooperated with the media so they're turned on her?
>
> Because she hasn't cooperated with the media so they're turned on her?
Put your finger on it there Rob. In her statement last night, she stressed that she hadn't co-operated with any of the books that are about to be published. And the meeja hoors don't take kindly to that.
In reply to KeithW:
Didn't she also charge 50k for some television DI-style interview? Or did someone make that up when I read it in the, er, media?
jcm
Didn't she also charge 50k for some television DI-style interview? Or did someone make that up when I read it in the, er, media?
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Hmmm, seems that she did - although she says it was to raise the profile of the case in Oz. Choosing the oleaginous Bashir to do it was probably a mistake though.
I see that the Aussie papers also made much of the fact that she'd used ecstasy and marjuana, and slept with another bloke on the holiday. Together with a rather cold 'on-screen' manner, she doesn't fit the cosy stereotype of the "helpless wee girly" the media would like.
> Didn't she also charge 50k for some television DI-style interview?
Hmmm, seems that she did - although she says it was to raise the profile of the case in Oz. Choosing the oleaginous Bashir to do it was probably a mistake though.
I see that the Aussie papers also made much of the fact that she'd used ecstasy and marjuana, and slept with another bloke on the holiday. Together with a rather cold 'on-screen' manner, she doesn't fit the cosy stereotype of the "helpless wee girly" the media would like.
In reply to KeithW:
shes just a young girl on holiday. its hardly unusual to a take drugs and shag around.
i know loads of girls that have done this and they are not murders.
In respect of her lack of emotions when confronted by the media i would suggest that this is quite normal. we are so used to celebs playing up in front of the cameras that when someone blanks them it looks odd.
shes just a young girl on holiday. its hardly unusual to a take drugs and shag around.
i know loads of girls that have done this and they are not murders.
In respect of her lack of emotions when confronted by the media i would suggest that this is quite normal. we are so used to celebs playing up in front of the cameras that when someone blanks them it looks odd.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
And tell me what is wrong with that? She will have had to have a long period where she could not do decent work, it's not easy applying for jobs when you are very traumatised or to try and get a job when everyone recognises you, flights to pay for, accommodation costs in Australia, funeral costs, phone bill costs to Australia, costs of headstone, costs for counselling probably and maybe meds. No one wants to talk about money but when someone is murdered it costs the family/spouse/partner a lot financially. Don't imagine all these costs are magically met by the State.
I have known people loose their house after a murder because of all the costs, and stay in a tent to attend the trial of their daughters murderer.
About there being "no motive", murder of a stranger does not always make sense. What was the motive for Abigal Witchalls being stabbed, or Rachel Nickell being murdered on Wimbledon Common. No one starts suggesting that there was something suss in this case.
I have to applaud her for not cooperating with the media who have acted like complete wankers in this case. The thing that really surprises me is the amazing amount of ignorance and how people are taken in my the medias portrayl of Joanne Lees.
> Didn't she also charge 50k for some television DI-style interview?
And tell me what is wrong with that? She will have had to have a long period where she could not do decent work, it's not easy applying for jobs when you are very traumatised or to try and get a job when everyone recognises you, flights to pay for, accommodation costs in Australia, funeral costs, phone bill costs to Australia, costs of headstone, costs for counselling probably and maybe meds. No one wants to talk about money but when someone is murdered it costs the family/spouse/partner a lot financially. Don't imagine all these costs are magically met by the State.
I have known people loose their house after a murder because of all the costs, and stay in a tent to attend the trial of their daughters murderer.
About there being "no motive", murder of a stranger does not always make sense. What was the motive for Abigal Witchalls being stabbed, or Rachel Nickell being murdered on Wimbledon Common. No one starts suggesting that there was something suss in this case.
I have to applaud her for not cooperating with the media who have acted like complete wankers in this case. The thing that really surprises me is the amazing amount of ignorance and how people are taken in my the medias portrayl of Joanne Lees.
In reply to rock_waif:
Very good point about the 50k.
Have rather missed 'the media's portrayal' of JL though. Has it been any different from the intrusive way the media treat every victim (not that that's good, I agree)?
To be fair too with your comparisons, the AW would-be murderer was a schizophrenic and heavy drug user, and was the RN murder not connected with some weird quasi-sexual nuttery? But I don't see any particular difficulty in a failed rape/abduction attempt. I suppose it's more that people find it difficult to believe the way in which JL describes her escape, isn't it? (I don't know the details)
jcm
Very good point about the 50k.
Have rather missed 'the media's portrayal' of JL though. Has it been any different from the intrusive way the media treat every victim (not that that's good, I agree)?
To be fair too with your comparisons, the AW would-be murderer was a schizophrenic and heavy drug user, and was the RN murder not connected with some weird quasi-sexual nuttery? But I don't see any particular difficulty in a failed rape/abduction attempt. I suppose it's more that people find it difficult to believe the way in which JL describes her escape, isn't it? (I don't know the details)
jcm
In reply to Jon Jones:
Doesn't make killing her boyfriend right, or her evidence unreliable.
> (In reply to haze01)
>
>
> she was shagging around right?
>
>
> she was shagging around right?
Doesn't make killing her boyfriend right, or her evidence unreliable.
In reply to Cats:
Nooooo, but if someone is murdered, you always look first at their partner. And if that partner is being unfaithful, I suspect it increases the a priori odds of them being the killer quite substantially.
Shagging around on a round-the-world trip normalish - maybe. Shagging around on a round-the-world trip with your partner - less normal.
As random ill-informed speculation goes, I'd say this was reasonably well-grounded. But's that all it is, of course.
jcm
Nooooo, but if someone is murdered, you always look first at their partner. And if that partner is being unfaithful, I suspect it increases the a priori odds of them being the killer quite substantially.
Shagging around on a round-the-world trip normalish - maybe. Shagging around on a round-the-world trip with your partner - less normal.
As random ill-informed speculation goes, I'd say this was reasonably well-grounded. But's that all it is, of course.
jcm
In reply to KeithW:
ITV cut the interview clip that was on the news last night by the way,because I watched the origional interview when it was first on because i was quite interested,and after Bashir asked if she killed her boyfriend,she looked upset and broke down in tears,but on the bit they showed last night, where she talked about if her boyfriend was still here,origionally came a couple of minutes before Bashir asked her if she killed her boyfriend,which is why she might have come across as cold in the clip that was shown last night. I can remember it exactly,because she looked really upset after being asked if she did.
Cheers
Tim
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
> Hmmm, seems that she did - although she says it was to raise the profile of the case in Oz. Choosing the oleaginous Bashir to do it was probably a mistake though.
>
> I see that the Aussie papers also made much of the fact that she'd used ecstasy and marjuana, and slept with another bloke on the holiday. Together with a rather cold 'on-screen' manner, she doesn't fit the cosy stereotype of the "helpless wee girly" the media would like.
>
> I see that the Aussie papers also made much of the fact that she'd used ecstasy and marjuana, and slept with another bloke on the holiday. Together with a rather cold 'on-screen' manner, she doesn't fit the cosy stereotype of the "helpless wee girly" the media would like.
ITV cut the interview clip that was on the news last night by the way,because I watched the origional interview when it was first on because i was quite interested,and after Bashir asked if she killed her boyfriend,she looked upset and broke down in tears,but on the bit they showed last night, where she talked about if her boyfriend was still here,origionally came a couple of minutes before Bashir asked her if she killed her boyfriend,which is why she might have come across as cold in the clip that was shown last night. I can remember it exactly,because she looked really upset after being asked if she did.
Cheers
Tim
In reply to Timmd:
How interesting. It's quite extraordinary the extent to which editing film can change its impact, and us, the viewers, generally all unknowing. We don't that often see full versions followed by cut versions, so we aren't very wise to the extent to which our outlook is manipulated.
John Cox, you ask about the media reports: I've not read about the case in the papers, only on the bbc website, and only relatively recently. Without being aware there had been any criticism of the press I picked up on an odd flavour in the reports, mainly because they kept using the word 'lover' to describe her, whereas you'd expect gf, or maybe partner. It's an ever so subtle oddity, but it's a word that does create a very different impression from gf. 'Lover' suggests sex, suggests passion, and everyone knows passion can go badly wrong at times ... I would suggest that the journalists using that word know full well how language can shift our perceptions ... it's their job to, after all.... and make the choice quite deliberately.
I can't see why anyone finds anything surprising about the case at all: sexual violence isn't rare, and what better place to abduct with impunity than the outback? It's just where I'd choose if I was wanting to get away with murder. And why would the lack of a body be surprising, in a place that is a) huge and therefore impossible to search and b) the habitat of fair sized carnivores?
And, of course, statistically people are more likely to kill their partners than strangers, but that's really rather irrelevant, strangers do murder after all. And in love relationships, who kills, and when? The common behaviour is to kill your lover when you become aware that _they_ are cheating, there's really not much sense in killing the bf you're getting bored with, is there?
The fact that her memory of events is faulty might seem odd (and thus suspicious) to us, but I don't think it is in reality odd ... consider Richard Cazaly who the CPS have apparently decided was the attacker of Abigail Witchalls as the evidence seems to point pretty conclusively to him ... and yet she described his earrings all wrong.
I should imagine that when you're being attacked and fighting for your life with all the wits you can muster, the last thing you'll be wasting brain space on is noting down exactly what someone looked like, or where in their truck they were shoving you.
How interesting. It's quite extraordinary the extent to which editing film can change its impact, and us, the viewers, generally all unknowing. We don't that often see full versions followed by cut versions, so we aren't very wise to the extent to which our outlook is manipulated.
John Cox, you ask about the media reports: I've not read about the case in the papers, only on the bbc website, and only relatively recently. Without being aware there had been any criticism of the press I picked up on an odd flavour in the reports, mainly because they kept using the word 'lover' to describe her, whereas you'd expect gf, or maybe partner. It's an ever so subtle oddity, but it's a word that does create a very different impression from gf. 'Lover' suggests sex, suggests passion, and everyone knows passion can go badly wrong at times ... I would suggest that the journalists using that word know full well how language can shift our perceptions ... it's their job to, after all.... and make the choice quite deliberately.
I can't see why anyone finds anything surprising about the case at all: sexual violence isn't rare, and what better place to abduct with impunity than the outback? It's just where I'd choose if I was wanting to get away with murder. And why would the lack of a body be surprising, in a place that is a) huge and therefore impossible to search and b) the habitat of fair sized carnivores?
And, of course, statistically people are more likely to kill their partners than strangers, but that's really rather irrelevant, strangers do murder after all. And in love relationships, who kills, and when? The common behaviour is to kill your lover when you become aware that _they_ are cheating, there's really not much sense in killing the bf you're getting bored with, is there?
The fact that her memory of events is faulty might seem odd (and thus suspicious) to us, but I don't think it is in reality odd ... consider Richard Cazaly who the CPS have apparently decided was the attacker of Abigail Witchalls as the evidence seems to point pretty conclusively to him ... and yet she described his earrings all wrong.
I should imagine that when you're being attacked and fighting for your life with all the wits you can muster, the last thing you'll be wasting brain space on is noting down exactly what someone looked like, or where in their truck they were shoving you.
In reply to haze01: It's been big news here,
at the start it looked bad for the GF, but the evidence against murdoch was strong. Blood splatters, behaviour, location etc etc
Many murders are unlucky and random too, look at the paralysed women recently?
at the start it looked bad for the GF, but the evidence against murdoch was strong. Blood splatters, behaviour, location etc etc
Many murders are unlucky and random too, look at the paralysed women recently?
In reply to Iain Ridgway:
The moral of the story has to be, if you want to look innocent, make sure you sit there meekly and let the bugger kill or maim you. Escape without life wrecking injuries is a sure sign of guilt.
The moral of the story has to be, if you want to look innocent, make sure you sit there meekly and let the bugger kill or maim you. Escape without life wrecking injuries is a sure sign of guilt.
In reply to gingerkate:
>The common behaviour is to kill your lover when you become aware that _they_ are cheating, there's really not much sense in killing the bf you're getting bored with, is there?
Is that true, I wonder? It might be more common, but I suspect an unfaithful partner killing the inconvenient present occupant is not unknown.
I agree with most of what you say about strangeness (it didn't strike me as terribly strange and I don't really understand why people are saying so). If you want to commit sexual violence, though, do you flag down a passing truck? And of course it seems a bit strange that the murderer didn't manage to shackle her properly. But in any trial there are normally some slightly loose ends.
Take your point about 'lover' (I guess not surprising if they're playing it as a question mark, her having been unfaithful, and so on - hell, their job is to get us talking about it, and here we are.) As for the cutting of the interview tim mentions - shocking. Exactly the sort of thing journalists should be hanged for.
jcm
>The common behaviour is to kill your lover when you become aware that _they_ are cheating, there's really not much sense in killing the bf you're getting bored with, is there?
Is that true, I wonder? It might be more common, but I suspect an unfaithful partner killing the inconvenient present occupant is not unknown.
I agree with most of what you say about strangeness (it didn't strike me as terribly strange and I don't really understand why people are saying so). If you want to commit sexual violence, though, do you flag down a passing truck? And of course it seems a bit strange that the murderer didn't manage to shackle her properly. But in any trial there are normally some slightly loose ends.
Take your point about 'lover' (I guess not surprising if they're playing it as a question mark, her having been unfaithful, and so on - hell, their job is to get us talking about it, and here we are.) As for the cutting of the interview tim mentions - shocking. Exactly the sort of thing journalists should be hanged for.
jcm
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...