The disappearance of the British tourist Peter Falconio in July 2001 resulted in panic, worry, shock and controversy. Falconio’s body has still not been discovered but four years on, as Bradley Murdoch is ready to take the stand accused of his murder, are we any closer to finding out the solution to the mystery of what happened on that summer evening?

The inconsistencies in the statements made by Falconio’s fiancé, Joanne Lees, have been widely publicised. Despite the police being adamant she was in no way responsible for the crime, Murdoch’s defence will argue that Lees had motive to commit the crime and that money she was paid for media interviews provided an incentive to further embellish her account of events.

There are certainly strong doubts in my mind about her evidence, although to a certain extent this could be innocently explained. If she is telling the truth then it is understandable she would be confused over the facts, due to the immense shock and fear she experienced at the time. In periods of great stress and anxiety it is not possible to accurately recall every little detail and so contradictions do arise at times.

However, forgetting Lees’ statements, and concentrating on the hard facts, there are a number of problems that need to be considered.

Lees claimed she was gagged, bound and bundled into the back of the kidnapper’s four-wheeled drive. She was, she has always maintained, bound with her hands behind her back. Yet when Rodney Adams found her, Lees had her hands in front of her body. How was this possible? In a media interview she claimed, without providing any explanation, that she and one of Falconio’s brothers had carried this out on a number of occasions and therefore it was possible.

In the largest ever police manhunt, officers from Northern Territory Police utilised the services of Aborigine trackers, whose lives depend upon their ability to find tracks. Their skills are, to ordinary people like myself, awe-inspiring and so it is, in my mind, of the greatest significance that only Joanne Lees’ footprints were found at the scene, especially when Falconio’s alleged killer spent at least two hours scouring the area for Lees, with his dog. It is strange no trace of the man and his dog could be found by the Aborigine experts.

There is also the issue of the affair Lees was having with a man named ‘Nick’, who Lees even agreed to meet whilst the police were hunting Falconio’s killer, the affair which Lees denied until confronted with documentary evidence and whose identity she still refuses to reveal. There is her reluctance to give press conferences, until her guilt was suggested in the press, which could of course be a sign of her upset but if someone I was hoping to marry had been taken but could still be alive, wild horses would not stop me from appealing for help from the public.

I am not suggesting Lees did lie, but I am of the opinion, and I must stress it is merely my opinion, that her evidence has many, many question marks surrounding it and no doubt Grant Algie, who is representing Murdoch, will fully explore these questions.

In any criminal trial it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt. Murdoch and his defence do not have to prove he did not commit the crime or that anyone else did, although their suspicion over Lees will be prominent in the defence’s case.

However, the prosecution will be relying upon forensic evidence to argue Murdoch is guilty as charged. The ‘breakthrough’ in the case came when Murdoch was arrested in connection with the abduction and rape of a mother and daughter, for which he was later acquitted. Whilst in custody he was forced to give a DNA sample which matched the DNA on Lees’ tee shirt. However, the very fact DNA cannot be used on its own as evidence, and that a suspect cannot even be charged with an offence if DNA is the only evidence, shows that despite the popular belief DNA does not actually prove guilt. It is not as reliable as many have been led to believe by the endless fictional cop shows.

It should be noted that in another Australian state the police have a bit of a reputation for planting DNA. British Customs and Excise have frequently refused to let the police near ships because they believe officers could plant evidence. Although the state in which Falconio disappeared was the Northern Territory, and not the state I have just referred to, the fact certain police forces in Australia have a reputation for planting DNA is of interest. Of course, I am not saying the police in this case have planted DNA. I am merely saying it has happened in the past and most probably is still being used to fabricate evidence by some corrupt officers. If DNA links a suspect to a crime it does not always mean the suspect was involved in the crime.

It is known that at some point in time the van in which Falconio and Lees had been travelling was abandoned in bushes. The person responsible for the crime was the one who carried out this task. The man Lees described was not wearing gloves, yet none of Murdoch’s fingerprints were found on the steering wheel or anywhere else in the vehicle.

There were no identity parades held for Joanne Lees or other witnesses. One woman had claimed she was picked up by the man shown in an e-fit released by police. She had hitched a ride from him and noted the appearance of the man, who had a dog and a number of guns. This woman also never attended an identity parade to see whether Murdoch was the man in question.

The alleged motive for this crime was, according to the police, that Murdoch wished to rape Lees. John Clarke, an offender profiler from Sydney University, told the police the man responsible for this crime was playing out a sexual fantasy of abducting a woman, after having eliminated her partner, keeping her as a sex slave for a long time. It was, he believed, a highly well planned crime, with the planning possibly having taken place over a number of years.

The incident happened on Stuart Highway, which is a very desolate stretch of road in the Northern Territory, north of the town of Barrow Creek. A travel expert who knows the area very well was amazed when she heard about the incident. Jennifer Cox, who works for Lonely Planet, believed it was exceptional Lees managed to survive due to the difficult terrain, snakes, spiders and scorpions. These conditions, along with the remote location, mean that often only one vehicle will pass along the stretch of road in a whole day.

It seems remarkable to me that Murdoch, a man who knew the area, would choose a location in the middle of nowhere to look for a woman to rape. With only one vehicle passing in a day, Murdoch could have been searching for days or even weeks without success. What if he did not come across a vehicle containing a woman? Surely someone who had spent years planning such an offence could come up with a better plan?

If Murdoch is guilty how did he dispose of the body? If his truck had been used there would be forensic evidence showing it had been used, after all Falconio was allegedly bleeding to death. It is curious that there is no such evidence. It will be argued at the forthcoming trial that because Murdoch altered the appearance of his four wheeled drive, after Falconio’s disappearance, that he was responsible. A mechanic will tell the court that the vehicle was remarkably clean when he was fitting a new exhaust a month after Falconio was last seen alive. However, even if the vehicle was cleaned was this task carried out to destroy forensic evidence? Blood cannot be entirely removed, no matter how much cleaning is undertaken.

There is also no evidence of Falconio and Lees’ vehicle having been used to transport the body and could we possibly believe that Murdoch could carry the body far enough on foot, without leaving a trail of blood, to ensure it was never found?

There is one witness who claims Murdoch discussed with him how easy it would be to dispose of a body so that no one would ever find it. The conversation allegedly took place when the media first reported on Falconio's disappearance. Therefore it is not necessarily indicative of Murdoch having disposed of the body. He could just have been talking about the case like so many people across the world were at that time. When any person disappears members of the public will discuss the case and question how someone could dispose of a body. As no forensic evidence was found in Murdoch's truck it seems hard to believe if he was responsible the body had already been disposed of by the time of the alleged conversation.

The possibility has to be considered that Falconio has not been killed at all. Whilst the police have made the assumption they are dealing with a murder case, an assumption is all it is. No doubt many people can recall the trial of Leonard Fraser, which came to a sensational end in April 2003 when his alleged murder victim telephoned her father to say she was alive and well. In the case of Peter Falconio even the best witness, Joanne Lees, can only say that she heard the sound of a gunshot or a vehicle backfiring and there was the presence of Falconio’s blood on the road. That does not necessarily mean there is a dead body out there. The possibility Falconio is alive, albeit only a small possibility, cannot be dismissed altogether. Murdoch’s defence team will again argue that the presence of a small amount of blood is not enough to prove murder. They will also rely upon evidence from a couple who claim they saw Falconio a week after his alleged death, when he entered their service station to use the toilet, buy a chocolate bar and a drink. “I served Peter Falconio myself. If it wasn’t him, they were twins.”, Roger Brown told an earlier court hearing. It has been suggested that Falconio faked his own death, assisted by Lees, so that they could claim his life insurance policy. There is not much evidence to substantiate this sensational claim but if murder cannot be proven to have occurred then someone should not stand accused of that murder.

At this moment in time I do not have an opinion over whether Murdoch is guilty or innocent. Maybe even the trial will not provide a definitive answer, one way or the other. Only Bradley Murdoch and Joanne Lees could possibly know if the defendant is guilty and one of these two must be wrong.

One thing is for sure, however; regardless of the outcome of the trial, if Murdoch continues to protest his innocence, it is unlikely we will ever be any closer to finding the whereabouts of Peter Falconio.

S.C. Lomax
www.sclomax.co.uk

The Case of Barry George by S. C. Lomax. A new book revealing a shocking miscarriage of justice. Priced at £9.99 (UK) and $12.99 (USA). Available from http://www.kemptonmarks.com and Amazon.