Falconio Case starts in Darwin

[Steve 0]

I have my suspicions about Joanne Lees too.  As was mentioned before - it's something about the eyes... 

47153[/snapback]

 

It's the English in them, it makes her look shifty.

[Rob W 0]

No heat from Outback gun' - Lees

 

The girlfriend of missing British backpacker Peter Falconio has told a court she felt no heat from a gun put to her head by her alleged attacker. Joanne Lees, 32, alleges she heard a sound like a gunshot before she believes her boyfriend was killed. She was speaking under cross-examination in a courtroom in Darwin, Australia.

 

Bradley Murdoch, 47, denies murdering Mr Falconio, 28, and attacking and abducting Miss Lees in July 2001.

 

Mr Falconio got out of the van and began talking to him, then there was a sound like a gunshot and the man appeared at her window holding a gun, Miss Lees has said.

'

Grant Algie, representing Mr Murdoch, asked Miss Lees if she had felt any heat from the gun when it was put to her head. "No," she replied.

"Any smell from the barrel of the gun, like gunpowder?" Mr Algie asked.

"No, I didn't smell anything," she replied.

 

Miss Lees has told the court her attacker took her out of the camper van and put her into his vehicle. She said she did not know exactly how he did this, saying: "I wasn't in control."

 

She added that the man removed her glasses, which she said she did not see again until they were returned to her at a committal hearing in May 2004.

 

During cross-examination, she said while Mr Falconio and the man were examining the rear of the camper van, she heard a noise like a vehicle backfiring or a gunshot and then, she said: "I just remember looking straight ahead of me at first, thinking, 'Oh my God, what's happened to my vehicle? Is it something I've done to cause that?' and then I look and he's there, at the side of me.

 

"After that I was just looking at his face, into his eyes and at his gun."

 

The court heard how Miss Lees, of Brighton, picked out a photograph of her alleged attacker a year later. The court was shown a video interview at Hove Police station on 18 November, 2002, in which she pointed at the picture of Mr Murdoch and told officers: "I think it's number 10."

 

Asked to clarify her comment, she told the judge, Chief Justice Brian Martin: "I was very positive".

 

She said she had been interviewed by police in Alice Springs the day after the attack and had worked through the night of 15 July trying to produce a "comfit" image of her attacker. She was not happy with the hair on the picture which was "not quite right", she said.

 

"I felt pressure to get some photo out there to the public so people could be looking for this person," she added.

 

She said police had shown her a CCTV image of a man at an Alice Springs truck stop but that at the time she had told them he was "too old" to be her attacker. She had since changed her mind because "the police were able to show me a better quality picture", she added.

 

She said a photo of the man suspected of being her attacker on the BBC News website 10 October 2002 was "clearer" than the one she had seen previously. "I didn't really study the photograph of the man for long - I just knew that it was him," she told the court.

 

Public prosecutor Rex Wild also asked why, in March 2002, Miss Lees had agreed to be interviewed by journalist Martin Bashir, for which she was paid £50,000.

 

She said she had been told it would be shown in Australia with an appeal for viewers to call with information.

 

Miss Lees said she had turned down "hundreds" of other offers for interviews for fear they might prejudice the case.

 

The trial continues.

[Craig 6700]

I was wondering the same thing. I take it meal time in the Hayton household was time for advanced genetic lectures on the nights when it was Craig's brother's turn to speak. So Craig, what were the IT lectures you gave like?

 

Just cos my sister's a med student, it doesn't make me a doctor.

47154[/snapback]

 

Absolutely non-existant - I'm a qualified engineer, I only turned to IT after I left university and decided engineering wasn't for me...

 

Anyway, back to DNA, I got a response from him....

 

Every person's DNA IS unique. As is their fingerprint.

 

The trouble is in the way you measure it.

 

When you do a DNA "fingerprint" you only measure a certain number of reference points on the DNS sequence. Just as with a fingerprint only a certain number of reference points on the prints are measured. Unless you compare the ENTIRE DNA sequence there is a chance of replication.

 

On the common DNA test they do in this country there is a 1 in 10 million chance of the DNA sample belonging to someone who is NOT a close blood relative (of course, there is a high chance of a match with a close blood relative). Doesn't sound a lot. But it means there are about 6 people in the UK who will match you on this basis.

[Guest alex]

I believe the phrase is 'beyond resonable doubt'.

[Rob W 0]

and how you do the stats of course..............

[Craig 6700]

I believe the phrase is 'beyond resonable doubt'.

47220[/snapback]

 

See page 2!

 

(but Renton wasn't happy with that reply! )

[Renton 22001]

I was wondering the same thing. I take it meal time in the Hayton household was time for advanced genetic lectures on the nights when it was Craig's brother's turn to speak. So Craig, what were the IT lectures you gave like?

 

Just cos my sister's a med student, it doesn't make me a doctor.

47154[/snapback]

 

Absolutely non-existant - I'm a qualified engineer, I only turned to IT after I left university and decided engineering wasn't for me...

 

Anyway, back to DNA, I got a response from him....

 

Every person's DNA IS unique. As is their fingerprint.

 

The trouble is in the way you measure it.

 

When you do a DNA "fingerprint" you only measure a certain number of reference points on the DNS sequence. Just as with a fingerprint only a certain number of reference points on the prints are measured. Unless you compare the ENTIRE DNA sequence there is a chance of replication.

 

On the common DNA test they do in this country there is a 1 in 10 million chance of the DNA sample belonging to someone who is NOT a close blood relative (of course, there is a high chance of a match with a close blood relative). Doesn't sound a lot. But it means there are about 6 people in the UK who will match you on this basis.

47218[/snapback]

 

 

Basically what I said then?

 

There are even more sensitive/specific tests, but even so, if you have a positive DNA match and the person had opportunity and motive, I think you can reasonably say that the evidence from this test would be damning.

 

Unless, of course, there was contamination or the police planted it. That's the problem I would have.

[Rob W 0]

I hadn't realised she was PAID £ 50 grand to give that interview!!!

 

Hardly normal procedure surely???????

[Renton 22001]

I believe the phrase is 'beyond resonable doubt'.

47220[/snapback]

 

See page 2!

 

(but Renton wasn't happy with that reply! )

47224[/snapback]

 

I think you will find it was you that pulled me up on the term "exact science"; I was perfectly happy with the term beyond reasonable doubt.

 

And molecular biology, of which DNA fingerprinting is part of, is certainly an exact science.

[Rob W 0]

"Unless, of course, there was contamination or the police planted it."

[Guest alex]

I hadn't realised she was PAID £ 50 grand to give that interview!!!

 

Hardly normal procedure surely???????    

47227[/snapback]

I don't blame her for taking the money, it doesn't make her guilty. Neither does having an affair at the time (or having shifty eyes ). If her version of events is true, she's had to endure an awful event onl to be branded a murderer afterwards.

[Renton 22001]

"Unless, of course, there was contamination or the police planted it."

47235[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry Rob, I don't follow. People can always abuse evidence - any evidence, it doesn't lessen the power of DNA fingerprinting though.

[Renton 22001]

I hadn't realised she was PAID £ 50 grand to give that interview!!!

 

Hardly normal procedure surely???????    

47227[/snapback]

I don't blame her for taking the money, it doesn't make her guilty. Neither does having an affair at the time (or having shifty eyes ). If her version of events is true, she's had to endure an awful event onl to be branded a murderer afterwards.

47236[/snapback]

 

But shouldn't we hang her just in case?

[Rob W 0]

I hadn't realised she was PAID £ 50 grand to give that interview!!!

 

Hardly normal procedure surely???????    

47227[/snapback]

I don't blame her for taking the money, it doesn't make her guilty. Neither does having an affair at the time (or having shifty eyes ). If her version of events is true, she's had to endure an awful event onl to be branded a murderer afterwards.

47236[/snapback]

 

 

I just don't think it was normal to pay key witnesses before a trial............

 

I think it would be illegal over here for a start

 

I'm not saying she IS guilty (of anything) - but there are a lot of weird loose ends in this case IMHO - if those peopel who think they saw Falconio a coupel of days later are right there is no murder at all..............

 

Its worse than the bloody dingo case...........

[Rob W 0]

"Unless, of course, there was contamination or the police planted it."

47235[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry Rob, I don't follow. People can always abuse evidence - any evidence, it doesn't lessen the power of DNA fingerprinting though.

47239[/snapback]

 

 

agreed - DNA fingerprinting is a great step forward but, like all these things, you have to take care you don't depend on it to the exclusion of any other evidence

[Asprilla 96]

I believe a fair trial will get to the bottom of what happened. Lets hope that happens.

 

I agree she looks shifty and a little bit too excited by it all to believe that she's a wonderful character. I don't know if she did it but I do think body language is a pretty good way of forming an opinion, but possibly not the way you should convict someone.

[Renton 22001]

Anybody would think it was the woman on trial here. Wierd.

[Rob W 0]

partly because the case has some very odd features

 

partly because we all watch too many detective and cop shows and therefore KNOW the obvious suspect cannot be guilty - its always someone else

 

of course it often IS the obvious suspect who is guilty

[Ketsbaia 0]

They should get Dick van Dyke on the case

[Guest alex]

They should get Dick van Dyke on the case

47304[/snapback]

FACT!

[sammynb 3508]

They should get Dick van Dyke on the case

47304[/snapback]

Isn't that why everyone is doubting Joanna, too much Dick!

Edited October 20, 2005 by sammynb

[Rob W 0]

Test on Falconio van 'took weeks'

 

Investigators into the killing of UK backpacker Peter Falconio took weeks to test his camper van for traces of gunshot, an Australian courtroom heard. An officer told the jury he did not know if tape and lip gloss found at the scene three months after the attack had been there earlier.

 

The court heard how the couple's camper van, found in scrub close to the scene on the remote Stuart Highway, north of Alice Springs, was not tested for gunshot powder until two weeks later on 1 August 2001. By then it had been driven on a truck to a police garage in Alice Springs where it was dusted for fingerprints before being checked for gunshot powder.

 

Investigating officer, senior constable Ian Spilsbury, told the jury: "With residue from a gunshot, if it lands on a surface, in the fingerprint process you're dusting and you are going to be dusting residue off. When on the back of the truck, the wind, it's going to blow that residue off."

 

Mr Spilsbury told the jury he did not know whether black tape and a lip balm tube found at the scene three months after the attack was there days after the alleged ambush. Initially police only found the lip balm lid Miss Lees said she had used to loosen handcuffs with which Mr Murdoch had allegedly restrained her.

 

They did not search the nearby area until three months later, he said.

 

A photograph on 16 July 2001 showed a barren area underneath the bush and the lip balm lid. But photographs on 15 October showed the area with more "leaf litter", tape pieces and the lip balm tube.

 

Asked by Grant Algie, for the defence, if someone had put the lip balm and tape there before he photographed it, he replied: "No. I was called over to the area, shown the tape, and then I found the lip balm." Questioned whether or not he would have seen the tape and lip balm when he took photographs that July, he said he did not know.

 

He said he thought other officers had looked under the tree and they thought he would search the area in the days after the attack. He told the court the police had revisited the scene north of Barrow Creek on 15 October with new recruits. He showed the new officers to the tree where the lip balm lid was found and an officer saw two pieces of black duct tape.

 

Miss Lees said she had bitten the tape off her handcuffs while hiding in the bush. After taking photographs, Mr Spilsbury found the red lip balm tube.

Asked why he did not search the scene further on 16 July, he said: "I can only put it down to we thought they (other officers) had already been there and that was all they had located.

 

"In hindsight we probably should have gone over it, but we did not."

 

The court heard Aboriginal trackers visited the scene in July but were only there for a short time.

[Rob W 0]

Falconio evidence 'contaminated'

Stuart Highway

 

Police may have contaminated handcuffs allegedly used to hold the girlfriend of missing backpacker Peter Falconio, defence barristers have suggested.

 

The court heard the cuffs - cable ties and tape - were photographed 1.5cm from items found at the home of the suspect. But an officer investigating the 2001 disappearance in the outback said the intention was to compare similarities.

 

Police log

 

The Northern Territory Supreme Court in Darwin heard the handcuffs were photographed on a piece of paper next to some tape found at Mr Murdoch's home. Crime scene examiner Tim Sandry said the purpose was to make a comparison between the ends of two pieces of tape.

 

Mr Sandry denied having the cable ties over a two day period in February 2002 even though a police log recorded they were in his possession.

 

He told the jury: "The only explanation I can give is that possibly if I was going to do a further examination of the cable ties I would say, 'Can you release the cable ties to me and I will grab them later?'"

 

The court was also told a police log made no mention of the handcuffs after they were handed over to officers in Adelaide in October 2002. Defence barrister Grant Algie asked Mr Sandry: "Is it because they were no longer reliable from a forensic science point of view?"

 

The judge, Chief Justice Brian Martin, told Mr Algie he was not going to allow the officer to answer the question, adding: "You've made the point by your question".

 

On Thursday, the court heard the handcuffs were initially kept by police in the same room as the accused's property.

 

Barking dogs

 

Miss Lees previously told the court her attacker's dog did not react as she screamed and struggled with her attacker. In cross-examination by the defence, Mr Sandry told the court that when he first went to Murdoch's properties in South Australia in October 2002 , his dog was barking.

 

"When we first arrived I think there were some other dogs there as well and they came out as a pack, but once we got out he was wary of us, but he just went on his own way around the property."

 

But in re-examination by Prosecutor Anthony Elliott, Mr Sandry confirmed Mr Murdoch was not present when he the dog was barking at him.

[Rob W 0]

Falconio test lab 'not official'

 

The forensic science laboratories where tests for the Peter Falconio murder case were carried out were not accredited, a court has heard. Forensic biologist Carmen Eckhoff told the Darwin court that she had used a converted office in a police station.

 

Carmen Eckhoff, who works for the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, said the make-shift lab she used was on the first floor of the police centre in Berrimah. She told the court the Australian National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) had not accredited it because of health and safety concerns - rather than due to concerns about the scientific procedures being carried out there.

 

These included the lack of a second exit, safety showers and eye washes which would not have affected the results, she added. "The facilities in the old police headquarters were inadequate to meet the standards from a health and safety point of view but the scientific practices were in place from the 1990s," she said.

 

'Less than ideal'

 

Several of the tests carried out in this old laboratory were "separated by time" because they could not be separated by space, she said. This was a recognised scientific method to help minimise contamination, she added.

However, when questioned by Anthony Elliott, prosecuting, Ms Eckhoff acknowledged the conditions were "less than ideal".

 

The forensic team moved to a new laboratory in Berrimah in October 2001, three months after the alleged attack.

 

The court has heard how officers failed to thoroughly search the scene

On Friday the court heard how the handcuffs allegedly used to hold Miss Lees, now living in Brighton, were put in the same room as Mr Murdoch's property. Miss Lees told police she was threatened with a gun to her head, tied up with her hands behind her back and put into the back of her attacker's vehicle.

 

She says she managed to escape from under the loose canopy and had hid in the bush for more than five hours before being rescued.

The court also heard evidence that Mr Falconio could have died from a single gun shot, despite the fact that no bullets, brain matter or body parts were found at the scene.

 

Forensic pathologist Dr Noel Woodford told the court that most gunshot wounds from a .22 calibre revolver do not result in exit wounds. "The bullet can ricochet around inside the skull and then lodge in a thicker part of the skull. A gun shot wound to the head might not necessarily leave an exit to the head. It may pass downwards and lodge in another part of the body. Or it might continue off and never be found again."

 

He also said there were a number of possible explanations why a person who was shot might not make a noise. Dr Woodford also denied, during cross-examination, that it would be unusual for there to be no brain matter deposited on the ground.

 

The trial continues.

[Rob W 0]

Outback handcuffs 'contaminated'

 

Cable ties used to bind the hands of British backpacker Joanne Lees were contaminated by a forensic scientist, a court in northern Australia has heard. The cuffs were allegedly used by Bradley Murdoch, 47, who is accused of killing Miss Lees' boyfriend Peter Falconio, 28, during an ambush in 2001.

 

Forensic biologist Carmen Eckhoff told the court laboratory director Dr Peter Thatcher's DNA was found on the cuffs. She said the presence of his DNA on the "significant" piece of evidence could have got there in a number of ways, despite protocols being in place to prevent it happening.

 

During cross-examination by defence lawyer Grant Algie, Ms Eckhoff said she did not know how Dr Thatcher's DNA came to be on the exhibit.

 

"I was not there when he was handling it, but I'm aware he was handling it on a number of occasions," she said.

 

On Friday defence barristers told the court that police may have contaminated the handcuffs, saying they were photographed next to tape found at the home of the suspect. In other DNA evidence the jury heard on Tuesday that blood on Miss Lees' t-shirt was 150 million billion times more likely to be Bradley Murdoch's than any other local white male's.

 

Sealed bag

 

When asked in court on Wednesday about the cable bindings Ms Eckhoff said she asked Dr Thatcher - director of the Forensic Science Laboratory - how his DNA came to be there and that he provided an explanation. Prosecutor Anthony Elliott objected when Mr Algie asked what that explanation was.

 

He again objected when Mr Algie asked which protocol Dr Thatcher may have broken. Mr Algie asked the prosecution to call Dr Thatcher as a witness later in the trial. Ms Eckhoff said Dr Thatcher had the cable ties signed out to him on three occasions in 2001 and 2002.

 

During cross-examination Ms Eckhoff said she did not agree with the cable ties being taken to Yatala Prison in Adelaide, South Australia, where Mr Murdoch was on remand in October 2002.

 

"I was unhappy about them leaving my possession, particularly if the forensic examination may not have been completed." She made her feelings known to Dr Thatcher, who gave the handcuffs to Senior Constable Tim Sandry so he could take them to Adelaide.

 

Earlier, Ms Eckhoff said that if anyone wanted to continue testing an item, such as the cable ties, it was "not ideal" to take them out of the laboratory.

But she said that if they remained in a sealed bag and were put in the same room as Mr Murdoch's items, or Mr Murdoch himself - as they were when police visited Yatala Prison - they would not be contaminated as long as the bag was not opened.

 

When asked about the possibility of deliberate contamination of the cable ties with Mr Murdoch's DNA she said that the samples from him that were stored in the freezer were of a very high concentration. She said it was only possible to find DNA on the cable ties by using a method called "low copy number" because there was very little present.

 

The trial continues.