Peter Falconio was murdered in a van in the Austrailian outback. His girlfriend Joanne Lees claims to have been tied up in the front seat when he was killed and that she escaped and hid in some bushes. The main question is wether or not she could actually have untied herself and hidden in the time the killer took to kill her boyfriend. Some people say yes others say no. I personally doubt her story but that's just me.


Catch me as I fall,
And even more so while I'm standing tall.

Why is there always some-one with conspiracy theories???

until anyone of us had a gun shoved in our face, given a beating and feared for our life ... who are we to judge joanne on the slight inaccuracy's of her story?

Can you remember step-by-step what you did in in a 10min period 5hour under normal circumstances?

If my boss questions me about something I did or didnt do yesterday or a few hours ago, I tend to get details wrong every so often. And I dot tend to think my boss is about to kill me!!

As for her affair, she made a mistake, but she obviously made a choice and decided travelling with Peter was what she wanted rather than being with Nick. It's good to know that none of her critics make mistakes!!

If having an affair and lying about it makes you a prime suspect for murder then surely drug running and attempted rape and abduction does the same

I firmly believe joanne's version of events and that the correct person got convicted for the murder of Peter Falconio

Hey, I'm just calling the evidence as I see it. It's not a conspiracy theory. Her version of events doesn't seem to add up. I'm training to be a forensic scientist. It's my job to look at evidence and put it into context. The fact is that even Houdini would have had a hard time escaping from that one. Until I get proof that it would be physically possible for a woman of her height and build to make that escape, I will continue to doubt due to lack of evidence.


Catch me as I fall,
And even more so while I'm standing tall.

Oh and lying about an affair can be a good reason for being a murder suspect. The spouse or partner of the victim is almost always investigated because they have a lot of possible motives. It's a routine check and no offense is meant by it, but an affair is always something the police like to look into because that can either elimnate or add suspects.


Catch me as I fall,
And even more so while I'm standing tall.

Hi there, i've just finished reading a book about Peter Falconio and Joanne Lees. It seems fairly accurate and i'm having trouble stomaching the theories on this forum. Obviously alot of people have not actually researched or read properly about the case, and are just making outrageous statements based on no evidence whatsoever. My opinion is that Peter and Joanne were innoncent victims this is because:
1. You can't dispute DNA. Bradley Murdoch's DNA was found on Joanne's shirt- the chances of the DNA not being his was a quadrillion to one (a trillion times four) - this was attested to in court, not just hearsay. DNA was also found on the steering wheel, gear shift and handcuffs.
2. So many people can't believe Joanne was able to move her handcuffed hands from behind her back, to her chest, by stepping through her hands. Again, this was proved true in court when she demonstrated her ability to do so in less then a second. Again, this is not hearsay this happened IN COURT.
3.If Peter Falconio were to fake his death I doubt he would have lasted long as the amount of blood left by him on the road meant he couldn't have survived long.

The so called Falconio murder was well planned by whoever
committed this crime. Is Peter still alive?
There is not a single shread of evidence to PROVE he died.
That is a fact, yes there is blood but not enough to mirror
that of a gunshot wound or to prove certain death.

I am not saying Joanne lees is guilty and by no means a
killer but I am very sure she knows more than she says?
Think about it, someone knew there would be no witnesses
and maximum opportunity for the perfect crime, out there
in the middle of nowhere. The 2 perfect places for a vanishing act, the Ocean and the Desert.

If and when the truth comes out you will all be astonished
to find out that this case involves more players and bigger ones
at that!
Pete and Jo were drug users, soft ones at that I might add.
Someone was crossed during their time in Aus, someone that
knew Mr Murdoch and someone that used him very well!

Read between my lines, Miss Lees has a look of mystery
in her eyes and the fear of God in her heart!
I do not beleive she fears the opinions of millions, just
the wrath of the nameless!

Don't know anything about Mr Murdoch and I do beleive he has
been used as a pawn in the Falconio Farce.

Honest question here though, did he commit rape
against that woman and her daughter?
I am a long way from OZ and honestly do not know
the truth behind this.
Perhaps as a real Austrailian you know the truth?
(that's not a smart arsed comment by the way)

Well i have read all the books and it is a very fascinating case that will be
talked about for years to come. The truth will never be found now , i think
the Police made sure with the unfortunate botch of the whole investigation
that they sealed that issue.

I know this is a probably an implausible idea maybe but what if Peter knew
about Joanne's infidelity and he set the whole thing up with help from an
outside source ( not Murdoch , but someone unfortunately similar ) ? Did
Joanne see the body after the alleged shooting ? No she did not.

Did the blood match Peter's? Yes. Was it consistent with a shooting ? No.

What if the act of trying to abduct / frighten Joanne was also part of the plan
with no intention of ever truly harming her ?

The other party has a dog but the dog is unable to trace the scent of a single
human being in a fairly close proximity to the incident. Sure the dog was
there but not allowed to sniff Joanne out .

This would leave Peter and the other party free to do a runner whilst Joanne
is too frightened to try and get help. Joanne innocent to the whole charade
taking place.

I am sure someone will then ask , "well what was the motive for Peter to do
this , especially hurting his parents etc ?" , well i am afraid i am unable to
answer this with any conviction to be honest , but i am sure with a bit of
digging someone would find some deep reason for this. If Peter loved Joanne
as much as she says he did, and she destroyed that trust and feeling with the
affair, well ??? People are capable of very strange things, that's for sure and
maybe he knew that to get back at Joanne in the most hurtful way would be
for her to suffer at his demise ???

A lot of reading but you have got to the end , so you can slag me off now for
my theory !!!