All language subtitles for 2muerder un the oustnbajv

This programme contains very
strong language from the outset.

ENGINE STARTS
INDISTINCT CHATTER

The purpose
of this re-enactment today

is an attempt to reconstruct
the events of an incident

which occurred in this location

on the evening
of Saturday 14th July 2001.

Joanne,
for the purpose of this video,

can you tell me how you
came to be at this location?

"Police in Australia
say they fear the worst

"for a British tourist who
disappeared after being attacked
in a remote part of the Outback."

"Peter Falconio was shot by a gunman

"who attempted to abduct
his girlfriend, Joanne Lees."

"The search for Peter Falconio
goes on."

"A jury unanimously found
Bradley John Murdoch guilty
of murdering Peter Falconio."

Bradley Murdoch will spend
at least 28 years in prison.
That's who did it.

"I definitely did not do it.
I'm not a fucking murderer."

This was a real
Agatha Christie thriller.

No-one really knew
quite what had happened.

He says,
"Shut up and I won't shoot you."

Why didn't she see the body?
How do you even know he's dead?

No-one doubts me. It's only media.

We will find the key to this.

The answer to this case
lies in the police file.

People that think they know
the story probably don't.

Bang, I'm looking straight at this
bloke I just seen in the paper.

That's him, all right.
Bad news, that bloke.

I couldn't believe this had never
seen the light of day.

This case never goes away,
it just sleeps for periods of time.

Things like this just don't happen.

Somebody knows what happened
that night. Really knows.

There is so much more to this story
than people ever imagined.

As matters stand, Brad Murdoch is
going to spend the rest of his life

in jail with no prospect of parole
for the murder of Peter Falconio.

Joanne Lees claims
that Brad Murdoch shot Falconio,

appeared at the side
of the Kombi van,

bound and tried to gag her,

she escaped...

..he couldn't find her,

he left the scene

and then she was, some hours later,

rescued by Vince Miller,
the truck driver.

This is a one-witness case.

It revolves around Joanne Lees'
version of events.

When there's only one witness
to any event,

the credibility of that witness
is everything, it's paramount.

Because if you can unpick at that
witness, the Crown case falls apart.

Part of the reason the case is still
being discussed 18 years on

is because not everybody
believes what happened.

Nobody could find Peter.

The whole story
was almost unbelievable.

In 2001, in the Northern Territory,

I was the police media manager.

Northern Territory was known as
the crime capital of Australia.

Stabbings were quite common.

Bodies were found.

And we had accidents,

tourists being eaten by a crocodile,

two Germans kidnapped
and tied up to a tree,

all of those things
were part of my time
at the Northern Territory Police.

But certainly the Falconio case
was the biggest.

When I first heard about
the Falconio attack,

it was about five o'clock
in the morning.

There were lots of media
starting to call already.

Some of our colleagues say to us,
"Just wait until
the British press arrive.

"Then you'll be totally
overwhelmed."

For 23 years, I was an Australian
foreign correspondent

for the UK tabloids.

I was just putting the key
in the door of my apartment

when I got a call from the Mail
On Sunday, "Go to Alice Springs."

When I got to Alice Springs, we were
getting very little information

about what was
a fantastic world story

and still no body,
no Peter Falconio.

One of the things that wasn't
understood in London by the editors

was that the search area alone

was six times the size of Britain.

Having been sent by an English
newspaper all that way

to the middle of Australia,
you were expected to get results.

It was very frustrating
for all of the press

that we were not able to get
an interview with Joanne Lees.

Just like the police,
we had nothing.

My first encounter with Joanne Lees

didn't exactly run smoothly.

I was trying to get her
to actually talk to the media.

She was not interested at all.

We were responding to media
morning and night.

Denise, can we...
PHONE RINGS
What?

It was just non-stop.

Denise, when you talk to Joanne,
what reason does she give
for not wanting to talk?

I think, in all honesty, she's just
daunted by the whole thing.

Denise, she shouldn't be daunted
by it. We're all very nice people.

I don't think she trusted anybody

because she was quite adamant
about what she wanted to do
without taking any advice.

At this point, there is
no photo shoot of Joanne,

but she is going to supply
a photograph

of her and Peter in the van.

At three o'clock,
we are praying for.

HE LAUGHS

I remember she threw a photo at me
and said,

"Just give them that.
That'll be enough."

She had a strong interest
in finding Peter Falconio,

but she didn't seem to wanna help
do that herself.

Although the Falconio family,
they did everything possible

to help us find Peter.

Joanne's asked me
to read a statement out.

"I'd like to ask people
to concentrate their efforts

"more on finding Pete
than trying to speak to me.

"I also want to say I'm not prepared
to sell my story to the media."

I hope you'll find my son.
That's all I've got to say.

Because I want to go back with him.

I think it was really hard for them.

Initially, of course, we were
looking for a missing person,

so there was hope
that we would find Peter.

But as that went on, I think
the chance of finding him alive

was harder.

I felt particularly sorry
for Luciano Falconio,

the grieving father, who was bereft,

and it was heartbreaking.

I'll just let you wipe your eyes.

I know this is hard.
Thank you for this.

You want to make an appeal
to the Australian people,

and if I can express,
on behalf of them,

we all want them to find your son.

Somebody knows something.
But if there is those people,

I think they should come forward.

The English press
and the Australian press

were under enormous pressure

to get an interview at all costs
with Joanne Lees.

We searched high and low.

We could not get Joanne Lees.

And it didn't do Joanne any favours
in her treatment by the press
as a result.

Journalists were frustrated
about every occasion

where Joanne Lees did something
and they were not invited.

"Joanne Lees was to conduct
a re-enactment of the crime.

"They shipped in
this lookalike white ute,

"placed a lone armed police officer
inside

"and got it to trail
this Kombi van

"with 27-year-old Joanne
as passenger

"and another officer
playing her boyfriend."

Joanne said she would do it
provided there was no press.

And the photographers
did go out there,

but they were kept about a quarter
of a mile from the scene.

The media, when they couldn't get
any pictures of her,

just chased her
every chance they could.

Quite ruthlessly. It was dangerous.

She realised
if she didn't do some press,

they were just going to
hunt her down, basically.

We finally got
the first press conference

where we could talk to Joanne Lees,
we thought.

She's quite keen for no journalists
to be in there at all.

She doesn't mind if somebody else
is asking the questions.

She can't have it all her own way.
We're either all in or all out.

They're just not gonna be able
to write a story.

She demanded that
there would only be one reporter

and two cameras
and she selected the questions.

CAMERAS CLICK

When we finally did see Joanne,

she looked like Cleopatra
coming out of a movie set.

Such an ice queen.

So the media seem to believe there's
a certain way that women should
behave after a traumatic event.

They should show emotion.

And she didn't cry.

I always thought afterwards,
had she cried, I think things
would've been different.

SHE CLEARS HER THROAT
OK.

I am feeling positive and strong
and believe it's only
a matter of time now

before the man responsible
for what has happened to Pete
and myself is caught.

I am confident
that everything is being done

and I'm hoping one of these leads
the police are following up
will lead to Pete being found.

I am confident
that Pete will be found.

I have asked the police to tell me
only positive news and remain
hopeful of Pete being found.

CAMERAS CLICK

I would like to thank
the public, the police and Paul
for all of their support

and I hope that people
will respect now my privacy...
CAMERAS CLICK

..and allow me
to get on with my life.

Joanne, what is your reaction to the
doubt expressed about your story?

OK. Anyone that's spoken to me

or has been in contact, in contact
with me, no-one doubts me.

It's only the media that have
questioned...my story.

Why have you been reluctant to meet
the press up until this stage?

Because I find it all
so overwhelming and intimidating.

Do you have a particular problem
with the British press
and why is that?

Erm... I've got a problem with
all press that distort the truth

and doubt my story,

misquote me

and, erm, making up
false accusations and stories.

Well done. Thanks.

All she really talked about
was she didn't like any press

and she didn't like anything
that was written about her.

We were all stunned by that.

I think that first press conference
did lead to suspicions

about whether she was involved.

I don't think people trusted her

and I think
even some that did trust her

probably trusted her less
at that stage.

The second press conference, she
wore a very tight-fitting T-shirt

which had "cheeky monkey" across it.

I told her that she should change.

And she said,
"No, this is what I wanna wear.

"It's not about me,
it's about Peter."

I'm not sure exactly what the media
thought, but they definitely thought
it was totally inappropriate.

Joanne's not...
That was the instruction,
she wasn't going to say anything.

Paul was the spokesperson
for the family and Joanne.

Is there anything you'd say to Peter
if he could hear you now?

Just hang in there.
If you can hear us, just wait,

you know, we'll see you soon.
Any other questions?

Thank you very much.

When Joanne looked uncomfortable,
wouldn't talk to the press,

it looked as though maybe she did
have something to hide.

I think she had clearly gone through
a traumatic incident.

People didn't believe it
because they didn't see how
such a bizarre story could occur.

The Falconio case went on
for such a long time,

we were relieved to hear
when they caught somebody.

I always thought that Joanne Lees
was telling the truth

and Murdoch was guilty.

When I first started
looking at this case,

it just didn't ring true with me.

Once we started digging our way
through the police file...

..Victor rang me and said,
"Mate, I've got this document here,

"wait till you read it,
it'll pin your ears back."

I read it
and I couldn't believe its contents.

This document is just extraordinary.

REPORTER: The final chapter
in the murder mystery

that's gripped two nations.

Peter Falconio disappeared
in the Outback,

shot dead by Bradley John Murdoch
in an ambush.

A Darwin judge jailed Murdoch,

saying he's shown no remorse
for his crime.

Ten years ago, Brad Murdoch asked me

to re-evaluate his case

to see whether there was any hope
of any sort of further appeal.

I had been a criminal defence lawyer
for 28 years,

and part of all that experience
is your ability to look at evidence,

to speak to witnesses,
and you draw it all together.

We have obtained Murdoch's file
from his defence team.

We are digging through to see where
the holes are in the Crown case.

The reason why we must question
Joanne Lees, must,

is that I think what she says

doesn't stack up with what was found
at the crime scene.

No body.

No weapon.

No evidence of a firearm
being discharged.

They found footprints
belonging to Joanne Lees.

Where's Peter Falconio's footprints?
Where's Murdoch's footprints?

What you'd normally expect to find

at an incident crime scene like
this, well, there wasn't much.

For ten years, we've been working
towards a petition of mercy.

It's a document whereby you set out

everything you see wrong
with the case.

In my view, the most significant
thing we found

is what's called a SCAN report -
Scientific Content Analysis Notes.

The SCAN report
was based on an interview

the police did with Joanne Lees

on the night of 15th July,

that is the night after the event.

SCAN are experts.

They look at language,
the use of words,

for evidence of deception,

to see whether
they could reach a conclusion

as to whether Lees...
was telling the truth.

I'm reading the SCAN report itself.

The very first thing on page two
that strikes me, she said...

The SCAN report says...

The unanimous conclusion
of the SCAN practitioners was...

On any assessment,
this report is damning.

I've often wondered why the SCAN
report was never mentioned at trial.

I would have cross-examined Lees
on its contents.

I was a police officer for 21 years

and I work now
as a trainer for SCAN.

SCAN is used by police forces

primarily in North America,
to a lesser extent in Australia.

The military intelligence use it,
crime analysts,

human resources for better vetting,

to determine whether somebody's
deceptive or truthful.

The Northern Territory
did do a SCAN report

on Joanne Lees' interview.

They concluded that
this was a deceptive story.

I did not agree with that

for one moment.

G'day, Bill. I'm Victor. Victor,
how are you? Very good to meet you.

I'm Fraser.
Fraser, how are you, mate? Good.

OK. I got the report.

From my analysis, I was satisfied
that she was telling the truth.

This SCAN report has sat there

since 2001

and has never, ever been questioned.

Now you're saying
you think it's wrong. Yeah.

She was telling the truth.
With a couple of issues.

One issue I had was
when she talked

about being put
into the back of the vehicle,

she reverted to present tense.

Now, if somebody relates a story
in the present tense,

it's a good indication that
they're fabricating the evidence.

And this is one of the big problems
with Joanne Lees' statement.

Most of her statement in the
interview was in present tense,

which raises a red flag
to an analyst.

But it's discovered since
that women in particular

who are in violent crimes,
particularly rapes,

the event becomes a living memory

and they'll relate it
in present tense.

So I was prepared to accept
the present tense

on most of her statement.
That was my big concern.

Right from the outset,
there is a very large question mark

over the accuracy of what happened
that night.

That's a legitimate
avenue of inquiry,

but not for the SCAN analyst.

I'm only interested, as a SCAN
analyst, at looking at the language,

looking at the words used.

I want to make it quite clear
that if I had got that report then,

I may have come
to the same conclusion

because of the present tense.

What bothers me is that this has
been taken as gospel for 18 years

and then Bill bounces along
and debunks it.

Yet very fairly, very fairly,
you're prepared to say

if you'd looked at this
back in 2001,

you may well have reached
a similar conclusion

or a similar conclusion
on some of the points.

Yeah.
Yep. OK. We're happy with that.

Good on you.

In my view,
I think we can use the SCAN report

as part of Brad's petition of mercy.

I would have introduced
the SCAN report

right upfront
as part of Murdoch's defence.

This wasn't put before the jury

and I think it should have been.

It raises the question -
did this bloke get a fair trial?

In most crimes, if there's a murder,

police automatically suspect
a close member of the family.

Nine times out of ten, that proves
correct, it is a husband or a wife

or somebody close to that person
who's guilty of the murder.

And, of course, in the Joanne Lees
case, they would've had similar
suspicions to begin with.

Only one month after the attack,

police had already discovered
the inconsistencies

in Joanne Lees' statements.

One of the lead investigators,
Jeanette Kerr, put together

a list of improbabilities and
inconsistencies in Lees' statements.

So she re-interviewed her.

In Lees' second statement,
Lees claims that
while she was lying face-down,

she was able to grab hold
of her attacker by the nuts.

Originally,
Joanne Lees told the police

that her attacker had pushed her
between the two front seats,

into the tray at the back.
She said...

However,
by the time the trial came around,

she wasn't sure how she had got
from the front to the back.

Given Lees' demeanour

and her general inconsistencies
of her story,

I'm not surprised that Lees was
treated as a possible suspect.

My name is Steve van Aperen
and I'm a behavioural analyst

and I specialise in how to read
people and detect deception.

In 14 years of police work,

I've conducted
more than 500, 600 interviews.

I trained with the LAPD,

their polygraph unit and scientific
investigation division,

I trained with the FBI, US Secret
Service, LA County Sheriffs.

As humans, we all lie. Often what
happens is people won't lie to you,

they'll edit the information
they supply you with.

So they lie by omission
rather than commission.

Some of the telltale signs of lying
would be avoidance,

defensiveness, attack.

They might be shifting in the chair,
there might be hand to face,

blocking, masking,
concealment behaviours,

prolonged eye closure, increased
blink rate, changes in tone, pitch,
voice modulation.

And their language will reflect
doubt and uncertainty

when they're concocting a story
that didn't happen.

I was contacted by Andrew Fraser
and Victor Susman

and they said,
"We're just wondering if you could
assist us in a particular case."

So what I did was I analysed
two types of footage,

and that is the footage from
the initial police re-enactment

and also footage from an interview
that Joanne gave to Martin Bashir
in the UK

some time after the disappearance.

And the purpose of that
was to compare the reactions
and compare behaviour.

Usually when I've dealt with
victims, they'll tell you what
happened and what they felt.

And there'll be things like, "I
can't believe I'm in this situation.

"Will I ever see my family again?"
They're inconsolable.

During the re-enactment, she was
quite robotic in the delivery,

but only focusing on
what was happening,
not what her feelings were

or emotions were at the time,
which I find unusual.

This is the only time
that I actually saw her
showing any emotion.

SHE WEEPS

She put her head down
towards her knees
and it sounded like she was crying.

The difficulty there was I didn't
actually see her crying because
her head was buried in herlap.

Can you tell me...

..what Peter was like as a person?

He's the nicest person
I've ever met.

In the Bashir interview,

she once again
put her hands up and cried.

OK.

It sounds a little bit
like she's crying, but once again,
it's hard to tell.

When she removes her hands,
I don't see any tears on her face

or smudged mascara
or anything like that.

Interestingly enough,
I counted 51 occasions

where she would use language
of uncertainty.

"I don't know, possibly, sort of,
maybe," all that type of ting.

If somebody's gone through
a terribly traumatic event,

sometimes people do forget things,
but often I've found,
in my experience,

their memory hasn't been
that changed as a result of it,

they remember things
with amazing clarity.

When there's so many changes,
it's difficult to believe
what's true and what's not.

A lot of the inconsistencies
and conflict and contradiction
raised a lot of flags.

So it concerned me in that it might
be telltale signs of deception.

The question that everybody
would want me to ask you... OK.

..did you kill Peter Falconio?
SHE CHUCKLES
No.

What I'm looking for
is how she reacts to that question.

And interestingly enough,
what she does is

she smiles, she actually says,
"No," shaking her head,

so the body language
reflects the spoken word, but there
was a smile, which is interesting.

The next question that I see is,
"Do you know who killed...?"

Have you any idea who did?
No.

This was really interesting.
We got the conflict and
contradiction in the body language.

And you have to look very carefully.

"No." Just a very slight,
just slight head movement,

which was contradictory to what
she did in the previous response.

Why is she doing that?
Maybe she knows something
that she hasn't let on.

Having spent 14 years in the police
and having assisted and worked on
81 homicide cases

and studied behavioural analysis,

I am not convinced that Joanne's
version of events are believable.

It appears that Joanne and Peter did
have quite a strong relationship.

They'd known each other
for five years.

They were dreaming
of this worldwide trip.

When they got to Australia,

there were signs of friction
within that relationship,

given what we know now.

In the pre-trial hearing,

there was an unmistakable gasp
in the courtroom

when this sudden piece
of surprise evidence emerged.

It was a real bombshell, you know.
People weren't expecting it.

A murder hearing has ended
with a sensational admission.

She's on her way home to England

after revealing
she cheated on her boyfriend
shortly before he disappeared.

"Her evidence in the committal
hearing for murder accused
Bradley Murdoch

"ended with a win for the defence,
forcing her to admit
she'd had an affair.

"Ms Lees agreed it was with a man
by the name of Nick
during the couple's holiday."

"Seven News understands
Nick is a British backpacker

"who worked in a Sydney coffee shop
not far from Dymocks,
where Lees worked."

Lees was also asked whether she'd
e-mailed Nick from Alice Springs

in the days
after Peter's disappearance,

making plans to meet him in Berlin.

She admitted
she had made that suggestion.

After the incident, Joanne Lees
was put in a safe house

and given a police chaperone.

And that chaperone's job
was to look after Lees,

but also make minute notes

about everything that was said
and done during the day.

That is when we found out
about Steph.

Police discovered that
she'd been sending e-mails

to a person called Steph,
which was a pseudonym for Nick.

She'd been writing to him
and suggesting they meet in Berlin
on holiday later on in the year.

This was a couple of days after
the shooting of her boyfriend.

It cast a new dimension,
perspective,
on what she was really up to.

How could she have been talking
to a former lover,

a lover she'd had an affair with
in Sydney earlier,

about getting together
a bit later on in the year
and meeting up in Berlin?

It didn't add up. And that, of
course, was significant evidence,

which really went against
Joanne's interest.

So, she's had an affair.

However, Joanne wasn't that keen
on fessing up to it.

Well, here's what she says
at the committal.

"Were you concerned about the police
becoming aware of e-mails

that you'd received
from somebody called Steph?"

And her answer, "No."

"Who is Steph?"
Joanne Lees, "I don't know."

"Is not Steph the name of
the pseudonym false name adopted
to write to you through the e-mail

"by somebody called Nick?" "Yes."

"And who is Nick?" "A friend."

"A friend from Sydney with whom
you had a relationship?" "No."

She is under oath.

Lie number one.
"Who's Steph?" "I don't know."

"Did you have a relationship
with him?" "No."

Now, a lie under oath is perjury.

The magistrate said it's hardly
a matter of real relevance here,

but you'd be saying
to the magistrate, "Hey,
I'm asking the questions here,

"and I'm saying it's relevant
because it goes to her credit."

"She was asked if she had
a particular friend called Nick."

I think the Crown
was trying desperately

to downplay the Nick Reilly affair.

And I would have taken
a statement from him.

So we keep digging,
as we have for years,

and we find Joanne Lees'
phone records

in the police file
that never came out at the trial.

Now, it has here Nick Reilly
on 22nd May.

And you have a look at the list
of calls there. 27 calls.

But it's just before
they leave Sydney. Correct.

And you can just see, day after day,
two calls, eight calls, three calls,
eight calls, two calls.

And then we hit 16th June, 2001.

So we're less than a month away
from the actual incident.

28 calls.

A few days before
Lees and Falconio leave Sydney
on their trip of a lifetime,

Lees and Nick Reilly call each other
28 times in one day.

It's clear that the calls continue
after they've left.

This is significant
because everything she says,

she sort of downplays
any relationship.

I think these phone records
suggest that this relationship

was more than the one-off fling
Joanne Lees would have us all
believe.

Joanne Lees has been presented to,

and accepted by, the jury
as a witness of truth.

If the jury had seen
the SCAN report,

re-enactment, interviewed by
Jeanette Kerr, phone records,

you would say to the jury,
"You must have a doubt."

There's somebody out there
with the key.

Somebody knows what happened
that night. Really knows.

Perhaps the police
hadn't got the right man.

It's unlikely that that is Murdoch.

There is a list
of people of interest.

He made the hairs on the back
of my neck stand up.

200% sure it was Peter Falconio.
I was a metre away from him.

Where's Falconio gone?

Subtitles by Red Bee Media