Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Falconio Murder...... Did He Really Do It ?

Recommended Posts

Anybody else just not convinced all is what it seems?

The guys heavy into running drugs, yet he commits acts likely to bring the police swarming all over the place on stop and searches.

He has a dog, yet Miss Lees manages to escape and hide in the bush, all the dogs I've owned have had acute hearing and smell.

Good job they had DNA, but our own justice system has been known to fail in times of there being a need for a "political" conviction. The Police have colluded in presenting false evidence to secure convictions, a couple of high profile examples being the Birmingham Six, and the Great Train robbery trials. Both good examples of cases with a political need for a conviction. And here we had a murderer on the lose, who kills the male and attempts to the abduct female, all this in a country that attracts good business in backpacker tourism.

Not that it implies guilt or collusion in a criminal act, but the lady sure likes the camera, always looking to see if it is on her.

The Fascination of the Falconio Case

Was he set Up ?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A while ago I was on the computer having run out of web pages to look at and the latest about ex-PC Shirley McKie was on the news so I started reading about her case.

For those that don't know, Shirley McKie is an ex-PC whose fingerprint was 'found' at the scene of a murder she had attended. However she adamantly denies that she entered the property and instead merely guarded the front door. To cut a long story short, she was charged with perjury and humiliated in front of her colleagues by having to be strip searched etc. She has been dragged through the courts and ultimately cleared of perjury.

However, nobody at the Scottish Criminal Records Office will accept that the fingerprint was not hers. It is not discussed. This is in the face of 171 international fingerprint experts from 18 countries concluding that the print is not her's. No expert has agreed with the SCRO.

She tried to sue her former employers but lost this case. In a final act of sticking the knife in, they are in turn trying to recover costs from her, which could make her homeless.

For more, got to Shirley McKie.

I started to then follow links and found myself reading about DNA evidence and how that works.

If I remember correctly, about 97% of DNA is identical between different people, and the other 3% is 'unique'. This 3% is analysed and 'profiled' and a "DNA profile" is produced, which consists of a series of letters and numbers.

In one case, a dyslexic person was employed to type in these letters and numbers!

There are also doubts as to the uniqueness of this DNA (hence why I single-quoted the word above). In the UK, we use 11 'reference points' if I remember correctly, but as the number of DNA profiles increase this has proved to not be unique enough! Many other countries have moved to using 14 'reference points'. This sounds a bit like fingerprints to me where they don't compare the whole print, just some key 'reference points'.

Now, when you read about all this sort of stuff, it becomes hard to believe the fantastical statistics trotted out every time it suits. "The chances of this being the wrong person are 1 billion to one." etc.

I have always thought "How can they possibly quote 1 billion to one when they have nothing like that number of records?", since it is not possible to extrapolate a MORE accurate statistic from, say, proof that every one of 100,000 records are 'unique' (remember it's only reference points we're talking about here too).

The thought has also crossed my mind that it would be really quite hilarious if, when fuhrer Blair has us all fingerprinted, DNA-profiled, numbered and chipped/tatooed, if it was shown once and for all that fingerprints and DNA are not in the least unique.

In short, to answer your question, I don't have any real opinion as to whether this Australian guy is innocent or not, but with the absence of a body, it does indeed seem that there are many unanswered questions. I thought you had to generally wait 7 years or something before a missing person was 'officially' dead, yet you can be convicted of murder well before that!

Another point that I found quite amusing about this whole DNA and fingerprint thing was this. One of the pages I was reading (can't remember URL, sorry) mentioned how the authorities wanted DNA profiles of UK police officers so as to eliminate them more easily from enquiries. There was an angry backlash and outright refusal to cooperate, yet you often hear of blanket DNA profiling efforts OF INNOCENT PEOPLE when there has been a high profile murder, with the cliched "if you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear" being trotted out. What many people might not realise now is that your DNA profiles are no longer destroyed once you've been cleared or charges dropped. They are kept just in case you show up again. Surely police officers have got nothing to hide and should be pleased to provide their samples? Or do they know something I don't?

DNA is very dangerous and criminals are getting savvy to it. There are already cases of car thieves/joyriders stealing ashtrays from pubs and emptying the butts into stolen cars' ashtrays so that there's suddenly 30 extra suspects. It's also a lot easier to steal and plant DNA than it is to plant fingerprints. Go to a colleague's desk and turn his keyboard upside down and you'll get hairs, skin and all sorts. Your house is likely full of DNA from anyone who has ever visited. You might have brushed past somebody on the busy train who is then murdered, leaving your DNA on their clothes.

It's frightening stuff, yet all we ever hear is "1 billion to one chance of being wrong".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A while ago I was on the computer having run out of web pages to look at and the latest about ex-PC Shirley McKie was on the news so I started reading about her case.

For those that don't know, Shirley McKie is an ex-PC whose fingerprint was 'found' at the scene of a murder she had attended.

Yes I remember watching a program about it, and it just proves not only how flawed the system can be. But that in certain cases "politics" be they localised by way of an individual authority or nationaly can and do lead to very suspect to say the least verdicts. If the desire to expose the truth is is not there then in all probability it will not be found. The Iraq war is a prime example, there was an agened and it was fulfilled, truth and legality were of no conciquence.

We are not that far away from Orwells 1984 thats for sure.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I can recall reading about cases where DNA evidence has been portrayed to be "billions to one" yet defence teams have succesfully argued that in the circumstances the true odds are nearer 50 to one!

Those odds are not gonna help much in my book if I were a juror.


I too feel a little uncomfortable when I watch Miss Lees. I take your point on her apparent love for the camera.

I haven't read too much about the case, but as aclwalker says, in the absence of a body there in itself is a huge amount of forensic evidence missing.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?

      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.