|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 06 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: Joanne Lees - The Australian Mystery:
Archive through 06 April 2002
Author: VanNistelrooj
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 06:11 pm |        | Are we allowed to discuss this one yet?
It's pretty obvious she's a suspect (otherwise why get Martin "I interviewed Diana" Bashir to interview her on primetime tv), but she hasn't been charged.
What's the general opinion?
Did she or didn't she?
VN. |
Author: Johnno
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 08:50 pm | | The recent resurfacing of Joanne Lees and her claims against the Northern Territory Police and the couple who saw to her accommodations after her desert ordeal have of course been all over the papers.
From what I have read, I don't think she had anything to do with the presumed murder of her boyfriend. While some details in her story changed this time around, it's not all that surprising, given that the shock of undergoing an experience like that can distort the victim's perception of what actually happened
The shock reaction can manifest in many different ways, but it seems rather odd for her to jump into the media limelight at this point after the event. Whether or not her reappearance was motivated by the hefty sum she was paid for her interview is an interesting point to consider. |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 06:14 am | | Hi Johnno
There are inconsistencies with her story, but not enough to convict her on. Not even enough to get her to court.
The big one is this: She claims her boyfriend's "killer" tied her arms behind her back with cable ties. You know what those little blighters are like, don't you? It's not just like a rope that you can untie, they are lethal.
Yet she claimed she managed to move her arms from behind her back to the position they were found when she was 'discovered' by her rescuer.
And this after saying that she had run off from her attacker, hidden in the shrub and lain silently for hours for fear of him returning and finding her.
Martin Bashir then reminded her of the anomaly of the arms being in front/behind her, to which she said something like " ...I moved them from my back to my front as soon as I hid". That is nonsense, she was allegedly frozen with fear, but had the presence of mind and the agility to perform a feat that I dare say Houdini would have found impossible.
Then again the video of a trucker who matched her description of the attacker was an interesting discovery. He hasn't come forward. Apparently, though, those vehicles are ten a penny in Oz.
Now here's the big one. The 'killer' stops their vehicle on the road. The whole 'scenario' is enacted. Joanne runs into the scrub/bush/whatever. The killer gives up looking for her and returns to his vehicle and drives off. When she is found (how many hours later?) her car is no longer on the road, but hidden in the bush! Who put it there?
Remember, Joanne couldn't have moved it, she doesn't claim to have moved it, if she could have done she would simply have driven away in it.
Her tale tells of the attacker only driving away once, not of hiding her car, returning, then driving away again.
The lack of footprints? The pool of her boyfriend's blood that was found covered over with sand?
This one could be more interesting than the diary.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 06:44 am | | Hi, Peter and Johnno:
To clue people in about this case that has been in the news in the UK and in Australia, there are news stories and links on the BBC website on the original incident, that occurred in July 2001 and new developments following a British TV documentary earlier this month and fresh statements by the Australian police to the effect that they believe the story told by Joanne Lees. The police produced replicas of a set of homemade handcuffs that supposedly were used to restrain Ms. Lees. Northern Territory Police assistant commissioner John Daulby believes Miss Lees' statement that her hands had been tied behind her back and she had managed to bring them to the front.
The body of her boyfriend, Peter Falconio, 28, from Hepworth, near Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, is still missing despite one of Australia's biggest police manhunts.
Interestingly, for fans of profilers, the first story quotes Sydney University psychologist John Clarke, who prepares offender profiles for New South Wales police, as saying the attack may have taken years to plan. He told the Daily Telegraph: "The main focus of this guy's thinking would have been his sexual fantasy of abducting a woman and keeping her for a long time as a sex slave. He coldly and calculatedly planned to eliminate the male and get the female for himself."
All the best
Chris |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 10:53 am | | Peter, Johnno, Chris,
The E-fit of the guy seemed comical to me. I thought it was a stereotypical description of a Aussie, you know, the "Merv" tasche, the mullet, arse hanging out.
That was until I saw the CCTV footage at the petrol station.
Are the original investigators into the case under investigation themselves ?
Monty
 |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 03:32 pm | | Monty
Accept what you say on the e-fit, but there really are thousands if not millions of aussies who do look like that.
Chris
I know that the police said they believed her. I rather took that as meaning "We don't believe a word she says, but we can't say so because it would be forcing our hand. Let's just lull her into a false sense of security by telling her we believe her".
Chris (again): Do you really believe it is possible to move your hands in the manner she described? I genuinely don't.
Also, get this. A little while ago I was watching an English street magician called Deren Brown (similar to David Blaine) doing a programme called Mind Control. He predicted people's behaviour, he even walked up to complete strangers and told them what job they did, without asking them any questions. He played scissors/paper/stone with a guy and beat him time after time after time, even when his back was turned.
This wasn't Blaine - esque camera trickery. Deren Brown explained how he did some of his tricks. On one of them he made a guy hide a coin in one hand - and he guessed five times on the bounce which hand it was in. Then he explained how he did it. He looks for body language. The kind of stuff we don't even realise we are doing. And he revealed his basic theory behind this: When you are talking to someone and they touch their nose, they are lying. When someone looks up and to the right, they are lying. When someone looks up and to the left, they are telling the truth.
Guess what Joanne Lees was doing during her interview with Martin Bashir ...
See you later.
Peter. |
Author: Johnno
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 08:36 pm | | Peter,
Yes, the inconsistencies in her story are a little hard at this stage to counter.
Upon reconsidering my viewpoint on the case, I cannot be sure as to whether or not she had any involvement, for the evidence, as you rightly point out, has some glaring inconsistencies.
Re the cable ties, yes, I'm well aware of those; I use them in my work. As an experiment, I just clasped my arms together, monkey-grip style, behind my back, and tried sliding my "bound" arms down. I couldn't slide out of it. And I had the advantage of being able to "loosen" my arms, which, had a cable tie been used, I likely would not have been able to do, assuming it was fully tightened. If I had asked someone to place a cable tie on me in that position, I doubt I could have escaped from it.
If Joanne Lees had the physical agility AND presence of mind to slide her bound arms down past her rear end and step behind he arms, then it's an incredible feat.
The documentary and re-enactment to which Chris refers was shown on Australian 60 Minutes recently. The binding rig was apparently quite different to your standard electrical cable ties. From memory, the rig presented in that documentary looked far less challenging than a single cable tie from which to escape. Even so, presence of mind in such a situation would have been extraordinary with an armed assailant 30 or 40 metres away, looking for her.
I don't know whether or not anyone has brought this issue up, but surely Joanne's adrenalin would have been working overtime; her breathing would be heavy and in the dead of night, in a desert environment with bushes, the SLIGHTEST movement would have been heard. Step on a twig, and SNAP! Rustle a few leaves... you get the idea.
The video of the alleged attacker as shown on the petrol station's security footage is indeed interesting in that Joanne must have seen him and his truck in order to describe them. The police have even tried to trace the canvas used on the canopy of the 4x4. Not having been to the Northern Territory myself, I cannot speak for the common presence of such vehicles, but given the terrain, I would tend to think that they are indeed common.
Your paragraph about the re-enactment is indeed the most interesting. I cannot explain how the truck managed to be moved without Joanne hearing it, unless in the heat of the moment, her perception was distorted as I claimed was possible. If the killer really wanted to act out some preconceived fantasy against Joanne, he had all the time and opportunity in the world: she was a mere 30 metres from him, and it really would not have been hard to find her, given the almost undoubtable possibility that she made some noise while hiding in the scrub, only a short distance from the road. Noise carries very well at night.
Re the kombi van, indeed, it makes no sense that Joanne would not have used it to make good her escape once the attacker had left, unless the shock factor debilitated her. But, her ability to escape from the binding casts a shadow over that.
Chris,
Whether the attacker had planned this for a long time, or had just taken advantage of an opportunity, is yet to be discovered. If he indeed planned this, it seems strange that he would give up once Joanne had hidden, as I really don't believe it would have been impossible to find her.
Monty,
Sorry, but the stereotypical Aussie image doesn't apply. I look nothing like the alleged attacker. Nobody I know does. :-)
Peter,
The point about the body language is rather interesting. When watching the interview, I found her reaction to the interviewer's "did you murder him?" question curious.
All,
This case bears a similarity to the Belanglo State Forest murders, for which Ivan Milat was convicted and is currently serving time: he, too, abducted people from long stretches of road and later murdered them.
It's a strange case. I haven't followed it closely, and its presence in the news has receded a little, but it will be interesting to see what pans out.
J. |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 05:36 am | | Hi Johnno
I work (in England) with a lady who does come from that area of Australia. She assures me that the kind of vehicle Joanne Lees described her assailant as driving is indeed very common. Apparently they call them "utility" vehicles or "Utes" for short.
The description. It is uncanny, but she needs to have seen neither the person or the vehicle. The vehicle is common enough. The sighting was, what?, a hundred miles away? Something like that, anyway. Comb Australia, you'll find quite a few people who match her description. It is indeed lacking in detail. Long hair, moustache and baseball cap! How about "Jesus Christ! He'd just killed my boyfriend I was scared witless! His breath stank of alcohol and I noticed a crescent shaped scar on his right cheek ..."? Or any other description that couldn't apply to just about anybody. She couldn't even be positive on the guys height.
I agree with you Johnno. In the dead of the night she could have moved one muscle and been discovered. Inconceivable then that she could move her arms from the back to the front without making a sound.
Do you agree with me that the police don't believe her story and are just saying that they do to lull her into a false sense of security?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Johnno
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 07:59 am | | Hi Peter.
Yep, ute is the correct term.
Now, I'm not arguing for or against Lees's innocence or otherwise here, but I dare say under the stress of an attack, remembering very specific details would be rather difficult, unless there was some unique or strange attribute about the attacker which was impressed upon her mind.
As we all know from a case such as the Ripper case, witness descriptions tend to be unreliable at the best of times; even more so when the witness is a victim who was under stress from fear of injury, death, or both.
Hardly surprising the description was vague.
I was once accosted on my own street late one night, back in about 1995 or so. The incident must have lasted a good five minutes or more, but all I can tell you about my attacker was that he was about my height or slightly taller, of solid build, and of Pacific islander appearance (ie, Maori, Western Samoan, Tongan, etc.), and was wearing a bulky sports jacket. I couldn't tell you any more than that, given the stress of the situation and my priority being to make a hasty escape rather than form a good description for the police (who turned out to be utterly useless in this case; I was never even called in to make a formal statement).
Plenty of people in this area would fit the description of my attacker. By the way, no violence transpired; the attacker huffed and puffed, basically, but my house still stands. I was fortunately able to handle the situation such that it never came to that. It was the first, and last time, that I have been held up.
Re Lees not needing to have seen the attacker or vehicle in order to provide the description she did, sorry, but I don't agree. Not everyone in that part of the country fits the description she provided, any more than many people in your part of the world looking like you and driving a similar vehicle to the one you drive.
As to the sighting of the alleged assailant being a hundred miles away, Lees and Falconio were attacked on a major highway. That part of Australia is also very remote. It is not at all inconceivable that the man seen in the video footage, assuming he was the attacker, was a vagabond or otherwise on his way somewhere when he found Lees and Falconio. There's no other reason for being in the middle of bloody nowhere. The maximum speed limit on freeways in Australia is 110 kilometres per hour (around 68 mph). It wouldn't have taken anyone travelling at that speed a huge amount of time to show up a long distance away from the crime scene. The guy probably needed petrol, for the size of the Northern Territory alone is larger than your entire country. :-)
Re the NT police, sorry, but I cannot comment on their methods, as I am not familiar with them, and as previously stated, I have not followed the case particularly closely. The only statement I've heard from the police recently was their assurance that they are actively investigating the case, in response to Lees's claims against them.
J. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 09:28 am | | Hi All,
And what about the dog the attacker allegedly had with him? When it was suggested that he surely would have used the dog to try to locate Joanne's hiding place, and she was asked how come she didn't hear the dog searching, and how come it didn't manage to sniff her out, she said something lame like, "It may have been one of those cattle dogs trained not to make a sound", and, "The dog couldn't see me because it was pitch dark"!?
I tried the trick of bringing my hands, held together, from behind my back down to my feet and forward, and I could just about manage it with my fingers loosely entwined. But something Joanne said struck me as a bit iffy. I might be mistaken here, but I thought she started to say, when countering some suggestion that this feat was only possible for a well-trained ballerina, that she knew this was incorrect because someone (?) "and I have tried it..." then cut herself off in mid-sentence, as though realising that this could be a faux pas - that, if she had really managed to do this while hiding, why would she need to have 'tried it' again after her ordeal, to prove it was at least possible? But, to give her the benefit of the doubt, she may have been asked to show exactly how she did it, and this was simply how she recalled the experiment.
One other problem for me is how and why Joanne's attacker tied her hands behind her back and put her in the back of the van, then left her alone long enough with her legs free, thus enabling her to make a run for it and hide. If his intention was to keep her as a sex slave, and the whole thing had been well-planned, it makes little sense to me that he would have left her with the slightest opportunity to escape from his clutches like that. Joanne's explanation was that although he was strong enough to tie her hands and somehow get her into the van, he was unable to tie her legs because she kept kicking out at him. But that also seems a bit lame (no pun intended).
Also, Joanne said that, while struggling with her attacker, she asked if he was going to rape her, apparently before she knew anything about his intentions towards her. Now maybe this is a well-documented, automatic victim reaction. Maybe there is even good reasoning behind it. But it strikes me as odd, and possibly rather unwise, for the victim to introduce talk of a possible sexual assault before the attacker has given any obvious signs one way or the other. But maybe that's just me.
The documentary was Joanne's way (and her choice) of defending herself against suggestions that she lied about the attack and/or was somehow involved in whatever happened to her boyfriend that night. But the result was, IMHO, to put suspicion in the minds of viewers, who knew little about the story previously, that Joanne indeed had some explaining to do, and still has.
And, I'm afraid to say, I was one of those viewers.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 09:55 am | | A question on how her arms were tied. I know that someone up there said they were tied with cable wire...what is that exactly? Are you talking about the stuff I attach to my tv?
Also according to the reports I read, there were no footprints other than hers found at the scene? Is that right? Anyone got a better article/website they could point me towards? |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 10:13 am | | Ally,
Cable ties. They are thin strips of plastic with a fastening mechanism at the end that..well basically you cannot undo. The only way I can undo them is to cut them off with clippers. They are used to tie plastic bags off or to strap things together. Believe me, they are buggers to undo. Im sure you have them in the States but under a different name.
The way Joanne stated that she was tied up with them was one around her left wrist, one around her right wrist and one looped through her wrist ones and attached together. A sort of home made pair of handcuffs.
Monty
PS, oh yeah. I just remembered. They are used by IT and computer people to tie cables together at the back of PCs to keep them tidy. Its probably why they are called cable ties......no help at all am I ? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 10:32 am | | Hi Ally,
Click on the 'Joanne Lees' link in Chris George's post above to see a photo of the sort of ties that bound her.
And according to the documentary I saw, there were no footprints found other than Joanne's. But she did point out that they only managed to find a couple of hers, so this might not mean very much.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 11:49 am | | | Okay. I looked at the cuffs. THEre is a good gap between where the wrists would be held. Lots of wiggle room. So I tried it. I didn't have those things, so I used a belt and gave myself less than two inches between wrists which looks like less than what she had. I got out easy. Now I am flexible and have always been a bit of a contortionist so what may be easy for me may not be possible for other people, but this doesn't even rate. All you have to do is raise one butt cheek up and slide the cuffs down it to your thigh, then slide the other butt cheek down. And you are out. Any reasonably shaped person could do it. There was a lot of room in those things. I don't think she would have had a problem getting out. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 04:09 pm | | Is it just me, or is that the hottest post that has appeared here for some time?
(Feel free to delete this little compliment, Ally.)
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 07:11 pm | | | This woman IS NOT A POLICE SUSPECT. As far as the police are concerned they believe the story told by the girl.They found D & A ( a blood sample ) on her top which they believe came from her attacker.The girl did not untie herself. The attacker tied her hands behind her back and when they were untied by the lorry driver they were tied in front of her. Trying to achieve something in a simple test such as placing the hands ( tied ) from behind to the front is not the same as trying it when you think you may be about to be raped and murdered.Cases exist where people can achieve incredible feats under danger. One such example on record is of a person who lifted a car up to free a child trapped underneath. The story the woman told about the fire in the road prior to the event covinces me that she is indeed telling the truth.As soon as I heard the victim state that they drove over a fire which was partly on the side of the road I said to my wife, "I bet the couple get stopped within the next few minutes by some guy who states the back of their camper van has caught alight".Sure enough they got waved over by some guy who said sparks were coming from the back of their camper van.This woman is not going to invent a story like that.Also this gives a very good insight into the attacker and it gives good information about the case.For the record 3 weeks after this event a film of the man and his van came to light. It was taken at a gas station he had stopped at.As for the police only finding the girls prints that can easily be explained after a careful study of the condition of the ground in the said area. They found the girls lip cream frst and then found the prints by the cream. Also let us not forget what happens when the general public jump to the wrong conclusions in murder cases, and missing person cases. The case of the lady in Australia who was camping and stated that a dingo had taken her baby from a tent for example.The public and the police believed she had murdered the child.The cry went up that she was guilty of murder, and a court judged her so without the required evidence. This woman was jailed because of mistakes made by other people.She was only released when it was proven without doubt that a dingo had indeed taken her baby. Not only did this woman lose her child but she also lost her freedom. The latter was due to the ignorance and bloody mindedness of other people who believed that two and two make five.It is always worth remembering that when crime or other suspicious matters are concerned things are not always as they may appear to be.Also it does not pay to jump to conclusions without knowing the known facts of the situation. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 07:37 pm | | | In Relation to the van the girl said the attacker drove off and then came back on foot. He then left the scene. From this statement I concluded that the attacker drove off in her van and hid it in the bush and then walked back to the scene of the crime.He then placed dirt over the blood from the victim he had shot and left the scene.As far as I am concerned the stupid reporter interviewing her for TV in the UK did not ask her the correct questions he should have in relation to the van.This in turn reflected on her.I can understand why she never wanted to talk to the press to start with.Bunch of vultures. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY so states the law.That is a load of rubbish because even if she was found guilty she would still be innocent just as the woman who lost her child to a dingo was innocent when found guilty.So much for what the law has to state. |
Author: Johnno
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 07:53 pm | | Caz,
The comments about the dog are strange, given the sensory perception dogs generally have.
Re the attacker leaving Lees in the kombi van with only her arms tied behind her, perhaps he didn't consider it likely she would try to escape. Her running speed when bound like that would probably have been lessened.
The absense of footprints other than those of Joanne Lees is strange.
Ivor,
You have made some very good points. Certainly, there is more information about this case which has yet to come to light, but people have suspicious minds. "Innocent until proven guilty" seems to be more confined to textbooks than the perception in the minds of the majority.
And re the Chamberlain caise, Lindy also lost, to separation, her husband, Mike.
Monty,
You're correct about the cable ties. They are used by electricians, IT people, contractors, etc., to tie runs of cable together neatly or to attach cables to a frame/cable tray.
Re Lees escaping from the binding rig as was reconstructed by police, when bound by such a device, the victim's wrists would not be close enough together to prevent slipping out, but with a distance of four or five inches between wrists, I think it is quite possible.
John,
Get your mind out of the gutter. :-)
J. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 06:18 am | | Hi all,
Sorry if Im repeating myself here, but is it correct that the original investigators into this case are now under investigation themselves ?
Monty
|
Author: VanNistelrooj
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 09:07 am | | Caz
She suggested that herself and Peter's brother tried to re enact the scene with the cable ties. She suggested they found it very easy to escape.
I have to disagree strongly with that.
Anyone who hasn't encountered cable ties before, go out and buy some now. There would be no need to leave "a good gap" between the wrists, they could be tightened until her blood stopped running. Trust me on this, she wouldn't have been able to move - let alone get her arms from her back to her front.
And even if she had managed that impossible feat, she would have had to do it about 30 feet away from the guy who wanted to take her as his sex slave, had already killed one person and without making a sound. It's not good enough. Her story doesn't hold water.
And the body language is still all wrong.
Caz (and anyone else in the UK): Do you remember the case a couple of years ago where the boyfriend and girlfriend had been out drinking, got into an argument and it ended with her stabbing him in their car, hiding the knife in her boot and blaming it on a road rage incident? What was her name? Tracey ... something? Echoes of Australia, don't you think? She's now serving life imprisonment.
Just to go back over what we know.
The attacker stops the combi van.
He kills Peter Falconio.
He ties Joanne Lees up, but leaves her legs free so she can run away, and her hands loose enough that she can (silently) perform a feat that Houdini would have found impossible.
She runs thirty feet away.
She performs her 'Houdini' stunt. Silently.
The dog stays in the ute.
Attacker drives the combi van away and hides it. Why?
He returns on foot.
He covers up Peter Falconio's blood with some roadside sand/soil. Again - why?
He drives away in his ute. Dog still mute.
Seriously! A psychological profiler would say that he had planned the attack. The road was long and deserted. He had all the time in the world. Why did he not get back in his ute and point the lights roughly in the direction of where Joanne Lees had ran? There was nowhere for her to hide.
It doesn't add up. It's not good enough. It isn't believable.
And amongst it all, somewhere along the line, Joanne Lees' anonymous attacker hid the boyfriend's body or took it with him. Why?
No footprints found at the scene apart from two of Joanne Lees' near where she said she was hiding.
Ivor: DNA on her shirt? Blood from 'a third person'? What does that prove? It doesn't prove that there was a third person at the scene. That blood could have got onto that shirt anytime after Joanne and Peter stepped off the plane, right up to the point where she was 'rescued'.
And Johnno, just to bring you up to date on what the police are thinking ... we have another case over here right now, whereby a young schoolgirl (13 years old) has gone missing. The police ( a hell of a lot of them) have gone through her parents house with a fine tooth comb. The house, the garage, the garden. They have used earth moving equipment.
And still they tell the press that no one from the family is under any suspicion.
Now do you see why I think they could be saying one thing and thinking another about Joanne Lees?
regards
Peter |
Author: Ally
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 09:24 am | | The wrist cuffs did not have to be loose Peter. There was sufficient gap between them to wiggle out of them. She did not have to do it while her attacker was searching for her. She could have done it later when she figured all was clear.
As for the rest of it...
And the body language is still all wrong.
** How?
Caz (and anyone else in the UK): Do you remember the case a couple of years ago where the boyfriend and girlfriend had been out drinking, got into an argument and it ended with her stabbing him in their car, hiding the knife in her boot and blaming it on a road rage incident? What was her name? Tracey ... something? Echoes of Australia, don't you think? She's now serving life imprisonment.
** So ..any woman whose boyfriend is killed while driving is automatically guilty because some Tracey whatshername was?
He ties Joanne Lees up, but leaves her legs free so she can run away, and her hands loose enough that she can (silently) perform a feat that Houdini would have found impossible.
** again wrists didn't have to be loose and she didn't have to do it silently.
She runs thirty feet away.
She performs her 'Houdini' stunt. Silently.
**again...nothing houdini about it and it didn't have to be silently.
The dog stays in the ute.
**what kind of a dog? How do you know it was trained to sniff out people?
Attacker drives the combi van away and hides it.
Why?
**Why not?
He returns on foot.
He covers up Peter Falconio's blood with some roadside sand/soil. Again - why?
**Again...why not? And maybe he did that before he drove off.
Seriously! A psychological profiler would say that he had planned the attack. The road was long and deserted. He had all the time in the world. Why did he not get back in his ute and point the lights roughly in the direction of where Joanne Lees had ran? There was nowhere for her to hide.
**Maybe he didn't see which direction she ran? You have an angle of 360 degrees in which to search. How do you know where to get started? Her footprints...but then it was dark. And we have established that footprints don't take weell there. Maybe it was better to cut your losses and go?
It doesn't add up. It's not good enough. It isn't believable.
** but it's more believable for her to make up a story with many elements that she can't easily explain away which she would have to know would cast doubt on her version? Same things applies. She has all the time in the world..why bugger it so badly?
And amongst it all, somewhere along the line, Joanne Lees' anonymous attacker hid the boyfriend's body or took it with him. Why?
** why not? Body means evidence. Angle of attack, height of attacker, possible DNA. Why not take it down the road and dump it where no will find it? Tell me ...why would he have left it there?
No footprints found at the scene apart from two of Joanne Lees' near where she said she was hiding.
** So Joanne was able to do all the staging and leave only two footprints...but it's not possible an attacker could have done it and left none?
Ivor: DNA on her shirt? Blood from 'a third person'? What does that prove? It doesn't prove that there was a third person at the scene. That blood could have got onto that shirt anytime after Joanne and Peter stepped off the plane, right up to the point where she was 'rescued'.
** I see. And who would this anonymous blood donor have been? Don't you think someone might have come forward and said... Oh yeah. Jo askedme to bleed on her to back up her attacker story?
Ally |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 02:01 pm | | Hi Ally the name of the woman in UK is Tracey Andrews she has since her conviction come clean over the events that night but some would say not fully
from steve
 |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 03:57 pm | | | This girl gave a description of her attacker and the van. Both were found on a camera at a gas station which the suspect stopped at. Yet no trace can be found of this man or his van.It would appear he has gone to ground.Yet no one has stepped foward to say that they know him or have ever seen him.It has been asked, "Why did the suspect take the body away?" Disposing of the body so it is never found causes problems ( bloody great big ones ) to the police. Getting rid of certain evidence such as a body helps the killer evade justice.As for the dirt he placed dirt on the patch of blood to help conceal it. I do agree that the situation is suspicious for many people and certain things do not appear to add up but I would be prepared to put money down that the girl is innocent. The big question for me is whether or not the suspect has killed before.As for the D & A which was found on the girl it will be proven whether or not it came from her attacker when he is found.In relation to the police investigation it would appear that certain aspects of it leave much to be desired.As far as I am concerned the girl in question did not kill her boyfriend. The law should stop poncing about and find the man with the truck who stopped at that gas station. Also they should do a search of the area where the fire appeared on the road.There are aspects of this case that no one has yet questioned or checked on. |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 05:32 pm | | Hi Ally
Joanne Lees stated categorically during her interview with Martin Bashir that she moved her arms from her back to her front as soon as she had hidden.
That, after telling Mr Bashir that she ran and hid with her head down, and stayed still for hours, not even looking up, for fear of being seen to move
Do you see the problem here? On one hand she's saying she was scared for her life and didn't dare move a muscle, on the other she's suggesting she had the presence of mind to move her hands from her back to her front, whilst her assailant was less than thirty feet away from her and still actively searching for her. She actually told Martin Bashir that her assailant came so close to her that she was convinced that he must have seen her. That's right, he didn't stay thirty feet away, he walked towards her and in her own words 'he was close enough to have reached out and touched her'.
Whether or not that particular feat is possible is open to debate. I would suggest you get two or three cable ties, tie up your best friend and then watch them struggle. There would be no need for her attacker to leave enough room for her to perform the feat she describes. Those little buggers can be pulled so tight that they stop the blood flowing.
Your other points appear to be along the lines of "Why not?". I agree, to some extent, with other posters, who would suggest that there isn't enough evidence to convict Joanne Lees. But my questions were supposed to provoke discussion over what a single minded killer/rapist/attacker would do.
It has been suggested that such an attack would have been planned. Well in advance.
Don't you think he would have planned to tie the cable ties a little tighter?
Apart from "why not?" can you think of any good reason why he should shovel a little sand or soil over a patch of blood? Or why he should hide the combi van?
Surely once he had given up hope of kidnapping Joanne Lees he would have just made good his escape. Why spend time driving backwards and forwards hiding vans?
Given the nature of the road and the dryness of it's surroundings I am not surprised that no footprints were found. I have no more to say on that point.
I put forward the example of Tracey Andrews (thanks Stephen for the full name) to suggest to people who might find it difficult to imagine Joanne Lees as a killer that these sort of things do happen. Nothing more than that.
Ivor: The "suspect" who was captured on camera at the gas station could have just been Joe Nobody going about his everyday business. The vehicle he used (and the one Joanne Lees described) is so commonplace as to be a safe bet for JL to use in her story. The description? Don't you see my earlier problem with it? She gave no detail. She couldn't even say what height he was.
And given the quality of the camera picture all we are left with is a guy who drives a "ute" and wears a baseball cap. That to me, ain't evidence of anything.
The DNA on Joanne's shirt? I'll bet you both (Ally and Ivor) a pound to a penny that I could take the clothes you are wearing now and subject them to DNA analysis and find evidence of three or more people on them. Even if you have washed them in a strong detergent at a high temperature.
It wasn't stated, by the way, that the DNA was from a blood sample. And if it was, so what?
What would be more interesting would be a description of the "blood sample". I.E. Was it a smear, that would suggest an arm being rubbed across the top? Or was it a microscopic amount that could have got there through any method, from a sneeze to clothes brushing against each other.
The DNA evidence is actually evidence of nothing.
I can't say for sure that she killed her boyfriend, but I can say that she is not telling the whole truth about what happened that night.
Maybe it's just me, but if I had been through that ordeal I would have to be sectioned, yet only days later she was out shopping with family, smiling for the cameras.
And her body language was all wrong. She was all over the place. She's not telling the truth about something.
As a former police officer I would stake my house on this next point: The Australian police do not believe what she told them. I am convinced of that, regardless of what they release to the press.
I think they are of the opinion that she killed Peter Falconio, but they lack the evidence to arrest/charge her for the crime. I can't see them going to the press and saying "We think she did it, but ...", no, they are saying "Joanne Lees is not a suspect". Of course she's a suspect. Read between the lines.
Thanks for the discussion. I'm enjoying it.
Peter. |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 07:39 pm | | G'day everyone,
Just to add my few cents worth in here, I've been up that part of the NT and if the area where Lees is talking about is around the same area I think it is then it is quite possible for her to disappear into the scrub and remain concealed. There's a helluva lot of green bushes and trees around up there.
As for all the attention being focused on Lees, has anyone thought about the attacker not being interested in her at all? That all he wanted was for her to be out of the way so he could beat the crap out of Falconios then take his body away in his own ute and dump it somewhere else?
Fair dinkum, it doesn't take much to stir some of those Territory blokes up. All you have to do to some of them is look at them sideways and you'll be in a fight without even having a chance to put your beer down.
I haven't had a chance to look at this case as the information we get is pretty slender, but I will try and chase up some of the comments made here.
If anyone has any other questions they'd like followed up just post them.
Jules
P.S. As for the blood being covered with sand, there's nothing unusual about that. If you stand on the side of the raod up there for ten minutes you'll find your boots covered with the stuff. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 07:59 pm | | | Hi Peter, The guy with the van is a suspect and he just might be the guy they are looking for. Until he is found and eliminated from the inquiry he will remain a suspect. The police spokesman I saw interviewed made a point of stating in public that the police believed the story told by the girl. Now if they are not telling the truth and they believe the opposite then God protect us all from the police.Because that is right out of order as far as I am concerned. They should have kept their mouths shut and stated, "No comment" on the matter of her guilt. I would like to know if they botherd to search the area of the fire. If the attacker was a smoker he just might have left a butt on the ground or a fibre or two.His truck would have been parked off the road and tyre tracks may have been in evidence. Anything may be on that site. I would not mind betting that they never went over the ground where the murder happened looking for fibres which may have been caught in the undergrowth by the attacker as he was looking for the girl. The only thing they state they found was her lip cream and a blind man could have found that. As for the attacker planning to tie the cable tighter he did not have to because she could not untie herself. She moved her hands from her back to her front. It was the lorry driver who found her that untied her.Anyway we know the saying about the best laid plans of mice and men. Look at it this way if she is telling the truth about that fire and why they were stopped ( and I believe she is ) then look at the implications of that.It opens up some avenues well worth checking.Was there a fire where she said ? I bet you there was. Some time ago a man attempted to rape a law student.The student said a guy had driven her into a field in his Jaguar car and tried to rape her.She managed to get out of the car and fled.She reported the offence to the police who pulled in the suspect. They let him go because of lack of evidence he denied that he went into the field. Having an interest in the case I checked out the girls story. I went to the field where she alleged the offence took place. It had been raining and the ground was very sodden underfoot. From the road through a gate I followed a set of tyre marks. The marks were very wide and came from a jaguar car.I reached a point where the tyre tracks stopped in the field. Several feet from the passenger side of the car I found an article of clothing which I knew belonged to the girl in question.It was a beige belt (from her beige coat) which she was missing. The tyre tracks from the suspects car matched the tracks in the field. The Surrey police had never even bothered to check out the field in question.They just took her statement interviewed the suspect and then let him walk free to do it again. And the victim wanted to study law!!!! She would have been better off working on the checkout at Tesco. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 08:11 pm | | | Hi Julian, They have guys like that in the states but they refer to them as red necks.When we come across people like that here we refer to them as arseholes.Interesting theory of yours about the attacker having it in for the guy only. But he was after the girl that is why he put her alive in the truck.If he was just after the guy and the girl was of no interest whatsoever he would have killed the only witness there and then.He had plans for her which were worked out well in advance and those plans did not include the victim who he shot.She got lucky and he made one fatal mistake. He never tied her feet up. |
Author: Johnno
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 08:31 pm | | Peter,
In your experience as a cop, is it not true that close relations are generally considered suspects in a homicide until their involvement can be categorically eliminated?
Re the cable ties, there is little point in discussing those much further. It's simple: if both wrists were bound tightly with a single cable tie (or even two or three in parallel), she would have had Buckley's chance of escaping. If, however, the rig was more generous with room, ala the device reconstructed by the police, there is a chance she could have moved her arms to her front.
Re your questions provoking discussion on what a single-minded attacker would do, it still remains a possibility that it would not have been incredibly difficult for the attacker to find Lees due to sound carrying at night, the probable heavy breathing, and the chance of the slightest movement giving her rough location away. Plus, with nobody around that deserted area, time was no restriction.
If acting out a fantasy on Lees was his intent, with time on his side and no chance of being seen, it doesn't make sense that he would give up so easily.
J. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 04:10 am | | G'day JULES,
Buy this weeks 'New Idea'. There's a story: 'Mystery at Barrow Creek' and another: "What Joanne said on British Television'. That will give you the information you need.
I'm still trying to picture her on the ground, face down, kicking.....then him bending down to bite her on the side of the face. Her hands weren't tied at this stage......No comment!!!!!
PETER: It says here: 'Then she says she heard both vehicles move. "That's when I thought he was in the car, and I brought my hands from behind my back to the front of me" .'
Leanne! |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 02:49 pm | | Hi, all:
I actually don't know enough to pontificate about this crime but it seems to me that Joanne Lees' story is rather an odd one and perhaps is indicative that she is lying and actually one of the perpetrators of this crime not a victim, and that she could have worked with an accomplice in carrying out the crime, either a third person who is not the man she is describing, or surprise, surprise, the supposed dead man, her boyfriend, Peter Falconio. I am sure Ivor will very shortly tell me I am wrong, but something is off-kilter with her story, and if, as hypothesized, the intent of the supposed attacker was to rape or kill her, why didn't that happen? Why is it her boyfriend who is the supposed murder victim and not her? As I indicated above, possibly Peter Falconio is not dead but that the "crime scene" was set up to make it look as if he is dead, possibly to carry out an insurance fraud. The inconsistency in her versions of events, as pointed out by Peter Wood, might be a clue that her role in the affair is not what it is purported to have been. Please, all feel free to attack me now for my naive conclusions! 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 05:19 pm | | | Hi Chris,Now when have I ever accused you of being wrong? :-)You are most consistent in being correct as it transpires. Her story is indeed an odd one I quite agree but when dealing with crime sometimes the truth can be stranger than fiction. One comment I made to a friend was that the police should check to find out if the victim was insured and if so, how much for. I dont like this fire business which is involved it sticks out like a sore thumb in her favour.In answer to you question,"Why the attacker never raped her?" I certainly would not have stayed at the scene any longer than was neccesary. Anybody could have driven up to the crime scene at any moment.I believe the suspect was going to take her somewhere to rape her at his leisure.The girl deserves to be believed until concrete evidence is produced which shows otherwise and I have yet to see such evidence.For one I have no intention of rushing in and crying, "Guilty" at this stage.My preference is in crying, "Innocent" until the opposite is proven.While others find points that she is not telling the truth I see points that she is telling the truth. My sense of fair play is responsible (in part) to my opinions in this case. Also I do not believe for a moment that you are being naive in this matter.Caution is required when dealing with this case. If the girl must be placed in the frame then first and foremost a motive must be found. Did she have a motive ? It certainly was not all done on the spur of the moment, nor was it a crime of passion. Until I see evidence to show she is a liar, and involved in murder etc then in my eyes she is innocent. It will be interesting to see at the end of the day what the actual outcome is. Now that wasn't as bad as you thought it was going to be was it!!!!! :-) The all clear has now sounded and you can take off your tin helmet and stand down. :-) Ha Ha. |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 05:50 pm | | Ivor
If the police said "No comment" it would be tantamount to saying "We think she killed him". Read between the lines, Ivor. What would you think if a reporter asked a police officer "Do you think Joanne killed Peter?" and the copper replied "No comment".
Therefore, the only option is for them to give here their full support until they have enough evidence to charge her.
Chris T George may have something here. Then again he may not. I am convinced Joanne Lees is not telling the whole truth. I am still trying to work out if their is a viable alternative to her having killed Peter Falconio.
Leanne: PETER: It says here: 'Then she says she heard both vehicles move. "That's when I thought he was in the car, and I brought my hands from behind my back to the front of me" .'
Quite simply that wasn't what she said on British television. She at first stated that she ran away and lay still for several hours. Then, when reminded that her hands were at her front when she was found she said that she had moved them as soon as she had hidden.
Her story sucks. There is nothing to suggest it happened like she said it did. And they say the diary is fiction.
Johnno: Good points, I agree with you. At that time of night, in such a deserted location Mr Bushman could have done whatever he liked. But supposedly he panicked. After having the presence of mind to hide the combi van. Oh yeah, and the presence of mind to kick some sand over Peter Falconio's blood.
Peter Falconio was (allegedly) shot at the back of his combi vehicle. So why wasn't there any blood on it?
This one will run and run, but for my money they will get her in the end.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 06:05 pm | | G'day,
Hey wait a minute.....where is Peter? Did Joanne say that she actually saw his dead body? No one can be accused of his murder until a body is found....or have I missed something?
Leanne! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 09:20 pm | | | Peter, The point I was making about the police spokesman was the great deal of emphasis he was putting on the girl being innocent. He really wanted to get that point over on the public.If he believed her guilty and stated "No comment" when asked if she was guilty then, so what. I would think he was telling the truth and that he did not know the answer to the question which is fair enough, and not telling lies or tryng to bullsh*t the public.If he is telling a lie and conning the public by saying she is innocent when he believes she is guilty then he is as bad as her if she is in fact lying.One liar is bad enough.The truth does not cost anything and if that spokesman was trying to con the public he deserves to be dealt with accordingly. One should state what one means and mean what one states and not lead the public up the garden path.I or the public should not have to read between any lines in this matter.As for the blood found I hope they have compared it to the blood type of the missing man. As for no blood found on the camper van I dont see that as a problem. If he was standing several feet or so away with his back to the van and he was shot in the heart or in the front of the body ( and never fell onto the van ) there is no reason why blood would get onto the van. He was not blasted with a shotgun at close range he was shot with a hand gun-- calibre unknown. It amazes me that this girl has told a story which some people do not agree with thus she is guilty. We'll to hell with that. Lets have some of that old fashioned stuff that seems to be going out of fashion which in some circles is termed evidence.We can't find people guilty of murder because we believe they are not telling the truth.Thats why the police in this country made so many foul ups. They would get a suspect and if they believed them guilty and had no evidence they would fit them up.Like the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford four for example. Hanging was abolished here in the UK because too many innocent people were being murdered in the name of Justice. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 02:05 am | | Leanne, Cases exist where suspects have been convicted of murder regardless of whether the body was ever found.
Some time ago a guy was convicted and got life on our Island for throwing a child molester over the cliff at Culver.The body went into the sea and was never found. |
Author: Paul Boothby
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 06:29 am | | Just like to add my twopenn'orth.
I find Ms Lees story very suspicious, however further evidence is required before she could be convicted. In weighing up everything I have read/seen about the case I still feel that there are questions to be answered, however there are some points which do go in her favour. Surely the very 'dubiousness' of her 'I hid in a bush for hours and he didn't see me and his dog didn't bark' story might hint at some truthfulness. If I was going to murder my partner in a 'deserted area' with no possibility of discovery for 'several hours' I think I could come up with a better story than Ms Lees did (or is this a very clever double bluff !). Regarding the cuffs, my first impression was no way could she have got her arms round to the front, but this was assuming from the description that two cable ties were simply looped together and fastened round Ms Lees wrists. After looking at the actual contraption used (on the links above) I would stake a months salary that I could perform a similar manouver (Yes even with my 'Does my bum look big in this?' posterior). However as I say on balance I still don't fully believe her story, particularly with respect to the apathy of the dog. Seems very strange to me. I agree with Peter's reading of the police statements which also strangely tie in with Ivor's comments about 'Innocent until proven guilty' the police have to say that Ms Lees is NOT a suspect regardless of what they think, but I bet they will still say that she is 'helping with their enquiries' ! Regardless of what Ivor thinks I belive that the general public are a very cynical lot and if the police replied 'No comment' to a direct question of Ms Lees guilt, then the huge majority of people would assume she was guilty.
Cheers.....Paul |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 04:57 pm | | | Hi Paul, Yes they are cynical but then I am not one to follow the herd. I am speaking for myself in this matter rather than the herd in general. I have been waiting for someone to ask one question and you have just asked it. If you were going to murder your partner wouldn't you come up with a better story ? Damm right you would. Kids could have come up with a better story than that. This is one reason why I believe her.To those who think her guilty I say this:People tend to act differently in certain situations and you can't condemm anyone because they dont act as you think they should. I wonder how other people would act in her position under such circumstances.It seems to me that a lot of people are jumping the gun without the hard evidence to go with it.It does not pay to assume people are guilty when they may just as well be not guilty.We should all do well to remember that it is evidence which convicts the guilty and not assumptions. |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 05:50 pm | | Ivor
Your naivety is very appealing!
The police should say what they think? Really? And alert Joanne Lees to the very real possibility that they suspect her of murdering her boyfriend? Come on Ivor, if she thinks they suspect her then she could just disappear. But if they keep her sweet then she is right where they want her.
Leanne:
Hey wait a minute.....where is Peter? Did Joanne say that she actually saw his dead body? No one can be accused of his murder until a body is found....or have I missed something?
Joanne didn't say she saw the dead body, but she did say she heard the gun shot. Then there is the pool of blood to contend with.
Ivor: The next big problem with Ms Lees' story is that she described Peter Falconio and his "attacker" as standing right at the back of the combi. So close, in fact, that she could see the attacker's face in the rear view mirror. Just to be clear on this Ivor, she stated that they were next to the bumper, not six feet or ten feet away, but next to it. Therefore if the attack had happened like she said it happened there would have been blood on the combi.
Take my word on it, the Australian police view her as a suspect. So does the vast majority of the British Public, otherwise why get Martin Bashir to interview her?
And Ivor, don't go into the realms of fantasy again. The Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Bridgewater Farm lot, they all did it. They got off on appeal because our Government is soft on scum, that is why TB holds tea parties for convicted murderers at 10 Downing Street.
This one will run.
Peter. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 09:05 pm | | G'day,
Hey this doesn't make sense!.....In this 'New Idea' article, there a man holding up a pair of 'handcuffs used on Joanne'. They appear to be made of a black metal. What exactly is a 'cable tie'? and didn't he "tie her hands behind her back"....with rope?
Leanne! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 12:48 am | | | Peter, You are the one who is being naive and living in a world of fantasy.I was in Guildford police station when some of the alleged Guildford bombers were being held there.I also know police officers who were involved in that case.While at Guildford police station I was informed by a Chief Inspector known to me that, "It does not pay to be honest and you and those being held upstairs are going to find that out." The suspects were not kept in the cells they were being kept upstairs away from the cells. I appeared in Guildford Crown Court and stood up and told the court that the police officers involved in the case were bent and liars and this is on record before the bombers went to the Old Bailey.It is also on record that I said to the Judge," I am not going to stand here and listen to these lies I am going". One prosecution witness in the case admitted that over the 3 day period they had given evidence that they had lied.Many years later when the Guildford four were releasd investigating police officers from another force from the West Country approached me to make a statement. How do I know all this ? Because I was assaulted and fitted up by the same scum at the same station at the same time.And I knew them very well. So you can take your childish know it all comments and go and stick them where the sun don't not shine. Guildford police officers are bent and I should know.I know about all the gameplaying and wheeler dealing that goes on. I have had a high ranking CID officer at Guildford proposition me to break into various premises and I was given details of the security systems on the said premises.The scum are the bent coppers, and those who protect them by keeping their mouths shut so get it right.I know one retired police Inspector very well who informed me that if he had told the truth about what had transpired in relation to the Guldford Four many officers would have gone to prison.It was certain police scum at Guildford who encouraged me to commit certain crime as it happens. Over the years I have had many dealings with those in the force so dont try the old soldier act on with me because I just happen to know what goes on. What makes me sick is that every copper I come across try to make out they are whiter than white and state, "I have never fitted anyone up or done anything wrong" Stick to conninig the gullible Peter but dont try it on with me. I'm a bit long in the tooth to put up with that crap.I would not trust 80%( that is being generous ) of the police any further than I could throw them.And in stating that I am talking from experience.Dont run away with the idea that I have just come down river on a banana boat because I have not. Crime was my life so dont try to teach me how to suck eggs.One of those convicted of the bombing had an alibi and it was ignored and hidden.One of the only places the film about the Guildford Four was never shown was at Guildford!!! As for the pub which was blown up it had been raided by the police ( prior to being used by the army ) because it was being used by the police for after hours drinking.I was born and bred in Guildford and my family have lived in that town prior to the 1800's so I know what goes on there as far as crime and the police are concerned.For the record you have not got a clue what you are bleating on about. |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 03:20 pm | | Leanne
There have been some contradictory and confusing reports about what was used to bind Joanne's wrists. I think the current state of play is that they were bound with cable ties covered in black tape. Maybe that was what looked like metal to you?
I have looked at the contraption as shown on Chris George's link. It doesn't make sense. If a profiler thinks the attack would have been planned for years, I wonder how they would make sense of the attacker making such a bad job of the wrist restraints?
It does however look like the sort of restraint that one could make and put on one's own wrists.
Ivor: Yes. Of course you are right. But only in your own world. The Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Bridgewater Farm lot were all guilty as hell. Blair loves sucking up to terrorists.
They will get what is coming to them when they meet their maker.
I wonder if I ever arrested you?
Peter. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 03:29 pm | | Please Ivor,
space your sentences and periods.
For my eyes.
Only.
Thank you. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 04:46 pm | | G'day,
PETER: Thanks for explaining about the wrist ties. The other night my boyfriend and I had a friendly argument about whether a person could bring their arms to the front, with them tied at the back.
I said "NO WAY!", he said "YOU CAN!"
If there was that much space between her bound wrists, you know I now think that her and my boyfriend may be right!
Leanne |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 04 April 2002 - 05:59 pm | | | Peter, I doubt that very much you are not up to that task with those blinkers you wear.You probably took a few back-handers from me though.Many people in the force will indeed get what is coming to them when they meet their maker. |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Saturday, 06 April 2002 - 12:26 pm | | Yes, now I think about it Ivor, I'm sure I did arrest you. Weren't you on Clapham Common in 1989 in company with a donkey named Doris and a sheep called Herbert?
Leanne. Yes, the way the wrist restraints are pictured in Chris's link it would be only too easy to move the hands from back to front as described by Joanne Lees. My point is, wouldn't a kidnapper have thought about that in advance? Cable ties are remarkable things, impossible to get out of, so why leave them so loose?
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
