Who killed Peter Falconio? Or did they?

[think positive]

it was clear to me based on face structure, even had the same posture
DNA evidence aside his vehicle was spotted near the scene by multiple sources
he also had her hair tie in his possession, did they mention this?
he had history of shooting at people, assault and other charges
a real lowlife. bottom feeder.

he may be, but based on the evidence in these 2 shows, there is plenty of reasonable doubt. i disagree about posture etc, the guy in the video was hunched over, the guy in jail walks with his gut out, and the video is too grainy to see face structure.

as for the vehicle, every second vehicle out there is a ute!

the hair tie could have been picked up anywhere, but seriously if you didnt watch it, we cant have a discussion about it! there was way too much info in it.

[watt price tully]

On Media Watch on Monday 20/7/2020:

Why the Peter Falconio show on Channel 7 recently is nasty, exploitative and offers no new insights:

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episo ... o/12475000

[think positive]

I glanced at it. But unless you watched both episodes I’m not interested, I gave a detailed response earlier, those questions still stand. I’m usually the first person to think **** him he’s a criminal who cares, but honestly this stinks beyond belief. With no body it should be hard to get a case to stick without some hard evidence, beyond ALL reasonable doubt. Her identification of him 3 years later or however long, after she has seen his picture on tv (and that wasn’t even in the show) no tire tracks, no foot prints, no paw prints, no blood spatter, no blood trail, 1 tiny dot of DNA, she wasn’t filthy, his lawyer at the time should be chucked out of the bar!

[watt price tully]

I glanced at it. But unless you watched both episodes I’m not interested, I gave a detailed response earlier, those questions still stand. I’m usually the first person to think **** him he’s a criminal who cares, but honestly this stinks beyond belief. With no body it should be hard to get a case to stick without some hard evidence, beyond ALL reasonable doubt. Her identification of him 3 years later or however long, after she has seen his picture on tv (and that wasn’t even in the show) no tire tracks, no foot prints, no paw prints, no blood spatter, no blood trail, 1 tiny dot of DNA, she wasn’t filthy, his lawyer at the time should be chucked out of the bar!

The same guys peddled the same bullshit on at least 2 previous occasions. Slick production masking evidence. Watch it because it dispels your questions. The lawyer making the assertions is an ex drug addicted criminal. It’s not you TP it’s the programme.

[think positive]

yeah i know who he is, he makes no bones about it.

ill have a look later, its hard because there are no subtitles
cheers