Sometimes it's not easy to solve a murder. In this series, a much discussed crime from 20 years ago is re-investigated. Viewed from a distance, it's certainly true that a lot of the story told by the prosecution feels vulnerable. But I disliked the series. Endlessly repetitive, it makes hits in every direction, but without commitment to any alternative hypothesis. For example, someone is certain they saw the victim alive after his supposed death; the program presents his assertions, then just moves on, asking us to suggest the convicted man should not have been found guilty, while doing nothing to reassure us he is actually innocent. Meanwhile, it attacks the dead man's girlfriend by repeating the charge of the press at the time that her refusal to cry in public was a sign of her own guilt. It's an indictment of the series that the vileness of a certain sort of journalism is inadvertantly demonstrated far more clearly than Bradley Murdoch's innocence or guilt.
7 Reviews
Poses questions worth thinking about
jipster-9669029 November 2020
Despite the largely negative opinions (which I respect) expressed by other reviewers here, I do feel that the series provides some food for thought by re-examining the case and posing what to me appear to be some interesting and legitimate questions.
The programme undoubtedly may have an agenda, however it does appear to have something relevant to say which just happens to run counter to the 'official' version. Could there be a conspiracy at work here? I suggest you watch it and make up your own mind.
Blunders in the Check-Back
Lejink17 June 2020
This provocative four-part Channel 4 documentary on the headline-making Falconio - Lees murder and attempted abduction case in Australia in 2001 certainly seemed to capture the public imagination provoking much press comment and on-line debate during lockdown. Here we have an apparent murder with no body, the convicted killer still pleading his innocence nearly twenty years on and high-profile press coverage at the time of the crime in both the U.K. and Australia.
I must confess I was initially hooked after the first episode which sought to debunk the evidence at the crime scene and further apparent discrepancies in Joanne Lees own account of what happened on the night itself, as well as portraying Miss Lees herself as a rather unsympathetic witness. Leading the charge to get the convicted murderer Bradley Murdoch re-tried was a gobby Australian defence attorney the first thing about whom you learn is that he himself spent seven years in jail for drug dealing, leaving me personally unsure if that's the type of legal representation I'd be happy with, especially as it's hard to avoid the impression that reopening the case may be more about obtaining his own redemption than his client's.
However, it's only when you get to episodes 2, 3 and 4 that you realise that the programme-maker is attempting a scattergun approach to what they obviously believe is an unsafe conviction with all types of other supposed evidence aimed at clearing Murdoch placed in front of the viewer. These include a videotape of an obviously uptight Lees stumbling through her witness statement, ditto the police reconstruction in which she participates and apparently contradicts herself, interviews with the driver who picked her up on the highway immediately after the attack who now recalls seeing another car on the road and an altercation between three men nearby, one of whom just could have been Falconio, the revelation that Lees was having an affair with a waiter and was planning to meet up with him later, scientific attempts to disprove Murdoch was in a service station the night of the murder and most bizarrely a supposed sighting days later and many miles away of the believed dead man. They even try to disprove the normally conclusive D.N.A. evidence of Murdoch's which was found on Lees' T-shirt.
This seemed to me like trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer and yet almost every official law-maker represented in the programme was still convinced that Murdoch did the deed. These officials certainly seem more credible than the mostly ragbag witnesses in the defence's corner and I tend to go along with the former. There's little doubt that Murdoch was a bad egg and no other potential suspects were identifiably introduced I felt. It was noticeable that neither Miss Lees or any member of the Falconio family participated in the programme.
On the whole this felt like I was watching a shallow, trashy "tabloid" rendition of an important story rather than the sober, balanced "broadsheet" coverage which I believe it merited. Sensationalist, biased and inconsistent, I doubt it did Murdoch's case many favours in the final analysis.
I must confess I was initially hooked after the first episode which sought to debunk the evidence at the crime scene and further apparent discrepancies in Joanne Lees own account of what happened on the night itself, as well as portraying Miss Lees herself as a rather unsympathetic witness. Leading the charge to get the convicted murderer Bradley Murdoch re-tried was a gobby Australian defence attorney the first thing about whom you learn is that he himself spent seven years in jail for drug dealing, leaving me personally unsure if that's the type of legal representation I'd be happy with, especially as it's hard to avoid the impression that reopening the case may be more about obtaining his own redemption than his client's.
However, it's only when you get to episodes 2, 3 and 4 that you realise that the programme-maker is attempting a scattergun approach to what they obviously believe is an unsafe conviction with all types of other supposed evidence aimed at clearing Murdoch placed in front of the viewer. These include a videotape of an obviously uptight Lees stumbling through her witness statement, ditto the police reconstruction in which she participates and apparently contradicts herself, interviews with the driver who picked her up on the highway immediately after the attack who now recalls seeing another car on the road and an altercation between three men nearby, one of whom just could have been Falconio, the revelation that Lees was having an affair with a waiter and was planning to meet up with him later, scientific attempts to disprove Murdoch was in a service station the night of the murder and most bizarrely a supposed sighting days later and many miles away of the believed dead man. They even try to disprove the normally conclusive D.N.A. evidence of Murdoch's which was found on Lees' T-shirt.
This seemed to me like trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer and yet almost every official law-maker represented in the programme was still convinced that Murdoch did the deed. These officials certainly seem more credible than the mostly ragbag witnesses in the defence's corner and I tend to go along with the former. There's little doubt that Murdoch was a bad egg and no other potential suspects were identifiably introduced I felt. It was noticeable that neither Miss Lees or any member of the Falconio family participated in the programme.
On the whole this felt like I was watching a shallow, trashy "tabloid" rendition of an important story rather than the sober, balanced "broadsheet" coverage which I believe it merited. Sensationalist, biased and inconsistent, I doubt it did Murdoch's case many favours in the final analysis.
Very poorly made biased documentary
woodno115 June 2020
Filmed almost entirely from the view of a disgraced former criminal defence lawyer who appears to be on a 10 year quest to exonerate the killer. The man is desperate to find some sort of redemption to get back some self-respect. A good example of confirmation bias in practice.
When compared to the high standard of true crime docs out there this is barely watchable dross!
Biased, unbalanced, poor documentary
nialllloyd-9554410 January 2021
The first two episodes offer a glimpse of a promising documentary review of a high profile case. It, however heads down hill fast, becoming more biased with more outlandish scearinos that demonstrate the two main investigators have lost touch/forgotten about fairness of the law. It becomes their own personal show to push their views and opinions irrespective of how ridiculous they sound. They spent 10 years researching this case and it is obvious by the 4th episode that there will be only one conclusion to justify their time and dedication and one dares says an attempt at restoring one of their reputations after being convicted of being a drugs felon. Disappointing and very very poor editorial work.
Truly Awful, utter rubbish
jcmsf3 October 2021
The anger I felt watching this utter rubbish was palpable!!
Although to be fair the Scatter Gun approach to discrediting the prosecution case is really no surprise..... when you take into account the main protagonists are an ex marketing man who is friends with a convicted, struck off ex criminal lawyer desperately to regain his notoriety and fame.
My favourite one though was the DNA expertise & experiments they conducted. Having the actors in the same room before experiments and the they were conducted with a luminous liquid. Priceless. The conjecture from their expert was widely speculative & taken out of context despite the expert stating the DNA on Lees back was his. I think I'll leave it there! Channel 4 ought to be ashamed airing this tripe.
Although to be fair the Scatter Gun approach to discrediting the prosecution case is really no surprise..... when you take into account the main protagonists are an ex marketing man who is friends with a convicted, struck off ex criminal lawyer desperately to regain his notoriety and fame.
My favourite one though was the DNA expertise & experiments they conducted. Having the actors in the same room before experiments and the they were conducted with a luminous liquid. Priceless. The conjecture from their expert was widely speculative & taken out of context despite the expert stating the DNA on Lees back was his. I think I'll leave it there! Channel 4 ought to be ashamed airing this tripe.
deplorable ammount of commercials
leroy-4484614 July 2020
The ammount of commercials aired on the first episode was shocking,and I assume the same will happen on the next episode.I have been watching Television since 1958,and this is the worst by far I have ever seen for commercials.I timed it,and there was approximately 4 minutes of the show followed by at least 3 minutes of commercials!!It was discusting and I turned it off in disgust after about 35 minutes.I thought there is a limit of advertisments that TV stations can air,and I have been told there is by the broadcasting commission.I have complained to channel 7,but I would be surprised if the reply to me.What they have done is appalling,and they should not be able to get away with it.As for the content of the show,I would not take much notice of what Andrew Frazer has to say.Needles to say,I will not be watching this next week.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
