True Crime All The Time - Bradley John Murdoch

Episode Date: January 22, 2024

Peter Falconio disappeared in Australia’s outback on July 14th, 2001. He and his girlfriend were attacked by a stranger who convinced them to pull over on a remote road. She survived, but investigators believe Peter was fatally shot. His body has never been found. Months later, the main suspect was identified as a man named Bradley John Murdoch, a convicted criminal and drug trafficker.Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss Australian killer Bradley John Murdoch. Murdoch had a long rap sheet and seemed to have no empathy for his victims. He denied that he murdered Peter Falconio and assaulted his girlfriend, Joanne, even though the DNA seemed to prove otherwise. Years of court battles would put Murdoch's fate in the hands of multiple juries.You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 367 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson. And with me as always is my partner in True Crime. Mike Gibson, give you. Hey man, I'm doing good. And you? I'm doing very well. Yeah. You know, we talked on Patreon about some true crime news and kind of what we were watching. There's a lot of new stuff out. There really is. And a lot of it's really good. Yeah. On, on some of the streaming services and things like that. Otherwise, we wouldn't be watching it. well i watch a lot of stuff that i do you well i because i don't know whether it's good or not i realize at a certain point this is not good but a lot of stuff i've been watching lately has been pretty good yeah yeah i'd have to say that sure has been let's go ahead and give our patreon shout outs we had roxana finn oh it sounds

like a it's a it's italian hey benign he's just making stuff up at this point dwayne hey dwayne Hey, Dwayne the Rock. Tana Atkinson. What's going on, Atkinson? Jennifer Lord. Hey, Jennifer. Victoria Rappaport. Oh, thanks, Victoria.

Holly. What's up, Holly? Miranda H. Hey, Miranda. Ginger Cat 5997. What up? 5997. Laura Stickney.

Hey, Laura. Samantha. Hey, there's Samantha. Isabel. Oh, good old Isabel. Tasha Rocco jumped out of our highest level. Man, look at Tasha. Thank you so much.

And last but not least, Janelle, Honor. Hey, Jenelle. know. Yeah, appreciate that new support. And then if we go back into the vault, this week, we selected Dustin Kelly. And thanks, Dustin, hanging in there with us. Yeah, appreciate that long-term support. Absolutely. Gibbs, right now, we have an episode out on Unsolved where we're talking about three businessmen in Indianapolis who were found dead inside a house on LaSalle Street. So we're calling this one the LaSalle Street murders and very brutal crime. It is. Victims were bound, their throats were cut, but we'll get into all the details as well as multiple theories and a couple of main suspects, I guess you would call them.

Some shenanigans. Yeah, but make sure you check that out. All right, buddy, are you ready to get into this episode of true crime all the time? I'm ready. We're talking about Bradley John Murdoch and we're headed to Australia for this one. So I know you've been practicing your Australia. or your Aussie accent. Like my good day.

Your good day. Good day. That's not an wife. This is an wife. That's like, uh, what is the one British? That's pretty much like what you, you have one word word or one little saying for each accent. Good day. Down under.

So our story starts out with a guy named Peter Falconia who disappeared in Australia's back on July 14, 2001. He and his girlfriend were attacked by a stranger who convinced them to pull over on a remote road. She survived. But investigators believe Peter was fatally shot. His body, though, has never been found. Months later, the main suspect was identified as a man named Bradley John Murdoch, a convicted criminal and drug trafficker. So this guy had a lengthy criminal record. We'll get into the details of that as well. But, you know, this idea of kind of being on a remote road in having someone flag you down or get you to stop in some way. It's kind of what you see in some of the movie.

You sure do. And my thought has always been. And I think I've, you know, said it before. but you know you want to help people just our very nature kind of makes us want to help people in need but in certain situations that is a very risky proposition i think it's one of those things that even after all these years of doing true crime podcast and listening to them before all this i can see me depending on where it's at right you know pulling up on somebody isolated it nothing around needing help, you know, needing picked up.

I kind of think there's a good chance I might, but I'd have to do that, you know, calculation on the go, right, right then pulling up like, in my mind, what are the odds that I'm going to be okay? Yeah. I mean, it's a risk assessment. It really is. And unfortunately, I think at least for me, it doesn't always work out to be doable. If that makes sense.

If I'm on a remote road, especially with my family, that's probably a no-go for sure. Yeah. And it probably still is if I'm by myself, but I'm not as worried if I'm by myself. I definitely wouldn't put my wife, my kids' life in any type of jeopardy to help someone. And for them, they might need to be more worried about if I'm picking them up. Well, I think everybody should be worried about that. With my past. Peter Marco Falcone was born on September 20th, 1972.

He was the third of four sons. He grew up in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England. In 1996, Peter started dating a woman named Joanne Leeds. The two met at a nightclub. Joanne's father is Australian, but she was raised by her mother in England. Joanne and Peter started living together in 1998, in Brighton, England. Peter was studying building construction management at Brighton University. Joanne worked as a travel agent.

Everyone who knew them said they were a loving couple. Brighton. And we have a lot of listeners in Brighton. Do we? Yeah. I did not know that. Yeah, we do. You are full of knowledge, my friend.

I am a knowledgeable individual. Peter and Joanne spent several years planning a trip around the world. And I just got done on Patreon talking about, you know, wanting to take, like a big trip, but not being sure that I could handle the flights, the extended period of time on a plane. I just don't know how that would sit with me. You would be miserable. I think I would be. And so would everybody that is on the trip with you. That is true. But I think the other thing that you're really getting a sense of is that, you know, this seemed to be, you know, loving couple. They were doing well, the relationship was doing well.

On November 15, 2000, they left home to travel to Nepal, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Australia. It's a heck of a trip. It is. And there's a lot of different places, a lot of different cultures. They arrived in Sydney, Australia on January 16th, 2001. They were able to stay for an extended period of time because they had what was referred to as a working holiday visa.

On June 25th, 2001, they started a road trip from Sydney to Brisbane, which was around 569 miles. They were driving an orange VW combo van. I don't know if I'm saying that correctly or not, but that's what I'm going with. On the evening of July 14th, 2001, Peter and Joanne were driving on Stewart Highway to see the devil's marbles. a pair of large balancing boulders in a conservation reserve in Australia's northern territory. Okay.

I wasn't sure exactly what that was when I first heard it. The devil's marbles. Yeah. Sounds interesting. Sounds kind of cool. In my mind, I was thinking it was like the devil's, you know,

beanbag and the marbles inside the beanbag. Okay. That's what I was thinking. I was like, okay. I'm just picturing these. bolt to boulders balancing yeah and you're doing a scale up and down thing with your hands yeah that is very entertaining around 730 p.m they passed by the town of barrow creek barrow creek is a tiny town in

the southern part of the northern territory the current population is 11 man that is one busy town have you seen uh the documentary and i think it's currently on HBO Max, it's called something about Laramie or Laramah. It's in Australia. It's a very, very small town and someone is killed. It's kind of interesting. I haven't seen it, yeah. But 11 people.

You talk about people knowing your business, knowing everyone. You're not really getting away. I can't believe there's a lot of cheating going on. You're not stepping out on your significant other without someone. finding out. I feel like the local restaurant would also be the local hotel, the local mayor.

The everything. Everything. One spot. Peter and Joanne noticed that a car had been following them since they stopped at the Barrow Creek Roadhouse Hotel about 13 miles back. So that does kind of go to your theory roadhouse slash hotel.

They expected that the car was going to overtake them on the highway. The car was described as a white Toyota four-wheel drive with a green canopy. But instead of passing them, the driver gestured at them to pull over. Okay, so this is even different, I think, than the scenario that I was talking about early in the episode, which is, you know, you're driving and someone is stranded on the side of the road. Okay. Could that be a ploy to get people to stop? Yeah, it absolutely could be. Sure. But for me, If I'm driving along and someone kind of comes up beside me and is pointing for me to get over and stop, that ain't going to happen.

Because I don't see that happening. I don't know what your intentions are. There's no reason for me to stop as far as I know. Your car works. It's just, I'm not going to do it. I mean, if they're like pointing down at your tire or something or, but I still don't know. I mean, especially today's cars, right? I mean, you can tell a lot of models.

There's a screen that tells me how much air is in the tire. Yeah. Plus, I think most of us know what it feels like when a tire is blown or going flat even. Yeah. You can start to feel it. Joanne didn't want to stop, but Peter pulled over and got out of the van to speak to the man. Joanne heard the man say something about sparks shooting out of their exhaust. The two men went to the rear of the van to look at it.

Joanne got into the driver's seat when she was asked to rev the engine. So this is more along the lines of your theory, which is he's pointing, but more so saying, hey, something's wrong with your car. Joanne heard a loud bang. This sounded like a gunshot. Moments later, the man was at the driver's window pointing a gun at her. And this is a horrible situation and in exactly why I would definitely think twice and maybe even more times about pulling over. Yeah.

Because you just don't know what could happen or what's, you know, what an individual has inside their head. He told her to turn the engine off, but she was shaking too much. So he leaned across her and turned off the engine himself. And how could she not be shaking? You hear this gunshot, you have to assume that your husband is probably dead because the man now is alone and he's pointing the gun at you. Joanne tried to escape through the passenger side, but she was stunned by a blow to the head. The man put the gun against her head and told her to put her head down and her hands behind her back. The man tied her hands with black cable ties that he formed into.

handcuffs. She resisted. So he was unable to tie her feet and tape her mouth. Yeah, you know, at this point, why wouldn't you resist? I mean, sometimes I know people do. Do resist or do not resist? Do not. Yeah, because they're too afraid. They're afraid they're going to be killed. But for me, I think I would resist. And, you know, it's kind of one of those things. You could resist and maybe get away, or you could comply and maybe get out of the situation, but you don't know for sure. Until you're in that situation and gauging the individual and still you can make a wrong decision.

The man forced her out of the van and into his vehicle. She was put into the front of the van with the dog and then forced into the back where he put a sack over her head. She heard scraping noises from outside, like the attacker was moving something. She called out to Peter and the man told her to shut up and threatened to shoot her. And again, the fear that Joanne must have been experiencing, the gunshot. Now she's kind of zip tied her hands are with a sack over her head.

So it's got to be scary, right? The anticipation of what's going to happen next. She sat up straight in the back of the vehicle and saw an opening where she could escape. Joanne was terrified that this man was going to rape her if she stayed. So she sees the opportunity. She hung her legs over the vehicle and dropped to the ground and then ran into the outback. So again,

let's go back, Gibbs, to your kind of line of thinking. You could do nothing and wait and see how things play out. Yeah. Or you could look for an opportunity, seize that opportunity. It may work out.

and it may not. Luckily, this did work out for Joanne. She was able to at least get away from the vehicle. Joanne hid under a bush for a long time. The man searched for her with his dog, but eventually gave up and fled the crime scene in one of the vehicles. He returned to the crime scene, and she thought he was going to look for her again.

But she heard a second vehicle being driven away. And it was said that she continued hiding for hours. And I get that. You don't know if this guy is, you know, kind of lurking in the shadows, just waiting for you to come out. If I didn't have to, I'm not poking my head out. I'm going to lay there as long as I can to make sure that no one can spot me with binoculars down the road. With what? Binoculars. Okay.

I could have sworn you said binoculars. But, you know, hey, I knew what you meant around 1230 a.m. on July 15th. She left her hiding place to flag down a trucker. He and his partner helped remove the bindings on Joanne's hands and drove her back to Barrow Creek so she could call the police. And we always talk about the victims of a crime, especially, you know, those who get away and how, you know, fearful and harrowing the experience must be. But you also have to talk about just people who are, you know, kind of driving along. doing their everyday thing and then stumble upon this scene.

Here's a woman who is obviously in distress. I mean, her hands are tied behind her back and she's trying to get this trucker's attention to slow down. Once the trucker got out, he and his partner, they had to have been shocked at what they found. And I'm sure the story that she told.

And you wonder if anybody ever see something like that and they don't stop thinking, Is this a setup? Yeah, is this a trap? Now, if I saw that a woman by herself who appeared to have been tied up, that is going to be probably less of a red flag. Doesn't mean it couldn't be a trap. There could be a, you know, her partner waiting somewhere is going to spring out of the, the woods. But it would be much harder for me to pass that up. What appears to. be, you know, woman in distress. The Alice Springs police were contacted around 1.30 a.m. they didn't arrive until 4.20 a.m. Because Alice Springs is about 187 miles from Barrow Creek. we mentioned Barrow Creek's got like 11 people. Yeah. I can't imagine they have a police force there. I'm kind of shocked that they have a restaurant slash hotel. I'm just trying to picture this, uh, how this call went, you know, like, Yeah, we'll be there right.

We're leaving now. We'll be there as soon as possible. In three hours. Yeah. Because it's 187 bombs. The search for Peter, the van, and the suspect started at 7 a.m. So they didn't get a quick jump on it, right? Six, seven hours have passed since, you know, this thing happened.

But there were extenuating circumstances. Took them a very long time to get there. And she needed to wait, too, until she felt safe to come out. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know how much time, but the police went to the scene of the attack, and they found a pool of blood on the edge of the highway. The combi van was hidden about 80 meters off the road in some scrub. On July 17th, detectives asked Aboriginal trackers to help them search the outback.

Peter's body was not found, despite intensive searching. efforts. But you'd have to believe that the thinking was that whatever happened to Peter wasn't good. We've got this pool of blood on the highway and then they find the van that the couple was driving hidden in in the brush. The police discovered sets of Joanne's footprints, but expert trackers found no footprints other than hers in the vicinity of the crime scene. Okay, little strange. It is strange. Makes any investigation more difficult. On July 26th, the Northern Territory government offered a $250,000 reward for information.

There you go, Australia. That's Australia for you, man. Man, big rewards. They do not mess around when it comes to rewards. They really seem to understand what large sums of money will do when it comes to motivating people to come forward. You know, you and I do all these cases here in the U.S. where, you know, it's $5,000, $10,000. Yeah. I'm not saying that's not a lot of money because it is.

But to come forward and rat out somebody on a murder or a kidnapping or something like that, maybe it's not all that much. I think you've got to make it worth it to the individual. Well, all I know is Australia is very serious when it comes to. the offering up of rewards. On August 6th, 2001, the police released CCTV footage of the man they believed was the suspect. He was captured at a gas station

in Alice Springs around 1230 a.m. on July 15th, several hours after the abduction. The police focused on identifying registered owners of 1991 through 1999 models of the Toyota Landau. cruiser four-wheel drive. They also focused on a list of 36 men that callers identified as being the man in the footage. So that's some good leads. It is. I mean, you have a lot of people calling in

and saying, well, you know what? I think the man on the footage is so and so. Well, it can't be all 36 of these men, but could it be one? Well, at least you got some names to start the process with. Yeah. The other thing that that I've seen is that these four-wheel drive Toyota land cruisers are very popular in Australia. Some of the Australian YouTubers that I follow, they all have these big, I don't know if they're land cruisers, but they're these big Toyota vehicles with this big huge exhaust that kind of comes out down the front. So they can go through water? meaning you don't want the exhaust to come out on the bottom. Yeah. If you're going to go through.

Okay. Yeah, because you don't want to fill up with water. I understand that reasoning now. Yeah. On November 1st, 2001, the police interviewed a man named Bradley John Murdoch. Murdoch didn't match Joanne's description exactly, but he seemed like a viable suspect. He was known to the police for drug running. Murdoch was born in Northampton, West.

Australia, he grew up in a middle class family, a psychologist who interviewed him as an adult, said he endured trauma and dysfunction and felt distant from his parents. According to the Guardian, Murdoch's former classmates described him as a thug and a bully. Allegedly, he was once a member of a KKK acre. Really? Yeah. So, you know, he had a criminal record. He was known as a kind of a drug trafficking.

trafficker or a drug runner, they said. But then, you know, as always happens, you're going to get people who know this individual come out, talk about him. And they said, this guy was a thug and a bully. Okay. Well, maybe a lot of people were in high school. I've heard a lot of people say that same thing about you, that you were a thug and a bully just kind of roaming the halls in your wrestling singlet. And it was a scary sight. Thugled. living that thug life. But then, you know, to find out that he was once a member of a KKK group, and why is that important? It's because several sources reported that Murdoch harbored a hatred towards Aboriginal people. He had a tattoo of an Aboriginal man hanging from a news. And he claimed

that he was beaten by Aboriginal people several times as a child. So this all. ties in with the you know the KKK group and you can really see you know the the racism coming through oh yeah you can if you're going to go through with an act of having a tattoo put on your arm of someone from another race who you claim to hate hanging from a news i don't know what better example of racism you know you could find you're branding yourself as a big time racist. Yeah, you're putting it for others to see. Yeah, you're putting it out there. And you don't give a, you know what about it. Mordock had a record of committing violent crimes. In 1973, he was convicted of causing a death by dangerous driving.

Once he was released from prison, he worked as a mechanic and truck driver. He later admitted to using amphetamines while driving overnight. And I don't know how. uncommon that was back in the day for truck drivers. I think it was kind of common. Yeah, to take something to allow them to stay awake. I remember Yuki used to be able to go into a gas station and get no doze or uppers or something like that. They weren't called that, but they were speed, white tabs. There was all kinds of different things that they sold in gas stations.

And maybe this was before they, you know, had some of those. things in place that would only allow truckers to drive for a certain period of time before they had to stop. I don't know when all that came into effect. I think that was out there for a while. I just feel like it really wasn't managed or patrolled very well by the different states. Because I know guys that used to do over the road trucking, they kept two logs. One like two sets of books. Yeah.

One real log and one for the. When they got pulled over, they could present. Yeah. It was reported that he got married in 1980 and had a son in 1986, but his marriage broke down and he had little contact with either his wife or his son afterwards. In 1995, Murdoch was sentenced to 21 months in jail for shooting at a crowd of Aboriginal people on the evening of the shooting, a group of several hundred people, including children, We're celebrating a football match victory and refused to move from a bridge when he was trying to drive over.

Murdoch drove to a cattle station where he was working, stole two guns, and opened fire on the parked cars. Wow. That's a problem. Well, yeah, at the very least, you know, you've got some kind of anger management issue. But I think what we're really talking about here goes back to. him being a racist. Now, would he have done that if it was a group of white people? And I don't know that he would have. Yeah. He claimed that the crowd was harassing him, but he did admit to firing the shots. A psychologist who interviewed him said he was impulsive and irrational. Okay, I could have told

you that. I don't need to sit down with the man. Just tell me what he did. It sounds like he was impulsive and irrational. Yeah, I think we got that right away. In the late 90s, Murdoch got into business with a drug trafficker named James Heppie. He and Hepi transported large quantities of cannabis throughout Central Australia. In late 2001, Murdoch and Hepi had a falling out over drugs and money. Heppy claimed Murdoch was paranoid, not doing his fair share in their illegal business, and was afraid to cross state borders. You got to pull your weight, man, in this illegal enterprise. You do.

That we're involved in. We need you. Heppie also claimed Murdoch reported him to the police, and Murdoch accused Heppi of framing him for Peter Falconeo's murder. Meanwhile, the police investigation stalled, and media outlets began to attack Joanne because of alleged inconsistencies in her statement. And you always hate to hear that. Oh, as a victim, yeah.

I mean, assuming you had nothing to do with your husband's murder to see that you're being attacked in the papers or on TV, it has to be a double blow. You're already dealing with the death of your loved one. Yeah, let me mourn. And now they're thinking you may have had something to do with it. In February 2002, an officer named Colleen Gwynne was promoted to head of crime in Alice Springs and took over the investigation. A few months later on May 17, 2002, the task force arrested Murdoch's accomplice in the drug trade. The accomplice

turned on him and shared details about how Murdoch was connected to Peter's murder. The police knew that Murdoch would flee if they approached him directly. So they went to his brother to ask for his DNA, Colleen Gwynne, head of the investigation, believed he would help them because he had a falling out with his brother. His DNA sample supported Murdoch's involvement in Peter's murder. So sometimes blood is not thicker than water? Water. No, but you know what it will do? Help solve a lot of cases. It will. Murdoch likely knew that police were on to him. He went missing for a while. But he was arrested on. August 28, 2002 for assaulting and kidnapping a 33-year-old mother and her 12-year-old daughter.

He's a real winner. Yeah, this guy's a P-O-S for sure. He also doesn't seem to be, you know, all that bright. So the police are on to me and I'm trying to lay love. Maybe what I should not do is assault and kidnap a mother and daughter. Yeah. Maybe I should just be good. and try to stay off the radar.

Yeah. But I'm not sure this guy knew any other way. You know, with his criminal background, his criminal record, it just seemed like, you know, he was in trouble all the time. According to The Guardian, by August 2002, Murdoch was agitated about the manhunt and spent most of his time smoking marijuana and drinking anphetamine lace tea. I know you've talked about that a lot. I don't know why you drink it, but, uh,

So tasty. I know you get something out of it. Apparently he was staying in a guest house on the property of one of his male friends. His friend's partner and her daughter lived in another house on the property. The mother and daughter were alone in the house because her partner was being treated for cancer in the hospital. One night Murdoch lured the daughter into the guest house and tied her hands with cable ties. As quoted by the guardian, he told her, if you move, I will give you brain damage. He removed her clothing, pinned her down to the bed, and raped her twice. He covered her eyes with tape during the attack. Afterwards, he went to the main house with a gun to wake the mother up. He took her to his vehicle, where he was also keeping the daughter captive. He told her, I need some insurance to get away from this place. Get in the back, or I will shoot you. He chained the mother and daughter up in the back of the vehicle and drove for 25 hours,

only stopping three times. That's a long haul. It is. And during one of the stops, he sexually assaulted the mother. So I talked about, you know, why wouldn't you just lay low? And I think he gives a little bit of insight, whether it's true or not, into maybe what he was thinking, which is they're about ready to catch up to me. I need some hostages. I need some insurance to help try to get away. Some leverage. Some leverage. Yeah. But if that's what you needed and all you needed, then there'd be no reason to rape an underage girl twice to rape the mother. You know, that's why, you know, some of the stuff doesn't always make sense to me, what these people say. Yeah, they're trying to make it sound not as bad. Yes, which it's still bad, right? You're kidnapping someone, but they're giving you a reason

for it. But then the other things that they do seem to kind of fly in the face of that reason or are just so unnecessary to what they say they were trying to do. And maybe it was just his innate badness coming out that he felt, well, I've gone this far. I might as well do this. I might as well do this. this, this and this. But then without any explanation, he gave them $1,000 and allowed them to get out of the vehicle at a service station. He told them, you could make some money out of this if you went to the media. But sell my story? Sell their story. Their story, yeah. As being kidnapped by, you know, this wanted fugitive. But here again, just doing things that don't make a lot of sense. I mean, you kidnapped him for a reason.

Allegedly, according to him, other than just the sexual assaults, he claimed that, you know, he needed them as insurance in case the police caught up to him. But then all of a sudden he decides to not only let them go, but give them a thousand dollars and tell them that, hey, you could make some money if you go to the media. Tell them what happened. Maybe he wanted that insurance just to get so far. So far. Maybe. Murdoch was arrested at a Woolworth's grocery store. He was carrying two guns, but apparently he couldn't reach for the guns because he was carrying back.

And that's always a dangerous time. You know, when you're carrying your bags out of the grocery store, you can't reach for your guns. That's why I always only carry one bag at a time. Or you could use a shopping cart. That's too obvious. Because that works. just go back and forth until I get them all. You go all the way out to your car with one bag, then go back, get one more bag.

That's right. Meanwhile, people are behind you trying to check out going, what is this guy doing? I'm almost done. Hold on now. Inside his van, officers found a high-powered rifle, night vision goggles, 800 rounds of ammo, a knife, a crossbow, cattle prod, chains and shackles, shovels, a jockey whip. disposable gloves, an empty magazine for a glock, and a fully loaded barretta. I mean, I know you're thinking cattle prod, jockey whip.

That's a fun Saturday night for you. But man, I'm thinking all this stuff, man. What was he planning on? Well, it's not going to be good, right? If you had a high powered rifle and maybe a knife, you could try to say that you were going to go hunting. But now you've got to explain. the night vision goggles, 800 rounds of ammo.

I think I've said this before. You don't need that many rounds of ammo if you're going to go hunting. No. If you've got to fire 800 shots, number one, you're a bad shot. And number two, you're not going to shoot anything anyway

because you've scared away every animal for 10 miles. Yeah. And I don't know why anyone needs inside their car a cattle prod chains and shackles and a jockey whip unless like you said gibbs you're you know you go on to a party or you know one of those puts your keys in the bowl party i don't know what kind of party this would be it's certainly not a tupperware party though i can tell you that it is not on october ninth

2002 bradley john murdock was named as a prime suspect in peter's murder after dna testing was completed. Traces of Murdoch's DNA were found in a spot of blood on Joanne's t-shirt, on a pair of homemade handcuffs, and the gear shift of the combi van, Joanne and Peter, were driving. So that seems like some pretty good DNA evidence. Pretty solid. Yeah. So how is his DNA going to get on Joanne's t-shirt? How's it going to get on these homemade cuffs? and inside the combi van, unless he, you know, had a role in the murder and then the abduction of Joanne. A forensic expert advised that the T-shirt DNA was 150 quadrillion times more likely to have come from Murdoch than anyone else. Pretty big number.

I don't even know what that number is, to be honest with you. I'm still trying to wrap my head around a trillion. I think I got that down. Now, we're throwing out quadrillion. Okay, we're getting, we're getting pretty far out there. Yeah, if you just take $1 billion divided by pie times pie, and then add a few trillion to it.

And a scoop of ice cream? You get quadrillion. Okay. Yeah. I got you. You didn't have to go all goodwill hunting on me, but I mean, when you think about that number,

if you're a juror, how big is that to you? Because, you know, years and years ago, cases that we've done, the number was much smaller. Now, it was still pretty big, but it was one in, let's say, millions. Okay. Well, there's hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. There's like 330 something now, but maybe even back in the 90s. You know, there's high 200s, 300.

I don't know how many millions of people there were. So you could make the argument that it could be someone else. You can't really make that argument when you're talking about 150 quadrillion to one. A detective found a small hair tie taken from Joanne during her struggle. Murdoch wrapped it around his shoulder holster with his other belongings possibly as a trophy. The hair tie was later presented as evidence at trial. And I get it. Killers take trophies. Which is stupid.

It is really dumb. I understand, I think, why some do it because they relive their actions later on using that object. But like you said, it is very stupid because it's going to come back to tie you to a crime if it's ever found. Joanne picked out Murdoch in a photo lineup on November 18, 2002. She was shown a CCTV image of a man at a truck stop the day after the attack. At that time, she told investigators the man was too old. But she changed her mind because she was shown a better quality picture. Well, if you got a better visual, it might make a difference.

And we're talking about the early 2000s here. CCTV cameras are so much better today, the picture quality. Then they were, let's say, in 2001, 2002. Get rid of all that grainy stuff, you know? Yeah. It makes a big difference. Just makes it easier to see. Murdoch went to trial for rape and kidnapping in October 2003. Prosecutors told the jury that he abducted the mother and daughter for insurance because

he was afraid he was going to be arrested for Peter's murder. He told them he was on the run because he was being. framed. During the incident, I guess he denied killing Peter, but admitted to having one of his shirts. Yeah, but does it make sense? I need some insurance. I'm going to kidnap these individuals. And why I have them, I'm going to rape them. No, I know. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. And why would he have one of Peter's shirts if he didn't do it and he was being framed? Right. Just like why would he have Joanne's hair tie? Wouldn't make any sense.

In 2005, the Guardian reported that Murdoch used black cable ties to bind the mother and daughter. He used the same type of bindings on Joanne Leeds. He covered Joanne's head with a sack during the attack. The girl said she was blindfolded and her mouth was taped when Murdoch raped her. On January 10, 2003, Burdock was acquitted of two counts of rape, two counts of false imprisonment, two counts of indecent assault, and one count of common assault. So it's a little bit of a shocker. And disappointment. And disappointment based on, you know, some of the evidence that we talked about, he's essentially acquitted of everything that has to do with the abduct. the abduction and the rape of the mother and daughter.

And according to the guardian, part of the reason the jury acquitted Murdoch is because the woman and her daughter did not immediately go to the police. I didn't know that was a prerequisite. Is that similar to a prerequisite? Exactly what I said. Okay. Okay. We'll let the audience make that determination.

But no, I think you're right on. I don't know how long they waited. But if that's what you're basing your decision on and kind of discarding the evidence and all of that, you know, I hate to question juries just because it's a tough job. But this one is a little baffling. I got to be honest. And we know it's difficult for victims of sexual abuse to come forward. It's not always easy.

No, there could be a lot of reasons why they didn't immediately go. they could have been scared traumatized and they needed to you know get themselves together i have no idea why the reason for the delay but there could be a lot of different reasons but murdock was immediately arrested on suspicion of murder a few days later he was formerly charged with murder assault and attempted abduction bradley murdock's trial started on october 17 2005 he pleaded not guilty to all charges. In their opening arguments, the prosecution outlined the DNA evidence against Murdoch. The jury heard that the DNA found on the gear shift of the van was inconclusive with standard Australian DNA testing, but a UK expert found a mixed profile matching Murdoch. When Murdoch was

arrested in August 2002, he was wearing a strap with a broken buckle held together. by a hair tie that matched the one Joanne was wearing on the night of the attack. So, you know, they mentioned that he might have taken it for a trophy, which he might have done. Sure. But then it sounds like he found a use for it to hold his belt together. And you got to be kind of glad he did, because this is helpful. Yeah, as evidence against him. Prosecutor Rex Wilde, very close to Rex West. I've seen that. Yeah, I know. Told the jury that Murdoch was cunning, alert. and meticulous. The attack was premeditated because he took time to make handcuffs beforehand. He escaped by driving over a thousand miles across the Tanami track, a mostly unpaved desert road to

avoid roadblocks. He was high on amphetamines and paranoid about a couple in an orange van that he saw two or three times during his driving route. So this must have been a different couple in an orange van. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. The prosecutor noted that any discrepancies in Joanne's story were caused by the trauma she experienced. He addressed Joanne's inconsistent descriptions of Murdoch's dog, noting that she didn't see the dog for long periods of time that night. And I get that, you know, a defense attorney has to attack Joanne's statements. because they're going to be key pieces of, you know, evidence against Murdoch,

but I also understand what the prosecution is saying. You know, here's a woman who experienced a great deal of Trump. So, you know, if she got a few things wrong, could it not be because of that? Yeah, I think you get to say, you got to cut her a smith slack. Well, and in describing the dog, okay, for most of the time, she also had a sack over her head. We don't know how many times she saw the dog. Peter and Joanne didn't know Murdoch. And apparently there were rumors that Peter was killed in a drug deal gone wrong, but those were untrue. The prosecution presented two possible motives. Murdoch was carrying 20 pounds of

cannabis and told his friend he was being followed, but he dealt with it. Or he might have seen Joanne driving alone while Peter slept earlier that day and followed them. Okay, I don't know a lot about measurements of weed, but 20 pounds, that's a lot, right? Seems like a lot. A lot of weed. Yeah, because don't you normally deal in like ounces when you're buying weed? Typically. I mean, I have to ask you because I don't buy weed, but. You just asked for a dime bag earlier. But 20 pounds seems like a lot. Yeah. Because I, I don't. don't think marijuana weighs that much, does it? I don't know. I mean, I'm not picturing like we're the millers where, you know, the whole RVs. The whole RV is packed with with cannabis, but it does

seem like a lot. I think it's probably a healthy dollar amount. Joanne Lees was one of the first witnesses at trial. The prosecution asked her to admit to having an affair with another backpacker when she and Peter were staying in Sydney. And it was thought that they did this so that the defense couldn't bring it up first. And that's tough. You know, you're the victim in the case, but all right, you might have done something you're not proud of and you have to admit to it. Yeah.

Better coming from you than from the other side. Yeah. I think the strategy is sound, right? Let's bring it up so that the defense can't make it seem as though they unconsored. covered something and it's an aha moment. Every time I got in trouble, the first thing I always say, yep, it was me and I did it. And then the other person would be like, what are you talking about? Yeah, see, that seems like a really bad strategy.

Yeah. What happened to always get an attorney? I think that's the first thing that your attorney would say to you is, please, Michael, do not say, yes, it was me. I did it. Yeah, I'm not talking about the police. I'm just saying, you know. Oh, okay. when you were caught by others.

Joanne recounted the details of the attack. She testified that she thought Murdoch was going to kill her. She said she was more afraid of being raped than of dying or being shot. And that is such a powerful statement. It really is. She did not want to be raped by this man. She was more afraid of that than being killed. She said she called out to Peter.

As she was being tied up and forced into the vehicle, he didn't respond. That was when she realized he might have been killed. While she was hiding, she heard Murdoch dragging something, which she thought was Peter's body. The jury heard that the DNA found on Joanne's t-shirt was 150 quadrillion times more likely to come from Murdoch than anyone else. And we mentioned that already, but again, I think when you hear that as a juror, that has to be extremely powerful because the number is astronomical. Yeah, I think at that point, you're thinking, well, it's got to be his. And so if you come to that conclusion, then, you know, I think by extension, you're wondering how else would it have gotten on her t-shirt? Yeah.

The prosecution argued that Murdoch's statement that it is. his former business partner planted the evidence was crazy. According to the BBC, so he said that the DNA transfer occurred because he went to the same restaurant as Peter and Joanne on the day of the murder. Again, you have to try to explain this, right? You have an expert saying, it's your DNA. There's no two ways about it. So let's come up with a story that tries to explain how your DNA,

could have gotten on Joanne's t-shirt. Well, I was at the same restaurant as them. You got to try something. Yeah, because if you don't address it at all, right? As the defense, then it's almost as if you're conceding that point. And you just can't do that. You've got to continue keeping the doubt up. A DNA sample found on the cable ties used to bind Joanne was 100 million times more likely

to have come from Murdoch than anyone else. The handcuffs were stored in the same room as Murdoch's other property, but they were locked up in a cabinet. They were not tested until May 2004. So I do think as, you know, the defense team, maybe you could poke a little bit of holes into that one. Yeah, you have to try. A hundred million times is still a very, very large number. It's not 150 quadrillion. And then you could make the art.

argument that, you know, okay, if these ties are in the same room as his other stuff, could there not have been some type of transfer some contamination? And you're going to make a big deal out of the fact that they weren't tested for, what, a couple of years? Yeah. The prosecutor pointed out that Murdoch was captured on CCTV at the Shell truck stop in Alice Springs on the night of the attack, his own family and friends. recognized him in the image.

Hard to dispute. Well, I think at that point, it's you, right? If the police say it's you, your own family and friends are saying it's you, Murdoch's defense argued that the DNA match could have been caused by accidental blood transfer in a Red Rooster restaurant in Alice Springs. The old Red Rooster. I mean, they've got Shell stations, Red Rooster. It's just like being here.

and Murdoch had proof that he stopped at Red Rooster to buy food for himself and his dog during the committal hearing before trial. Joanne mentioned that she and Peter stopped at Red Rooster. Now, what that doesn't prove is that they were there at the same time. But as the defense, you're going to jump on that, right? You have to. They were both at Red Rooster. Well, that must explain how his DNA got on, Joanne's,

T-shirt. Not sure how this accidental blood transfer would have happened in the restaurant, but the defense told the court that Murdoch was set up by the police. The defense asked the jury if the handcuffs were contaminated intentionally. They also noted that no blood was found in Peter's van. Okay, so they're taking it a step further. This is not just trying to explain away the evidence, this is them coming out and saying that the police set all of this up. They contaminated the evidence to put Murdoch's DNA on it. Bradley Murdoch began his testimony in late November. He said he was framed and the DNA evidence was planted.

Of course he's going to say that. Yeah. So, I mean, that's their strategy. They're kind of sticking to it. Now, he couldn't explain how his DNA. was found on Joanne's t-shirt saying, per the BBC, I know I went through Alice Springs. I don't know whether I crossed their paths or not. So he's not even saying he knows for sure that he was at the Red Rooster at the same time

that they were. He's just saying, that's how it possibly could have happened. But again, Gibbs, as the defense, right, you don't have to prove anything. You just have to sow enough seeds of doubt. sure so that the jury is not quite sure that the defendant is guilty yeah you want that jury to take the bait murdock said he was over 370 miles away in a remote area when peter and joan were attacked so that's convenient right pretty hard to confirm that not really any evidence to back it up he admitted that he was a drug smuggler and transported what he called large quantities of cannabis.

Again, I think 20 pounds qualifies as a pretty large quantity. If you get caught with 20 pounds of weed here in the U.S. Now, before it was legal in so many states and all that, but even today, 20 pounds, that's like trafficking. Probably. I think so, especially since it's a federal offense still. That's not recreational usage. 20 pounds, I don't believe. Or at least in the past, it wouldn't have been seen as that.

Yeah, that's a lot of brownies. So he's admitting to being a drug smuggler. I don't know why he wouldn't admit that. It was pretty well known. He also admitted to carrying guns, but he insisted he was not a killer. Hey, I'm a bad guy. I carry a lot of drugs. I sell drugs.

I do carry guns. But I don't kill. people. That's where I draw the line. You got to draw it somewhere. He admitted to changing his appearance and his vehicle's appearance after the July 2001 trip, but said that it was a necessity because he was a drug runner. So it wasn't because I killed people. It was because of my other illegal activity. My drug running. The prosecution alleged that after Peter was shot, Murdoch wrapped his head in Joanne's denim jacket to stop the blood from staining his vehicle. He denied this during his testimony.

The denim jacket in question has never been found. So, I mean, let's point out, as we often do, right, the prosecution is putting forth theories. There's no way they can prove this because they don't have the denim jacket, but it's one possibility of what happened. Yeah, I mean, they're help feeding information to the jury. And hopefully the jury believes it. Murdoch denied his former business partner, James Hepi's earlier testimony in which he discussed different ways to dispose of a body. Heppie also testified about Murdoch's use of amphetamines

and how he saw him making handcuffs out of cable ties. Okay, first of all, when they said handmade handcuffs. Yeah. It's very, very easy to make handcuffs out of cable ties. I know you have a lot of experience. with it. He just put one into the other and make them a little bit bigger if you need to. Again, let's leave your Saturday night fun out of this. Murdoch's former girlfriend, Beverly Allen, testified that he returned to Broome Western Australia after a drug smuggling trip in 2001.

He thought someone was following him and told her he had to deal with it, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. On December 13, 2005, Bradley Murdoch was found guilty of murder, abduction, and assault. And that doesn't surprise me all that much. I mean, I think the DNA evidence alone would be very tough for the jury to discount. Yeah, I agree with you. I think it's tough to turn away from that. To believe that, you know, he ended up at the Red Rooster at the same time as this couple

and there was somehow an accidental transfer of blood. I mean, how does that happen? You're at the toppings bar and you get excited and you do a belly bump? Or I don't even know. You brush up against somebody. Who's getting that close at the salad topping bar

or the hamburger topping bar? That's a salt. It's more than a salt. It just doesn't make sense. No, it doesn't. Right. No, it's just not. I guess you can't say it could never, ever happen, but pretty unlikely.

Yeah, and not all that plausible. On December 15th, he was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 28 years. Plus, a concurrent six-year sentence for assault and depriving Joanne of her liberty. That's a good sentence. It's not a horrible sentence. I mean, you know, people could say, well, This guy shouldn't get out in 28 years, right? This six-year sentence is concurrent.

So does it really mean all that much to him? No. And therefore, is Joanne going to be satisfied with that? I don't know. According to the age, the judge said that Murdoch's chances of rehabilitation were minimal. He had not shown any remorse and that he was cowardly in the extreme. And this guy was kind of a lifelong criminal. We don't know if he killed, you know, other people, but he had a long rap sheet.

You know, what were the chances of his rehabilitation? I would agree with the judge. I don't think they're great, but. Yeah, I don't think he's going to be remorseful. And I don't think he feels like he really did anything wrong. Well, at the very least, he's not going to admit to it. Right. In October 2006, after the publication of her book, no turning back.

Joanne did an interview with BBC where she said that the media created their own stories about her because she didn't do interviews early on. Well, that can happen, right? They're going to format their own opinions and sometimes those opinions will turn into actual stories. Which they shouldn't. But, you know, I get that sometimes they do. that just seems like bad journalism to me.

Now, if you write an opinion piece, that's different. It is, but sometimes your audience, right, that reads that piece, forgets the key word in that article was, this is our opinion. I'm not sure that that's what she's talking about. I think she's talking about stories that were written in the paper, not as opinion pieces, but actual newspaper articles or stories that contained stuff about her that wasn't true. Just wasn't factual, but they laid it out as if. Because she didn't tell it to them.

When asked if she regretted her behavior after the attack, she said, I was a victim of a violent crime. I was dealing with my own emotions, the loss of Pete. What could have happened to me, I was almost raped and murdered. I was just being myself. When you're a victim, you don't get handed a rulebook or a manual on how to handle the media or the press. What is a victim supposed to look like?

There's no rule book. There's no dress code as far as I'm aware of, of how a victim should act and behave. I was in a foreign country, 12,000 miles from home without friends and family. I was not receiving the appropriate support. Wow, she couldn't have said it better. People need to remember that. Yeah, I mean, it's something that you and I have talked about many times. Victims are not all going to react the same way in the same situation.

Because like she said, there is no rulebook. There's no, we don't get trained on how to act if you are involved in this. How do you talk to the media? how do you dress how there's no standard no how do people grieve right that's something that we talk about a lot of times we do some people like to show their emotion privately in their own home some people show it in front of the press and sometimes those who don't or can't are seen as uncaring yeah you don't cry enough you're uncaring you cry too much you're faking it you're acting yeah it's like where do you draw the line yeah but sometimes

that is true. That is the problem. That is the problem. Because sometimes it is true. When asked about alleged discrepancies in her statements, she said there were not. Murdoch appealed his conviction in December 2006. His appeal argued that Joanne's evidence was tainted because she saw a photo of him online before she was interviewed by the police.

In August 2002, Joanne read an online article from BBC news that included. included Murdoch's photo. The judge described it as a spontaneous identification. And then weeks later, she picked him out of a photo lineup. So, you know, he's trying to say she saw my picture. And then later, she picked that, you know, my picture out of a lineup. It's because she'd already seen it. And I think they're saying, she saw your picture in the newspaper and knew it was you. And then picked it out again in a lineup later. Yeah, there's a difference between those two, right? Yeah.

The defense questioned Joanne's identification of Murdoch's dog described by BBC as a mongrel Dalmatian. Initially, Joanne said the dog was a blue healer. In May 2004, she was shown a photo of a different dog and was told it was Murdoch's dog. And I'm not sure how much I make of this, because could someone get, you know, a dog's breed incorrect? I would say, yeah, pretty easily.

Now, Dalmatians are fairly unique, but I don't know what this, what was meant by mongrel Dalmatian. I don't know what this dog looked like. Yeah, that could change what our perception of a Dalmatian is. Right. The defense also disputed testimony given by an expert on face. and body mapping and called it pseudoscience. Finally, they argued the non-prol period of 28 years was excessive and meant Murdoch was likely to die in prison. And my response to that would be,

okay, what's your point? Yeah. Why is it excessive because he may die in prison? So it'd be okay if he was 20 years old at the time. But if you're older and that 28 years is going to take you into an area where you may not live, does that make a difference? And my argument would be no. No. I don't see how it does. I guess he should have thought about what he did. And to me, that's always the case. Nobody wants to live with the consequences of their actions, but they also don't want to think about it ahead of time and say, you know what? This is wrong. I shouldn't do this. He was a criminal. He didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Or if he did, he didn't care.

Yeah. I mean, it's one or the other. I think a lot of times people know it's wrong. They just don't care about the consequences until the consequences actually come about. Yeah. And then they care very much. And then they fight like hell to appeal and try to get out of it. Murdoch's appeal to the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal was denied in January 2007.

He applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, but his request was denied in June 2007. Murdoch filed another appeal in late 2013, but withdrew it in 2014. He alleged that the prosecutor improperly groomed Joanne Leeds in how to give evidence. So what is he saying? The prosecutor coached her? Yeah. Is that out of the ordinary? I don't think so.

I don't know that it is. I remember testifying in a trial and I sat down with the prosecutor beforehand. They didn't tell me to say something that wasn't true. They just talked about what questions were going to be asked so that I kind of had an understanding of how it was going to go. It wasn't going to change how I answered the questions or anything like that. For more than a decade, Murdoch has refused to tell the police where he disposed of Peter's body. In June 2016, Australia's Northern Territory government passed a nobody no parole law to try to pressure Murdoch to reveal the location of Peter's remains.

This law prevents convicted murderers from parole eligibility if they do not give the location of the victim's remains. At the time, this was the only case affected by the law. And that's very interesting to me. Basically, they're saying, you don't want to tell us where you hid the body? All right. You ain't getting out. I like that law. I'm not opposed to it.

In July 2021, the Australian police issued a new appeal for help on the 20th anniversary of Peter's disappearance. Investigators believe Peter's body was dumped in the outback between Alice Springs and Broome in Western Australia. This is like a 1,000 mile area. So, I mean, it's not an easy search. It's a very tough search. In September 22, a potential new witness came forward and revealed that he saw a vehicle similar to Murdox parked in what he called an odd place by a culvert in a bridge

24 hours after the murder. The driver alerted the police, but never heard from them again. The witness came forward. after South Australian politician Frank Pengalo asked for a million dollar reward for information. Now we're getting somewhere. We are. You're going to have people coming out of the woodwork for a chance at a million dollars. In February 2003, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that human remains were found in Alice Springs

near the area where investigators believe Peter was dumped. The police denied these claims saying, no remains were found and no search was being conducted at that time. So that's kind of fascinating. You know, where did the Sydney morning Herald get this information? Is it true? And the police just didn't want to come out and say it was.

I think normally they would just say no comment. I don't think normally they would want to lie about it. Yeah. Because there's really no need to. There is none. They could just say, hey, we can't comment on that or whatever. But as we wrap this one up, Gibbs, it's been 22 years since Peter Falconio disappeared.

Bradley Murdoch continues to refuse to help the police, even though it now negatively affects his chances at parole. Although Peter was never found, the police had strong forensic evidence against Murdoch that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the killer. and that he also assaulted Joanne and abducted her. That was a big part of it as well. I just think I could see myself, you know, on this jury with the evidence that we know about. It would be hard not to convict him.

And you have to wonder at this point with this new law, is he at some point in time going to say, you know, I'm going to have to finally admit. to this, I'm going to have to tell them where this body is if I want any chance of ever getting out of here a lot. It's his only option. Yeah, but it's tough for people to do, right? When you've spent 20 plus years saying, I'm innocent, I'm innocent. I was framed. How do you, yeah, how do you reverse course all of a sudden and then start admitting things? I think for some people, that's a, that's a tough pill to swallow. Yeah, I think so, but also think if you want to out bad enough, that's what you're going to do. Unless you really didn't have anything to do with it, which is highly unlikely. Yeah,

that's what I was going to say. Now, if you really didn't, I get it. Number one, you couldn't tell them where the body was. And so you're kind of stuck at that point, but I just don't think that's the the case here in this one. But that's it for our episode on Bradley John Murdoch. there continues to be a couple of things that jump out at me about these cases that we do in Australia. One of them, as I've already talked about, are these really big rewards that they offer up for information. And then I do think it shows you just how badly they want to solve some of these crimes.

Yeah. That they're willing to pony up that amount. Now, they're only going to pay it out if it leads to. the conviction or the the body being found or whatever it's it's set out there for i just i just think it shows the the emphasis that they put on it and then i go back to one of the statements that you made was this was just a guy who seemed to live his pretty much entire life involved in criminal activity with very little regard for those around him right he was going to do what he wanted to do. And if people got hurt in the process, well, so be it. So be it. And unfortunately,

I think there are a lot of people who live their lives like that. And it's kind of a really scary thought. It is. I think a lot of them have a chip on their shoulder. You know, they feel like the world owes them. And they're going to do whatever they want to take it. It could be. It definitely could be. We got some voicemails. You want to check those out? It's here. Hey, Mike and Gibby. This is Thomas all the way from Montreal, Quebec. I just wanted to say I love your podcast. I'm a big fan of true crime. I hit you guys up on the Facebook chat there to suggest the case.

It's about Victoria Stafford. She was abducted actually in my hometown. And I was going to the high school just above the street where she was taking to step to school. So I would be interested in here where you guys have to see and hear about the case. And I love hearing you on the podcast. My partner and I, we listened to you. we're building Lego. So we have time well spent.

Once again, thanks, guys. And always love to hear you. And keep your own time ticking. Bye, guys. Ah, bonjourno. Oh, what's Quebec? It's French Canadian. It's definitely not bonjourno.

Not only are your accents horrible. Yes. But now you're getting them mixed up, which one goes with, you know, which country. Always forget what they say when you cross the border Canada. They say hello in French.

I don't know. I can't remember what it is. I never took French. Yeah. I know we. We. Yeah. I don't think people say it like,

we. We, yes. Lego building too. I like to build Legos. Legos are fun. Yeah, they are. I'll be honest. I haven't played with Legos in a long time,

but if they were laid out here in front of me, I would build Bill with them. Yeah, I did that 10,000 piece one that one time. Did you? With a blindfold on. Do you know how much a 10,000?

Do you know how expensive Legos are? No. A 10,000 piece Lego would be... Ridicously expensive? Yeah, it would be outrageous. Yeah, I mean, you knew I couldn't do it anymore. I don't have the patience for that. No, you don't.

But Victoria Stafford, that probably should have been un-solved, but it sounds like it's an unsolved case. But we'll definitely look into it. Certainly will. Oh, Mike and Jimmy. This is... Christian, I am a listener from D.C. Wanted to call and let you guys know that I love your podcast, your episodes.

My aunt occasionally listens to it, too. She definitely teens Ferguson, although he said that you have a nerdy voice. But I was looking through your guys' episode list, and it was an episode. I don't know if anyone suggested it or recommended it, but I'm an avid trial watch. I watch court trials on YouTube and court TV website and app and stuff like that. And I came across the story, the case of Phil Specter, who was a music producer who killed an actress in the early 2000s, and his trial was still, he had, it was like, they said it was like the modern, he had, like the modern day dream team. And I was wondering if you guys would be interested in doing an episode about him

because it's a weird case in some of the statements he made. Love y'all episodes. Me and my aunt was listening from time. My aunt, I'm listening quite a bit. My aunt listens from time to time because when she hears, she used to be working. But love the episodes and stay safe and keep your own time ticking. All right. Appreciate the voicemail very much.

I do have a nerdy voice. I am a nerd. You are a nerd. A nerd and proud. Yeah. I play video games. You do. I like sci-fi.

You are a nerd. I am a nerd. Yeah. I have no problem admitting that. But, no, Phil Spector has definitely been on the list. It's one that I've wanted to do. I've seen documentaries on it. I watched the movie where Pacino plays.

It's Pacino, right? It is. Yeah, plays Specter. And it is a very strange case because, you know, some of the things that he said happened that night are just bizarre. Very bizarre. And I know we will do it at some point. All right, buddy.

We had no mailbag this week. So that's it for another episode of true crime all the time. So for Mike and give you, stay safe and keep your own time ticking.