Case Presentation

We have reason to believe that there were at least three persons involved in the undertaking of, The Barrow Creek Incident. In Whatever context.

Therefore if, A represents The suspect. B represents Miss lees. and C represents Mr Falconio we have four probable case scenario.

Each must be thoroughly investigated, not one more to the detriment of the other.

The first scenario is that, A The Suspect and, B Miss Lees and, C Mr Falconio conspired together to fake the death of C Mr Falconio,

And in so doing placed the evidence at the scene to convince an authority that it would appear that Mr Falconio was shot and that the evidence was placed at the scene to convince an authority that it would appear that Miss lees was deprived of liberty.

The police published witness timeline, the statements made by the witnesses up that timeline and the type of evidence found at the scene and, why there is a lack of certain evidence fully support this case scenario.

Therefore, this case scenario is the one with the highest probability factor.

The Second case scenario, is that A The suspect and B Miss lees conspired together to take the life of C, Mr Falconio and in so doing left the evidence at the scene convincing an authority that it would appear that C, Mr Falconio was shot, and that the evidence was placed at the scene to convince an authority that it would appear that B, Miss lees was deprived of Her liberty.

However, The police published witness timeline, the statements made by the witnesses and the type of evidence found at the scene and, why there is a lack of certain evidence. does NOT support this case scenario, but in fact contradicts it.

The Third case scenario is that, A The suspect independent of any assistance from B, Miss Lees Or C, Mr Falconio actually shot C Mr Falconio and deprived B Miss Lees of her liberty leaving the evidence at the scene convincing an authority on both counts.

Again the Police published timeline, the statements made by the witnesses and the type of evidence found at the scene and, why there is a lack of certain evidence. does NOT support this case scenario, but in fact contradicts it.

The Forth case scenario is that A The suspect and C Mr Falconio conspired together to fake the death of C Mr Falconio and deprived B, Miss Lees of liberty. And In so doing placed the evidence at the scene to convince an authority that it would appear that C Mr Falconio was shot, but left the evidence convincing the authority that B, Miss Lees was deprived of her liberty.

Yet again, the police published timeline, the statements made by the witnesses and the type of evidence and why there is a lack of certain evidence, does NOT support this case scenario, but in fact contradicts it.

If we Follow with a demonstration of the suspect and target vehicles being moved up the model of the Stuart Highway. According to the witness statements. A to G, ONLY. This will establish the scenario’s that could apply.

Please bear in mind that, All other witnesses were NOT witness to anything actually taking place, On the Highway on that evening.

Therefore their views would only be A Characterization of ,“The Suspect”. Characterization is not a crime.

The Death or Deception of
Mr Peter Marco Falconio
In the re-enactment the vehicles were taken to or from the scene of crime on 'carriers' and placed in the position as defined by, the statement given by Miss Lees.
But not necessarily as defined in the statements made by the witnesses D.E. and F.
Did the investigations authority have, the witness accounts at the time of the re-enactment?
Obviously not or the witnesses at Aileron would have been entered into the timeline.
Was this why they may have been unable to re-enact the scene of crime accordingly?
They failed to drive the vehicles up the witness timeline and into the s.o.c. in order to establish whether the account given by Miss Lees, either did, or did not match the statements and or evidence found at the scene.
For had they done this they would have established that the evidence did not match her initial statement, or the witness accounts given.
Thus confirming that the statement made by witness 'E' who was driving south, actually fits the evidence and case scenario, That is that the Kombi was on the western side of, The Highway, and that the second vehicle (The Suspect) was leaving the scene.
Therefore, if the Suspect was leaving the scene, he could not put the Kombi into the Bush as he was leaving and could not drive both vehicles; technically he had left the scene, leaving only Miss Lees.
Remember. Miss Lees had her hands tied in front of her in the position in which she was found, her hands were tied apart, they were NOT bound together (Thus enabling her to manipulate the steering wheel of the Kombi).
Witness 'F' believes that they saw torchlight: this was one hour 'After' The suspect had left the scene with or without Mr Falconio Dead or Alive..
If indeed he was there at all.
The evidence found and the statements made therefore, confirm that, only the footprints of Miss Lee's could have returned to the Highway from the Kombi, After She alone parked it in the Bush.
If, The kombi was found 104 mtrs from where Miss Lees said she was hiding from the assailant.
Therefore the Kombi was close enough for Miss Lee’s to take refuge in. and the lights of the passing Vehicles of witnesses “E” “F” And “G” would have been sufficient to light the way.
The assailant could not have put the kombi in the bush,
If he had done so, he would have been seen, either driving up the highway in the kombi or walking back to his own vehicle by witness 'E’.

As the suspect had, only 15 minutes between witness 'D' and witness 'E' to carry out all the manoeuvres as Defined in the statement of Miss Lees,

This being. Murder, Binding, Gagging, Kidnapping, Escape, Search and removal of the key piece of evidence from the scene, and the fact that the suspect would take approximately 5 minutes To Park the Kombi and walk back to his own
Utility Vehicle within this 15 minutes time-span tells us that ,

Miss Lees’s case scenario timed out.
Therefore If Miss Lees put the Kombi in the Bush as established by the evidence and the statements made, then she was free to leave the scene had she chosen to do so.
If she was free to leave the scene, she was not a victim of the crime, but was party to the events that led up to the death or the disappearance of,
Mr Peter Marco Falconio.
Miss Lee’s had to appear to be a victim, otherwise she would be The Prime Suspect.

Please Note that, while absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, and while the evidence in itself, does not lie.

This applies in reverse, as the presence of evidence is not evidence of presence. If it is believed that the evidence may have been placed at the scene to pervert the course of justice.

The evidence indicates the involvement of two or more persons

Miss lees gave a statement and a description of the suspect in the Queensland Incident. Of which was televised
But Not that of Mr Bradley John Murdoch, Why!

Mr Murdoch cannot give a statement if he was not there.

If he made one up, he would be perverting the course of Justice.

Miss Lees has made a claim against the Northern Territory Government for compensation, for being the victim of a crime.

If The evidence and witness accounts clearly establish, Beyond Reasonable Doubt That she Was Party to the undertaking of

The Barrow Creek Incident.

That claim would be fraudulent and, Fraud, is a Federal Offence?
If we are led to believe it took three and a half hours To get from Alice Springs to the scene of
'The Barrow Creek Incident'
With Exception of the 30 minute break at Ti-Tree
Yet take the suspect over four and a half hours to get from Barrow Creek back to Alice Springs?
What route could he have taken to add the extra hour and half to the return journey, or any journey off the Stuart Highway of up to 45 minutes each way in order to establish a victim drop zone, and a new search footprint.
As This should be, standard operational procedure.
General Summary Of:
The Falconio/Lees Case.
Feasibility Study, and Geographical Profile.

In order to establish the, Time, Distance and Speed, Trigonometry of the timeline, we need to establish the first Key piece of evidence that is “Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

In this particular case, this is witness point “C”
The Ti-Tree Roadhouse at 6.22pm,
Because a purchase was made
at that time.

If this was a purchase for fuel we then reverse the clock in order to consider the time taken to put the fuel into the vehicle. Before making the actual payment.

The average time taken to do this would be at least 7 to 12 minutes.

Bringing us back to 6.10pm.

Therefore, A statement made by witnesses “C” in support of that purchase, is in all probability. a statement of fact.

Such as, The Kombi arrived at approximately 6 pm.

But the occupants of said vehicle watched the sunset prior to Re-fuelling.
If witness 'A' is considered to be the first witness and witness 'B' the second witness, and so on, why are there no witnesses at Alice Springs, (defined as 'A'), in order to establish the start of the witness timeline?
If there are no witnesses so defined at Alice Springs, What information was used to establish the, estimated time of departure from this point, For example, The statement made by Miss Lees, or the time being written in a departure book.
If this is the case, Then the start of the witness timeline cannot be considered a statement of fact, thus making The time of departure, suspect!
The start of the witness timeline can only be, from the location of the first witness, being at point 'A’, which is not at, Alice Springs, but North of.
So what, If anything, took place prior to point 'A’ First witness, Bearing in mind that Miss Lees was heading for Broome via Darwin, and it is purely a coincidence that the Present Suspect comes from Broome, did either party meet at the Tanami Junction? Or if the Suspect or his vehicle was not witnessed in Alice Springs prior to the incident, was this the point of, First Contact, (Eye Or Physical) Why!
Did Miss Lees or Mr. Falconio know the suspect?
If we accept 4pm as an estimated time of departure from Alice Springs and 6pm as an estimated time of arrival at Ti-Tree.
This tells us that the distance of 198 km was covered in 2 hours, giving us a minimum speed of 99 kph for the Kombi.
So If witness “A” saw a kombi being driven North at 4.30 pm then witness “A” should Be located at approximately 49.5 km North of Alice Springs.
There is the need to consider that witness 'A' has given an estimated gap of, 20 minutes between the two vehicles, with an estimated minimum speed of, 99 kph for the Kombi, To conform to the police timeline.
This would be equal to a road distance of 33 kms, we need to consider the visibility of the Kombi at that distance in order to establish the point of visual contact, for the suspect to have known the number of occupants and target suitability of the lead vehicle.
As the suspect could not have established the target suitability over this distance he must have done so at anything up to 20 minutes prior to this point. This Being at, The Tanami Junction.
If witness 'A' has by all accounts established this 20-minute gap and, witness 'B' a gap of 20 minutes also (i.e. 33 km Respectively) this would indicate that the driver of the second vehicle, (The Suspect) was not trying to catch up with the lead vehicle. Why?
On the basis that vehicles tend to be driven at a constant speed over such distances, we can
estimate witness 'B' to be driving South at 132 kph, (only 82 Miles per hour) minus The 99 kph of the Kombi being driven North, This confirms the 33 klm. Given by witness 'A.
So How Did the Suspect know where and at what time the lead vehicle was going to be at or near a particular location?
How would the suspect know, whether or not the occupants of the target vehicle were going to stop over for any number of hours, or at any given place on route? For example, at the Ti Tree Roadhouse or Barrow Creek, Etc..
Ti Tree Roadhouse, Witness point 'C' at, 6.22 pm.

For the Kombi to reach the Ti Tree Roadhouse and for Mr Falconio or Miss Lees, to pay for the fuel at this time, they would have to arrive by 6..00pm, based on a 4pm departure from Alice Springs, the driver would still have to assume the minimum speed 99 kph in order to conform to the timeline.
(If the Kombi and its occupants arrived at the Ti Tree Roadhouse Before 6.00pm Their speed
would have been greater than 99kph and the gap Between the vehicles defined by "A" would
be greater also.) not in time but in distance.
By the time Mr Falconio or Miss Lees returned to the Kombi after making the purchase it would be approximately 6.25pm,

However, Miss Lees said they stopped to watch the sunset,
A conservative estimate of, only 20-30 minutes to watch the sunset would apply if we were to consider the time required to actually refuel the Kombi before making the payment.

The fact that the Kombi remained at the Ti Tree Roadhouse for at least 30 minutes allowed "The Suspect' time to close the gap defined by witness “A” and in all probability supported by Witness “B”

Giving Mr Falconio only 1 hour 10 minutes to arrive at the scene of 'The Barrow Creek Incident' 98.7 klm North,
at 7.40 pm just before witness 'D'. at 7.45 pm. And also time to make up a set of bindings.
According to Miss Lees He was in the Back of the Kombi.
The stopping of the vehicles as defined in the statement made by Miss Lees, Does NOT coincide with the position as defined in the statement made by witness 'D'.
The suspect vehicle would have been in an overtaking position at the point at which the suspect knew, that the driver of the Kombi was going to stop. He 'The Suspect' would still be in motion.
Therefore the driver of the suspect vehicle having passed the Kombi is highly unlikely to have carried out a reverse park manoeuver on an unrestricted stretch of highway. If his intention was to physically stop the target vehicle and it's occupants from progressing any further.
However the position of the vehicles defined by witness 'D' clearly indicates that the suspect may have driven up to the lead vehicle and flashed his headlights to indicate to Mr Falconio or Miss Lees Or Both that this was a suitable place to stop.
On a Geographical profile, the 'Flags' would indicate the evidence that should have been found at the scene, if the statement made by Miss Lees were to be true.
Therefore if we remove the 'Flags' that do not apply, (i.e. The lack of evidence found at the scene) then add the 'Flags' that do apply, this would indicate the key person who played an active role.
According to the photographic evidence at The Shell Roadhouse, after the incident. the driver of the utility appears to have the canopy of his vehicle tied securely down, thus indicating that he would normally drive with it in this manner.

So at what point did he untie the canopy to put Miss Lees into the back of the vehicle while at the scene of crime?
Or to allow, Miss Lees, to escape from.

Miss Lees, has contradicted her initial statement by changing it to, I climbed through a hole behind the bucket seats and into the tray, this would indicate that she was in the cabin of the utility and not in the tray.

Establishing therefore that she was not dumped into the back of the suspect vehicle in the first instance, but may have been sitting in the cabin while the bindings were being put on her wrists.

Miss Lees walks into and out of the bush leaving the lip balm lid as evidence and footprint evidence to support her story.

However the suspect did not have to get out of his vehicle and there is no evidence to support that he did.
If there is No actual evidence to prove that, Miss Lees was forced into the Utility vehicle, and No actual evidence to prove that, The Suspect, had entered and driven the Kombi, it may be because she was not forced into and, he did not have to drive the Kombi for it to be found in the bush after the event, this confirms the lack of evidence found in support of the case scenario as presented by Miss Lees.
The amount of blood found at the scene, was not enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that for all intents and purposes in law, Mr Falconio is indeed deceased, as the quantity of blood found at the scene was estimated to be between half a pint and one pint, which is equal to, or less than that given at a blood donor session.
Mr Falconio worked for a company called PFIZER who manufacture Surgical products, of which includes, Canula's used for the extraction of blood, the same product would be a standard part of an International first aid kit. As would syringes. And these are pre- requisite of drug users.
Irrespective of the fact that Mr Falconio worked in the buildings section of this company, he would still have interaction with employees through the staff social facilities.

Three different types of tape and the cable G-ties were used for the undertaking of “The Barrow Creek Incident”
All these items are used in the Building Industry And, Mr Falconio has a degree in building management.
Footprint evidence found, or in part the lack of, clearly indicates that the only person, according to the timeline, who could have walked away from the Kombi back to the highway, was indeed Miss Lees,
Thus confirming that she was free to leave the scene, making her a party to the events that took place on that evening and establishing that she was not a victim, but a perpetrator.
If Miss Lees was party to the taking of Mr Falconio's Life or the Faking of his death she would have to appear to be a victim, and the evidence would be in place, in both aspects.
The DNA found on Miss Lee's top may have occurred at any time throughout the tour of Australia prior to the Incident.

The DNA only proves that a contact may have been made between Miss Lees and The Suspect, but not that of Mr Falconio and the Suspect.

Therefore, The DNA was NOT found on the victim. Who is, for all intents and purposes in law, Mr Peter Marco Falconio.
Mr Vince Millar arrived at the scene and 'rescued' Miss Lees and took her to the nearest place of safety, being the Hotel at Barrow Creek, run by Mr Les Pilton and Miss Helen Jones, with at least six customers in the bar, did either of these persons telephone the police or medical services. If not Why Not ?
Did Miss Lees at any time imply that it was her problem and to let her deal with it ?
This would explain why the police did not believe her when she first telephoned them.
Note that the three persons involved in the crime individually as a partner or collectively had only 15 minutes between witness “D” and “E” to carry out. Murder, Kidnapping, Escape, Search, removal of suspected victim, and, clear most of the incriminating evidence from the scene.
Therefore the case scenario as presented by Miss Lees, Timed Out
Is This why, Miss lees.
Imposed Restrictions.
Banned reporters.
Told the police they were not looking in the right place.
Said she communed with peter every day. (Which she can only do if he is still alive)
Had her hands bound apart in front of Her. ( The same width as the Kombi steering wheel)
Answered only questions, of Her Own choosing.
Changed her statement, on more than one occasion, as new evidence came to light.
Sold Her Story to the media.
Made a claim against the government for compensation.
Returned to Australia and the scene of crime without police being notified,
Refuse to talk to the police further in respect of the investigation.
Changed her address and employment to break the evidence of any communication between Mr Falconio and herself after the fact.

Any reference to The Suspect is not a reference to any person assumed to be The Suspect until the burden of proof establishes Beyond Reasonable Doubt that such person was at that location at that time,

Therefore The Suspect in this case, Is still at large!


Full article and related matters are posted on arafura.axxs.org under the heading of "The Barrow Creek Incident"