On 13 December 2005, in the Northern Territory Supreme Court, a jury found Bradley John Murdoch guilty of the alleged murder of Peter Falconio on the 14th July 2001. Their verdict was unanimous. . . . GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES! It didn't comply with the rule of law: Beyond any reasonable doubt, but to the satisfaction that the accused was more likely guilty than not. . . . That is what I really believe. The community could now feel safe, another 'bad guy' was safely locked away in prison serving a life sentence with little chance of parole. The case was 'done and dusted'. But right from the very beginning serious doubts about the case were raised from across the spectrum including the media, legal circles, journalists, concerned citizens, police, even the Prosecution (as you will discover further on) involved in the case renewing the appeal to locate Peter Falconio; not to forget the accused, who maintained his innocence from day one. If you think Bradley John Murdoch received a fair trial, THINK TWICE. A true crime is something very serious indeed. A staged crime is even worse, it is beyond comprehension. Accusing someone of murder needs evidence and proofs beyond any reasonable doubt. Australian law requires that every person accused of a crime is deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The burden of proof rests upon the Crown. Proofs must be 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. It requires a higher standard of proofs than just a 'satisfaction' that the accused is more likely guilty than not. We all know that justice is not infallible and innocent people have spent lengthy periods in Australian prisons.
This is one case where the entire system might be questioned
