Talk:Joanne Lees

NPOV

This was one of the most POVised articles I have ever seen, entirely anti Lees. This is not the perception in the UK, and nor is it for wikipedia to blacken someone in the way this article did. I have altered a lot, including removing the very POV section titles, of whicvh there were too many as well, SqueakBox 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Having just read three of the four books currently available on the matter (all of which are terribly POV one way or the other), I don't believe that Ms Lees was ever formally investigated as such. Therefore that information is wrong. Some police apparently were suspicious of aspects of her story, but this did not extend to her being considered a suspect. My feeling is that the article needs a serious reworking, with references. 210.11.146.89 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to iron out the POV sections, simply prefix them with "The Australian public believe.." because I don't know a single Aussie who doesn't think she had complicity in the matter.  :) 211.30.71.59 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a fix at all. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Avoid weasel words for why that would not be an appropriate way to handle this. --Calair 11:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie, I don't believe she was at all complicit. Don't get sucked in by the media hype. There has been enough of that, don't you think? Trishm 11:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will correct the bit about the suspect: "It should be stressed that Lees, unlike Chamberlain, was never officially considered to be a suspect, although she was treated as one, both by the police on one occasion and by certain sections of the press. <http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20504913-5006301,00.html>Trishm 12:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

211.30.71.59 must have a very small circle of Australian friends, if, indeed, he or she has any friends at all. Certainly it would true to say there are members of the Australian public who believe she had some complicity in the matter, just as it would be true to say there are members of the Australian public who believe in the literal truth of the tooth fairy.

This article is incredibly biased against Lees. None of Murdoch's prior offences are mentioned, and the evidence against him seems to have been deliberately trivialised. I'm an Aussie, and believe me, the only people who still think she's guilty are idiots.

Recent update

I have added some brief info on where she is currently living and about the book she is writing. I supplied a reference. Gavin.

Cool. I changed "is currently" to "as of mid-2006" because what is 'current' changes with time; it's better to use phrasings that won't need updating to remain accurate if things change. --Calair 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Her credibility

The article claims the defence attacks on her credibility vis a vis drug use and having sex with another man was perceived as irrelevant. By who? I would assume the judge didn't perceive these as irrelevant otherwise he wouldn't have allowed them to be presented. The drug issue I would assume was relevant because it tied in with the defence's alternative story for what happened. The sex with another man thing was related to several issues especially as she was the chief crown witness. Firstly it suggests she may not have really cared that much about Falconio and whether shey may have had motive to want to get rid of him. Secondly, it casts doubt on whether she can be relied upon to tell the truth (assuming she didn't have an open relationship and/or tell Falconio about the event). In the end in any case, if the judge allowed this evidence to be presented I don't think we can say it was irrelevant. If there were some sources who suggested it was irrelevant then we may be able to present their views but it is wrong IMHO to present it as fact that the evidence is irrelevant. Nil Einne 07:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In the "Enough Rope" interview with Andrew Denton, there is mention that the judge chastised the Defence for bringing up the irrelevant material referred to above.Trishm 11:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unverified material

Removed a claim that seemed to have no Googleable source other than this posting on an Adelaide indymedia site. As per WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP, potentially damaging claims about living persons should not be posted in article or talk space without solid verification, which that isn't. --Calair 13:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That posting clearly has no basis in reality - it's just someone's idea of a joke. 217.155.20.163 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lees's affair - irrelevant?

During the trial, Joanne Lees' credibility was attacked by the defence which claimed to find inconsistencies in her story based on drug use and sexual relations with another man. These matters did not relate to the offence under investigation, and were perceived as essentially irrelevant - although voyeuristically interesting to the public.

The above section is somewhat partisan. I don't think it's at all accurate to suggest that Lees's affair with Nick Riley "did not relate to the offence under investigation", given Lees's attempts to hide Riley's identity and to communicate with him, via a secret e-mail address, even after Falconio had disappeared. This was a major sticking point for the prosecution case, as it cast significant doubt upon her integrity. 217.155.20.163 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Joanneleesfrontpage.jpg

Image:Joanneleesfrontpage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Joannelees.jpg

Image:Joannelees.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Moved here.

I believe below is irrelevant. What has this got to do with Joanne Lees, exactly?

On January 4, 2008 police in Western Australia advised that a woman was violently assaulted and raped at knife-point on an isolated highway yesterday. Detectives said a 46-year-old woman stopped near the Overlander Roadhouse on the North West Coastal Highway after hitting two birds. She was then approached by a man driving a white Toyota LandCruiser (the same description of the vehicle John Bradley Murdoch was alleged to have used during the attack on Peter Falconio and Joanne Lees) . After a brief conversation, the man attacked her from behind with a knife and forced her to the ground, where he raped her. Police said the victim suffered significant injuries. The aggressive attack took place on a stretch of highway 200km south of Carnavon between 5.30pm and 7pm. After the assault, the women drove herself to the Carnavon police station. Her attacker is described as a white male in his 40s with short, light-brown hair. Murdoch could not have committed the offence as he is in jail.

Format (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Motive

Murdoch's motives are not clear. Apparently, with his mind fuddled by drugs, he thought that the other car was following him in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Note

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-15/coming-face-to-face-with-bradley-john-murdoch/8117358 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

DNA on the gear lever of the van and a girl's hair tie also implicated Murdoch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joanne Lees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012221042/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=817 to http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=817

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Went to the UK?

• Lees wrote No Turning Back, a book about her life. She went to the UK for the launch of the book in October 2006 ...

What do we mean by "she went to the UK"? She's from the UK, she's always lived there except for her o/s holiday with Falconio. She returned to Australia for Murdoch's trial, after which she went back home permanently. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)