‘Outback killer' Bradley John Murdoch dies aged 67 after murder of Brit Peter Falconio taking secret to the grave
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
THE killer of backpacker Peter Falconio, John Bradley Murdoch, has died at the age of 67.
The murderer was diagnosed with terminal throat cancer in 2019 and was transferred to a palliative care unit from Alice Springs Correctional Centre earlier this year.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
Murdoch shot dead British tourist Peter, 28, nearly 24 years ago, although the backpacker's body has never been found.
The killer had refused to reveal where the body was, meaning this secret may never be revealed.
More to follow... For the latest news on this story keep checking back at The Sun Online
Thesun.co.uk is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video.
Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/thesun and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSun.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
43 minutes ago
- Metro
Dad of murdered backpacker says he feels 'no sadness' over killer's death for so
The father of a British backpacker who was murdered in the Australian outback has said he wished the killer had 'left something' to help him find his son's remains. Peter Falconio was 28 when he was murdered in 2001 while backpacking in the Northern Territory of Australia with his girlfriend Joanne Lees. The couple were attacked after being ambushed in their campervan on a remote highway. Four years later, Bradley John Murdoch was found guilty of murdering Peter, as well as assaulting Joanne, and was sentenced to life in prison. But he pleaded not guilty during his trial, and has maintained his innocence ever since, even appealing against his conviction twice. Critically, Murdoch has never revealed where he dumped Peter's body. When it became clear last month that he was dying of throat cancer, Australian police spoke with Murdoch several times and appealed to the public for any information about the location of Peter's remains. They even doubled their previous potential reward to AU$500,000 (£240,000) – but despite this, Murdoch died earlier this week and took his secrets to the grave. A police spokesperson said yesterday: 'It is deeply regrettable that Murdoch has died without, as far as we are aware, ever disclosing the location of Peter Falconio's remains. 'His silence has denied the Falconio family the closure they have so long deserved.' And now Luciano Falconio, Peter's father, has spoken out about this lack of closure and said the family prefers not to think about their son's murderer. The dad, now aged 83, told MailOnline: 'He's not a good person. He's cruel, he's a coward and we feel no sadness for him. 'He should have admitted his crime. He is the only one who knows where my son is. 'I don't think he shared anything with Australian police but he may have told someone – I really hope he has. 'I am in pain for my wife. I hope I find my son, for both of us… We need an end while we are still here.' While he doesn't 'wish anybody dead', Luciano said he wished Murdoch had left something or made a deathbed confession to help him find Peter's remains and bring him home. On July 14, 2001, Peter and Joanne were driving in a campervan about 190 miles north of Alice Springs when Murdoch pulled up beside them on the highway and urged them to pull over. He claimed to have seen sparks coming from their van – but when Peter got out to inspect the vehicle, Murdoch shot him in the head. More Trending He then forced Joanne into his pick-up truck, tying her wrists with cable ties and putting a sack over her head. Fearing she would be raped or killed, she managed to escape Murdoch's car and hid in the bush for five hours until flagging down a passing truck for help. During the trial, prosecutors said Murdoch had likely disposed of Peter's body somewhere in the vast 1,200mile stretch of outback between Alice Springs and Broome. Murdoch wouldn't have been eligible for parole until 2033, but a new 'no body, no parole' law means he wouldn't be released as long as he refused to reveal the location of Peter's body. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Three minutes cut from 'raw' prison footage of the night Epstein died MORE: Boy, 6, 'kills newborn baby' after being left alone on maternity ward MORE: NCA officer jailed for swiping Bitcoin now worth £4,300,000 from Dark Web suspect
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Putin ‘ultimately to blame' for snuffing out 298 lives on downed MH17
Vladimir Putin ultimately bears responsibility for the downing of MH17 by Russian proxy forces over eastern Ukraine 11 years ago, a leading investigative journalist has said. Eliot Higgins spoke on the anniversary of the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines passenger jet with the loss of all 298 people onboard, including 10 British citizens. The crime was one of the grim milestones in a pattern of hybrid military aggression that tested the West's resolve and ultimately resulted in the all-out attack on Ukraine. Among those being remembered today is Richard Mayne, 20, a student who was on his way to Australia to begin studying as part of his University of Leeds course. Russians Igor Girkin, Sergei Dubinsky and Ukrainian pro-Moscow separatist Leonid Kharchenko have been handed life sentences over the atrocity by the District Court of the Hague but remain at large because Russia refuses to surrender them. Higgins, who founded Bellingcat, was among the open-source investigators who unravelled the circumstances of the tragedy amid a fog of disinformation emerging from Russia. He told Metro: 'Dubinsky and Kharchenko have been pretty quiet in the last few years, unlike Girkin. 'Girkin posted a lot of statements online that criticised Russia's military performance in Ukraine following the 2022 invasion, which resulted in him being imprisoned for four years in 2024 by the Russian government on extremism charges. 'I suspect he would have had an easier time in a Dutch prison. 'As for the responsibility of Putin and the Kremlin, it's clear that Putin allowed the transfer of heavy weapon systems from Russia into Ukraine, so while there's nothing to indicate he ordered MH17 to be shot down, he does bear responsibility for allowing those weapons to be sent to Eastern Ukraine along with Russian soldiers, both in terms of the attack on MH17, and the broader loss of life in the conflict.' Richard's dad Simon has spoken of the day he waved his son off at Birmingham Airport in what would be the last time they saw each other. His son, heading for a year studying in Australia, was due to fly to Amsterdam to catch MH17 onwards to Kuala Lumpur. But as the Boeing 777 travelled over the breakaway Donbas region of eastern Ukraine it was struck by a ground-to-air missile fired by separatists. The Hague-decreed act of murder on July 17, 2014, also claimed the life of Loughborough University student Ben Pocock, 20, from Bristol. Aside from the UK victims, 196 were Dutch with many from other countries, including 43 from Malaysia and 38 from Australia. Eighty were children. Bodies and wreckage landed in fields of sunflowers — which have become a symbol of the tragedy — near Hrabove in the area seized by the rebels. Bellingcat gathered a plethora of time-stamped evidence, including photographs and videos, to show that a Buk missile launcher was transported through the so-called Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) on the day before the jet was shot down. The weapons system was operated by the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, according to the researchers, who, along with other open source investigators, found images of it in transport. According to Dutch prosecutors, separatists in an agricultural field near the city of Snizhe in Donetsk congratulated each other after firing the missile, believing they had shot down an enemy aircraft. The Hague subsequently sentenced separatist military leader Girkin, commanding officer Dubinsky and executive commander Kharchenko to life imprisonment for murder in absentia and ordered their arrests after the district court trial concluded in November 2022. The court found they had caused 'devastating destruction' with 'unforeseeably serious consequences for the relatives.' The verdicts helped counter disinformation emanating from Russia about how the plane was downed, including alleged eyewitnesses who saw Ukrainian fighter jets in the vicinity at the time the missile was fired. The attempt to pin the blame on Kyiv contradicted earlier Russian media reports about the downing of a Ukrainian military aircraft. 'It gives [the victims' families] a sense of closure, that there's been a serious effort to establish the truth, and that there are convictions based on a thorough legal process,' Higgins said of the verdicts. 'With the amount of disinformation that was pumped out about MH17, having those official investigations helps them draw a line under events, rather than it feeling like an open question that propagandists are happy to answer with their own theories.' The verdicts were followed by the European Court of Human Rights ruling on July 9 that Russia is responsible for the loss of the plane. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the ruling as 'null and void', according to the Kommersant newspaper. The judgement made in Strasbourg is largely symbolic as Russia broke with the court in 2022 and had prior not been complying with its rulings, although it was hailed as 'historic and unprecedented' by Ukraine. More than a decade on, the search for justice continues as Putin pursues his murderous full-blown attack on Ukraine and 'grey zone' tactics across Europe and the UK. In the Netherlands, families of the victims want the wreckage to serve as a reminder for future generations. A national monument already exists near Schiphol Airport. Higgins said: 'Following the convictions in the Dutch MH17 trial and the verdict at the European Court of Human Rights, there is still an ongoing case in the US where the family of a victim was recently given permission to go ahead and sue a Russian bank for enabling separatists in eastern Ukraine to continue their war, which resulted in MH17 being shot down. 'There's also an ongoing debate in the Netherlands about what to do with the wreckage. Some families are hoping for the creation of a museum to house the wreckage and tell the MH17 story for future generations.' Echoes of MH17 reverberated in the Azerbaijan Airlines crash that killed 38 people on Christmas Day. A Russian missile is thought to have brought down the plane as it tried to land at Grozny in Chechnya. Moscow said at the time that an investigation was taking place and it would be 'incorrect to make any hypotheses' before it concludes. Higgins does not see any clear lines connecting the two incidents but does believe there is a lesson for history in the puzzle he helped to solve. More Trending 'I think these incidents are different enough that there's no real pattern behind them, beyond the incompetence of the people operating the missile systems for the shootdown,' he said. 'MH17 was significant because it shows what happens when the West accepts lies told to them by authoritarian regimes in the name of diplomacy. Any authoritarian regime will continue to push at the boundaries of what's acceptable, so they know how much they can get away with before a significant reaction. 'With MH17 the failure to respond firmly to Russia's secret invasion of Ukraine set up the circumstances for the shooting down of MH17, and eventually the official invasion of Ukraine in 2022.' Do you have a story you would like to share? Contact MORE: Coalition that's recording each Russian war crime ready for Putin's day of reckoning MORE: Alexander Litvinenko predicted 'Ukraine will suffer' at the hands of 'Putin the hooligan' MORE: Dad of British man killed on downed MH17 recalls final goodbye at the airport
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
In defence of Lord Hermer
Photo byIn a competitive field the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is the biggest ministerial villain for the right-wing newspapers. Rarely a day passes without the Telegraph, Mail and others screaming about what they see as Hermer's hyper-active interventions within government. Hermer dares to warn ministers that they must act within domestic and international law and his critics fume. 'The least patriotic man EVER to hold high office?' asked former professor turned Reform mouthpiece Matt Goodwin in the Mail over the weekend. None of the media noise would matter that much but for two additional factors. Some anonymous government insiders are quoted regularly echoing the views of the newspapers in their political pages. How can we be insurgent incumbents, they ask with apparently defiant machismo, when Hermer is forever warning us that we cannot do what we need to do to beat Nigel Farage? Inevitably the rise of Reform is the other factor triggering insider briefings. Farage has never been a great upholder of international law if it gets in the way of 'Britain's interests'. A big part of his pitch is his conviction that Britain must leave the ECHR. Like Keir Starmer, Hermer is a world expert on international law, including the ECHR. Apparently No 10's self-described 'insurgent incumbents' are deeply frustrated. Whenever there is speculation about a cabinet reshuffle Hermer's name is cited as one who could or should be sacked. Such an outcome would be calamitous for Starmer and his government, not least because Hermer is an 'insurgent incumbent' as far as that latest, fashionably imprecise term has any meaning at all. He has the confidence and authority to challenge current orthodoxies that have dominated the British media and political culture since Brexit, including an assumption that breaking international law is to be celebrated because it is in Britain's self interest to do so. This is now a mainstream view in parts of the Conservative Party, Reform, as well as the newspapers. The new orthodoxies shaped Boris Johnson's Rwanda policy, a scheme that the courts found violated both international and domestic law. A recent message from Hermer to the government's law officers triggered another outrage in some newspapers partly because he declared: 'You have a key role in helping ministers meet their overarching [legal] obligation while delivering their policy objectives.' What did they expect the Attorney General to state, that they should urge ministers to ignore the legal obligations? It remains staggering that to assert the centrality of the law stirs raging controversy: 'An Attorney General warns ministers of legal obligations… He should be sacked!' Revealingly, those forces touched in some form or other by Hermer's interventions do not share the angry disdain. Senior Tory and Reform figures predicted that all hell would break loose in the Trump administration over the Chagos Islands deal that partly arose from Hermer's reading of Britain's legal obligations. The opposite happened. Trump praised the arrangements. Back in the UK, the Home Office has nothing but praise for Hermer. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, actively seeks his advice and willingly involves him in sensitive decisions. They do not complain that he is actively or naively obstructing policies they wish to pursue. On some highly charged issues, he shows flexibility. He supports the Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, in her current efforts to reform the ECHR. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Some Labour MPs complain that Hermer is hopeless at politics – a failing that becomes more apparent when the Prime Minister struggles with the political demands of high office and the Chancellor realises she is not as skilled as she believed at the near-impossible art of blending politics and economics. But even that common observation doesn't tell the whole story. I am told that Hermer spends more time in the Westminster tea rooms engaging with backbenchers than most Cabinet ministers. Although he is rarely allowed out to do broadcast interviews he did give one recently to the BBC's Henry Zeffman in which he navigated tricky themes with skill, countering the populist onslaughts with the accessible case for his faith in the law. 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, 'We may comply with it, we may not'… We do. We succeed… Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.' That answer from Hermer forms the substantial case for keeping him in position. The willingness to break laws displayed by previous Tory administrations did not lead to boats being stopped or flights to Rwanda taking off. There was no evidence anywhere that lawbreaking helped the UK. Starmer is ruthless enough to sack an old friend like Hermer. But doing so would raise significant questions about his own public identity and sense of self, far more than with other high-profile dismissals under his leadership. As power edged closer before last summer's election, Starmer showed only limited interest in ministerial appointments. He was preoccupied with campaigning, well before Rishi Sunak announced the election date. Sue Gray played a larger role in many junior appointments, consulting with shadow cabinet members and their advisers on who should form the ministerial teams. But Hermer's appointment was Starmer's alone. He wanted him in that role. Those within government who brief against Hermer are, in effect, challenging Starmer's judgment and worldview. The Prime Minister's public voice is often unclear. Is he the leader who warned that Britain risks becoming an 'island of strangers,' or the one who later regretted saying so? Removing Hermer would suggest that Starmer had once again ceded power and key decisions to advisers who want him to be someone he is not. The symbolism would be stark. But more than that, his government needs the incumbent insurgents to flourish. Ironically, some of the most distinctive change-makers – Hermer, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson – are being briefed against by those who see themselves as the real insurgents. Yet their version of insurgency amounts to continuity with the recent past: support for Michael Gove's secondary school reforms, alignment with Rishi Sunak's caution on net zero, and a desire to emulate Johnson or Farage on international law. Labour's manifesto was titled 'Change'. It is time to move on from that past. Hermer is among those doing just that. Whatever happens in the reshuffle, the genuine incumbent insurgents should remain in place. [See also: Are Unite and Labour heading for divorce?] Related
