Detectives re-open double murder cold case after 25 years
cold case
police
national
Australia
Adelaide
crime CONTACT US
Auto news: Why Australians are still driving around without insurance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
8 hours ago
- 9 News
Detective who collared murderer Murdoch reveals how he linked cases
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here The South Australian detective who collared outback killer Bradley Murdoch has spoken for the first time. Geoff Carson told 9News how he linked a mystery man in the Riverlands to the monster who killed Peter Falconio and shares his theory on what Murdoch did with the backpacker's body. Now retired, Carson was the small-town cop who solved a national mystery. Now retired, Geoff Carson was the small-town cop who solved a national mystery. (Nine) "At the start of the new century, it was the most talked about crime at the time, who would've done such a brazen act," he said. The breakthrough began with a single phone call. "He says, 'I don't care what you're doing, I need to see you right now', and he said the name of his daughter and he said that she'd been raped." In South Australia's Riverland, a woman and her 12-year-old daughter had been abducted by a violent monster. They were bound and gagged, and put in the back of a truck that belonged to Murdoch. The South Australian detective who collared outback killer Bradley Murdoch has spoken for the first time. (Nine) After a 20-hour ordeal, the victims were paid for their silence and let go. When Carson took their statement, something clicked. "Little pocket notebook, I wrote down, halfway down the page, Falconio, then a question mark, it just rang to me straight way," Carson said. The previous year British backpackers Falconio and Joanne Lees had been ambushed along a remote stretch of highway in the Northern Territory. Lees escaped into the scrub after being bound with the same cable ties as the Riverland victims. "In 40 years of policing I hadn't come across someone who'd done that before, so it was a unique type of behaviour, I thought," Carson said. When Murdoch was arrested over the abduction of the mother and daughter, Carson made contact with the Northern Territory. Peter Falconio was shot dead in the NT. (Nine) "I said I reckon I got your fella," he said. But NT Police had already crossed Murdoch off their list. So Carson took matters into his own hands. He bundled up cigarette butts and milk cartons marked with the killer's DNA, evidence that would lead to a match and a warrant for Murdoch's arrest. For the Riverland rapes a jury found there wasn't enough evidence to convict Murdoch. But on the day he was acquitted police were waiting at Adelaide's Supreme Court. The monster was charged for an outback murder. But Carson remains determined to solve that mystery once and for all. He says he was given one clue, a remark Murdoch had made to a friend. "He said to this old fella, 'If I was ever going to get rid of a body, I'd put it into the grate off on the side of the road, like the flood mitigation, bury it in one of those because no one would ever find it, no one would ever dig in there'," Carson said. Falconio's remains may still be missing but the case isn't closed. The reward for information was recently raised to $500,000. "Anyone who has lost a loved one wants to be able to put that loved one to rest," Carson said. "They want to know that they are finally at peace, the Falconio's haven't got that." police South Australia murder crime national Australia CONTACT US
9 News
8 hours ago
- 9 News
Two men charged after 'tragic' kidnapping and murder of man in Brisbane
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Two men have been charged with the "tragic" kidnapping and murder of a 52-year-old man in Brisbane . The pair, 26 and 29, were arrested in Upper Mount Gravatt and Chermside. The victim went to Logan Hospital with head injuries about 12.30am on January 6, and died the next day. Two men have been charged with kidnapping and murdering a 52-year-old man in Brisbane. (Supplied) Police released images showing the alleged confrontation in Inala. It shows a man pointing a gun at another man getting out of a car with his hands up near Rudyard Street. The arrested pair have been charged with murder, kidnapping, torture and grievous bodily harm and are expected to appear in Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow. Three men have previously been charged over the alleged attack and police say they're not looking for anyone else. Detective Inspector Chris Knight said the investigation has been "long-running and complex". "We will allege this group was known to each other, and their actions resulted in the tragic death of a man who sustained catastrophic injuries," he said. They are appealing for help from anyone who knows more. Brisbane police crime murder Australia national queensland CONTACT US Auto news: Why Australians are still driving around without insurance.
The Advertiser
14 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Is Australia becoming a more violent country?
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
