Judge reserves judgement on Falconio 'evidence'

An Australian judge today reserved judgement on whether DNA taken from a double rape suspect can be used to investigate the suspected murder of a British holidaymaker.

Bradley John Murdoch, 44, provided the samples after he was accused of raping a woman and her daughter in South Australia state in August.

Police say he is also “a person of interest” in the disappearance and suspected murder of Peter Falconio from Huddersfield.

Murdoch’s lawyers appealed in the South Australia Supreme Court today against the use of his DNA as evidence in the rape case.

If Judge Ted Mullighan rules in Murdoch’s favour, the samples will probably be destroyed before Northern Territory officers can use them in their probe into Mr Falconio’s suspected killing in July 2001.

Mullighan did not say when he would rule on the use of the DNA in the rape case.

Earlier this month, South Australia state Attorney-General Michael Atkinson agreed to allow Murdoch’s DNA to be transferred to Northern Territory police once the South Australian court had approved their analysis.

Murdoch was charged earlier this month with the abduction and rape of a woman and her daughter in South Australia state, 1,000 miles south of the spot where Mr Falconio was last seen alive.

Police found a pool of his blood at the scene and fear Mr Falconio is dead, but a manhunt has failed to find his body or his attacker.

Northern Territory police want to compare Murdoch’s DNA with a sample taken from a blood stain found on the clothing of Mr Falconio’s girlfriend Joanne Lees, who was tied up by her boyfriend’s abductor, but later escaped.

Murdoch reportedly matches a description of Mr Falconio’s attacker that Ms Lees gave to police.

Murdoch’s lawyer Grant Algie told the judge that police had failed to take DNA samples from the two rape victims that could be compared with samples from his client.

Because of that they should not be used in the case, he argued.

But state prosecutor Pauline Barnett said South Australian law did not require police to have crime scene DNA samples before a suspect could be obliged to give samples.

All police needed was a belief that a suspect’s samples might help in their investigation, she said.