Sue Neill-Fraser – the ‘bias’ in my reporting

By Andrew L. Urban.

In the wake of the publication of my book, Murder by the Prosecution (Wilkinson Publishing, 2018), a few more people have muttered the word ‘bias’ in my direction, referring to the Sue Neill-Fraser case which makes up the bulk of the book. I say a few more because the word was invoked when I first started writing about the case. I think the suggestion is false; it has no merit.

The charge of bias seems to be triggered by the fact that I haven’t included an interview with the police in the case, or the DPP. Quite apart from the fact that neither the police nor the DPP (or his spokesperson) would make any comment, other than perhaps refer me to comments they have made in the past defending their work in the wake of Eve Ash’s documentary, Shadow of Doubt, the very notion of such an inclusion is misguided.

The police and the DPP had their (biased) say at the trial. That which was presented to the court was their side of the matter, their allegations, their speculations, their witnesses. It is not ‘bias’ to question the process; it is not ‘bias’ to point out the egregious errors.

I have consistently described ‘their side’ of the matter, riddled with faults as it is, each of which warrants the conviction be set aside. This is not my opinion or my bias. This is legal fact. For instance, the speculation about how Sue Neill-Fraser murdered Bob Chappell was presented to the jury without evidence to support it. Stating this fact is hardly proof of my bias. Likewise the other flaws in the process.

As I write this, it is approaching Christmas 2018; Sue Neill-Fraser was convicted in October 2010. The current court process, her seeking leave to appeal, began about a year ago (under new legislation).

You can review the case here

This entry was posted in Case 1 Sue Neill-Fraser. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Sue Neill-Fraser – the ‘bias’ in my reporting

  1. Julie Fischer says:

    I have read the transcript. When considering the “balance of probabilities” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” tests, I cannot understand how the Judge directed the jury to convict Sue Neill-Fraser of murder. The burden of proof for the prosecution is quite high. Surely it was/is evident that there were other logical explanations for Bob Chappell’s disappearance. One can’t help but think that at least ONE juror did have some reasonable doubt about the circumstantial evidence … if so, there simply should not have been a conviction. Appalling state of affairs to say the least!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.