Andrew L. Urban.
At the risk of ‘spoiling’ the hottest yarn on television this year, it can be said that Seven’s new true crime series, Undercurrent (9pm Wednesdays x 6 from January 30, 2019), shows up the most miserable chapter in Tasmania’s crime investigation history, contrasting with a text book case of ‘how to’; it points the finger at the suspects in the decade old cold case of Bob Chappell’s murder. The police and the legal system should rejoice. But they are shitty. (And trigger happy, threatening anyone pursuing this line with legal action. The series is not showing in Tasmania for legal reasons. Even this review is embargoed from the hapless Isle.)
It was a case of the truth, the half truth and nothing is the truth as police fixated on Chappell’s partner of 18 years, Sue Neill-Fraser, the DPP prosecuted the half baked case based on flimsy circumstantial evidence and the jury fell for the ‘theory’ (as the judge called it) put forward by the Crown. But within that single sentence lies material for a 6 x 1 hour documentary that traces the story from its very beginning … but not quite to its end. You see, the story isn’t finished.
On February 5, 2019, the Supreme Court in Hobart will hold yet another hearing in a three-year sequence of hearings in which Sue Neill-Fraser is seeking leave to appeal (again) against her conviction and 23 year sentence. Justice Brett will then decide if her appeal can go ahead.
Produced by Missing Man Productions’ Eve Ash and Sydney based CJZ Productions, Undercurrent, is gripping from the start, showing the cinematic flair Ash demonstrated with her award winning 2013 doco on the same subject, Shadow of Doubt. That film raised doubts about the police investigation. This series leaves no doubt: they charged the wrong suspect.
On the case in Undercurrent is ex-homicide detective Colin McLaren (who will be cross examined via video link on February 5), whose book Southern Justice (Hachette) also on this case came out on January 29 – the eve of the first episode of Undercurrent: The Boat and the Body. We follow this as an active investigation with its surprises, especially for those who know the details of the case; those who don’t may end up thinking the series is a fictional drama, produced to make Tasmania’s legal system – especially the police – look bad. But it isn’t. It’s a fact filled and frightening documentary.
Weaving together the basic elements of the story with the enormous emotional ramifications makes the series compelling. Like a thrilling book you can’t put down, each episode takes us into the darkness of the Neill-Fraser family’s nightmare. And as her daughter Sarah Bowles points out, if it can happen to them, an everyday, middle class family, it could happen to anyone. In that respect, the series is a valuable lesson for anyone caught up in an investigation; everything you say can and probably will be used against you.
This is especially so with anything that can be labelled a lie. Sue Neill-Fraser was charged and convicted through her innocent mistakes labelled as lies, and McLaren dissects these with his experienced professionalism. It’s fascinating to watch him at work.
As he closes in on key witnesses and persons of interest, the expectation and anticipation rises to fever pitch.
Amidst all the ups and downs, the facts and factoids, is the overriding pull of the mystery. From the time Eve Ash sets up a situation room and hires Colin McLaren, the series becomes a real life crime investigation. We see exactly how McLaren works; he’s thorough and relentless. So is Eve Ash as the filmmaker, telling this amazing, disturbing story with pictures, with the tools of cinema. And this is what sets this series apart: the filmmaker inserts herself as a partner in the investigation, a seeker of truth, and not just an observer. Her personal commitment and emotional involvement adds considerably to our connection to the story and the people.
It would not surprise if the series added fuel to the fire of outrage that sets off a Royal Commission. It should.
Are the Hobart detectives trying to “tough it out”? I think so. Desperate raids of personal property? Bullying? Draconian actions?
You can’t blame them really. If they are wrong then it is one hell of a mistake. If they are wrong then what they have done is no different to the incidents of kidnapping that occur in many societies, including ours.
I believe that Sue was bullied into confusion and was getting desperate to get the police off her back, the way a frightened child can do, being made to feel guilty when they haven’t done anything.
Where was Sue Neill-Fraser when she left the Four Winds and why did she return to the foreshore later then lie about it. Why are peoples charged with corrupting evidence and prepared to lie for Sue Neill-Fraser. Ms Vass could not remember were Bob Chappell was murdered when questioned. Maybe her DNA on yatch was transferance from clothing or rags collected from goodwill. There are more twists and turns to this case and so far appears to implicate more than one suspect in murder. I guess if you continue to say your innocent it will rub off on people, however if this was presented at Sue Neill-Frasers original trial she may have been found not guilty on reasonable doubt. I think there is still more to this case.
(EDITED) The whole trial and investigation has been a farce and seizure of the Undercurrent files is similar to what has occurred in Communist countries in the past.Shame on you Tasmania for yet another tunnel visioned witch hunt of an innocent person. If perhaps you cannot conduct your murder trials proffessionally then send them to the mainland.
Tasmania has an unfortunate history since it’s first settlement of wrongful trials and hangings and it doesn’t appear to have altered in the latter years.
No more please ..you are destroying people’s lives .
Reminds me of the seizure of Rudy Giuliani’s electronics in the United States. There is some serious corruption going on.
Sue shouldn’t have repeatedly lied to police, her Bunning’s alibi is a non starter. She should win this appeal however. Vass was on the boat, vomit DNA everywhere, it did not arrive on a copper’s boot, she described what happened, that’ll do.
Something more to this.
Or confusion and disorientation after the murder of her long term partner?
I can not believe the regime of comments and that no one has realised as yet that it is a blatant cover up to protect the actual criminals involved. When investigating criminal cover up at any level, including governing authority, just rattle the cage as these investigators have done and follow the trail they leave to cover up their criminality. They have certainly left a trail of cover up all the way to top of governance in Tasmania. It will all be revealed and is being revealed and brought into the light.
This is for us as a nation to observe and to see the levels corrupt officials within governing authorities will go to protect their own interests and the criminal conduct they engage in. It is for us as a nation to realise how delusional these type of people are who actually believe and think they are getting away with this criminality. It is a message to every single Australian to observe that the harder they try to cover up their crime, the more it becomes obvious. The message to every single corrupt official operating and perverting proper authority is that no matter what you do to try and cover up your evil works you make it more plain and obvious for everyone in this nation to see.
Especially for those who will prosecute all corrupt officials in due course. Corrupt officials in any form are nothing more than petty criminals who deceptively operate within proper governing authority. It can not and will not continue.
Of course the other problem we all suffer is the media who is financially dependent and reliant on government advertising revenue, which prohibits them from broadcasting the truth of government criminality due to the risk to their advertising revenues.
I would really love to know exactly where you are getting your information from, and if you know names, please name them, corrupt or not…..
DNA transferred onto the boat?? What on a policeman’s boot??? How did it get onto the boot?? How long had it been there?? Where else would it have been transferred to??? Come on!! Did the policeman kick the sh(*t out of Meagan?? I know Eve said it was the size of a plate. If this is correct (I haven’t heard/read anything else about the size of the DNA or if it was blood, vomit or sweat or whatever else it could be) what size shoe is the policeman’s?? How the hell could it have got there if Meagan was never on the boat? Doesn’t make sense to me. Meagan had to be on that boat. End of story. Too much doubt to convict Sue. What was the jury paid to be that obtuse?? Obvious the premier is being either obtuse, paid or threatened. Tasmanian police and politics are a laughing stock and I feel embarrassed to call myself Australian.
Few things trouble me and just seem like lazy police work or after a quick win to boost the resume:
-why did the police never test that the presumed missing fire extinguisher could actually weigh down a body and make it sink, never to surface
-how was Sue in 20 minutes able to (a) take the dinghy to the boat (b) kill her husband with an unknown implement (c) move his body onto the deck, transfer it into the dinghy over the side rails of the boat and weigh it down with a fire extinguisher (d) take the dinghy to a secret location and dump the body, (e) get back to shore and drive home.
– why did they ignore a dinner plate size of DNA could only of been vomit as secondary transfer. Vass said she wasn’t on the boat and they said ok. Sue said she wasn’t on the boat and they charge her with murder.
-why try to charge / silence anyone who comes forward with new information. That reeks of keeping the truth from surfacing or corruption, especially with Vaas knowing one of the Police by name whilst in the stand and calling out to him for help. Do the police know the actual killers but are not prepared to do anything.
Seems the Jury were made fools of and not given all the facts. Mostly thought the case highlights that if you are ever are called in for questioning that you say nothing without a lawyer present as everything you say will be twisted and used against you to suit the agenda of the investigators.
Yes, dont speak until you have a lawyer present, otherwise who knows what the police can do to you, even if you are totally innocent….
For me, the most disturbing thing to come out of this investigation is the fact that you can be charged for perverting the course of justice if your evidence is deemed to be false… how Stasi-esque is THAT.
I was so impressed with the investigation- the white pages documentation to show that Bob Chappell was not murdered by Sue. I also watched the TV show on 7 and felt that everything was done in a very professional manner. To me Sue came across confused and in disbelief of all that was going on around her I don’t feel she was telling lies at all. If I was in that position not being use to being asked and accused of such a thing I to would get things all mixed up too
From all that has been present to us by the TV Documentary and nine years investigation by Mclaren and Ash I think they have a better understanding than you Dr Kelly.
You can apologise once a Royal Commission gives us the true facts. She is innocent from what has been presented to us viewers and I am a Tasmanian with good reasoning ability, not as it appears by your statement above.
Ohhh, look … Meagan’s confession on 60 minutes this coming Sunday😎
Absolutely great opinion.
If the average reasoning ability of a typical jury sitting at a criminal trial in Tasmania is as low as the average reasoning ability of those who believe that Susan Neill-Fraser had a brain fog and that she is innocent, and that she was physically unable to do what the prosecution claims she did, then Tasmania has a huge problem with its population of rather poor reasoning ability.
Disrespectful and arrogant opinions about people who hold reasonable views, but different to yours, are not welcome here. Don’t bother commenting here again.
Very well said. It is like reading junior high school opinion pieces.
Justice in Tasmania ? I do hope that one day that justice will provail for the people who have been effected over the port Arthur massacre also. Surely after the current news events of Sue Neill-fraser is she guilty ????l hope that the truth in all of it,s dark evil sinister outcome might be told for both events and all concerned.
Don’t forget Joe Gilewicz..
we can learn something from studying how that went down
Pingback: Undercurrent – the end is nigh | Wrongful Convictions Report
With relation to the film series in question , Lets remember it is being made on the run as a news story , on a tight budget ,and makes no pretense to be a multi-million dollar feature film production. I believe that given the public interest in this story and the various constrains on production , the producers have done a great job and we should be thankful that there are still people out there with a conscience who are prepared to devote their time, money and energy to see justice done. P.D Film maker.
I put myself in the position of juror. There is no body, no murder weapon, and I am yet to be half convinced of any established motive. Moreover, there is the DNA of Meaghan Vass, an individual with a questionable background that had no cause or reason to be on this boat (that we know of). The presence of her DNA, in concert with the diabolical lack of hard evidence, should have trumped any collection of the circumstantial evidence. Reasonable doubt was obvious. Why were these things ignored?
The film production, clumsy and biased as it is, raises a litany of questions beyond the abovementioned, that have (unquestionably) in no way been satisfactorily addressed by officials. These issues alone foster an alarming level of reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately, while understandably, the emotional gravity of the situation has pulled focus. This is a great failing of the film. We are drawn into a sensational battle to prove the innocence of Sue Neill-Fraser. This is a mistake.
On an emotional and social justice level, it is very hard not to be drawn into the public outrage of the imprisonment of a potentially innocent person. This is a dangerous distraction, however.
I understand that for those directly impacted this is personal, but…
While it might be stimulating and fun for the general public to debate the innocence or otherwise of Sue Neill-Fraser, we completely forget that when reasonable doubt is seemingly ignored in whatever criminal case or judicial process, it’s personal for every single one of us.
Harsh as it may sound, the real issue is not the innocence or otherwise of Sue Neill-Fraser. It is the fact that, apparently, reasonable doubt has played no role in determining the outcome of court case convened to determine whether an accused should be convicted of murder. This is profoundly scary.
The production, despite its misgivings, is incredibly important. If nothing else, it highlights the disastrous flaws in criminal investigation and judicial processes to which we are all subject.
Best response yet!
It may seem stimulating and fun to you, but there’s an entire community who is afraid that 2 killers are on the loose.
Have they fled to your home town?
How many others have they murdered?
How many innocent people are sitting in jail for crimes these two suspects have committed?
Is ANY Australian community safe if the authorities won’t investigate any leads outside that which ensures them a court win?
Are those we pay to protect us doing their jobs to the best of their ability?
Or are they only keeping up appearances for the pay-packet?
Could a wrongful conviction happen to anybody?
This is much bigger than entertainment. This about public confidence in the Justice system!
Pingback: Sue Neill-Fraser case: “tainted view” v facts | Wrongful Convictions Report
Where is my comment? I have left it twice
Not received; please try again. Ed
There is very much more than the lies about the Bunnings. The video interview of May 09 indicates that the detectives knew that Sue gave several different versions as to how she got to the river late at night. Did you see that in virtually every scene of Sue being interviewed she had one hand on her face and she mostly said “I can’t remember”. Detectives could have played some of the audio recordings they had of Sue talking with Bob’s sister via a telephone. Aren’t you at all interested in where Sue was after she left the yacht in the afternoon and what she did before 9 in the evening? I think that an unbiased reporter, or an unbiased investigator, would question Sue’s whereabouts as much as the whereabouts of the girl whose DNA sample was on the boat. You seem more interested in pursuing the homeless girl and her dna. I read in the media that the forensic scientist could not exclude secondary transfer. I think that Colin went beyond what forensic scientist opined and on his own chose to believe that the DNA sample was a certainty that Meaghan was on the boat. That was an over-assumption by Colin and it might even ruin his reputation.
So I would imagine you are all in favour of a thorough investigation of the trial as would happen through an appeal presided over by three judges, as is being sought. The sooner the better.
I would just like to say, that in relation to Sue’s ‘lies’ that on the outset it seems bald-faced and deceptive – I thought to myself ‘c’mon how does one make such a mistake as to claim they were at Bunnings for HOURS when they hadn’t been there at all!?’ But then upon reflection and as someone who suffers brain fog, especially in stressful situations, or when lacking from sleep, etc, I truly believe that I’m capable of making that same mistake. Putting myself in Sue’s shoes, if my partner had just gone missing in the way Bob did, I would be fearing that he was dead, or at the very least, in grave danger & would be suffering immense shock/grief/panic/fear with a million thoughts racing through my mind that I don’t believe I would be able to give an accurate account of what I did on the day in question either…
True. I suffer PTSD and brain fog.
Under grief, stress and pressure I cannot think straight either
Same here! My daughter and I discussed foggy memeory after her 3rd baby.
We both noted after two or more kids the brain has this nasty little habit of prioritising what goes into long-term storage and what is tossed out. Names of people and places often have me tongue-tied, but hours/days after they sometimes come to me – when it’s completely useless ha!
I also frequent Bunnings; usually for hobby materials but at present I’m renovating so it’s far more often than any other time. If I was asked when I was there last and how long for I couldn’t say with any certainty. I would have to dig through receipts for dates and times.
I also asked myself if I would omit certain parts of the truth if I thought it might incriminate somebody else. And the answer is: if it’s a family member then yes, I absolutely would.
None of this means I’m capable of murder. All they mean is I’m a mother and I’m protective of my family.
Most “true crime” TV shows I’ve watched or listened to gain my sympathy. “Undercurrent’ does not.
For this viewer, Eve Ash herself on screen, is a liability, demonstrating a lack of impartiality, rigour or rationale….and poor film making to boot.
Then there’s Colin Mclaren’s “experienced professionalism”, a man of such high regard, he wrote a book on the assasination of JFK…talk about a cold case expert. He’s your go to man! Given recent events, I do question Andrew’s’ description just a little bit and what about Eve Ash’s judgement? Hmmm.
And of course the comical “PI”, Mr Macgyver himself, making disparaging remarks of the daughter’s carer property and using such an observation to suggest something ‘fishy” must be going on….wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Talk about “flimsy evidence” Andrew! Not to mention poor editing …the whole scene/s should of been on the cutting floor.
Then there’s’ the “clutching at straws” involving drug runners, without a skerrick of evidence ..there’s that ” flimsy evidence ” again Andrew. A scattergun approach hardly does the defence any favours . ‘Pointing fingers’, to use your term Andrew, does not guarantee credibility.
Admittedly I have watched only 3 episodes (though they could of been cut to 2) ..so surely “Undercurrent” must improve on the drivel presented thus far.
Of course any conviction based on just circumstantial evidence , leaves many questions to be answered. However, Undercurrent’s lack of impartiality and its clumsiness, leave viewers no closer to the truth than any judicial findings it seeks to question.
Andrew Urban writes ” Sue Neill-Fraser was charged and convicted through her innocent mistakes labelled as lies”. Puhhleaese …they were lies! When you are suspected of murder and lie, under questioning from police, about where you are on the evening of the murder …that is no innocent mistake. Though it is most definitely a mistake to do so.
Further, Eve Ash is quoted in Undercurrent as saying “telling lies, doesn’t make you a murderer”. Well Eve, when you’re a murder suspect it kind of does!
By all means be critical of the justice system, and demand it operates to the highest probity, but if doing so, hold yourself to at least some level of impartiality and rigour. Otherwise be judged as hypocrites.
And when it comes to documentary critiques, perhaps Mr Urban suffers the same lack of impartiality as the filmaker critiquing Sue Ann Neill’s conviction does.
I suggest you either read up on the case in greater detail and/or watch the rest of Undercurrent before you talk about Neill-Fraser’s ‘lies’ or about my bias. As I wrote here just recently, I believe the conviction is wrong having read the trial transcript, the appeal transcript and the High Court transcript, not to mention discussing the details of the case with lawyers. Bias is an unreasoned view. I have formed the opinion that I hold based on consideration of the facts. Evidence – and lack of it.
For instance, the large volume of DNA found on the yacht which was matched to then homeless 15 year old Meaghan Vass was dismissed by the prosecution as a ‘red herring’ and continues to be downplayed in the ongoing hearings. It is not biased to consider this evidence as potentially exculpatory, especially as no forensic evidence links Neill-Fraser to the murder. Nor is there any physical evidence pointing to her, like the wrench dreamt up by the prosecution as the murder weapon. Call me biased, but you can’t hang a murder on her unproven trip to Bunnings that afternoon.
And just to nitpick your writing, it is ‘should have’ and ‘could have’ not ‘should of’ and ‘could of’ – and her name is Sue Neill-Fraser not Sue Ann Neill …
Oops.. am I in the wrong territory by mostly agreeing with you? Did you see how Eve reacted when she heard that the DNA test of the hair on the red jacket proved that the hair wasn’t Meaghan’s? When I saw that it made me realise just how much Eve was dead set on finding anything that could tie the girl to the crime. I also thought that the PI was crude. Why they thought a need to speak to Mr King? Coincidences do happen.
Watch “Unreal man hit by lightning twice see what happens” on YouTube
Why didn’t Sue call Bob or provife Mr King her mobile phone number so that he could call Bob? Was Bob already dead at that time?
Andrew asks you to read more and to watch more. There are a number on interesting news articles since August 2017. We don’t need to see the rest of the episodes of Undercurrent to know that the Tasmanian authorities have busted a conspiracy that was based on several false witness statements. It is a bit silly to think that Undercurrent will provide compelling fresh evidence given that we already know what was presented in the Supreme Court until as recent as 10 days ago.
How could the hair and skin found on the hatch be noticed immediately by first responders and not been given the correct significant attention by the police/investigators?
There seems to be a shocking miscarriage of justice for Sue and her family here.
Thanks to Eve Ash and the private investigator and all others concerned for bringing this case to the public’s attention.
What Bullshit,i was the Skipper who took the yacht to Hobart and had 18 days of hell,Bob was a great Person and very capable sailor.
No One has come to see me regarding the events of the delivery,
Get the facts ,not crap.
Care to elaborate?
After watching the program last week and reading ‘Southern Justice’, I am convinced. I feel sorry for anyone living in Tasmania and involved in police investigations or the legal system. So much evidence seems to have been ignored. They must know the wrong person is wasting their life in jail but not prepared to accept that huge errors have been made. I hope a Royal Commission will take place.
You can sign the petition for a Royal Commission at http://www.savesue.com
Thanks for your sentiments Anne. There are numerous instances where ignoring the evidence appears suspicious and/or deliberate.
An urgent and open examination of the overall Tasmanian Justice system is warranted and well-overdue. Some in the know refer to it as the “injustice system”.
Yet, stupidly the powers that be regurgitate the, “we have every faith in the system” to the point of insulting decent thinking peasants, me included.
Yes, I can imagine if you have only seen and heard the ‘defence’ perspective you would have a tainted view of the case and the legal system in Tasmania.
See my response and my ‘tainted view’ at https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/18/sue-neill-fraser-case-tainted-view-v-facts/
Geraldine (January 30, 2019 at 12:47 pm ) you wrote “𝐽𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑠, 𝑏𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒!” I would rather caution readers to ‘𝐵𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐽𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑠!’
We’ve seen in the past how a certain “one scientist” has been exposed for operating under pseudonyms, in the apparent attempt to bolster up his unsupported propositions. We both know, Geraldine, that on the afternoon of 26Jan2009, Paul Conde from 50 yards away, saw a dark grey dinghy alongside the Four Winds. Conde, in the 2010 trial court, when asked to view two photographs of the Four Winds dinghy [white, with blue and grey trim, and the word ‘Quicksilver’ on the side, in large lettering], told the court:
“𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑄𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑦 𝐼 𝑠𝑎𝑤 𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑜𝑛 𝐴𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑎 𝐷𝑎𝑦 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟. ” [Trial transcript: page 431, lines 41-43]
That, as you know Geraldine, is the final evidence given by Mr Conde during re-examination by Tim Ellis. Mr Ellis did not challenge this statement of Mr Conde.
By the way, in case anyone should think otherwise, I can inform readers that whoever James really is, that “one scientist” he refers to has had no formal connection with the case, has not presented any evidence to the court and has not been present at any of the trial or subsequent 2nd appeal application hearings.
I wonder whether ‘James’s’ comment is yet another incognito attempt by that ‘one scientist’ to again flog a dead horse. Again, Geraldine, I advise readers to be wary of comments such as his.
There will be no more dead horses flogged here. Ed
Garry I was sceptical whilst giving James the benefit of the doubt.
I have had some interest in this case a while now. Why has there not been scrutiny applied to explore the presence of the subject’s DNA on the yacht? How can this be of such little significance considering the seriousness of the alleged crime?
It staggered me entirely that no coroner’s investigation and hence report was ever undertaken. In conjunction with no recovery of a body, how can there be proof beyond reasonable doubt of exactly how Bob Chappell died and who might have been responsible? Surely without either there is a real premise of concern that theory under speculation is insufficient grounds for conviction?
I was astounded by the proposition of a winch being used to lever a body up two flights of small staircases. This would require logistical knowledge, especially in actual set up and use according to the cabin internal space layout . A strong singular person with expertise and practice, maybe, but a slight woman of older age? A lengthy process I would have thought.
There was a Coroner’s process, insofar as it followed the Supreme Court trial, and by law a coroner’s findings must be in accord with the findings of the court.
25 (4) of the Coroners Act 1995 does not permit a coroner to make any finding inconsistent with the result of the criminal proceedings.
Note: Those who haven’t read the decision, might be interested in the fact the Coroner reviewed all key areas that Ms Neill Fraser’s team raised in support of a full public hearing. The Coroner did look at and make comment on the matters raised. He makes some valid observations about those matters.
Get the then teenager in court and try to get her for contempt. If she knows anything, a period of time inside will loosen her lips. If being sneaky(within the law) is the “norm” then play hard and win.
I first heard about the case when it aired on TV on the 30th January 2019. But even just seeing that I would like to see more substantial proof of guilt.
James, Many people saw dinghies and gave evidence in court, few described Sue’s dinghy accurately. Even the witness who physically helped Sue lift the outboard out of the sand, described it as “white light grey small inflatable Zodiac” and he was standing beside it. Even if we say, light and time of day can distort perceptions of shades of colour, and agree that most likely most witnesses were looking at Sue’s ‘Quicksilver’ dinghy, one dinghy stands out as not Sue’s. That witness, looking at a photo of Sue’s ‘ dinghy, categorically said that the dinghy he saw at 3.55 pm was not Sue’s; he then went on to describe it as larger, wider and with a lee cloth across the front, a bow that was more pointed, not stub-nosed, shabbier – older, worn, faded and scuffed – not the usual dinghy belonging to a ‘leisure yacht’! That dinghy is a worry.
The identity/colour of the dinghy is very peripheral in this case and just one fixation to distract from the real evidence. It is as hazy as the Hobart skyline at present. There are more important critical pieces of evidence that a reading of Southern Justice and watching Undercurrent will bring out and make things much clearer to everyone. Making a re trial fairly inevitable.
James, beware! There are times that so-called ‘experts’ are not really overly reliable, most especially when operating with bias. It seems to me that you have selected one aspect about which perhaps the “one scientist” has become obsessed.
In the name of transparency and fairness, let’s keep an open mind and consider the evidence now available in its entirety, including that which has recently come to light and more that will continue to be published. More recent publications together with the Undercurrent series seem to be exposing much evidence that was it seems, deliberately withheld from the Supreme Court jury members.
I have said this before, yet it is worth repeating — if I were one of the empaneled jury members in this trial, I would be furious that I was duped into a ‘guilty’ verdict, when there was more evidence available yet withheld. Jury members are not scientists and/or experts, thus are entitled to have all available evidence presented to them. Also, it ought be offered in a clear and non-confusing manner, in order that they arrive at a fair decision. That is not what happened. It was a case of ‘whatever it takes’ to gain a guilty conviction. That is wicked and shameful. Every citizen is entitled to a fair trial. It didn’t happen. Thus let’s not get distracted on one debatable issue; rather let’s re-look at the bigger picture — the deplorable state of justice in Tasmania
I will watch it to see how it compares with the Supreme Court proceedings. I am aware that one scientist has claimed that there is an error in a previous documentary on the case that Eve Ash produced. He commented that a white dinghy can be perceived to be grey under some daylight viewing conditions. What do you say to that? He also wrote on Tasmanian Times that there is evidence in the trial transcript that Sue’s white dinghy was described by some eyewitnesses to be grey. I checked this morning and he is right. A good example is the email that the rowing coach sent out. He saw Sue’s dinghy on the morning of 27th. In his email he referred to it as grey dinghy. This isn’t mentioned in Eve’s documentary on the case.
Did he say in that email that he saw Sue on her Dingy? If not it is an assumption that Sue used the Dingy to board the boat as I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be impossible for someone else to use the Dingy to gain access to the boat. Still circumstantial evidence and riddled with reasonable doubt.
Pingback: TONIGHT, 9pm, Ch 7: ‘UNDERCURRENT’ CLA special: Sue Neill-Fraser's wrongful conviction. 6-part series begins - Civil Liberties Australia