Undercurrent Ep 6 showcased at AIDC

The final episode of Undercurrent (7 Network), delving into the case of Sue Neill-Fraser, will be showcased at the Australian International Documentary Conference in Melbourne tonight (March 5, 2019), followed by a Q&A with producer/director Eve Ash and Executive Producer Andrew Farrell (CJZ Productions).

Episode 6 of the series will air across Australia (except in Tasmania) tomorrow night, March 6, 2019 (9.30pm EADT). It will conclude the controversial series, in which Ash and investigative author Colin McLaren reveal the weaknesses in the original police investigation and identify persons of interest in the case that has divided Tasmania and intrigued Australia at large, since the 2010 murder conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser.

The conference is held at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI), Melbourne and is attended by speakers from all over the world.

This entry was posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Undercurrent Ep 6 showcased at AIDC

  1. Henry says:

    Andrew, I h’ve read the post you referred me to. However, nowhere does it say that the “DNA swab area was 210 x 260 mm, about the size of a pancake”. 

    I believe that you are confusing the area over which luminol reacted with the area over which the DNA swab was taken from. My understanding, by reading the book on the case by Robin Bowles, is that the dark stain was only about the size of a 50c coin. The swab would have been taken from that visible stain. As you can read on your own post that you referred me to, the Tasmanian forensic scientist gave a reason as to why luminol reacted to that size region. This is what he wrote in his email:

    “There was an area, the black outline in the photos, of  positive luminol which suggests the presence of blood. However, our testing of the swab taken from the area was negative for the blood screening test, suggesting that we cannot confirm the presence of blood. Given the strong DNA profile that we obtained from this swab,I’d suggest that this is indicative of the presence of a relatively large amount of DNA which is more likely to come from bodily fluids, blood, saliva, than a simple contact touching event. So basically we cannot say of any certainty where the DNA may have come from. The positive luminol result suggests that the source may have been blood, and the fact that this was an external surface means there may have been washing or weathering events that have prevented us from being able to definitively identify the presence of blood.

    More complex scenarios such the luminol result, coming from an older event, e.g. an old stain which has been overlaid by more recent events, which is where the DNA came from, e.g. spitting on the deck cannot also be ruled out. I hope this makes sense.”

    I don’t see why, on the basis of the information you posted on that other other blog, you feel justified in saying that “DNA swab area was 210 x 260 mm, about the size of a pancake”. 

    • andrew says:

      Maybe you are right. I am not 100% convinced, but ….it is nevertheless confirmed as a direct deposit of Meaghan Vass’ DNA. She has also admitted she was on the boat, so the size of the swab is not critical.

      • Henry K says:

        Meaghan had also admitted, but under an oath in the Supreme Court in 2017, that she wasn’t on the yacht and that her signed statement was false and was signed under pressure. I trust that you too will recognise that Meaghan’s latest statement isn’t under an oath. However, I am aware of a claim by “Gabby” that she has Meaghan’s diary from 2009 in safe keeping. Gabby is a name in Colin McLaren’s book given to a person who was charged in 2017 with two or three counts of perversion of justice. She was also charged with the corruption of a witness. That witness is Meaghan. Where is the alleged diary, Andrew? Surely that is one piece of evidence that could back up Meaghan’s new version on the forthcoming 60Mins interview. Aren’t you as an educated man concerned about the possibility that if Meaghan doesn’t produce that diary on 60Mins then the whole thing is a hoax invented by a financially desperate woman and her bikie boyfriend?

    • andrew says:

      For the record: Ijust checked the trial transcript, with forensic scientist D. McHoul in the witness box, examined by defence counsel D. Gunson SC. Here is the relevant excerpt:
      “My entry just says literally what I told you. It says “ Area 11, approximately 9.45 metres from forward end, approximately 250 millimetres from starboard rail and approximately 210 by 260 millimetres on the starboard walkway.
      Right…..So it was a reaction that I felt I should circle and then sample because that’s what we do.”

  2. i missed this last episode, has anyone taped it . i really want to see it please.
    i cannot believe the ineptitude and laziness of the authorities

  3. Anon Anon says:

    The Tasmanian public will not rest until the incompetent police investigators and others who have deliberately perverted the course of justice, hidden facts, strongly coerced and threatened witnesses are sentenced to at least the time served by SNF. Ironic that the then DPP at the time Tim Ellis who introduced new speculation in his closing argument and strongly influenced the jury’s decision has since caused the actual death of a person through negligent driving and has not spent one night in jail. Sue Neill Fraser who never killed anyone has spent 10 years behind bars. The old saying is true, its not what you know, its who you know.

  4. MM says:

    Did anyone watch the next 7news story about the Beaumont children? A forensic expert said the team will be wearing their full forensic garb to protect the crime scene from contamination. I have raised this topic before, why weren’t the forensic team on the 4W yacht wearing their gear? The DPP admitted the crime scene was contaminated by claiming Ms Vass’s DNA got there from someone’s boot – boots that either should not have been there or should have been covered while at the crime scene. How is this not grounds for a retrial?

    • PH says:

      Would like to know the size of the DNA, was it a boot size, was it blood splatter, was it vomit the size of a football??????. This would then show the possibility of blood etc brought on board, by who and who was in contact with Meagan a few minutes before going to boat, if would have been minutes for blood to still be wet and re- deposited, would have been a lot of Meagans blood for this to happen. Were the Police, who where present on Bob’s boat, interviewed about there contact with Megan to get her blood on them, how??????

      • andrew says:

        The DNA swab area was 210 x 260 mm, about the size of a pancake, too large for transfer by boot. It now seems most likely to have been vomit … stay tuned.

        • Henry K (retired forensic scientist) says:

          No it wasn’t. It is true that luminol reacted over the area the size you quoted. But it isn’t true that the “DNA swab area was 210 x 260 mm, about the size of a pancake”. Accuracy of reporting is important Andrew.

  5. Mel Walsh says:

    While I understand documentaries can often only show what they want you to see, there is more than reasonable doubt to overturn Sue’s conviction – hell Ms Vass has more reason to be charged with murder than Sue does! The more I read and hear about this case the more upset I feel about it – I can’t imagine how frustrated Eve, Colin and Sue’s family feel. Here’s hoping common sense and justice prevails soon

    • PH says:

      Well said Mel, I also cannot understand why Meagan has not been charged with an Accessory to Murder. Where is here boy friend? surely police must know of him, his name, associate on the nite, why has this line of enquiry not been pursued. Police are being made look idiots, criminals themselves the longer this goes on.

  6. MM says:

    Watching how the statement was drafted for Ms Vass, I cannot see how it could be false or misleading in any way. As I have been a witness in numerous cases I can vouch that he did exactly what the police do when they draft statements for witnesses to sign.

    He then left the statement with her for her own consideration in her own time – no coercion. There’s no way bikers have encouraged her to sign it, let alone threatening her if she didn’t. If you know ANY bikers then you should also know that’s just plain absurd! They don’t cooperate with authorities unless there’s something in it for them. PERIOD!

    The only people with a vested interest in Ms Vass cooperating with authorities is the authorities themselves! I’m surprised the judge didn’t pick up on this.

  7. marie leone says:

    The lengths the people in “power” will go to to conceal the fact that they have behaved improperly and disgracefully – one lie to cover the next – GOD help Eve and Coin – Australian justice system is worse than broken. Eve please fix it – we will be behind you. we have experienced noting less than you in this case – 20 years of disgusting dodging the truth by authorities

  8. Clare Hamment says:

    How can this miscarriage of justice be happening in 2019 Australia? With such blatant acts on behalf of Tasmanian Police to cover up their incompetence and corruption. This is not the USA!

  9. nola scheele says:

    I am so looking forward to episode 6 and the conclusions that will be aired.
    Also if the Tasmanian police hinder or take more notice how wrong the conviction is.

    • Williambtm says:

      Not to be overlooked is the reliance on the pure speculation introduced by the Director of Public Prosecutions into the SN-F Court Trial.
      This new low having been accepted by the presiding Supreme Court Judge, does not augur well for the credibility nor the confidence in the Tasmanian System of Justice. The same DPP having improperly discharged a prior serious case involving a former power of attorney whp, after a probing police investigation, had been charged with attempted murder and multiple counts of theft, the DPP had claimed that his then-wife or partner had provided crucial mitigating evidence that had enabled him to discharge this heavily biased case event.
      This fact I had established after receiving a Right to Information copy of the State of Tasmania police report, t’was therein that I had discovered this classic demonstration of ‘the conflict of interest’ underlying the case discharge.

      • Fiona Peate says:

        I think you mean ‘the Tasmanian LEGAL system’, which is not necessarily justice.

      • Nelly says:

        What do you mean by a “former power of attorney”? That makes no sense – someone can *have* power of attorney, but they can’t *be* a power of attorney. So what exactly do you mean here.?
        And is the “whp” supposed to be “who”?

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.