COMMENT RULES

We are delighted that many readers contribute commentary to our coverage and most abide by the rules applied in the traditional media regarding anonymity. Some, however, use pseudonyms or fake names – often for their own agendas. Given the often controversial nature of our content and the sensitive legal issues surrounding many articles, we understand that readers may wish to comment but keep their identity private. We do not publish anonymous comments; full name is required when posting (the Editor needs to know the identity of the commenter) but we will withhold names from publication when requested to do so for legitimate reasons. All comments will be moderated before publication.

Some examples of posts with pseudonyms or fake names:
curious citizen
clearly
anonymous
Anon
Health Advocate

Some commenters have used their first names only – we have posted some of these in cases under the Editor’s discretion, in the interest of useful discussion.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to COMMENT RULES

  1. owen allen says:

    To ignore evil, is to become an accomplice to it. Martin Luther King.

    All that it takes for evil to prosper, is men of goodwill to do nothing. Edmunde Bourke.

  2. William Boeder says:

    Rodger, you have nailed it. There has been an additional number of failed Supreme Court cases conducted in Tasmania, the decisions handed down have included one particular case from circa 2006 that has since been removed from public access.
    (Nolle Presequi) However, that ruling can only be issued pre-trial or during the trial.
    Thus this particular case that had consisted of some 15 theft charges, 1 charge of fraud, 1 charge of forgery, then a charge of attempted murder.
    My having studied the Police Report in its detail had discovered the perpetrator had escaped from prosecuti0n via a conspiracy action enjoined by both of the highly authority appointed persons having come to her resue.
    husband and wife team.
    The case was discharged on the same morning that the case had been set for a hearing in Tasmania’s jurisdictional Launceston Supreme Court, the discharge was recommended by the then serving DPP Mr. Tim Ellis.
    (His wife under her maiden name had also been appointed to a position of high authority) thus her brief of evidence was not really applicable, as her evidence contained no facts.
    Then one learns that in this particular case the character evidence submitted should not have been acknowledged by the DPP, is that it was mere conflicting character evidence in support of the accused.
    Another somewhat obscure discovery had been found underlying this same case, as the thefts concerned a volume of solid Gold minted coins of exceptionally high collector value, then that those valuable coins had immediately been disposed of prior to the accused having been arrested by a police detective attached to Launceston Police.
    Now, the disposal of those very valuable Gold coins had never been pursued despite the accused knowing exactly who she had disposed of those exceptionally high-value Gold minted Solid Gold coins to. (some 140 solid Gold coins.)
    One particular coin was a Vatican minted commemorative designed coin, that had an inestimable value running into its many tens of thousands in Australian dollars.

    I believe I know who the recipients had been at the time…post the discharge of that Supreme Court Hearing back in 2006.
    So in effect. the crimes that had been committed by the accused, were suddenly removed from further consideration, as the case itself had been discharged in its entirety by the State’s DPP, (none sufficiency of evidence) on that very same morning this case was to be contested?

    I will get to the full understanding of who and who those said coins had ended in the hands of. William.

  3. Garry Stannus says:

    Thank you Andrew (our Ed.):
    Yes, of course we support you in this, we who use your site to connect with each other, to read and react to those articles which you post in this Wrongful Convictions Report. We don’t want trolls who come onto a thread simply to inflame us, with nasty ‘hit and run’ jibes, trolls who then disappear into the safety of their anonymity.

    Thank you too, Robin, for ‘calling out’ anonymous[https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2020/04/08/sue-neill-fraser-appeal-delayed-again-to-later-in-2020/#comments ] who wrote:

    Sue’s supporters are as bad as Trump: complain, whinge and deflect the blame to an incorrect party.

    We’ve seen over years (here, and elsewhere, e.g. on Tasmanian Times) how a certain cohort love to come in on a thread and dump – all from the safety of anonymity. Even so, some others do have quite strong reasons for needing anonymity in posting comments, and the golden rule (in my view) is – and should be – that anonymous comments be made seriously and respectfully.

    In my view, this person’s post (quoted above) fails that test.

  4. mbc says:

    I am deeply suspicious of the silent ones monitoring sites such as this, which leads to my reluctance of using my full name. I hope you appreciate this point of view.

    • andrew says:

      Yes, I do. But I’d like to have a record of your full name, which will not be published but replaced with “Name supplied”. It helps preserve our (and your) credibility.

  5. Geraldine Allan says:

    Great to read this policy Andrew.

  6. Rodger Warren says:

    The problem I have, is not only with the Tasmanian Justice system, but with the many politicians I have Emailed who have chosen to use the Pontius Pilate defence.
    No one in authority wants to touch Sue Neill-Fraser’s case.
    I have absolutely no confidence in the Tasmanian Justice system.
    Any fair minded person anywhere, would consider Sue innocent.
    No body
    No witness
    No credible evidence
    No confession and 10 plus years in Jail.
    Unbelievable!!
    Rodger Warren

    • So many state politicians have a legal background and fully understand the ‘reasonable person’ test which, as you suggest above, Rodger clearly demonstrates the injustice of keeping Sue in prison. I am sure they recognise Sue is innocent but their own ambitions for continued employment means they choose to avert their eyes and keep an innocent woman in prison. Self-interest reigns supreme.

      It is a sad time in Tasmania to see so many state politicians, particularly Elise Archer, who are servants of the people, refusing the challenge to exercise moral character and ignoring the conscience of the populace they supposedly represent.

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.