Red flag about the blue rag

A buzz of conversation swirled on our comments thread since the March 10, 2021 publication of our story, Sue Neill-Fraser – conviction rests on dark fantasy, raising a red flag about the blue rag from the crime scene on Four Winds, evidence that went missing … 

When physical evidence goes missing in a police investigation, like the blue rag/face towel on the deck, the matter will spark speculation. Judging by the comments thread, some see it as a red flag, possibly a tampering with evidence. Why is it missing? Where is it? If there is an innocent explanation, why is it not recorded in the reports? As for example – crime scene contamination included DNA samples being linked back to an attending officer (Forensic Biology Report dated 1 July 2009 Item No. 8), a DPEM staff member (Item No. 59) and an FSST staff member (Item No. 35); the shoe impression on the knife found on the floor of the yacht belonging to a Marine Police officer; the black and yellow torch found on the boat which had been inadvertently left by police or others attending the crime scene.

Small blue towel on deck of Four Winds

On forensic officer Deborah McHoul’s hand-written notes made while collecting evidence on 29-30 Jan 2009, her report mentions Item 9, a “small blue towel/face washer from the starboard side of the walkway, just forward from the cockpit.” It was seized at 17:53 on 29/01/09 and given a Barcode (14431-669-2). It can be seen in crime scene photos; below is one taken at Constitution Dock on Jan.27, 2009.

The next mention is in the McHoul Forensic Biology Scene Examination Report’ 5 months later, on 12 June, 2009, page 3 of 8, in a list of items seized.

This blue towel (Item 9) is in very close proximity to two items collected at the same time:

  • Item 19, Area 10, 11.37 m from the forward end, 220 mm from the starboard rail walkway, luminol positive area 80 x 280mm. Barcode 1443-679-3. In 2009 this swab showed a weak positive for blood, and a mixed DNA profile of at least 3 contributors, with one inconclusive female, and Bob Chappell not excluded.
  • Item 20, Area 11, 9.45 m from forward end, 250 mm in from starboard railing, large luminol positive area, measuring 210 x 260mm. Barcode 14431-680-4. This is an area near to the only gate on the starboard side walkway of the yacht. (Person E, DNA profile matched to Meaghan Vass on 15 March 2010.)

Then, Item 9, the blue rag/face towel, vanishes from the Forensic report

The 46 page ‘Forensic Biology Report’ dated 1 July, 2009 contains ‘a summary of the biological examination and DNA profiling results’ for the SNF case. The report omits Item 9 with no explanation. Deborah McHoul is no longer listed as the forensic scientist. Forensic scientists Chris McKenzie and Carl Grosser sign off this report.

McHoul was added as a co author of the FBR at trial.

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

43 Responses to Red flag about the blue rag

  1. Felix says:

    Whose dinghy was the grey dinghy that was slighted at portside of Four Winds at around 4 pm and then at around 5 pm?

    The dinghy that belonged to Four Winds was a white inflatable dinghy that had blue and grey stripes along the length of its side tubes.

    Was the DPP (Mr Coates) correct when he said that from a distance, Sue’s dinghy could have appeared grey in colour?

  2. Stephen Berry says:

    Hi Guys.
    Again, am I missing something here as a 77 year old guy who has seen a bit of life and does believe in justice for all.
    Did Megan say she was on the Four Winds the day/night of the incident? YES.
    Did Megan say she was on Four Winds when it was at Constitution dock? NO. Therefor the DNA is proof of the fact. Do we now know the names of those Megan identified as on the Four Winds the day/night of Bobs disappearance? Why are the police not investigating them! There are witness statements of two dingy’s at the Four Winds that afternoon late in the evening? Why? Why was the Four Winds not roped off as a crime scene immediately?If the appeal judges do read all the previous documents there is no way they can find Sue guilty. And it does go on and on. Who in all this is prepared to take a poligraph test? Not admissible I know but what a pointer to the truth!

    • Felix says:

      Stephen,

      You definitely missed something!

      Under examination by Sue’s barrister (Mr Richter) , Meaghan said that she was on Four Winds on the night of murder.

      But then, under-crossexamination by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Mr Coates, who basically represents the people of Tasmania), Meghan said that she was not on Four Winds that night. She also then affirmed the accuracy of her 2012 Stat Dec (she was never in Sandy Bay; she was never on any yacht in her life; she was never on Four Winds).

      Mr Richter then totally abandoned Meaghan’s testimony.

      The court has to totally disregard Meaghan as a witness and use other evidence to decide whether the defence claim holds on with respect to Meaghan’s DNA, and the grey dinghy.

    • Felix says:

      “There are witness statements of two dingy’s at the Four Winds that afternoon late in the evening?”

      There was never a sighting of two dinghies at the Four Winds at the same time! You need to be specific and accurate.

  3. Felix says:

    Editor, the other ground of appeal that the defence pursued is related to the dinghy (grey dinghy) that was seen at portside of Four Winds. Why don’t you write an article on that ground of appeal so that we can focus on that grey dinghy?

  4. Felix says:

    Rosemary:

    “(d) and the mystery of an attitude by the Tas legal system to not seek the truth. The great community interest in the case all centres around the desire to seek the truth.”

    I don’t know how the truth in this case will be found by comparing the quality of DNA that was exposed to extreme solar UV radiation on an exterior surface of a yacht for at least 1-2 days during midsummer to the quality of DNA from the grout of a bathroom tiled floor after the floor had been cleaned.

    Also, I gather that some people have read the Trial Transcript. I wonder whether they bothered to check the validity of the defence case that Meaghan was on Four Winds at the time when a grey dinghy was seen at portside of Four Winds.

    The first sighting of a grey dinghy at portside of Four Winds was around 4pm. But, according to page 754 of the Trial Transcript, Meaghan left Mara House at 3:50 pm:

    “MR GUNSON SC: I want you to refresh your memory please, as to
    what the staff at Mara House told you about what she said about
    where she was staying. Just refresh your memory, having refreshed
    it, please tell us what the answer is…..The staff informed me that
    Meaghan Vass had requested a sleep over the night of 26th January,
    and that she exited Mara House at 3.50pm and was to phone them and
    let them know the phone number of the person she was staying with,
    and that she didn’t phone them. ”

    How can one get from Mara House to Marietville Esplanade, hop onto a dinghy, travel around 350 metres to Four Winds and then hop onto the yacht in 10 or so minutes? The distance between Forster St, New Town and Marietvillle Esplanade is 7 Km. That is a 15 minute drive.

    Also, none of the eyewitnesses who saw a dinghy on portside of Four Winds saw anyone on the dinghy or the yacht.

    • Felix says:

      An eyewitness (Paul Conde) saw a grey dinghy on portside of Four Winds at 3:55 pm.

      from page 800 of Trial Transcript:

      “Who was the witness you were referring to who was “confident that the timing was 3:55”?……Paul Conde.
      Paul Conde?……Yes.

      Thank you. Now Mr Conde made a statement to police on the 29th of January 2009, didn’t he?…….Yes.

      And did you interview Mr Conde?…….No.

      But you had his statement?…….I had read his statement.
      You’ve read his statement. Now, does Mr Conde, to your
      recollection, in his statement at any time say that he saw Ms Neill-Fraser on the Four Winds at 3:55?…….No. ”

      Therefore, the grey dinghy at portside of Four Winds was most likely there at the very time that Meaghan left Mara House.

    • Andy says:

      Maybe by boat with an outboard?

  5. Garry Stannus says:

    Thank you for adding the photo of the Four Winds at Constitution Dock, Andrew. We now know that the small blue towel / face washer existed and definitely was on the starboard walkway, on 27Jan2009.

    Sandy Bay 27Jan2009
    The
    Four Winds, had been found sinking in Sandy Bay in the early morning of 27Jan2009. While still at Sandy Bay, Constable Redburn and other police officers conducted a forensic examination on the FW.

    During the examination, Constable Redburn collected the knife found of the floor of the yacht, a torch with some reddish stains on it; took photos of the FW, collected 22 swabs, and conducted a fingerprint search in the wheelhouse. Constable Redburn was accompanied by other police officers who conducted fingerprint examinations in the other parts of the boat. The torch had a ‘spatter’ pattern on it. Constable Redburn did not closely examine the frayed/cut rope(s) from the winch to the hatch. She spoke to Cons. Lawler regarding the function of a panel in the wheelhouse – the control panel – near which were red stains and took various photos, including photos of the position of the switches in the control panel and in another area – the saloon – of a rope hanging from an external hatch in the ceiling. That rope was connected to a winch on the deck near the mast. There was a second rope on the deck, leading to a coil in the vicinity of the first. She did not examine the rope hanging through the hatch – it had not been mentioned to her as being an area of interest. [! ]

    Constitution Dock 27Jan2009
    Later that day the FW was towed to Constitution Dock by the police vessel Freycinet and guarded. The FW appears in an [ABC?] photograph [https://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r333760_1509415.jpg] in full sunlight. Detectives Conroy and Milazzo arrived there at approximately 2:50 pm, to be met by Detective Wilby and Constable Plunkett. Wilby went on board with Conroy to show him the blood on the steps, the cut pipe and the valve that had been ‘interfered with’. After 10 minutes or so, Conroy came off and waited for Sue & Bob’s family (whom he’d asked to attend) to arrive. Conroy had asked them to come to see if they could point out anything out of the ordinary. Incidentally, Grant Maddock, who was visiting a friend on a boat nearby, came over to have a look and approached Conroy and spoke to him briefly. While Maddock was present, the family members had arrived and had boarded the boat. It was 4 or 4:30 pm.

    The photograph posted by the Editor, shows the FW at the wharf, with the family members on the dock beside it. By this time it was probably 5 or 5:30 pm, possibly later…
    At 5:50 pm, at Conroy’s request, Constable Woodhead [formerly Barnes], from Forensic Services, had arrived and had begun a second forensic examination as well as taking photographs. Conroy had directed her to the points on the boat that had been shown to him. It seems likely that the photo posted by the Editor, of the FW at Constitution Dock, was taken on board the FW, by her, at or after this time.

    When this was done and all had departed, the FW was left, guarded only by Port Video surveillance, arranged by Conroy and Milazzo with an operator in the Port Tower. The overnight video did not show anyone boarding the yacht during that time.

    Early the next day, 28Jan2009, the FW was towed away from Constitution Dock by Chris Dobbyn:

    FW to CleanLIFT at Goodwood 28Jan2009
    It was early when D.S. Conroy rang Clean Lift operator, Chris Dobbyn, to ask him that when he reached Goodwood, that he just tie it up and leave it (they – the police – would need to do some further examination of the boat). When Conroy rang, the FW was already under tow, the tender strapped to the side of it. Dobbyn was steering the FW to take it to the CleanLIFT Marine at Derwent Park to have the boat slipped. When he reached the CleanLIFT premises, Dobbyn did an assessment as to why the vessel had sunk.

    Later that day (28Jan2009), Constable Redburn returned to the FW to conduct further forensic investigations. She lifted two prints from the wheelhouse area – one from the wheel itself and took a photo of fingerprints in that area. From the day before (27Jan2009) she still had two swabs (from the stairs), the knife and the torch which she took on the 28th to the Forensic Science Service Tasmania laboratory for DNA analysis. The fingerprint lifts she submitted to the fingerprint section at the Hobart police Forensic Services. At the FS laboratory, Redburn examined the torch more closely with Chris McKenzie (the forensic scientist there).

    Goodwood 29Jan2009
    4:00 p.m: At around this time, Senior Constable Wilson attended the FW at Goodwood. He took 6 fingerprints from: on/around the deck. He also took photos of tagged locations from which prints were lifted. Constable Williamson, who was with Wilson, located 16 prints on deck & handrail of the FW.

    Constable Purcell (from the Dog Handlers Unit), arrived at Goodwood. He met Dtv. Const. Danny Jackson there and they went onto the FW, prior to taking the dog on, to have a look around. They then brought the dog onto the vessel and conducted an ineffective search with the dog – there was still water on the floor of the yacht – a lot of water still on the yacht -, which made it hard for them to get the dog into certain areas – wherever there was a pool of water, the dog wouldn’t go.

    Back at Forensic HQ, Fingerprint specialist Peter Maczi examined 3 screwdrivers and a winch handle from the FW – he took no finger print lifts from the screwdrivers, having done a fingerprint examination with negative results. From the latent impressions on the EPIRB, he identified three of them as belonging to Mr Page. Mr Maczi then went to the Four Winds at Goodwood where he ‘offered advice’ to the crime scene investigators. From the FW, there were numerous fingerprint lifts that were taken and identified as belonging to David Casson and Peter Stevenson (the FW delivery crew).

    5:53 pm on 29Jan2009, Forensic Officer McHoul, in attendance on the FW, finally ‘seized’ [according to the information supplied above by the Editor] the blue cloth/towel/face-washer.

    Goodwood 30Jan2009
    1:30 am McHoul swabs/photographs ‘Area 11’ (see in her Report: Item 20) on the starboard walkway. Both this area and an adjacent area which she also swabbed (Area 10) were in close proximity to the so-called ‘blue towel’. DNA obtained from Area 11 was well after Neill-Fraser’s arrest, found to be that of Meaghan Vass.

    CONCLUDING REMARKS:
    McHoul’s seizure of the ‘blue towel’ was during the fifth forensic examination that had taken place on the FW:

    1: Redburn had conducted the 1st forensic examination on the FW while the vessel was still at Sandy Bay … she did not record the presence of the ‘blue towel’.

    2: Woodhead conducted the second forensic examination of the FW, at Constitution Dock. She did not notice the blue towel (no mention of it in her trial evidence) yet it is visible just aft of the starboard walkway entrance in the photograph which she apparently took while on the vessel.

    3: Redburn returned to the FW and conducted a third police forensic examination of the vessel. She too did not notice the ‘blue towel’, or, if she did, she does not seem to have paid it any attention. Her examination on this occasion seems to have mainly been in the wheelhouse and of the steps, of a knife, of a torch … perhaps in the saloon … via photos, fingerprint lifts and seizures. [The blue towel remained in situ? Had it been there on her first visit? Had she only been focused on particular areas?]

    4: Officers Wilson, Williamson, Purcell conducted a fourth police forensic examination of the vessel. This seems to have been focused on the deck and handrails, though Purcell took a dog below to explore suggestions of the boat having unknown to Bob and Sue, been a possible ‘mule’ for drug importation.

    5: McHoul attended for what was to be a fifth police forensic examination … she located and finally the blue towel was seized … during daylight (probably while Wilson et al. were still there) and after midnight McHoull used luminol on Area 11 and took swabs.

    Officer McHoul having ‘seized’ the face-washer, had noted the seizure in her own hand-writing and included it in the [her] first draft (12Jun2009) of the ‘Forensic Report’ (there appear to have been 4 consecutive drafts … it was an ‘evolving’ document, the later versions contributed to by Chris McKenzie and Karl Grosser). How did it disappear from the Forensic Report as that report evolved?

    ?Other visits there were other police visits to the FW: e.g. on 3Feb2009 (for photographs?)

    Colin McLaren (Southern Justice, pg 122) wrote:

    Item 9, the blue face washer found near Meaghan’s DNA, also went to the laboratory. And, like the vomit swatches, it disappeared completely, vanishing not only from storage but from the forensic work sheets and final reports. Why? What secrets could these three vital exhibits have told? What answers have been lost by their disappearance? The handling of these key exhibits defies sound investigative and forensic techniques. There can be no explanation for hiding them from the court process and the defence lawyers.

    It does not seem unreasonable to ask why at trial Mr Ellis even bothered to mention the face-washer. Neither does it seem unreasonable to ask alternatively whether Mr Ellis sensed he was obscuring its location with talk of the latex glove on the galley stove-top and Bob’s tobacco dish in the wheelhouse, or was it just an inadvertent grouping of words, passing on to more important matters, like the blood on the step?

    [The latex glove itself warrants a full comment. I won’t attempt it at this stage]

    PS: The image that you have posted, Andrew, when compared to an image taken earlier at Constitution Dock on that afternoon (27Jan2009) is interesting in relation to two other matters:

    We see firstly that in the earlier image [https://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r333760_1509415.jpg] that the black & red winch handle is in position on the side of the main mast, and, secondly, that the hatch to the left of the main mast is closed.

    In the photo which you have posted, we now see the winch handle on the deck and the hatch now open. I presume that this was after Sue and family members had gone on board to assist the police.[The photo seems to have been taken from on board the Four Winds, with the sun lowering in the sky. Perhaps between 7 and 8 pm? The earlier photo was taken perhaps at about 2:00 pm of that day, 27Jan2009]

    We have learnt a few things… that the blue towel was on the Four Winds on 27Jan2009…
    … so that rules out Goodwood … the FW was towed there early the next day, 28Jan2009.

    EN PASSANT
    Incidentally, a photo shown in an Eve Ash presentation to a conference in Bali which was taken from the rear of the yacht was not taken while the FW was at Sandy Bay or at Constitution Dock. In my opinion, it was taken when the vessel was at Goodwood.

    It can be seen in Eve Ash’s presentation: ‘CLANT CONFERENCE BALI 2019: UNDERCURRENT… [ https://clant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Ash.pdf ]

    That photo seems to me to be a possible ‘reconstruction’ of the location of the blue towel’s location. (Just as photos exist of a rolled-up red jacket on the fence on the corner of Margaret St and Marieville Parade, Sandy Bay – an obvious and worthy reconstruction of where the jacket was … for the benefit of readers… so too, I suggest, is what I believe may be a ‘Goodwood reconstruction’ of the position of the blue towel.

    Sorry for the length, Editor … but members of the public are largely unable to access the sort of information that I’ve included above … thank you again. Having listed the various police who boarded the FW on or after the afternoon of 27Jan2009 … to conduct forensic work – without noticing the blue towel which was present there and remained present for at least two full days till Deb McHoul put it out of its misery and finally seized it on 29Jan2009 … I am more appreciative of Colin McLaren’s trenchant criticism of the police investigation.

    • Felix says:

      Garry – thanks for all that information. You are quite correct – the photo in Ash,pdf definitely wasn’t taken at Constituion Dock.

      The blue rag on the walkway became significant only after DNA swabs from the location returned positive. Apparently, Sue didn’t mention anything about the blue rag even though that afternoon at Constitution Dock she was asked to point to anything that was out of place.

      The image of Four Winds you referenced can’t be accessed. Please provide the url.

  6. owen allen says:

    Thanks guys and gals for sticking with it. Whilst you refuse to roll over, you give us all confidence that ” it ain’t over yet”. I will be with you all the way,

    • JENNIFER KLINE says:

      All the way to what? To the realisation that there are too many holes in the defence case?

      It was over for Sue when the defence claimed that Meaghan boarded Four Winds via that grey dinghy that was seen at portside of Four Winds at 4 pm. Meaghan left Mara House (about 7 km away) about 5 minutes before that grey dinghy was first sighted at Four Winds. Forensic Science also goes against the defence argument that Meaghan’s DNA was deposited on the afternoon of 26th.

      • owen allen says:

        All the way Jennifer, to the Federal Royal Commission Tasmania,
        and Federal Royal Commission Tasmania Police.

  7. Garry Stannus says:

    Editor: your mention of Item 9, a “small blue towel/face washer from the starboard side of the walkway, just forward from the cockpit.” is intriguing.

    As you note, the record of agreed facts was altered immediately prior to Ms McHoul giving her evidence at the trial. Apparently, in the ‘Agreed Facts’ (Exhibit P 61) document, her name did not appear alongside that of Mssrs. MacKenzie and Grosser. It may be that as the prosecution wished to tender her 12Jun2009 Report which was in her name, it seems Mr Ellis had to clear up the fact that a (later?) version of the ‘evolving’ document had omitted her name from authorship.

    Readers of the Court transcript might note that the ‘small blue towel/face washer’ was only mentioned a single time … and that was by Mr Ellis [CT 640 43]. In my view, Mr Ellis had seemed to suggest that it had been located in the cockpit-wheelhouse area. Unfortunately, his mention of the towel followed a question about the glove in the cockpit and was squeezed into a lengthy question about what she’d included in her report concerning the contents of the yacht’s wheelhouse.

    I’ll include the excerpt here:

    EXHIBIT #P62 – REPORT OF DEBRA McHOUL DATED 12TH JUNE
    2009 – TAKEN IN
    MR ELLIS SC: I ask that copies be made available to the jury.
    Thank you. And I’ll take you through that, Ms McHoul. So that it
    sets out that you attended Four Winds at Negara Crescent,
    Goodwood?…….That’s correct.
    And you found in the cockpit a latex type glove?…….That’s correct.
    And it’s all correct; a small blue towel/face washer was present.
    You said that the wheelhouse was relatively undisturbed, except the
    small silver coloured dish of tobacco, what appeared to be tobacco
    was there, and you said that red/brown apparent transfer staining was apparent on the steps.

    That was the only mention in the whole trial of the small blue towel. Ms McHoul did not get to explain the item. The trial transcript does not record whether Item 9 appeared in the version that was taken in by the court. Mr Gunson did not raise it in cross-examination. Thank goodness that Gunson at least brought up Item 20 (the deposit containing the Vass DNA). You see, Editor (and please correct me if I’m wrong), Mr Ellis did not mention it at all, during his examination of Ms McHoul.

    A further intriguing matter is the date of seizure of the ‘small blue towel’. You write that it was seized at 17:53 on 29/01/09 and given a Barcode (14431-669-2). McHoul’s evidence at trial does not mention the 29th of Jan 2009. In answer to a question from Ellis about what she’d done on 30Jan2009 she said that she’d attended both the Four Winds and also the Police Services building. There is, in her courtroom evidence, no mention of 29Jan2009.

    This all raises questions for me…
    Where was the towel – on the starboard walkway or in the cockpit/wheelhouse area?
    When actually did McHoul take the swab/s of Item 20?
    Was that swab-taking separate to i.e., prior to the use of luminol on Item 20?
    Was the swab actually taken at much the same time as the blue towel was ‘seized’?

    ‘Small blue towel’ considerations aside, I’m wondering whether this might change in any way the ‘DNA degradation timelines’ discussed by Mr Jones in his own subsequent report.

    It would be interesting to see images reproduced of:
    -an excerpt of McHoul’s hand-written notes concerning the small blue towel (29/30Jan2009)
    -her list of seized items (12Jun2009)
    -photos and dates/times showing the small blue towel in proximity to the walkway area where Item 20 was located.

    • andrew says:

      I have now added a photo to the story above, taken on Jan. 27, 2009 at Constitution Dock.

      • Felix says:

        Fantastic.

        Can I now point everyone to the location that is marked by the red x. The actual location 11 from where Vass DNA was obtained is a little closer to the edge of the step. There is no sign of any visible stain at location 11 on the afternoon of 27th.

        • Felix says:

          There is another photo available online of the same walkway but taken from the opposite side of the blue rag. The photo that I am referring can be seen in a pdf presentation of Eve Ash from a 2019 conference in Bali. This is the link

          https://clant.org.au/the_bali_conference/2019-true-crime-nt-murder-et-al/

          The title of Eve’s presentation is  “An update on Undercurrent: After 10 years in jail there is a turning tide in the Sue Neill-Fraser case”

          You can download the Ash.pdf file.

          Comparison of the two photos from Constitution Dock show that in one photo the rag is stretched across the walkway but is scrunched up at the edge of the walkway in the second photo.

          In neither of the two photos can I see a stain in location 11.

        • andrew says:

          No sign of a visible stain? But we know the prosecution’s argument at trial: Tim Ellis SC insisted that the DNA on the deck matched to Meaghan Vass was a secondary transfer, probably on a shoe. That was his argument: a red herring. The DNA was evidently there, visible stain or not on this photo … He also argued the ‘red herring’ at the leave to appeal at the High Court. You may have opened a pandora’s box …. or something.

          • Felix says:

            Andrew, it now appears to me that the “pandora’s box” is that whatever visual stain attracted the attention of Ms McHoul late 29th – early 30th for her to then spray luminol over that location was most probably deposited after the afternoon of 27th, either via a direct deposit or via a secondary transfer. Had there been a visible stain at that location (so close to the location of the blue rag) on the afternoon of the 27th then the crime scene photographer would most likely have noticed it and photographed it as well.

            Anyway, thank you for posting that photograph. I am puzzled why Colin didn’t include either of the two photographs into his book.

  8. Rosemary says:

    Thank you Andrew for that thorough walk through. More to show the ineptitude of first responders and now it extends to remiss forensic reporting. I have always thought and said that there is much that is unknown that holds the keys to unlocking this mystery. (a) Bob’s disappearance details, (b) the mystery of a clearly failed police investigation and (c) the mystery of the fervent and continual persecution of Sue, in the light of reasonable doubt. (d) and the mystery of an attitude by the Tas legal system to not seek the truth. The great community interest in the case all centres around the desire to seek the truth. That in itself should motivate this search as the highest priority!

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Rosemary re your (d), wilful blindness?

    • Noeline Durovic says:

      The question of persecuting Susan Neil Frazer an innocent woman of murder of her beloved life partner; to the extent of pursing evidence purported to remake a senerio to dupe and influence a Jury is an utter perversion of justice. Whilst questions fully must be raised of real evidence suppressed hidden. Actual DNA tested to belong to Megan Vass known – officiated to Tas Police and DPP? WHY? What else are they hiding? A room full? A truck load ?

      • owen allen says:

        You are right on track Noeline.
        Perverting Justice is a crime and that’s what they do to get a conviction.
        Justice and innocence never enters into it.
        Public servants perverting justice are the worst criminals of all, betraying society behind cover.

        • Lola Moth says:

          Owen and Noeline, I would guess that most trials have pieces of evidence that both sides have decided not to bring forward because of deals done beforehand. I have experience of this myself.
          Many years ago a man was shot dead at a house that had a large amount of cannabis growing in it. Another man was arrested for murder and was going to plead not guilty. The drugs charges alone would have seen him in prison for a decade but when he came to trial the charge of murder was dropped and replaced with manslaughter and the drugs, which were central to why the crime was committed, were never mentioned. None of the witnesses were allowed to discuss the drugs in court so the story of how the crime happened sounded incredibly disjointed. The accused was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 6 years in prison. Who knows which way the jury would have decided if they had access to the whole truth?

          Australia doesn’t have a justice system but a criminal legal system. It isn’t about justice or discovering the truth, it’s not set up that way. It is set up to convict and to punish, and ensuring the correct person is being punished is not part of the system.

          • owen allen says:

            Time for change Lola, if what you say is correct.
            But perversion of justice by a DPP, or Police is unacceptable and unforgiveable under law.
            I will never back off, because I had the truth in my face. I thought I must have been in Europe in 1940..

  9. owen allen says:

    I am loaded and and cocked.
    Federal Royal Commission Tasmania.
    Release Sue Neill-Fraser Now.
    Federal Royal Commission Tasmania Police.
    Is this job too big for the ACIC?
    Psychological Warfare can do irreparable damage on a victims mind.
    For the naysayers, Sue Neill-Fraser has been locked up by culture.
    A decrepit dishonest culture of which I have evidence of my own experience in Tasmania.
    What I state is very relevant to this abhorrent situation.

  10. Felix Greenwood says:

    The extracts that you referred to, are they from Colin’s ‘white paper’? I understand that his ‘white paper’ was based on McHouol’s report. I assume that you have a copy of Colin’s ‘white paper’.

  11. Felix Greenwood says:

    The important question that doesn’t feature in your set of questions posed in the second paragraph of your article is whether the blue rag that was picked up from the staboard walkway was present at the crime scene on the morning of 27th when the police first boarded the yacht or whether that blue rag was introduced into the crime scene after the police first boarded the yacht.

    The DPP addressed the issue by saying that the photographs that were taken when the yacht was at Sandy Bay do not show the blue rag on the walkway.

    • andrew says:

      The important question that doesn’t feature in your comment is why there is no explanation for the omission of the item from the report.

      • Felix Greenwood says:

        I agree that there should have been an entry explaining the reason the rag was taken out of the evidence.

        My point was that the blue rag wasn’t on the walkway from the night before.

        • andrew says:

          It wasn’t there from the night before? What makes you sure enough to state that? Is there evidence of it not being there then? That would be good to know.

      • Geraldine Allan says:

        Great to read that you are prioritising what is really of paramount importance Andrew.
        As I wrote elsewhere earlier this week, so easy to recognise the bullshit baffles brains syndrome, increasingly evident in numerous posts.
        The hollow meaningless spin is recognisable and, wearying.

        • andrew says:

          Yes but let’s take heart in the knowledge that “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is,” as Winston Churchill said.

        • JENNIFER KLINE says:

          Perhaps two crime scene photographs from Constitution Dock can tell you what a thousand of words couldn’t.

      • Andy says:

        Or the red jacket rolling round the carpark and boot of a cop car for a week?
        Craaaaazy

      • Noeline Durovic says:

        Andrew, I am curious! Has anyone except the police -DPP seen ALL the Police evidence photos – Both Sandy Bay and Goodward timelines of Four Winds..”27th” onward. Across decks and below in cabins? Also did the Jury have the opportunity to be shown ALL Police Photos? I seem not to have read of this did I miss it? Please would like to know and sight such Police evidence? Comments and statements addressed regarding dates – placement of the DNA evidence..Blue rag/face cloth and vomit questions rise? Surely if not seen? Why not?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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