What we’ve learned about the administration of the law in Tasmania

Andrew L. Urban.

After eight years of studying the case of mild mannered Hobart grandmother Sue Neill-Fraser, convicted of murdering her partner Bob Chappell on Australia Day, 2009, we have learnt that administering the law in Tasmania doesn’t always work as it should. Indeed, rules to ensure that justice is served were too often broken – with terrible consequences. Such as a 23 year prison sentence … 

Tasmania’s criminal justice system seems to have been thwarted by a crime it could not solve in the usual manner; a thorough investigation. Instead, the law took a short cut. That’s how it looks (and has looked all along) with its handling of what seemed like the disappearance of Bob Chappell – later known to have been murder, but not by the accused. For a detailed summary of key facts, please see the report of our ENQUIRY

The usual safeguards were broken every step of the way:

Investigation (2009-2010):

– giving credence to Phillip Triffett’s self-serving, unproven and risible historic allegations against Sue Neill-Fraser (that she had asked him to murder Chappell and her brother) as the trigger to target her as the only suspect

– ‘Tammy’ Hanson rings Constable Deayton (Sept 23, 2009) to alert TasPol of unreliability of Phillip Triffett as a witness (ignored)

– Stephan Catchpool, a member of the public living near Battery Point, rang police on January 27, 2009 to report illegal boating activity and ‘dodgy characters’ in the area; Detective Sinnitt interviewed him at his home but months later when following up, Neill-Fraser’s barrister was told Sinnitt had denied being told about them

– a failure to fully investigate how third party DNA was deposited at the crime scene, despite knowing whose it was – Meaghan Vass

– Neill-Fraser’s ex husband was never interviewed

– Neill-Fraser complained to Ombudsman about the investigation, who advised her to lodge a written complaint to Police Commissioner & Police Internal Investigations (July 30, 2009) asking for independent review of evidence (ignored)

– several persons of interest were not interviewed until years after the event

At trial (Sept-Oct, 2010):

– no credible evidence was presented to place Neill-Fraser at the crime scene

– no evidence was presented to establish the death of Chappell

– without Chappell’s body and without a weapon having been found, the prosecution speculated how Neill-Fraser killed him and disposed of his body; the judge permitted and reinforced the speculative scenario

– the prosecutor dismissed Meaghan Vass’ DNA at the crime scene as a ‘red herring’

– the prosecutor argued against recalling witness Meaghan Vass & the judge refused permission

– the prosecutor called as a witness Phillip Triffett who testified against Neill-Fraser that a decade earlier she asked him to kill her brother and Chappell (see above – denied, unproven)

– inadmissible forensic evidence was presented

– the prosecutor attempted to exaggerate conflict between Chappell and Neill-Fraser via witness, Barbara Zockling, but Zockling realised it was not Neill-Fraser but Chappell’s sister she saw arguing dockside with Chappell – no correction was made to the jury

– the prosecutor told the jury that Neill-Fraser’s DNA was found inside a latex glove which he claimed (without evidence) was used to clean up the crime scene; it turned out to be Chappell’s son’s DNA, but the jury never heard that

– trial judge delivered prejudicial summing up referring to imaginary wrench eight times

At first appeal (2012):

– the three appeal judges dismissed the complaint (Ground 1) that defence request to recall Vass was refused, speculating what her evidence and its usefulness to the jury might have been

(The judges in Neill-Fraser’s second appeal (March 1-3, 2021) have reserved their decision.)

At seeking special leave to appeal to High Court (2011-12)

– the DPP convinced the High Court that the DNA evidence (on which the appeal rested) was a ‘red herring’, being a secondary transfer; leave was not granted

NOTICE the public-confidence-sapping determination with which this conviction was pursued and protected in the face of much reasonable doubt. Over a decade of its process through the system, nobody in Tasmania’s legal or political leadership raised a concern or said a single word in public to halt the process while an independent enquiry considered the evidence.

That’s what we’ve learned about Tasmania’s criminal justice system as revealed by the case of Sue Neill-Fraser: saving face trumps serving justice. Too embarrassed and/or intimidated by peer pressure? Bonded by guilt, shame and fear? Or plain old hubris? The law should protect innocent citizens – even from itself.

Sadly, it should be acknowledged that Tasmania is not the only jurisdiction to suffer from malpractice, incompetence and lies in a criminal justice system long overdue for reform. But what sets Tasmania apart in this regard is the stubborn resistance to correcting the error of this conviction in the face of overwhelming public pressure – mostly from the mainland. Why? Because the legal establishment is isolated and impenetrable, protected by its self-governing status.

But other states have their own legal blemishes: South Australia, for instance, sets the bar pretty high with its history of failures, peaking with the nation’s greatest forensic disaster.

It could be the start of a black joke: ‘Have you heard the one about the chief forensic pathologist of a modern Australian state who was not qualified to do his job, was discredited by the legal establishment, yet he continued over decades to perform thousands of autopsies and the like, including in 400 serious criminal cases….the punch line is that nothing has been done about it.

Western Australia, now a pariah state over cynical border closures (aka vote harvesting), has its own dirty little and not so little secrets in this regard – starting with an appeal court decision that defied the rule of law…

Derek Bromley was convicted of murder in 1984, wrongfully, in the opinion of several legal experts; now, his latest appeal (June 2018) floundered when South Australia’s appeal court “fundamentally failed to pay due regard to the rule of law and to the well-established principles governing criminal appeals,” according to legal academics Dr Bob Moles and Bibi Sangha. “The principles espoused in the Bromley decision are not only contrary to established authority but have never before appeared in any legal judgment in Australia, Britain or Canada.”

In NSW, a bloody massacre of five people in 2009 – a major crime – has been blamed on the most unlikely of suspects, who has been dragged through four trials and an appeal against his life sentence (over 11 years in all). “The Crown does not know exactly what time it was that the murders occurred,” said the prosecution in the opening address, “but our case is that it must have occurred after 2 o’clock in the morning, because you will hear that it is accepted that the accused had been at home with his wife using the internet until around this time. So it is at some point after 2 o’clock and before 5.30am.”

In other words, the Crown case is based on circular reasoning.
 The Crown asked the jury to accept that the deaths occurred after 2am – without any evidence – to fit their accusation against Robert Xie. Xie and his wife provided an alibi: they were in bed all night, together, after 2am. The victims were family members.

NOTE: The cases mentioned above are only some of the most egregious examples of justice gone awry.

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

33 Responses to What we’ve learned about the administration of the law in Tasmania

  1. SH says:

    I find it rather difficult to think that the police may have found the body IF they had been looking!! I remember reading of a (?)Taroona woman’s call to the police about concern for something floating in the river past her place – not followed up??!!!
    Does this mean that the police can be charged with criminal negligence?
    🤔 🧐

  2. Felix says:

    It’s strange that the documentary maker of Shadow of Doubt, and the Undercurrent, emphasised the fact that several eyewitnesses saw a grey looking dinghy at portside of Four Winds on the afternoon of the Australia Day but did not say anything about the trial evidence that Meaghan left Mara House at 3:50 pm (and thus couldn’t have been on Four Winds when Paul Conde went past Four Winds at 3:55 pm) and yet the emphasis was on Meaghan being on Four Winds on the day of attack on Bob. Why are Sue’s supporters ignoring the trial evidence that clearly indicates that the real culprit(s) boarded Four Winds prior to 4pm and that therefore Meaghan couldn’t have witnessed the attack on Bob.

    It is also interesting that all sightings of a travelling dinghy was of only one person on that dinghy:

    – Sue on her dinghy at around 2pm motoring towards Four Winds

    – un-identified person on a light-coloured dinghy at around 7:45 pm- 8:30 pm motoring away from the location of Four Winds towards the Yacht Club

    – un-identified person on a motorisrd inflatable dinghy at around 11:30 pm – 12 am motoring past the Rowing Sheds in the general direction of Four Winds

    I find it very suspicious that neither the person(s) who boarded Four Winds via the grey looking dinghy prior to 3:55pm nor the person who was spotted on a light coloured zodiac at around 7:45 pm – 8:30 pm nor the person who was spotted on a motorised inflatable dinghy at around 11:30 pm – 12:00 am bothered to contact the police to identify themselves and to provide whatever they knew or saw, etc. I understand that Sue’s supporters believe that the person who was spotted on a dinghy at around 11:30 pm – 12:00 am was Grant Maddock. But Mr Maddock’s dinghy wasn’t motorised nor was it an inflatable (the trial witness claimed to have heard the dinghy’s overboard motor). Could it be that the person(s) in question who were sighted is actually only one and the same person and that the reason that person didn’t contact police is because that person committed the murder?

    • andrew says:

      You are welcome to waste your time speculating wildly, after all, the prosecution did it at trial. But any rational person looking at the whole case would quickly surmise that without a shred of evidence to support such imaginings, it seems pointless. Not to mention that there is evidence contradicting the scenario… But I’m not going to go round in circles re-litigating the matter. Others may.

  3. Keith says:

    Andrew, is the time now right for the Undercurrent series to be shown in Tasmania? It surely could now not prejudice any court proceedings?
    Perhaps Eve could add a few episodes to take in all that has happened since she finished filming the original series. It would make for compelling viewing, especially in Hobart!

  4. owen allen says:

    I am sorry to have to reply again, but my anxiety truly worries me.
    So, please Andrew, publish my writ.

    This is so sad. Living in Tasmania for 14 years, I learnt by experience Tasmania is a very sad, bad society. Covered over by media and state government backed films and advertising as a lovely tight knit caring community.
    The living standards and morals of the lower socio economic, reflect the morals of the ruling class. A statistical study of health and crime, poverty, unemployment and homelessness will, and does, prove shocking facts of deprivation on the island.
    Tasmania is different from every other state, it is an island like Norfolk.
    Tasmania has its “own way”, ‘its different down here”, It is ” The Tasmanian Way “.
    Bring on the Federal Royal Commission Tasmania.”


    • andrew says:

      You are not alone, Owen, in being concerned about the administration of the law in Tasmania. It is public pressure that has a chance to make a difference. A grass roots revolution.

      • owen allen says:

        Thanks Andrew, I feel alone but I know I am not And Sue in Risdon, with all her outside support, she is alone inside.
        I know how it feels to be incarcerated unjustly, and I lost everything, including my self respect and my mind as it once was.
        And ” they forget not only is Sue unjustly locked up, but she lost her husband.
        Thanks again Andrew, and put my name down please.
        I volunteer to be part of a grass roots revolution.
        I like that; we are “The Resistance”.

  5. Brian Johnston says:

    I could not put a comment on your site.
    No matter how much you for whatever reason believe Keogh to be innocent you could be wrong. You are wrong. Keogh either murdered Anna Jane himself or arranged for someone else to murder her. I believe he did it. The pathologist may have been unqualified and got certain things wrong, that does not make Keogh innocent. Moles has the case wrong and you followed him.
    I have looked at the case and Keogh’s innocence does not stack up.
    Would you like my take on the case?

    • andrew says:

      Kevin Borick QC worked for a decade on the Keogh appeal. The autopsy by Dr Colin Manock that was key to the conviction was found to be totally wrong. It was not a matter of a few things wrong… If you wish to put forward evidence that contradicts the appeal court’s decision, you can send it to me by email in a word document.

  6. Julie says:

    This post makes for disturbing reading. Sloppy legal processes like these described here must stop.
    Thank you for posting.
    Here, in Sydney

    • Brian Johnston says:

      Julie. just what sloppy legal processes are you referring to? I am genuinely keen to hear your views.
      The few comments here are expressing opinion. I believe Sue is innocent.
      I have followed a number of murder cases and they all have the same Modus Operandi. I am sure you would be shocked if you got involved.
      I can only say so much because I have been edited on this site. Here we are trying to help Sue and we are censored and edited. Where is the Freedom of Speech.
      The whole justice system has to change. From top to jury. The problem with the police method is they look for the culprit before the evidence is in. They then nominate a suspect/culprit and build the case around that person or persons. The ‘person’ stands very little chance of winning.
      On top of this we have corruption.
      Incredibly in the Sue case someone has ‘identified’ how Bob’s body was disposed of.
      While dealing with Sue’s case there has been too much comparison with the Keogh case and this is an area where your opinion could be correct. I believe Keogh is guilty and Moles goofed and this could be impacting on Sue’s case.
      I believe Michael Cheney, father of Anna Jane also believes in foul play and I feel for him and his wife.

      • andrew says:

        You say, among other things: “I can only say so much because I have been edited on this site. Here we are trying to help Sue and we are censored and edited” – I can’t let this comment pass without correction. The ‘editing and censoring’ is either to avoid defamation or to avoid argumentative repetition of claims that have been argued many times over the years.
        Your reference to comparisons with the Keogh case is misconceived. Your claim (often repeated, always without evidence) that you “believe” Keogh is guilty is irrelevant and will not be published again (there you go, censored!). That which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
        We all feel sympathy for the Cheney family without entertaining vague allegations against Keogh.

      • Felix G says:

        Mr Johnston,

        Professor Kevin Cheney OAM passed away over a year ago.


        It would help if you were to discuss the evidence in the case rather than offer your beliefs. I agree with Andrew that since you aren’t providing evidence based opinion that your comments ought to be censored.

        I like to add that the purpose of expressing opinions on a public blog should be to try to get to the truth rather than to help a particular inmate.

      • Felix G says:

        Mr Johnston, Based on your comments it is an almost certainty that your opinion about the Keogh case (and the Neill-Fraser case) is based on a lack of understanding of how to critically analyse the case evidence.

        • Brian Johnston says:

          Difficult to reply to your hollow comment. You have identified no faults in my comments. Your are bordering on a personal attack. You obviously support Sue’s guilt by your use of the term inmate.
          You refer to case evidence. Innocent people are going to gaol based upon circumstantial evidence.
          It is not about analysing case evidence, it is about attempting to work out what really did happen.
          We are expected to believe that Sue after murdering Bob and on her own winched Bob up from below and swung him over the side into the zodiac. Noise travels across water. Someone would have heard or seen something, especially under the cover of darkness.
          You are the one who is not able to analyse.

          • Felix says:

            Do you think that homeless people would by some strange coincidence take the dinghy that belonged to Four Winds, know how to start its motor, and then select the furthest boat out on the river (Four Winds) for burglary during daylight hours when they could be spotted?

            The boat was over 300 metres away from the shore. Have you tried yelling out to someone 300 metres away?

            Is there any evidence that a middle aged Gleeson knew or hung around young teenagers (Sam and Meaghan)?

          • Peter Gill says:

            Replying to Felix’s comment below:

            Meaghan’s evidence in court on Monday 1 March was that they rowed out to the Four Winds. The Advocate reported that fact on 2 March – it is available now on the internet. No starting of any motor in the Vass scenario.

            I think it was on Barbara Etter’s website (no longer available on the internet) that I read many years ago that a woman recognised Meaghan when she saw Meaghan in court as being one of the group of about 4 people that the woman had seen drinking and smoking beside a fire near the water’s edge at Sandy Bay late on that Australia Day evening.

            My belief is that group saw the dinghy nearby late that night, thought that going out to a yacht with no dinghy beside it (thus nobody aboard, one would think) was a good idea and ended up on the Four Winds.

            Alas Bob interrupted them, Meaghan vomited, one of the men took Meaghan in a red padded jacket ashore, Meaghan disposed of the jacket on the fence of the house in Margaret St.

            In passing, it would be bizarre for Sue to leave the jacket there if she had killed Bob – the location where the red jacket was found very strongly supports Meaghans’s story and is inconsistent with Sue being guilty.

            The dinner plate size of the deposit where Meaghan’s DNA sample was taken supports Meaghan’s repeated story about her vomiting. The size of the deposit is inconsistent with all other stories about how her DNA got there.

            I thought I’d explain above why you and I disagree about Sue. You seem to me to be a logical guy who has misanalysed this case. As for hoping you might change your mind one day – once an opinion is formed….. for most people, it is locked in, and will never change.

        • Geraldine Allan says:

          Briefly responding to question points: –
          1. Do you think that homeless people would by some strange coincidence take the dinghy that belonged to Four Winds, …?
          Yes, most particularly when it is a known fact that at least 2 of them had boating experience.

          2. The boat was over 300 metres away from the shore. Have you tried yelling out to someone 300 metres away?
          It wasn’t 300 metres if as was claimed they were already on Paul Wroe’s yacht.

          3. Is there any evidence that a middle aged Gleeson knew or hung around young teenagers (Sam and Meaghan)?
          Yes there is evidence, yet too long to detail here.

          • Felix says:

            You have a good imagination but poor analytical skills. Let me explain what I mean:

            – Meaghan left Mara House at 3:50 pm

            – Paul Conde saw a grey looking dinghy at 3:55 pm tethered to the portside of Four Winds

            – Meaghan couldn’t have possibly gotten from Mara House (7 km from the Yacht Club) to a dinghy and then to Four Winds in 5 minutes.

            – Who boarded Four Winds via the dinghy that was spotted by Mr Conde

            – The same dinghy was seen at the same location by another group at 5pm

            – neither Paul Conde nor his cousins, nor the second group of people saw anyone on Four Winds at 3:55 pm and then at 5pm.

            – if Bob was attacked by Sam as soon as Meaghan and her companions boarded Four Winds (as alleged by Meaghan) then whoever boarded Four Winds via the dinghy that was at Four Winds at 3:55pm had not attacked Bob. If that is so then the person who boarded via that grey dinghy would have contacted police informimg them that Bob was alive at 4pm. But no-one came forward to claim that he/she boarded Four Winds via a grey dinghy!

          • Felix says:

            Whoever boarded Four Winds via the grey looking dinghy that was at portside of Four Winds at 3:55 pm is/are the most likely murderer(s) of Bob. In other words, Bob wasn’t attacked by Sam at some time later.

  7. Noeline Durovic says:

    Dear Andrew, You establish each time you post evidence of fact of the reality of simple truth of misdirection by those we should be able to rely upon. Some Police and some in our placement for Justice ?..Tragically Susan Neil Fraser is to purgatory by this sad state of affairs. For from all fact s emerging despicably we are I believe, condemned by the untruths of manipulation of our Justice system by those whom have motives which now appear to be criminal Lies to manipulate by those whom wish and have an apparition to gain by condemning a slight figure of a woman to herculean divisive roles she committed a brutal murder. No less her life’s partner of many years, equal to her in they’re togetherness. As so realistically is advanced based on the evidence of the fact of the purchase of the yacht Four Winds by both Bob Chappell and Susan Neil Fraser.. It must be remembered they both purchased the yacht and dreamed to sail it together! That they lived together for years sharing their properties and family lives. Susan Neil Fraser never had a motive .This is assured this is as is! To make one up one to fit the lie she did; is the ugliness of police playing a man with a desperate past awaiting and being found guilty of the likely sentencing of a crime he may well is known to have committed. Reeks of a strong attempt and action to motivate the miserable lie committed as perjury to frame Susan Neil. A self serving far fetched story of a rave of years back.. Lies unsupported that, this disingenuous ‘Paragon of virtue -which he obviously was not! Phillip Triffectt’s self serving user and abuser for his ends against Susan Neil Fraser . For cooperating with Police of a lie for a ‘get out of jail free card’ of a further stint in jail he so obviously did not want to do..In plain language Tasmanian Police Officers sequestered to the matter fitted Susan Neil Fraser up with a despicable unrealistic farfetched motive of a whopper of a despicable lie and of course this then gave him a “get out of jail free out “.Did the crime but no time?. Now that is what I call criminal! Which you Andrew with many other facts have bought to us on notice – (as have others) that are just as harsh and condemn the relenting of framing an an innocent mild mannered grandmother of the brutal murder of her life’s partner..How wrong this all is?

  8. Carolyn Nuroo says:

    When is the appeal likely to be answered?

    • andrew says:

      Unknown. Unknowable. Judges can take months in reaching decisions in appeals. You would be forgiven for thinking that the criminal justice system should display a sense of urgency when considering an appeal….especially when the accused has been incarcerated for years. Justice demands it, but the system ignores it.

  9. Robin Bowles says:

    Chrissy’s comments reflect both the passion and the bias of the deep-seated public opinions for or against Neill-Fraser, that run fast and deep in Tasmania. No credible evidence has been presented in any court about anyone being ‘paid to make statements’. If Chrissy is aware of this taking place, with evidence to support her claim, she should immediately inform the police, as this is an offence and should be investigated.
    Two people have been charged with perverting the course of justice by police trying to shore up their case against Neill-Fraser. The judge presiding in one case, after the person charged has made one bail appearance every 33 days for five years (about 50 times of court time) waiting for the prosecution to be ‘ready’ to proceed, was told last week that those charges would ‘not be proceeded with’ . Her Honour was not impressed and let the prosecutor know it. The reason? Because the witness would not roll over, despite unbelievable pressure brought to bear on her over five years, and say what the police wanted her to say. In fact, coincidentally, just before the charges were dropped, this woman phoned the ‘chief culprit’ pressuring her from the police department, told him she was recording the call, denied everything yet again and dared him to put her in a witness box so she could tell the court how she was being treated and said she would ask her lawyer to play the recording to the court. Funnily enough, perverting justice was dropped at her next bail appearance. She has been on bail on this and other charges for 5 years. All other charges (5) except one were also dropped. What has happened to the expedition of justice in Tasmania? And why didn’t the media, who love to splash the bad news about this person and her tribulations, report the dropping of those charges? Pathetic! It takes this website to make this public.
    The second person is a lawyer who was working on the Neill-Fraser team, pro bono, who attempted to obtain identification from a prisoner of one of the men Meagan Vass said boarded Bob Chappell’s boat with her. This case is STILL before the court as well, after years and years of court appearances, obfuscations by the DPP’s Dept, cost to that lawyer of endless appearances, legal fees, destruction of his career, stress on his family, fleeing Hobart for interstate because of the reflection on his kids, etc, etc. I won’t say any more as this case is still before the court, but mark my words, if the Neill-Fraser appeal succeeds that case will quietly fade away as well.
    Re ‘hanging poor Meagan’ and your comment ‘unbelievable you cannot understand the role of a lawyer…’ I witnessed the DPP’s shredding of Meagan Vass in court during the latest appeal. The Director of Public Prosecutions has a job to do to represent the people. That is, Chrissy and me, along with others. Not to blindly hammer one side of a case above another, but to be fair and just and put an alternative to the court. He exceeded his authority in his cross-examination of Meagan Vass. It was obvious to all onlookers that it was a desperate attempt to totally discredit her because of the huge responsibility he had resting on his shoulders to protect those with skin in the game. Imagine what will happen if the Neill-Fraser appeal succeeds. He did his job exceedingly well for those he was protecting. Not his job as protector of truth and justice for the people. I will provide one example from many instances. He hounded Meagan Vass, who had become a quivering wreck under his barrage, so she was just answering yes, yes to all his questions. He accused her of ‘making up’ her story about being on the Four Winds just for 60 Minutes. Despite her answer’yes, yes’ to that question, her story was told to me about 4 years ago and was published in a widely circulated book about three years ago. The 60 Minutes story ran last year. I rest my case.

  10. Diane Kemp says:

    I came to learn about Sue an d was open minded at the start. However, the overwhelming amount of false so called evidence and assumptions were able to convince me that a poor investigation occurred an d an innocent woman was convicted of a crime. There are those in Tasmania who will continue to believe as Chrissy above does. These people will never be open to any other consideration apart from guilty. They support a broken system that does not seek the truth but seeks punishment and cases closed as a result. That people continue to walk around Tasmania having committed this crime does not worry or concern them. What price does a justice system pay when truth is thrown out the door???

  11. Rodger Warren says:

    Hi Andrew
    I am amazed the Judges in the second appeal of Sue Neil-Fraser have not yet reached a decision.
    I don’t understand what “Reserved their decision” means.
    I hope you can explain it to me.
    Take care
    Rodger Warren

    • Brian Johnston says:

      After a court case a judge or judges make a decision either right away or at some later date. A reserved decision is made at a later date, can carry on for months and possibly years. This is where it gets interesting. One would think that if the judges believe Sue is innocent they would make a quick decision to get her out.
      Based upon previous cases, the longer the judges take to make a decision in Sue’s case the more likely they will decide against her.
      Note: The judges cannot make a decision based upon personal opinion. They can only make a decision based upon evidence before them. The evidence in this case was Vass which has been ‘got rid’ of.
      I believe Sue will lose and the only way to help her is protests outside the courthouse. Scare the judges into somehow making the right decision.

  12. Chrissy says:

    Studying the case for 8 years.
    She was convicted 11 years ago and ever since then her supporters have tried every trick in the book to try and undermine the legal system including paying people to make statements, some being charged with perverting the course of justice.
    You all wanted to hang poor Meghan until the law changed for one last Appeal and since then you have all used and abused this poor girl. She was the star witness of the Appellant, not a witness for state yet you accuse the Crown prosecutor of terrible conduct. Unbelievable that you cannot understand the role of a lawyer in a case whether they are acting for the accused or for the prosecution.
    Bring on the Judgment because they will find the same result as the 12 jurors did – guilty – no compelling fresh evidence – no matter how much money has been paid.

    • andrew says:

      Unfortunately you may well be right and the appeal might be dismissed. It would prove what many believe: Tasmania’s legal establishment will not abide overturning this conviction. Not because the conviction is valid but because quashing it would expose too many reputations.
      Not sure what you mean by You all wanted to hang poor Meghan as you provide no examples or evidence. As with your other vague allegations about moneys being paid, ‘that which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’.
      But the most absurd aspect of your comment is this: She was convicted 11 years ago and ever since then her supporters have tried every trick in the book to try and undermine the legal system including paying people to make statements,. The system itself undermined the system – it didn’t need any help from ‘her supporters’. In short, your comment reads like a rant motivated by some animus – determined, like the establishment – to discredit Meaghan Vass and her testimony. Ironic, given your ‘poor Meaghan’ comment…
      I have published it so it can be addressed and assessed by other readers.

    • Brian Johnston says:

      A bit harsh Chrissy. You sound like you support Sue’s guilt. The pressure was put on Vass because it is believed she was and she said she was on the boat that night. It appears Vass fears for her life. If Sue is guilty why is Vass afraid?
      Vass is not afraid or made afraid by the defence. Vass is afraid of who/those she was with that night.
      A cop? interviewed Sue asking what time she left The Four Winds. I have forgotten the times lets say Sue said 3.30pm. The cop replied saying there was a dinghy tied up to the yacht at 4.00pm? Sue’s reply was “I must have left later” and that was the police ‘gotcha moment’. Sue did not know that the 4.00pm? dinghy was a different dinghy. I believe Sue was set up. Hence the reason why you should only answer police questions in the presence of your own lawyer. Sue was trying to be helpful and was unwittingly ‘driving nails into her own coffin’. The naivety of an honest woman? I think so.
      I hope when Sue is out they do a full length feature film on all this. A thriller.

      • SH says:

        Yes, Andrew.
        If one just follows the ’script’ (court transcripts, police notes etc), it’s completely obvious that the paper trail leads to an innocent for SNF & a guilty for the State of Tasmania, Police and Court, most Press etc.
        I came to the case completely unaware of Anything. I read EVERYTHING. I was totally shocked and haven’t stopped wondering if this side of ‘Beautiful Tassie’ is an unknown State belonging to any totalitarian Government or Communist Dictatorship… it doesn’t matter the truth, we will establish a different set of facts to fit our narrative, and you will go to jail and stay there? And we will block any form of anything exposing our fault in the matter, and we will raid your homes and steal your evidence, and any lawyer here who may stupidly think of helping you??? Well, they’ll have their reputation destroyed, their career plans in ruin, their families destroyed – we will smash your defiance of us and our right to rule as we see fit!!

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.