Andrew L. Urban.
Evidence withheld by police, misleading forensic evidence and serious investigation failures into the death of Bob Chappell (including the unchecked mobile phone records of key witness Meaghan Vass) revealed in a damning submission calling for the Attorney General to ask for the re-opening of the Sue Neill-Fraser appeal.
“… certainly Meaghan Vass had some associations with some young male offenders, underage offenders, that have been in the past guilty from breaking into boat yards and stealing things off boats.” This statement by Detective Inspector Peter Powell (now retired), recorded on camera by filmmaker Eve Ash on 27 June, 2012, appears on the very first page of the submission to the Attorney-General.
It’s revealing, and it’s important because it is an admission that the police knew about break ins, break ins that they avoided making proper inquiries about. Bluntly this line of inquiry is so obvious that its neglect says a great deal about the problems with the police investigation.
It is also important because the police disclosed this to filmmaker Ash some 11 weeks before Neill-Fraser’s unsuccessful application to the High Court on a relevant issue. “This information ought to have been disclosed to both the DPP and the Defence teams.”
Most readers will be aware that Meaghan Vass has twice made sworn statements as to her being on the Four Winds on Australia Day 2009 and that Sue Neill-Fraser was not there. In one 2019 statement she named two males who were with her. However, when twice questioned in court she did not adhere to those statements.
The 55 page report analyses and dissects the police investigation into Meaghan Vass and what police knew or should have known and should have disclosed to the Crown and defence counsel. A vital issue underpinning the police investigation was the strong and large volume DNA sample of MV found on the deck of the yacht (at the crime scene).
The DNA as a supposed “red herring” was strongly advanced by the Crown at trial. But critical information that was included in an investigation folder prepared by then Detective Senior Constable Shane “Sam” Sinnitt was not disclosed to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP) prior to the trial. It includes an 18 March 2010 email from TASPOL Forensics on the nature of the Meaghan Vass DNA sample found at the crime scene on board Four Winds, that described the strong DNA profile as indicative of the presence of a relatively large amount of DNA, which was more likely to have come from body fluids than a simple contact/touching event. Hence she, not someone else, left it on the yacht.
The submission to Tasmania’s Attorney-General Elise Archer states: “From the trial transcript (see T 757 and 768), it is clear that the Crown had not previously seen the Sinnitt investigation folder. This non-disclosure is also evident from the investigator’s affidavit in another case as to the materials he forwarded to the ODPP for disclosure to the Sue Neill-Fraser legal team. This failure (and the lack of any explanatory detail in the relevant Forensic Biology Reports from 2009 and 2010) may explain why there was no mention of Vass or the DNA sample in the Crown’s opening address, no proof of evidence from her, and that she was not even listed as a witness (2010 trial T 689 & 767).
“An examination of the Crown Disclosure Folders (1-6 and Supplementary) (as supplied) indicates that the contents of [Police disclosure] Folder 13 [relating to Meaghan Vass] from Police were not disclosed. It also appears that neither of these Folder 13 documents were included in the Sinnitt investigation folder which was disclosed mid trial in 2010 after cross examination by David Gunson SC [who appeared for the accused] exposed its existence. This disclosure of the folder importantly occurred after the evidence of MV and Mr Grosser from FSST regarding the now critical DNA sample. ”
The submission, prepared by Neill-Fraser’s previous solicitor Barbara Etter APM and Canberra-based barrister Hugh Selby (who are not part of the current legal team but writing as concerned members of the public with an intimate knowledge of the case), “brings to light information that has not been presented to the court at any stage of the initial trial, subsequent appeals nor the latest appeal currently before the Court of Appeal,” the authors claim. This information relates to what is alleged to be a highly inadequate police investigation and non-disclosure by police.
Quite apart from the issue of who left Ms Vass’s DNA on the yacht the submission argues, with specific examples of what should have been done but wasn’t, that “TASPOL investigators in Operation Ransack (the operational name for the Sue Neill- Fraser murder investigation) failed to follow up basic and obvious lines of inquiry about Meaghan Vass [MV] and her known associate Sam Devine both prior to the Sue Neill-Fraser trial in 2010 and thereafter.”
THE IMPACT OF NON-DISCLOSURE
From the submission:
“The results of the non-disclosure of relevant material were that:
- The Crown, the Defence, and the trial judge were misled as to the availability to the SNF defence at trial of a viable (not ephemeral) alternative hypothesis, namely that a person or persons, not being Sue Neill-Fraser, caused Chappell’s disappearance (and presumed death).
- While the issue as to MV being on the yacht (she said she hadn’t been on the yacht) as argued in the Court of Appeal and later in the High Court did not amount, at that time, to a ‘point of substance’ (as found by the High Court in September 2012 on the leave to appeal application), it is clear from what follows that it was and is now a significant ‘point of substance’. The reason it was not a point of substance previously is because police were incompetent.
“The reason that Justice Blow and the subsequent Appeal Courts did not find the MV evidence sufficiently weighty to warrant her recall at the trial or thereafter to order a retrial is wholly and solely because of inexcusable police failure, first as to investigation and secondly by their lack of proper disclosure to the Crown.
“This paper demonstrates a point of substance that, if known at the time, would either have altered the trial outcome or been of great significance in any appeal.
- The police disinterest in Ms Vass may be explained by an early decision by them to discount any allegation that someone other than Sue Neill-Fraser was responsible for Chappell’s disappearance and presumed death. This approach required ignoring any suggestion that some other person or persons had gone aboard the yacht. The obvious reason for such an incursion would be to break in to take food, alcohol or any valuables. This decision should be considered in the context of the following:
10 January 2009 when Sue-Neil Fraser makes a diary entry about a possible break in or illegal access of the Four Winds;
27 January 2009 when Peter Lorraine has a phone chat with TASPOL officer Sinnitt and describes a dinghy that is NOT the Four Winds’ dinghy;
27 January 2009 when Grant Maddock, a local yachtsman living on his yacht in the vicinity of Four Winds, speaks with police at the low loading dock at Constitution Dock. He speaks to Conroy [who was in charge of the investigation] (and even emails him photos of the Four Winds immediately prior to that day – T 199 leave to appeal hearing 1 November 2017) but Conroy never contacts him again (see leave to appeal hearing T 198-199 and 205 1 November 2017);
28 January 2009 when Phillip Triffett contacted police ‘providing information about the yacht and Ms Fraser’ (see Police Investigation Log);
31 January 2009 when Peter Lorraine meets Conroy who has him sign up to a statement that has him seeing the Four Winds’ dinghy. Sinnitt’s contemporaneous notes of Lorraine’s initial evidence that describe a very different sort of dinghy were available to Conroy;
4. Thereafter police have the crime scene/forensic document examiner provide inconsistent statements (see Appendix C to [their] paper) in an effort to substantiate a claim that Sue Neill-Fraser had ‘doctored’ her diary to insert a false ‘break in’ claim.”
The lengthy and detailed submission by Etter & Selby provides a helpful chronology and itemises investigation failures into the disappearance and presumed death of Bob Chappell, whose body has never been found. Some of the failures listed include:
“His life partner was convicted of his murder because the police:
Failed to make any inquiries among the locals and boaties about theft from moored boats. If they did make inquiries then they failed to disclose them. But by June 2012 they admit to knowledge of her associates and their theft from boats (see above);
Allowed the Crown to suggest at trial that the accused had ‘fabricated’ an entry in her diary about unauthorised access to the Four Winds just a couple of weeks before the Australia Day tragedy when they knew that their forensic evidence did not support that suggestion, and when they should have known, and perhaps did know, about the pilfering from boats;
Put it about that the teenage Vass’ DNA was left there by someone else via secondary transfer when they should have known that it was left by her;
Gave incomplete and misleading evidence at trial that Chappell’s blood was in the yacht’s dinghy.
A key concern highlighted is the lack of independence of Forensic Science Service Tasmania (FSST) which is corroborated by the conduct of one of their staff at the trial who failed to mention that all the tests done in that laboratory showed that there was no blood in the yacht’s dinghy. “The Police Investigation Log (PIL) for 16 April 2009 records comments of this scientist that the tests for blood in the dinghy “did not work” [which implies the tests were negative for blood, not positive. There were no positive results]. The improper collaboration between TasPol and FSST is further shown by September 2014 correspondence from Barbara Etter that raised bona fide technical questions addressed to the Director of FSST being dismissively replied to by a senior member of police command.”
The Etter/Selby submission puts forward a number of questions that support the charge of incompetence around the police investigation – here are just some of them:
- Why is there no supervision, management or leadership evident in this matter? (An RTI request by Etter in 2012 revealed that there were no written records of any directions given by senior officers during the investigation and no records of a briefing of the Commander by the lead Detective as noted on the Investigation Log for 2 March 2009 as the briefing was verbal and there were no written records. When notes or records of other key briefings were requested, advice was provided to Etter that no records were kept of such meetings and the decisions had been recorded on a whiteboard i.e. “no permanent record exists”).
- Where are the necessary file notes, diary entries, policy files and critical decision logs (or similar)?
- What further guidance or advice was given to Sinnitt by FSST personnel?
- If secondary transfer (of the Vass DNA) was a possibility why was there no questioning of those documented as coming on board the Four Winds as to how they may have come into contact with a significant biological sample (urine, vomit, blood etc) belonging to MV? (See 2010 trial T 788 for 30 September 2010)
- Why is there no analysis of the outcomes of the investigation by Sinnitt?
- Why is there no investigation report or even a memorandum to more senior officers in Operation Ransack?
- Why is there no memorandum or report for the ODDP on the issue?
- What Quality Assurance (QA) or review of the investigation into MV and the DNA took place? What QA or independent review was undertaken of Operation Ransack?
- Why are the relevant staff and residents of Mara House not spoken to about when MV returned to Mara House on 27 January 2009 (as noted by Sinnitt) and her condition, state of mind, any comments on where she had been etc?
- Why was there not further investigation when the address she had given for the evening at Mt Nelson was found to be a non-existent address?
- Why were mobile phone records of Sam Devine not checked when he and MV were known associates and his mobile number was on record in January 2009?
- Why were mobile phone records of MV for the number clearly listed in the disclosure folder including on a Detention record in February 2010 not checked?
- Why were the identified owners of the three mobiles that texted the Meaghan Vass mobile number on 26 and 27 January (that was checked by police) not spoken to and asked the reason for their contact with MV?
- Why was Sam Devine not investigated when he was a documented criminal associate of MV (in January 2009), particularly when Mara House records indicated that MV was spending the night at Sam’s place?
- Why did police claim that the diary entry of Sue Neill-Fraser for 10 January 2009 in relation to unlawful trespass and interference with the yacht was false?
- Why did they continue with this allegation in light of the statement of forensic document examiner Constable Tony Fox dated 4 March 2009 prior to trial re document examination?
- Why were people living on the Marieville Esplanade foreshore or on their yachts in the vicinity of the Four Winds on the night in question (such as Grant Maddock) not carefully and thoroughly questioned about their observations, movements and any information about theft, trespass and break-ins, as well as the theft of dinghies?”
From the submission:
The High Court’s decision in Penney v R  HCA 51;(1998) 155 ALR 605; (1998) 72 ALJR 1316 is instructive, especially the following, from the leading judgment of Callinan J who discussed the significance of a “defective” police investigation:
…there may be cases in which deficiencies in the investigation might be of such significance to a particular case as a whole that the accused will be entitled to an acquittal or a retrial. But that will all depend on the facts of the particular case.
“Regard should also be had to the High Court decision in AB v CD and others, 2018 HCA 58, This decision is illuminating because, inter alia, the full court said,
Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system…
“They were considering the case of a defence solicitor in Melbourne turned police informant; however, the remarks have a somewhat wider application. Penney’s time may be nigh.”
TheEtter/Selby submission asserts that the police deficiencies described in their paper combine “to realise the facts to which Justice Callinan was referring as justifying at least a retrial, and possibly an acquittal. His Honour’s dicta have been cited in cases around Australia, including in Tasmania by (the trial judge, now Chief Justice) Blow CJ in Pike v Lusted  TASSC 46 at . ”
- Many of our readers have previously remarked in the context of the Sue Neill-Fraser case, that “the truth will out”; it seems an appropriate note on which to end this report.
My second case study in Tasmania was more corrupt police.
As a taxi driver, assaulted one night, strangled by a known bully from Sandy Bay with police protection.
Detectives interviewed the taxi command centre radio operator; I called on radio after the attack and the operator called the police.
Duringbbthe interview a detective asked the other detective, should she take details. The senior detective said no.
The radio room operator told me this, as he thought that was very strange.
No details, no recorded interview. The police denied the assault took place and tried to tell me it didn’t happen. I have written about this before.
The detective constable threatened to arrest me. I said he attacked me.
No he didn’t, yes he did. No he did’t, yes he did. No he didn’t, yes he did. And the detective sergant said if you keep talking to him like that I will arrest you. I said FUCK OFF. I was arrested within a day or two.
Tasmania is depraved. And that means you Premier and your Government and the Opposition too. Depraved Cowards. Compromised and paralysed with fear from the ” faceless men”, the “old boys club”.
My experience in Tasmania clearly can prove the depravity of Tasmania.
From a simple but life shattering illegally parked loaded semi trailer in a quaint historic village with early starts , warm up and drag the load out, outside my residence every morning, I mean 4.00am. Neighbour. Paddocks across the road.
The years it took, the journey to the office of the Leader of Opposition, who told me Tasmanian Police Force was too corrupt to do anything about.
The trouble we had over the years with locals, and the corrupt protectionism from all authorities was mind blowing.
If ” they” go all out against an environmental noise complaint what can we expect from any other issue.
I would suggest the Governor General to look closely at Tasmania;
Following the submission of this report, the following steps are to pressure the A-G to do her job, or step down. This has to be a coordinated pressure from all supporters of Sue. Letters have to come from everywhere, simultaneously. This is our chance, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, to make this as public as possible. For those in Twitter please follow @freesueneillf and those in Instagram @freesueneillfraser.
Letter to the editor, media releases etc… lets keep the momentum going!
Anyone on Facebook can send her a message on Facebook Messenger. That way ou can see if she read it.
My message asked her to be a hero and act accordingly. Read, but no reply, perhaps I am being optimistic!
Somewhat out of left field here, I’ll comment more specifically later.
For now, a thought that comes to mind out of the overall apathy of elected representatives (to the public eye that is) is … at the very least is some form of mechanism where citizens can raise issues and concerns about the suitability of a person to hold a “high office”.
Imagine a tribunal independent of Government interference where a member of the public could raise concerns over the suitability of that person to hold a specific office. ✅
Considering that publicans can be banned from holding a liquor license; so what if anyone who was in cabinet or shadow cabinet had to endure the same efficacy/suitability for office test?
*And she dreams on …
You mean something like the recall mechanism in the US – such as the one Governor Newsome is facing in California? Love it!
I’m meaning any process that opens up accountably for suitability for role & function of specific office.
I’m over-tired of the rhetoric and lack of accountability & transparency. Dismissing genuine citizen concern over valid matters is unacceptable.
I really like that idea, awfully needed in this country
I am totally astounded that the Tasmanian Attorney General has not intervened in this case. One has to wonder why.
‘Justice is not the business of the courts’ so was I informed by Judge Benjamin (Federal Courts 2007) when I asked this question of him. ‘Our work is only the application of law’ (as perceived by our convenient and narrow interpretation).
So speaks the self-interested complacency of a judge on a cosy public service salary, conditions, superannuation and buddies with the entire bureacracy (police, prosecutorial branch, lawyers and MP’s). The ethos of the boys’ club culture in the Department of Justice and the stated instruction to new employees is ‘to keep your head down’ to retain your comfy position and retire on great wealth. The system is geared toward collective croneyism and corrupt behaviour being financially rewarded. Once my case hit Melbourne it was described by QC’s as clearly showing “money was changing hands” within the Tasmanian Justice system. Anyone feeding from the pig’s trough will not risk losing their financial benefits by betraying or exposing corruption, including, I fear, the Attorney-General. Why lose a government pension for the sake of justice for one?
We need to go beyond the State Justice System. All appeals will fall on deaf ears.
Owen, thanks for speaking up.
Im sorry, the “evil3” got to you.
Yes suevis a pokitical prisoner, but so is over 200 others in that Risdon Prison.
They have a Political agenda, and what they do to you innthere is horrible.
We are speaking out! For those silenced now.
Please go to commonlaw earth and help us speak out for those silenced by razor wire and cement walls.
“We the people, cannot be silent anymore, as “silence on a known crime, is complicity” and “false imprisonment” is rampant in the state of Tas.
We intend to talk with victims of this criminality, document the wrong doing, and act with those who want to reclaim their innocence back.
Im sorry, u endured this, as has susan.
Tassie hug, for your courage and for soeaking out too.
Criminals in silence, get to do their best work.. but, thats not on!.
Oaths to serve must be protected, so the innocent are protected.
I want our Tassie back, where integrity came before money.
Hope life treats you better owen, as to Susan to.
Goodness, A ground of appeal, is that the Judges were in Treason, on the dares, of Conviction and sentencing.
Stop talking about the case, and start talking about “how the case was run in the courts”.
The Tasmanian Judicial system, is corrupt, and Politically twisted, in an Incestuous twine of criminality.
She is a political prisoner, and the case being rejected is because, you are not allowed to actually persue witnesses, yourself, for this very reason, she looks pushed into confessing, however, we know she wasnt, its still a legitimate claim by judges, and good judges would have to call out this type of behaviour. Look i understand the need to get that confession, but at what point was it forced.
The stupidness of this, is the DNA of Meagans was there at trial, and time for ger case, should not gave been wasted in the State of Tasmania.
Justice for Susan will come soon, as the criminals will be bought to accountability, by “we the people”.
But the “belief, of the family, being, yrusting, of lawyers whom have milked the pot, and i mean those of The prosecutors as well. What money has this case generated for those in Black Cloaks and white wigs?.
Seriously, its still a cash cow for them.
They are criminal, a “doubt exists”.
Look at the guy who murdered mrs delios, 2 years, 39 stab wounds and still he dragged her to the safe at ger shop, by her hair, to get the safe opened, what, hes allowed out shopping, long weekend in june, yep they wrote of this to Mrs Delios family. Oh, mentally impaired so hes not of sound mind… Seriously, so now, hes free to roam, to hurt another, by whom, those judges in Tasmania.
Yes, i call them the “Criminal, Incestuous Judicial system” “evil3, White wigged, blue suited and Dpp”
Our Government has cast Appartide, upon its citizens, and from the routes of criminality, such as this Misprison, of the dear lady.
May god have mercy on their souls, when they answer for this “Judicial Treason”.
“We the people of Tas, will see that Treason Act, used very soon, and Susan is in our hearts, as a “politically persecuted persons”.
Join our Commonlaw earth, Tasmanian Magna Carta/UK billof rights group.
Join in every state, and speak up.
They stole this grandmother, mum and daughter, and over 200 others in that state, to ensure their wicked PayPackets.
It stops with, “we the people” as “silence is complicity, and the treasonous, shall see the treason tree.
Thanks for your passion Sandra. You seem to think, if I’m not mistaken, that Sue Neill-Fraser had confessed: she did the exact opposite, she strongly maintained her innocence.
I hope ,by now, everybody knows how I feel.
I have experienced Tasmania Injustice, not once only, but twice.
Fortunately the first experience is documented in a State Enquiry.
The second is well documented with lawyer and police files, but one police file disappeared after requesting a copy by my lawyer.
I guess my experiences are now to support SNF and the next person to be screwed over,
but I was in the fight; and SNF has made it worse and more serious.
I put the question.
WHAT DO THEY WANT if not JUSTICE?
This analysis is so devastating against the trial procedure that one loses all faith in the Tasmanian justice system and the integrity and competence of the police. Yet Powell seems to admit they screwed up the investigation. Meantime an innocent woman is incarcerated for nearly 15 years because the justice system including the police dared not lose face over their incompetence. What country are we living in?
Given the revelations held in the above, this may well provide insight into the suspension of Ms. Barbara Etter’s lawyer practicing certificate.
My below comments pertains to a different case matter, yet this comment is an important insight wherein the following delivers a substantial point of concern to all who dwell in Tasmania, both the people and this State’s brotherhood of legal professionals.
The link below demonstrates how a lifetime proud professional career can be destroyed by a small handful of others who are charged with delivering pristine natural justice.
(Some may prefer to say, there ain’t no such State-born critter in this State.)
Ms. Barbara Etter was alleged to be withholding documents sought by police relating to a separate case matter. Ms. Etter had declined, shortly thereafter a decision against the integrity of Ms. Etter, the State’s Legal Tribunal (SLT) had canceled the practicing certificate of Ms. Etter.
Ms. Barbara Etter is a person with a proud whole of life’s career professional reputation… that many of Tasmanian past and present practicing legal professionals could only dream of.
In my own estimation, the action of the State’s Legal Professional Board had been a premeditated action to smear the fine character and the excellent reputation of Ms. Etter.
One must realize the reality of Cronyism rife in the State of Tasmania.
Beware the judicial old boys club.
I hope Sue, that you are warmed by the knowledge that we are even yet trying to reverse this ongoing miscarriage of justice. You can see that there are those of us who, as long as we live, will never give up. Sorry that our efforts have so far failed. We many of us have tried this and we have tried that … letters, vigils, comments, meetings, groups, research, court attendances, prison visits, car stickers & badges, songs, cartoons … and so forth.
Thank you Sue for not buckling and for the support that you have given your fellow inmates – we hear from them and they speak highly of you. Thank you for your gracious letters in which you respond with easy dignity and fellow respect to those who write to you. We see the warmth that the court and prison officers show to you, when you attend hearings in Hobart.
Thank you to my fellow supporters for keeping the ‘Justice for Sue’ flag aloft, and to your family and our editor, and further, to others: pro-bono legals; thank you too, Lynn Giddings, you have been unstinting in your support for Sue … and thank you too, Barbara Etter who has contributed much and is still working hard to keep alive the issue of ‘Justice for Sue‘.
I hope we can also find ways to support Jeff Thompson, a lawyer caught up in the police/Crown machinations which seek to keep the lid on the failed investigation into Bob Chappell’s disappearance. To do so, they seek to keep Sue convicted and they seek – perversley in my opinion – to convict Jeff. Justice for Jeff!
Very well put together Garry. Must mean a lot to those who have gone beyond their day to day responsibilities in support of SNF. Strength to Sue though for maintaining such decent people around her. An incredible capacity to maintain a dignity, a sense of humour and a resilience during her incarceration. Thank you.
Agree, ‘Justice for Jeff’, cut down while only seeking the truth. Another notch, in the persecution saga of any person of integrity working to right the huge miscarriage of justice blighting our state, the wrongful conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser. Thanks Garry for acknowledging the widespread efforts in support of Sue.
Thank you Garry for putting into words how we who support Sue feel. The blatant injustice that has occurred is almost beyond belief, except Sue remains in prison as proof of it. I totally agree that the case against Jeff has remained pending because the decision has not yet been made for Sue. That makes this a double disgrace. If you add Barbara Etter into the mix, that makes it triple.
That this has been allowed to continue in Tasmania over various governments fills me with disgust. That not one person over that time has spoken up and questioned the decision is unbelievable. One must believe that there is a powerful core group who intend to continue to run Tasmania in this way. God help those who live in the state under these conditions as I expect it is very hard to speak out when the fear of what might happen is present.
Sue – we will never give up the fight to have this overturned and have you released, exonerated, compensated and back with your family. An investigation to prevent this ever occurring again must then follow.
This whole case is a quagmire of failure, deliberate obfuscation and fear-mongering. Meanwhile a woman in the autumn of her life rots in prison, waiting, waiting, for justice to finally be done. How does she recapture all of those lost years, due to everything detailed above, and more.? It’s a total disgrace and in an effort to minimise damage and cover up incompetence ( or worse) others lives, apart from Sue Neill-Fraser’s, have also been ruined beyond repair. Shame, Tasmania! Those in charge of the law have demonstrated in this case ( and others) that you are still a petty little penal colony where the Rule of Law and Due Process are held up to ridicule and contempt!
Robin My heart goes out to you and your family and mum.
I have asked many times to offer up proof, of treason, and “judicial criminality”.
Happy to supply more, and our actions now, lead us on a path of Taking our State hack, from those whom have sat in those courts in judgement of others, unqualified and not under our Oaths to serve.
A doctor, not under his oath, is disbarred. Mums case, was a “show” no more than a theatre of actors.
Yep, in the state of Tasmania, they disclosed this “trivial” point… And said it was ok… No its not and every case needs to have “turn key” actions to free, every Jailed persons.
Sadly one case of misconduct, undoes every case, whom that judge precided Over, so, no one has seen the ramifications as I, and my disclosures and evidence offered to you, have gone on deaf ears, to your family.
May god be with mum, and she be free soon.
I am contactable, i have disclosed all id below, and you are welcome to contact me. Look outside mums case, at the “judicial criminality” and proove “the unjustness of the kaws used on mums”.
Sadly, dont focus on the incident, mum still needs to grieve bob, and focus on her rights to a “just judicial process”.
We know mum didnt do it, so forget the public, walking the streets, etc, the jydicial system are simply not going to listen to that, they are heartless, red wined, and drunk through most cases
Mums a “political prisoner” and we hold the “turn key”
Heres a tassie hug, and we shall see, truth for mum and 200 others…
The submission includes (in its chronology) details of an event that was the subject of a complaint by me to the Integrity Commission, concerning Asstnt Police Commissioner Richard Cowling, who made a misleading statement to the media in 2019. The submission puts it very gently:
“25 Feb: MV makes a fresh affidavit (for the 60 Minutes TV program) stating that she was on the boat with Stephen Gleeson and Sam Devine and that a violent assault took place. Sue Neill-Fraser was not on the boat.
10 March: 60 Mins MV interview airs on TV (but not in Tasmania)
11 March: Tasmania Police, via Assistant Commissioner Richard Cowling, makes a public statement which is picked up by local and national media. Cowling stated that MV’s latest police interview (she had been ‘picked up by police’) was contrary to her statements on 60 Mins. (This report is not substantiated by MV’s subsequent court appearance.)”
That appearance was on April 18. I included a link to the transcript of it in my complaint to the Attorney General, on 10 May, 2019. Here is our story:
If past performance is any indication of future performance, little will happen and the report will disappear into the ether.
Continuous pressure needs to be applied to the A-G until a response is publicly forthcoming.
Finally can the whole truth be revealed to all.