Former Premier & A-G calls for Sue Neill-Fraser case review

Former Tasmanian Premier and A-G, Lara Giddings, puts the case for a full review of the  Sue Neill-Fraser murder case, in a double page spread in the Hobart Mercury (Sept. 15, 2021), referring the public to the mass of damning new exculpatory evidence revealed in the Etter/Selby papers tabled in Parliament two weeks ago. 

By giving Giddings’ text such prominence and presentation, the Mercury has made it clear that it editorially supports her call for an independent review of the case – irrespective of the outcome of the appeal (which isn’t even mentioned).

Lara Giddings

“As one of those “crackpots”, let me assure you that this is not about needing my name to be known! This is about a woman who has spent 12 years in prison for a crime I believe, based on the material before me, she did not commit.”

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

10 Responses to Former Premier & A-G calls for Sue Neill-Fraser case review

  1. Geraldine Allan says:

    For those who subscribe to The Mercury online, comments are open if you feel so inclined to post.
    I attempted to post the direct link to the ETTER/SELBY papers; it didn’t pass the test, for whatever reason?
    https://www.themercury.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-tasmania/supporter-on-why-sue-neillfrasers-murder-case-demands-more-scrutiny/news-story/bccb30c407041ab24ecf8f56aec9868c

    • andrew says:

      Ahhahah, thank you andrea for sharing these (mostly) hilariously uninformed, misinformed, vainly malignant, marginally unhinged but lol comments; are you sure you didn’t make them up as part of some dark, sarcastic comedy routine to ridicule some of the public opinion doing the rounds? I think my favourite is “don’t get me started on her fake wheel chair they roll out every time she’s in public.” That’s black comedy Gold!

      • Geraldine Allan says:

        My adjectives are not as polite as yours Andrew.

        I won’t waste my keyboard fingers writing them, as under cover of decency you could not publish. I’ve already been on thin ice in recent times.

      • Andrea Housman says:

        Thank you for posting the link.

        I thought it was illustrative of other discussions going on. But I was dismayed that you thought I was making it up. I wasn’t. I can’t see any way to fake an independently verifiable thread unless rather a lot or work to set up all those accounts and avatars and so on is done.

        Another one I have been reading is https://twitter.com/DrCarlAUS which your readers may also be interested in exploring.

        If it is within the acceptable terms of your forum I might also contribute my own thoughts at some stage but first will be reading the “Etter/Selby” papers, the trial transcript, the Court of Appeal findings, the coroner’s report and the High Court judgement on the seeking of leave to appeal.

        • andrew says:

          No, I was joking about you making it up; obviously you were not. You are welcome to contribute your own thoughts.

          • Andrea Housman says:

            Among the many things written about the case and the evidence, I found one idea that I can’t see has been discussed here.

            Referring to both (a) the article in The Mercury newspaper, here:
            https://www.themercury.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts/no-blood-in-the-dinghy-sue-neillfraser-appeal-to-challenge-luminol-testing-claims/news-story/526441789e572fea36d242164d808d8b
            (b) the 60 Minutes interview.

            Note I’m using the newspaper article as a source for the statements made in the recent appeal conducted on 1-3 March 2021 as the transcript of it doesn’t seem to be published. Maybe it cannot be until the appeal is concluded.

            In the newspaper article several points are made by Richter, the counsel for the applicant. One was their case had abandoned the ground of appeal that the dinghy seen at the yacht on the night was not the yacht’s dinghy.

            The applicant’s witness, Vass, states several things: “We got on board the boat …obviously the boys had been robbing boats, whatever”.
            The report says Vass “couldn’t remember the specifics of the dinghy they used to get on the yacht”. Vass: “It was just an inflatable f***ing thing,”.
            The report: “Ms Vass said it was late in the afternoon but still daylight when the four rowed out to the Four Winds.
            Vass: “I stepped out of the dingy and onto the vessel. On the side. It was a big yacht.
            “They jumped on board … that’s when he saw Bob, Bob’s arced up. “

            In the 60 Minutes report at the 12 minute to 12 minute 30 second mark the interviewer asked “did you go back to shore while they were dealing with that, or stay on the boat?”
            Vass said “I must have gone back to shore , but can’t recollect how”.

            I vaguely recall another report quoting Vass that said, after the fight she was asked what she did and said words to etc effect of “I got out of there, f****ked off”. And said she didn’t know what happened to the others. But I cannot find this report anywhere.

            So the confusion arises.
            As per her evidence Ms Neill-Fraser left the boat that afternoon at some stage and did so using the yacht’s dinghy (leaving Mr Chappell onboard).

            The appeal abandoned the claim the dinghy on the night in question was not the yacht’s dinghy.

            It is clear from the description of events by the witness that she and the other males arrived on the one dinghy together: “we got on board…” and “…the specifics of the dinghy they used to get on the yacht”, and “they jumped on board”.

            So it seems that Vass left the yacht and unless she swam (in the trial she gave evidence she couldn’t swim) needed to take the dinghy they arrived in.

            So how did the others on board get off the yacht?

            Various options occur to me. Another person or persons came and collected her. And the dinghy in which they arrived was later used by the other males. Or vice versa. Vass took the dinghy and another person or persons came to collect the the other males. But this seems very unlikely. Vexing.

  2. Keith says:

    I just went to the Mercury’s online site to read Lara’s article. Oddly enough, it wasn’t there.

Leave a Reply to andrea housman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

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