Tas Govt ignores calls for a review, petition climbs over 32,300

Andrew L. Urban

Requests to the Tasmanian Premier and Attorney-General for comment on the Etter/Selby documents repudiating the police investigation into Bob Chappell’s disappearance tabled in Parliament last August have been ignored, while signatures on the petition calling for a review of Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction for Chappell’s murder have soared to over 32,300.

Documents seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court were lodged on Sue Neill-Fraser’s behalf in January 2022.

The high number of signatures on the petition (highest for Tasmania) has prompted several letters and a news story in the Hobart Mercury (June 7, 2022), in which reporter Amber Wilson writes:

Neill-Fraser has now been locked up at the Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison for nearly 13 years for murdering her partner Bob Chappell on Australia Day, 2009.

Key supporter Rosie Crumpton-Crook said the change.org petition was started by filmmaker Eve Ash, who also recently launched a podcast, Who Killed Bob?

She said the podcast, plus television series Undercurrent, which featured the case, had led to a recent jump in signatures.

The petition calls for an independent inquiry, or a commission of inquiry, into Neill-Fraser’s conviction, claiming her case was a miscarriage of justice.

Ms Crumpton-Crook said Neill-Fraser was unlikely to apply for parole. (She will be eligible in August 2022)

“She’s certainly said that to me in letters. She’s more concerned with clearing her name rather than being released from prison,” she said.

Earlier this year, wrongfulconvictionsreport had twice requested both the Attorney-General and the new Premier to comment on whether they had read or been briefed on the extensive documents provided by former Neill-Fraser lawyer Barbara Etter and Canberra barrister Hugh Selby that reveal serious deficiencies in the investigation and even evidence withheld. We pointed out that until the High Court engages with the application, this matter is not before any court and the Attorney-General is free to announce if a review is to be held.

Our requests for a comment have been ignored.

 

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

65 Responses to Tas Govt ignores calls for a review, petition climbs over 32,300

  1. Owen allen says:

    Wow, what a blog; all we want is Justice, release Sue Neill- Fraser now.
    A Federal Criminal Case Review Commission; Federal Investigation Tasmania, and
    the other victims mentioned for justice on this blog. God Bless the falsely accused, and innocent victims of crime.
    I pray in JESUS name, for Australia. (Jesus Lives).

  2. William Sullen says:

    Comment rejected ……As we have stated, we no longer publish comments that rehash hypotheticals, arguments and assumptions about when and how Meaghan Vass deposited her DNA at the crime scene on the Four Winds yacht. The matter has been exhaustively discussed on this blog for years. We have repeatedly stated that those wishing to ’keep Vass off the boat’ do so to try and protect the conviction. We have repeatedly stated that any suggestion she was not an eye witness to the events on board is irrational, illogical and impossible to justify.

  3. Ron Holland says:

    Comment rejected; defamatory.

  4. Chris M says:

    Garry Stannus,

    Email address could not be verified. Comment removed.

    • Chris M says:

      Comment rejected ……As we have stated, we no longer publish comments that rehash hypotheticals, arguments and assumptions about when and how Meaghan Vass deposited her DNA at the crime scene on the Four Winds yacht. The matter has been exhaustively discussed on this blog for years. We have repeatedly stated that those wishing to’ keep Vass off the boat’ do so to try and protect the conviction. We have repeatedly stated that any suggestion she was not an eye witness to the events on board is irrational, illogical and impossible to justify.

    • Garry Stannus says:

      Thank you, Editor: please accept the following [June 16, 2022 at 5:57 pm ] comment of mine which dealt with some of the issues raised by Chris M or Donald … whoever that person is:

      I beg everyone’s pardon: When meaning to use the name of the person to whom I was responding, towards the end of my comment, I inadvertently referred to that person as ‘Gordon’, instead of as ‘Donald’, which is the name under which the person had posted.

      By the way, the other difficulty with Vass’s evidence at the 2nd Appeal, was that she said it was just a few metres from the shore to the Four Winds

      COATES -when the four of you rowed out to the – rowed out to the – the yacht, um how – you said I think before that you went on the first yacht that you came to is that the case?
      VASS……..Yes. Yes.

      COATES -So, was that fairly close to shore?
      VASS……..Yes.

      COATES -20 metres off shore?
      VASS……..I’d say so, yes.

      Look, Vass had disintegrated under Coates’ questioning. It was not pretty to see. It seemed as if he must have known what he was doing to her. It seemed that she had no actual memory of much of what she said she’d been involved in. I felt that she may have been there on the yacht, but that it is possible that she arrived by different means … by means that she wasn’t willing to divulge and that she was with someone who was not Sam Devine. I don’t understand why she has been willing to name Devine.

      There was a ‘teenage thief’ who was of a similar age to Meaghan Vass. ‘Deep Throat’ [see: pp 218-219 of Southern Justice] said that ‘teenage thief’ had been associating with Vass back in 2009 and had been stealing from yachts for many years. He was also (according to ‘Deep Throat’) known to wear gloves when he was thieving. ‘Deep Throat’ told McLaren that on one occasion he had seen stolen boat and yacht parts at the teenage thief’s house.

      It is believed by some that the ‘teenage thief’ was Vass’s boyfriend at the time – not Devine. The identity of the teenage thief is known. He is a person who had access to various watercraft, including dinghies. That is, he was ‘mobile on the river’. He had a criminal history from when he was young and subsequently served time in prison. The crimes for which he was ultimately imprisoned were for breaking into and stealing equipment from vessels that were at moorings and were at the time unoccupied.

      His name has never been mentioned in these fora in relation to Neill-Fraser/Vass. However it is known. From some of those cryptic comments that Dtv. Inspector Peter Powell (retd.) has made, it seems likely that in relation to this case, his name was known to the police as being associated with vessel break-ins at the time.

      I do not know the identity of ‘Deep Throat’. I do know the identity of the ‘teenage thief’. All these suggestions that I have made are not uninformed, though we in the public arena might never know if they are correct. I’ve read and heard evidence given, and have collected an amount of material which has led me to think that Meaghan has possibly a different story to tell, but how can she tell it? There is the one she has told, and then there is her recantation.

      I believe that we are not hearing the whole truth, over all these years. I wonder if that from the police and from the prosecution and from Meaghan herself, we are – largely – only aware of what it has suited those bodies – and Meaghan – to release/use at trial, in court etc.

      The upshot is that regardless of what the High Court will do, regardless of what the cops and the robbers might tell us at some future date, we need a dispassionate Inquiry, Now!

      We need an Inquiry that can – in an inquisitorial rather than adversarial manner – determine what it needs to hear and who it wants to hear from. Not within the strictures of the trial/appeal courts. We should all be able to make our own submissions to such an Inquiry. We need to know the truth. And it needs to be done in the open, not in the secrecy of our ICT:

      New research has found the Integrity Commission Tasmania is one of the weakest anti-corruption bodies in Australia, with polling revealing nearly one in two Tasmanians distrust the current Commission’s ability to uncover and prevent misconduct in politics and public administration.10 Mar 2022
      [ https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/tassie-corruption-body-a-toothless-tiger-research/ ]

      We need to know the truth and there are – in my view – reasonable grounds for doubting the so-called ‘proven facts’, as articulated by DPP Tim Ellis and determined by Justice Blow at trial:

      She’s walking backwards and forwards and delivers blow – a blow or blows, or maybe stabs him with a screwdriver, I don’t know, he doesn’t look round, and so the body doesn’t have any marks of what you’d expect if someone had come down there, a stranger, intent on doing him harm, the body I suggest would have marks consistent only with being delivered by someone who he knew to be there, who he knew and expected to be behind him.
      [Tim Ellis SC (then-DPP), in closing: https://tasmaniantimes.com/2014/09/the-sue-neill-fraser-trial-transcript/ ]

      and

      The Director of Public Prosecutions suggested that Ms Neill-Fraser killed Mr Chappell by hitting him to the head with a heavy wrench from behind. It is quite likely that that is what happened, but I do not consider that the evidence is sufficient for me to make detailed findings as to the manner of the attack. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Neill-Fraser attacked Mr Chappell, and that he must have been either dead or deeply unconscious when his body was hauled up onto the deck, manouevred into the tender, taken away and dumped.
      [Blow J, in his sentencing comments: http://netk.net.au/Tasmania/SentencingRemarks.pdf ]

      I don’t know what the High Court will make of Sue’s application for leave to appeal against her failed 2nd appeal. If the HC were to send Neill-Fraser back to a retrial, I’d guess that any jury (if one with unformed views could be found) … I would expect that she would be found to be ‘not guilty.

      Meanwhile, Andrew, a further scene is playing out … a lawyer – from the Neill-Fraser side of things – is now after some years at the beginning of his trial for something like ‘attempting to pervert justice’. Oh, for goodness sake. They did it to Karen Keefe and then ultimately bailed out …(did you like the pun?) and they did it to Gleeson … and he ‘read the tea leaves’, rolled over and pleaded ‘not guilty’ but then guilty because he said he was advised that he’d get a better chance of parole on an unrelated jail sentence for a violent assault … I’m not making this up, Andrew: you know it to be true … I’m only writing it because perhaps some of your readers don’t know all of what has been taking place, down in Tassie.

      It’s slow … but it’s year after bloody year. Meanwhile men and women are creaming the dollars from the legal purse … driving their Mercedes and all that sort of stuff.

      And there we remain, Editor: on some sort of insane merry-go-round, on which various players are engaged in legal Whac-A-Mole and in which Truth gets a hammering.

      If you’ve read this far, then I’d be grateful if you’d listen to / watch the following song … ‘Vincent’ at
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wrNFDxCRzU
      (I hope if there are preliminary ads … that you will wait till they finish)

      • William Sullen says:

        Garry, your own speculations are further from the generally accepted truth than the speculation at the trial as to how Bob was attacked and with what. An inquiry cannot determine the truth unless the killer or a witness to the killing can tell where in the river was Bob’s body disposed off. It id obvious that Vass cannot provide the answer.

      • Owen allen says:

        Garry, regarding memory, or memory loss. From my own experience, stress, anxiety undermines memory. Such as long term anxiety, eg, children living in high stress home environments have trouble learning. Not dumb, slow learners because concentration levels are disturbed. How do I know? Because I was a child of learning in the highest stream at High School, Latin if you please; so I had IQ, but I could not learn fast enough and when I asked my 3rd Form school master, maths teacher for help (because I wanted to be a pilot, Mother said I have to be good at maths) he ridaculed me; so my education from there on in Iwas reading motorcylce magazines. I had anxiety from early child hood and still suffer. My personal therapy is fight the fight.
        Now I was so traumatised with anxiety after facing court, from the cells, I could not even remember my lawyers name. Fair dinkum. So Sue Neill-Fraser and Meaghan Vass can not be condemned for anything said under court pressure or investigative pressure under their circumstances where Sue was not represented, and Meaghan was terrorised in court, and yes I suckered to the invite, just want to ask you a few questions, and with video, no lawyer present, dogs they are dogs.

        • Garry Stannus says:

          Thanks, Owen, for your comment. I appreciate it because you have spoken directly to me, you have not used capitals (i.e. ‘shouting’) and you have raised the factors of stress and anxiety … and concentration.

          I’ve wanted to avoid online contact with you because of the way that you write and what you say. You see, of course, when you first told us how you were sent to prison for playing a guitar at Salamanca … of course I looked it up.

          You have been honest in the way that you have given your name, and you have not hidden behind fake names and that sort of stuff. I appreciate that.

          On the other hand, reading the court explanation of its decision on your case, I have thought that you were ‘in the wrong’. I don’t want to go into the details, I don’t want to turn this comment into some sort of ‘fighting ground’ or an attack on you.

          You’ve been pretty clear … you’ve cited issues indicating mental unhealth. I’m sorry for that. I am. I don’t want to challenge you about that.

          Glad you did a bit of Latin … so did I. When I was in secondary school, I had a text book in which a previous student had written (for in those days text-books were on-sold for the next years crop of students):

          Latin is a language,
          as dead as dead can be,
          Latin killed the Romans
          and now it’s killing me!’.

          [and someone else later inscribed in the same book:
          If this book should tend to roam…
          then box its ears and send it home!
          ‘]

          We agree that the many of the lawyers are crying … all the way to the bank. And there are a few p0liticians (yes, there are some) … there are few politicians who do not succumb to the pressures of party dictates and apparently … about the fears about the next election.

          Owen, you have written to me in a measured, thoughtful way. Thank you for that. We both would like Sue to be released. We both would like to learn what happened on that 26Jan2009 night.

          We would both like for a spotlight to be shone on the whole Tasmanian justice system. Through Sue’s case, I have become aware of what seems to me to be indicative of legal cynicism, of corruption and so forth. So, Owen, thanks for your comment to me – Garry.

          PS: Instead of ‘shouting’, you could learn to format your comments on Andrew’s blog:
          To italicise, use angle brackets to enclose the letter ‘i’ and at the end of what you want italicised use the same angle brackets ” but in them enclose a ‘slash’ before the ‘i’: that is: ‘/i’. Starts with i, finishes with /i

          You can make your text bold on Andrew’s blog by the same method, just you need to substitute ‘b’ in place of ‘i’ and ‘/i’. That’s the best I can do here, Owen. No more ‘shouting’, ?

          • WHALENSKY says:

            Garry Stannus I’d 110 % correct OWEN– YOU STOP SHOUTING AND USING CAPITALS—however you can shout at me–im not precious. when I communicated very quitely to a ❤ lovely 😍 policey person of the esteemed rank of sargeant about being molested by one of his that can do no wrong– I was told quitely-no shouting- to shut me effing mouth– so I did– that was the end of that– SHOULD HAVE MADE A HELL OF A FUSS– SHOUTING AND MORE SHOUTING can’t possibly tell you what happened next– was not nice– but was quite !

          • Owen allen says:

            comment rejected

          • Owen allen says:

            Well thank you Garry. Did the report state that Justce Shan Tennent disallowed contact in the trial, between the defendant and defence lawyer, who was from Legal Aid and straight from law school, Justice, The Tasmanian Way; Shan Tennent when a Magistrate, who turns a deaf ear when 2 Tasmania Police Officers commit obvious perjury.

  5. Chris M says:

    Why should the Attorney General respond to your inquiry or the inquiry from other people who aren’t currently representing Sue? Since Sue’s legal team is still pursuing the case via legal means available to them why do Sue’s supporters feel a need to bother the Attorney General who is very likely aware that Meaghan recanted on the 2nd day of Sue’s appeal.

    • andrew says:

      My request to the Attorney-General was for a comment for publication about her response to the Etter/Selby papers tabled in Parliament. I also asked if she had plans to establish an inquiry (or announce one to be held later) into the case, given it’s long and controversial nature. As the first law officer, the Attorney-General would normally be concerned that public confidence in the criminal justice system be maintained.
      Who would NOT wish for an inquiry….?

      • Chris M says:

        I read the Etter & Selby paper. I haven’t seen anything in the paper that indicates sufficiently strong evidence for a rason to initiate an independent an inquiry that could cost Tasmanian taxpayers $1M or more. What Etter & Selby raise are various imperfections but none of those imperfections are of major nature. By major nature, I mean that there was no exculpatory evidence withheld. The significance of Lorraine’s evidence doesn’t really make the case for the prosecution nor for the defence.

        [Paragraph referring to Vass/DNA rejected under moderation policy guidelines.]

        I consider the Etter & Selby paper as a disorganised collection of biased and insignificant assertions that omit significant aspect of evidence that strengthens the prosecution case.

    • Owen allen says:

      Is not the Attorney General,? A public SERVANT. I am sick of CORRUPT CRAP.

  6. Donald says:

    Garry, if Sue did really see people around a fire that night don’t you think that she should have immediately told the cops about it on 27th because those people could have been potential suspects?

    • Donald says:

      There was another person out there that night close to the rowing shed. The witness (John Hughes) did not see any fire or people on land but a “female figure” on an inflatable and motorised dinghy sometime between 11:30 pm and midnight. This corresponded to the time that Sue was out that night.

      As for Stephen Gleeson: it doesn’t matter who bought the gas cooker. The fact is that in the Court he admitted that he lied in order to help Sue.

      Also, Meaghan’s own testimony on the first day of the appeal is that it was still daylight when she and her alleged male associates boarded Four Winds. This eliminates the story that she and her then boyfriend had late night sausage with Stephen before going to rob from a boat.

      • Garry Stannus says:

        Mr Hughes gave three versions as to what he saw on that night. The first was apparently that the dinghy he’d seen had been being rowed … was not motorised. This version it seems was later prodded by police suggestion(?) and became a dinghy and the sound of a motor. We know (I heard Grant Maddock) give evidence in court to the effect that he had rowed out in his dinghy that night, returning to his vessel just beyond the marina. We know he was there because he came alongside Brettingham-Moore’s vessel: B-M was trying in the dark to anchor just outside the marina … too hard in the wind and the dark to get inside the marina to his mooring. Despite DPP challenges, the date of the Maddock encounter (and hence, of the ‘outline of a woman’ being seen by Hughes) is the evening of 26Jan2009: B-M confirmed this date with his evidence that in the morning (when it was light) he moved his motor cruiser into the marina and went ashore. He then called in to the Chandlery and in there mention was made of the fracas unfolding in view of the Chandlery: the Four Winds sinking/being saved, the police etc on the Rowing Club spit. Though the DPP tried to suggest that the B-M encounter happened some days earlier, this simply was a fatuous exercise: You cannot have heard about an event before it happened.

        I have had difficulty with other elements of Hughes’ evidence: he has said that he saw no persons or vehicles on the Rowing Club spit that night. Yet we know that Gleeson’s yellow car was there – on the spit. The fire brigade woke him in the morning (27Jan2009) and asked him to move his car from the spit. There was also (to my knowledge) a second vehicle there … the ‘Land Rover’ type / SUV type vehicle that had apparently been abandoned by its homeless owner … in fact, she (the owner) had gone back to NZ for Christmas, I think it was, and by Australia Day had not returned to Tas.

        I’ve never been able to understand why Hughes’ statement that he did not see / that there were no other vehicles on the spit should have been accepted and not contested.

        Donald’s claim about Gleeson “The fact is that in the Court he admitted that he lied in order to help Sue. ” is not actually true. He did admit in court that he had been prepared to lie on Sue’s behalf, but he did not admit that he was lying to the court when he gave his evidence. My own handwritten notes and the court transcript support this view. Unfortunately, the short-cuts of reporting can give false impressions and unfortunate too, is the fact that critics of Neill-Fraser have relied on media reporting, rather than examining the actual evidence, as given in court.

        I accept ‘Donald’s’ point about Meaghan telling the court that it was daylight when she went to the Four Winds, yet that it was dark at the time that Gleeson cooked the sausages for his late-night guests. Let a commission of inquiry make of that what they will..
        Q1: Did the late night visit occur after the murder?
        Q2: Was Gleeson involved in the murder?
        Q3: …there are many such questions which need answers.

        We need an Inquiry, now! Sue should be freed. Manifestly, there is ‘reasonable doubt’ as to her alleged guilt.

      • Owen allen says:

        You are all full of shit, the more shit you spew the more shitful it becomes, $$$$$ as somebody has said.
        The facts are, there are no facts, Sue Neill-Fraser is innocent.
        Set her free
        God Damn The Dogs.

        • WHALENSKY says:

          QUIET.

        • WHALENSKY says:

          I desperately want to know more about the thossages–pork or beef–COLES or– did they consume them on a piece of crappy white bread like at BUNNINGS — The conversation around the sizzle would be interesting–what do you talk about after murdering someone . Were they free– or were you expected to contribute–American Mustard is hard to beat. What I don’t understand is how these HOT SHOTS don’t choke on their Vegemite toast after putting away an innocent person– and worse still- keeping them imprisoned when it becomes obvious even to a retard like me that the accused has been done over by mongrels !

          • Owen allen says:

            I am with you Whalensky, it is just so bullshit, rubbing our face in their poo. We are the Lords, you are peasants. Cooee.

        • WHALENSKY says:

          You’re terrible Owen — but I like you !

        • WHALENSKY says:

          For some reason Andrew doesn’t like my lack of respect for the jury system– may be he thinks it’s a hopeless dream to imagine something better ?

    • Garry Stannus says:

      Well, yes, Donald. Had Sue told the police immediately about seeing the figures around a firepot, or whatever it was (Gleeson told police he’d cooked sausages on a gas stove … and he told me it was called a Gasmate [see my previous comment]), it should have changed the course of the police investigation. And in fact it may well have done so.

      I’ve just remembered something else Gleeson told me: I asked him why he didn’t simply take the sausages over to the BBQ in the public area next to the toilet block. He said it was because the BBW was not working. So, he had the Gasmate.

      If anyone believes in coincidences … listen to this: Whenever I’m in Hobart, I try to get to Short Beach, Sandy Bay. I drive, I walk and I ride my push bike. A year or two ago, perhaps it was during the 2nd appeal, I had the time to get down to Short Beach. I drove onto the spit, up past where Sue and Bob would swing around and would back the car and trailer down the ramp (the one near the poles) … and I went a bit further, looking for somewhere to swing in, park, look out to where the Four Winds had once been moored/anchored (I don’t know if either word has distinct connotations). I swung into an empty space, looking out over the water. Behind me, the Rowing Club sheds. I must have had some tucker with me and probably ‘hoe-ed in’. Next to me, was a bloke in a car, and after a bit, I thought how it was funny, that his car was yellow.

      You see, Donald (whoever you actually are), this yellow car was in the same position as where Gleeson’s yellow car is usually represented as having been parked.

      I kept checking the bloke out, surreptitiously. Why not?

      At one stage, he got out of his car with some gear and headed over to the Toilet/BBQ area! My interest was aroused somewhat. He was gone for some time and my recall is that he wasn’t going over for the toilet block, but rather, he was going to the BBQ to cook up some food. I took the opportunity to ‘stretch my legs’ and got out of the ute, maybe made a show of looking once again at the rocks (next to our vehicles) where the FW Dinghy had been found on early-morning Tue27Jan2009 and I checked out the yellow sedan (while the owner was over there, at the BBQ. It was full of stuff which to me suggested that he was living in that car!

      Another homeless person? Probably…

      There was a guitar amongst all the clutter in the car and maybe I wondered about the songs that its owner might play. I got back in the ute and chilled. After some time, I saw him coming back, so I got out of the ute again and trying to catch his eye, said the usual ‘Good-day, mate’. He didn’t give me much more than a grunt … and got back in to his driver’s seat. I don’t remember. So, what had I seen? A homeless man, living in his yellow car, just in the spot where over ten years earlier, a homeless Gleeson had been living in his yellow car. A homeless man cooking some food / getting some water over at the BBQ, just where Gleeson certainly had gone, to get water, to use the toilets.

      In talking to Gleeson, I recall asking him why he cooked the sausages on the Gasmate, why not cook his sausages over on the BBQ? My memory is that he said that the BBQ hadn’t been working. I don’t remember now if that had been the reason he’d first bought the Gasmate, or whether the BBQ hadn’t been working on that day in question. I don’t anticipate ever having the opportunity of asking Gleeson about it again.

      ‘Should’ Sue have told police straight up about seeing the figures ’round the firepot?
      ‘Should’ is such a word…

      Should she have mentioned going down to Marieville Esp. late that night to fetch the car and likewise mention the reason for her concern?
      Sue was interviewed back at the home, at 11:50 am by Constable Stockdale and made a statement and again the next day by Dtv. Conroy. Of her first(?) statement, she had this to say:

      “The police officer asked me ‘Did you go out last night?’ and I thought ‘Oh, no!’ because if I say yes I’m going to have to say I came down because I was so worried about Clare. And there has been a history of family denial about her mental condition for many years. I mean, they accept it now, but they certainly didn’t then, and I didn’t want to get my head bitten off by Tim, by saying ‘Well look, I thought your sister might suicide and so I walked down in the middle of the night’, in front of a police officer. and it was as simple as that and so much has been made out of it.” [Tim Chappell was present when SN-F was questioned – gfs]
      [SN-F: in ‘Shadow of Doubt’ / Eve Ash at 34:43]

      In her second (28Jan2009) statement, she said

      I stayed alone at home that night. I made several phone calls and received a call from Richard King over some family matters. It was ten thirty pm when I got off the phone. The following morning I was notified that the Four Winds was sinking by the police radio room. I then went to Sandy Bay.”

      Her so-called lie was in not mentioning that while she stayed alone at home that night, she did walk down to pick up the station wagon and to see if things were ok on the riverfront.

      Sue knew Steve Gleeson by name … he’d come over from his car and help with the dinghy. He lived in his car there. He was there on the morning that the Four Winds had been found sinking. Was woken and asked to move his car so the Fire Truck could have a spot (to turn?). The cops were all over it.

      It seems to me that when they questioned him, it was to see if he’d seen anything untoward that night … it didn’t seem as if they considered him as someone who might have himself accessed the yacht. They just seemed to want to know if he’d seen anything. And he told them ‘Nope… I was too drunk and was asleep’. Yet we know that he had long experience on the water and even at that time, would go out to Paul Wroe’s Southern Wright in a dinghy. I think it possible that the ‘borrowing’ of dinghies (‘thefts’) that were occurring around that time, could possibly be ascribed to Gleeson. I don’t know why the police didn’t give him a harder time. (Of course, he got stitched up later, when he told a different story … when he told the ‘snags on the Gasmate’ story, the young girl, the young boy. (Yet their identities are even now opaque).

      A couple of more comments, ‘Gordon’, if you don’t mind: I have reason to believe that the accepted/documented time that Meaghan Vass left the refuge … is incorrect. I believe it may have been/was earlier. Your point about Meaghan’s evidence at the 2nd Appeal of it being daylight … yet the snags being cooked late at night, is taken. Personally, I thought Meaghan’s evidence at the second appeal was ‘off the show’. She appeared to suggest that the water over which she passed in a dinghy to get to the Four Winds was quite shallow. Yet that was not the case. Perhaps she had just a simple memory of getting into a dinghy in ankle-deep water and the next bit was the yacht (in deep water).

      I don’t think we are going to get closer to the truth until we have an Inquiry. I don’t think that a retrial (should the High Court get off its golden perch and intervene) would provide us with answers. DPP Coates seems to insist on Sue’s guilt. I watched him as Meaghan’s confidence was destroyed, in the Hobart Supreme Court. Good job, Daryl.

      So, finally, ‘Gordon’, do you support a retrial?

      • WHALENSKY says:

        This thossage thing ( mystery) is driving me nuts– sausage on a Gasmate is horrible-i find it hard to believe that part of the evidence–whot the hell is a firepot– some kind of infernal Tasmanian Thing Up here we use gasoline on bits of the neighbours fence ! This whole waffle about sausages and other garbage is designed to overload the jurors little minds–stoo them seriously wondering about how the hell the little woman lifted the body out of the cabin and into a little boat of some sort without the slightest bit of Forensics– where is Colin– stuck in SA .In VIETNAM I was accused of shooting a farmer in a paddy thru the head at 500 metres–at night. By the time I finished my story about cooking sausages– the Kangaroo Court was Flabbergasted -Frustrated and Frantic to get the stinking business signed off– the Yanks gave me a Medal ! Escaped in a fishing boat– but that’s another exiting story–I snuck up behind it with a heavy spanner (Sidchrome)

  7. Made In America says:

    I’m in the US. Corruption seems to be just as deeply rooted in Australia as it is here…and everywhere else I suppose. This case is a gross miscarriage of justice and its absolute clear that this woman should be set free and the only way you will see that is the same way it happens in America. When new people are put into the offices that are corrupt and work to actually put things right. That’s how it happens here every time. I somehow always find myself utterly amazed at how deep corruption runs and how far its reach into the people we are supposedly to blindly and wholly trust. I suppose I still naively believe that people are inherently good and decent. It’s sad the state of affairs we are all in as a whole and more so the casualties unjustly laid before the feet of greedy men.

    • Donald says:

      It’s one thing to make such a claim but there is absolutely no evidence of corruption that led to SNF’s conviction.

      If you research the case you will learn that the only charges of corruption or perversion of justice were directed at several people who provided evidence in support of Sue’s right-to-appeal.

      If you study the Etter/Selby papers you will learn that there is a serious omission in those papers. The omission is that a certain detective was informed by a woman’s shelter that the homeless girl left that shelter at 3:55pm. This omitted evidence is crucial because it proves that the homeless girl couldn’t have been onboard Four Winds at 3:55pm when some eyewitness saw a grey dinghy at portside of Four Winds at 3:55pm. The fact that Etter/Selby papers omitted mentioning this important evidence raises a serious doubt about the accuracy and the completness of the facts of the case as reported in those papers.

      • Donald says:

        Small correction and addition to my previous comment:

        The detective was informed by a woman’s shelter that the homeless girl left that shelter at 3:50 pm. That was only 5 minutes before a grey dinghy was spotted at portside of Four Winds at 3:55pm. This evidence raises serious question that Etter and Selby did not address despite their claim that it wasn’t Sue’s dinghy. But the cops and the prosecution believed that it was Sue on Four Winds at that time and that her dinghy appeared to the eyewitness to be grey rather than white. Etter and Selby hadn’t provided any explanation on whether or not a white dinghy can appear to be grey.

        • Owen allen says:

          Tasmanians are liars through and through, with the cronyism and nepotism and can not be believed what ever they may say. “This is Tasmania”, as quoted to me be a pathetic pervert of justice, and the Taspol are the same. Believe me, I was the witness and victim, I know how low they go, and,andand, Federal Investigation Tasmania. Release Sue Neill-Fraser Now.

    • Owen allen says:

      Donald is off the show with his statements. The Prosecutor Tim Ellis made his case on what might have happened, holding what might have been a wealon, and the Tasmanian Jury agreed with his possibility.
      A possibility, an improbabity more likely, and no evidence. The only evidence is dna from vomit by a homeless girl on the yacht, when the murder took place. 15 years old at the time, with hardened young criminals, from family criminality. Generations of suburban family crime.
      Devine, I am not afraid to blow on suburban mafia in Tasmania. Get a life,
      OWEN FROM KEMPTON. (Or for that matter SANDY BAY MAFIA; AND MAFIA TASPOL………..GET A LIFE……..

      • Donald says:

        Thanks dude! I knew that I missed something despite reading about the DNA, By the way, do you know what the defence forensic scientist said about that DNA? In case you didn’t know, he said that it was deposited after the night of murder. How about that?

          • Donald says:

            Hello Andrew,

            Are you Andrew Urban? If so why are you referring me to the article that you wrote on your own blog?

            The first paragraph in the article that you referred me to says

            ‘The legal establishment in Tasmania wants to keep Meaghan Vass ‘off the boat’, metaphorically speaking, because her eye witness testimony of Bob Chappell’s murder on Four Winds contradicts the prosecution’s case against Sue Neill-Fraser.”

            I will correct you by stating that defense’s own forensic expert prefers to keep Meaghan ‘off the boat’ for the night of Bob’s murder because the expert found new evidence that wasn’t mentioned prior to the right-to-appeal: the quality of the DNA was high, and he did not think that DNA would have survived in such a good quality for three days on an exterior surface of the deck that was exposed to weathering effects including the sunlight. The DPP then capitalised on this opinion by the defence forensic scientist.

          • andrew says:

            Are you seriously asking why I referred you to my comprehensive reply? It’s absurd. But it highlights how pesky people like you, Donald, have continued to peddle the prosecution’s post-trial efforts to protect the conviction, arguing against Vass being a witness to the fight on the yacht that led to Bob Chappell’s disappearance and presumed death. The article I referred to explains that there is no rational reason for Vass to have subsequently claim that she was there if she was not.
            I had previously closed this subject for discussion because of these repeated outbreaks of irrational carping from those who would rather pretend that Sue Neill-Fraser’s murder conviction is reliable than admit to there being very much reasonable doubt about it.
            I won’t relent again. And if you respond to this reply I won’t publish it. The ‘Vass wasn’t on the boat’ subject is CLOSED.

        • Owen allen says:

          Take the scales from your eye balls Donald. The blind do not want to see.
          Unbiased children of a jury would agree, Sue Neill-Fraser is NOT GUILTY, see, this is just more, Fxxx The MORONS, as we strive for ABSOLUTE POWER..get your head together Brother Donald, please, for your own sake, Owen.

    • Owen allen says:

      Thanks for contributing. This is international 1st Word Order
      Tasmania, The Last Bastion of White Supremacy and OLD WORLD ORDER, can not kill the Kings deer. Same in Tasmania now. The Old World Order, people do not know about that. The NEW WORLD ORDER is coming in; and it will be Worse than the Old World Order. People see it coming, but hope and wish and do nothing, and I understand. GOD BLESS UKRAINE

  8. Owen allen says:

    Let us all cut the crap. There is no hard evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Sue Neill-Fraser is guilty of murder, and to the contrary, a witness, who withdrew a statement through betrayal and fear, and who left dna at the murder scene has admitted at being at the murder scene and Sue Neill-Fraser was not there.
    LETS CUT THE CRAP, or do YOU want somebody to snap and have a mental breakdown. RELEASE SUE NEILL-FRASER NOW.
    FEDERAL ROYAL COMMISSION TASMANIA, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION TASMANIA. COME ON MICHAEL PHELAN, AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE COMMISSION.
    Ha, I am waiting for a news release from the AFP, but, Tasmania is Mafia; Australian Mafia so I am not holding my breath.

    • Robert Greenshields says:

      I recognise your thoughts of angst Owen, but included within the reality of the known complicated scenario, is the necessity of the Oz citizenry to expressly acknowledge and discern that our policing forces, and its cringe worthy volunteers, are in many, many, fundamentally transparently untrustworthy.
      All proceedings seemingly start from the ill gotten, initial perception that our policing and judicial processes, along with our law enforcement occupying cohorts, are closer to god than thee. Nothing is further from the truth when reviewed and considered in obvious, manifestly, crystal clear true light. Daily media reports consistently and continually attest to that indisputable, uncontaminated fact.
      While there is maintained a process that ensures the phony legitimisation of judicial perceptions and practices the community suffers! Standards of recruiting into our police forces need to be the initiating catalyst that eventually increases community complete trust in something, now viewed as so terribly and irrevocably tarnished.
      Tasmania has its evident problems, as does every other Australian state and policing area command, media outlets report on long term cultured behavioural problems daily. Certainly NW NSW, from my knowledge and discussions, is not immune from continuing acts of thuggery, bullying, deceit, psychological terrorism, perjury, and complicit collusion.
      Citizens across Australia need to make it known to our elected officialdom that photo shoots of smiling thugs in bauble emblazoned uniforms and politicians, do nothing to discount known and recorded criminality, and ongoing traditionally based and operational venality. Take care Owen.
      Rob. Greenshields.

      • Owen allen says:

        Thanks Robert, I still say Tasmania is totally corrupted, where the other states may have pockets of corruption,but not totalatarian as is Tasmania, as we witness the bullshit of the likes of Tim Ellis, the Australian High Court will sort him out, if it ever gets there. And if it doesn’t, where does that leave Justice in Australia. We are all watching closely and waiting, ever so patiently, for Justice to Prevail. I pray for Sue Neill-Fraser and to GOD that Justice does prevail: well I know it will one way or another, sooner or later. Amen.

        • Owen allen says:

          Ps Robert, I wanted to comment on your excellent venacular, poetry in motion; I imagine you must be a successfull scribe out there. If not, you should be.
          Owen, Chio.

          • Robert Greenshields says:

            I am a broken down bull dozer mechanic by trade Owen who enjoys reading, writing at times, and the company of the greatest persons in our broad society, those who deplore injustices and the criminality connected to the maintainence of the insidious status quo. Keep strong and safe. Rob. Greenshields.

  9. Donald says:

    The one question that I have is whether SNF was truthful about the reason for going back to the Marietville Esplanade late at night on Australia Day 2009.

    My concern arises from the fact that SNF told Felicity Ogilvie that she drove from home to the Marietville Esplanade that night. But, in her May 2009 interview with the cops, SNF told the cops that she walked from home to the Esplanade and then walked back after realising that she had the wrong keys, and then walked back to the Esplanade with the keys for the car and then drove home after looking out at the boat and not noticing anything.

    Did Sue lie to Ms Ogilvie or to the cops about the way that she got from home to the Marietville Esplanade late that night.

    If SNF did lie then how can anyone trust Sue’s statement regarding the reason she decided to go out late that night?

    Also, SNF told Ms Ogilvie about seeing homeless people around a fire. I think that if Sue wasn’t responsible for Bob’s death then if she did see homeless people around a fire that this alone should have been enough for her to have immediately on the morning of 27th told cops about it.

  10. Owen allen says:

    Tasmania, I made complaints about an illegally parked loaded semi trailer outside our house, on the otherside of the road next to a paddock(no houses), starting regularly at 4.00am idling for 10 or more minutes, then dragging out a full load with maximum power. Yeah baby, for years, and nothing would be done as they destroyed my life for complaining.
    And later the Liberal Party flirted with me, and the Labour Part apologised, nothing could be done, corruption was too intense. And later more happened with another political party member in private enterprise engaged in cronyism against me, which blew my mind. They stick together and protect one another, I assure you. Federal Royal Commission Tasmania.

    • WHALENSKY says:

      Owen Owen –there is always plan B –your trouble is your a lover of poetry– have you heard of violence as a solution to a problem — the Europeans have been smashing the crap out of each ther for 500 years–now they are at it AGAIN !
      It can be done at a suburban level–requires careful planning. (No Nukes please) Punishing innocent people is the greatest turn on–a speeding ticket when not speeding–parked in fact– the carefully planned murder conviction- bit hard to beat that one–for satisfying the the pompous GIT !

  11. Owen allen says:

    From my own experience in Tasmania, is so corrupted with cronyism and nepotism, Ms Ogilivie may well have been prompted or advised to make that statement to cover and consolidate the bullshit, as we know it is.
    Owen, 14 years in Tasmania, I have the guff, I haven’t wasted all this time and pain on fantasy. RELEASE SUE NEILL-FRASER NOW.

  12. James Plevick says:

    Keep up the good work Andrew.
    Our legal system is a corrupt joke.
    “The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it. Let them but once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble.” – Charles Dickens.

    • andrew says:

      Dickens was not alone…the late legal historian Evan Whitton wrote Our Corrupt Legal System (Book Pal, 2009) and included many observations by legal professionals themselves, eg: “The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class racket.” Professor Fred Rodell, of Yale Law School, in Woe Unto You, Lawyers! (1939). And from Associate Professor Benjamin Barton, of the University of Tennessee College of Law: “many legal outcomes can be explained, and future cases predicted, by asking a very simple question: is there a plausible legal result in this case that will significantly affect the interests of the legal profession (positively or negatively)? If so, the case will be decided in the way that offers the best result for the legal profession.” Justice Russell Fox says the search for truth gives a legal system its moral face; English law had not sought the truth since about 500 AD.

  13. Brian Johnston says:

    Sue is nearing parole. My understanding is that to qualify for parole Sue will have to admit guilt, show remorse and explain how she disposed of Bob’s body. If she does not then parole is declined.
    If Sue was guilty she could qualify for release at her first parole hearing based upon model prisoner and unlikely to offend again.
    They don’t let guilty people out who plead innocence. It is not how it works.
    Sue says she wants to prove her innocence first. I am sorry to say Sue could be there for a long time.

    I have said it before and I say it again. Crowd funding for a civil case.

    Parliament is the power. Only politicians can change the system. Australia’s politicians have let Sue down. What has that Andrew Wilkie done to help. He is all tears when it suits. Then there is that Felicity Ogilvie who dobbed Sue in which sent Sue to prison.

    Maybe a substantial delegation to the Attorney General and another to the Governor General would help.

    There is a hearing coming up. Who knows what will become of it. I despair.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      FACTS
      Contrary to the negative connotation of “dobbed”, my understanding is that Ms Ogilvie ‘accidentally volunteered’ information re visiting Marieville Esplanade through the night. It was in a media interview with then Inspector Peter Powell, who subsequently asked her to make a formal statement,

      Additionally I feel the less than complimentary observation about Andrew Wilkie MHR is uninformed. Andrew doesn’t publicise all his helpful-to-SNF activities.

      • Brian Johnston says:

        I cant be that kind to Ogilvie. Either way her comment did the damage. What has she done since to atone?

        Wilkie is a wimp who is to busy promoting the climate change scam. A watermelon.

      • Garry Stannus says:

        Yes, Geraldine, in my opinion, you are correct: that is how it happened:

        ABC Journalist Felicity Ogilvie having seen the media release and newspaper reports about the ‘mystery caller’, called up [the Allison St house?] asking for an interview and SNF or Sarah called her back to say ‘yes’ to the interview.

        The interview with Felicity Ogilvie, ABC
        13Mar2009: Ogilvie went to the house with her notepad and her recorder. Sarah Bowles was there with SNF and possibly Sarah’s husband was there at some stage as well. When Ogilvie first came into the house Sue appeared visibly distressed. Sue was quite upset, she was trembling a lot and when Ogilvie asked her how she felt she said she felt terrible because she’d lost everything and she’d lost her yacht and her partner. She offered Ogilvie a cup of tea. They both had a cup of tea. They went out onto the balcony and Sue said she wanted to tell Ogilvie everything and before Ogilvie pulled out her recorder to do a formal interview. It was a ‘pre-interview conversation. SNF told Ogilvie in the preview interview conversation that, worried about Richard King’s phone call about Claire Chappell’s being suicidal and perhaps going down to the boat, she (SNF) drove down that night, saw homeless people with fires down at Sandy Bay, didn’t see anything going on on the yacht so she drove home. Before starting the tape recorder for the formal interview, Ogilvie asked her whether there was anything she didn’t want to say on tape. SNF didn’t want to talk about Claire on tape because she seemed really concerned about Claire and didn’t want that people think badly about Claire.

        During the ‘formal interview’ Ogilvie asked SNF: “Now the police say that on the night that – that your partner spent on the boat they saw some – that a witness saw someone row out in a dinghy.”

        [At trial, Ogilvie said that the reference to someone rowing out in a dinghy came from a police media release either earlier that week or the week before. She also said that there were news stories about it. There were two relevant news stories, published by the Mercury on 10Mar2009 and 11Mar2009: the first (a Crime Stoppers Report) asked a person who had contacted police two days after Bob Chappell had disappeared to contact them again; the second reported that the person had come forward and had confirmed his earlier information given about the movements of a dinghy at Sandy Bay on the night of 26Jan2009 – neither report mentioned someone being seen to row out in a dinghy.]

        Ogilvie then also interviewed Inspector Powell. During the course of the interview, she asked Powell something about Sue going down the night [of Bob’s disappearance] and he was very surprised and said that SN had told them that she didn’t go down that night. Powell asked Ogilvie to give a statement to the police, so Ogilvie called Sue to let her know and Sue was very adamant that their conversation about her going down that night was off the record. Ogilvie thought that it had been on the record, but due to the upset state that SNF had been in when she had first got to the house, and the miscommunication that’s possible between people, Ogilvie gave her the benefit of the doubt and told the police that she wouldn’t give them a statement.

        What I’ve written, Geraldine, is gained from the evidence of witnesses, given in court. Ogilvie behaved professionally and honorably. She did the right thing by Sue and when called as a witness, at the trial, Ogilvie’s evidence was – in my view – favourable / sympathetic to Sue. It supported the idea that Sue had not disclosed to police her late-night visit to Marieville Esplanade out of wanting to keep Claire out of the spotlight. Ogilvie’s mention of that late-night visit I’m sure was made made in the context of presuming that the police already knew about it. In fact, they didn’t. It was just another ‘Simple Twist of Fate’.

        [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGnhyoP_DSc
        but please, don’t try and match Dylan’s story to Bob and Sue’s … it’s not my intention … rather I just want to put the idea that Ogilvie’s question to Powell inadvertently occasioned a ‘simple twist of fate’.]

        • Peter Gill says:

          Off topic – “when Sue NF saw homeless people with fires down at Sandy Bay”, has anyone ever asked Sue if she might recognise any of those people, given the more recent information about a certain homeless girl and other people? Sue might be a key witness.

          • Donald says:

            You are assuming that SNF spoke the truth when she said, more than a month after the Australia Day, that she saw homeless people around a fire.

            Surely, had Sue seen homeless people around a fire at the foreshore then she would have, or at least should have, immediately told the cops on 27th Feb about going out to the riverbank late at night on 26th and seeing homeless people around a fire.

          • Garry Stannus says:

            Peter, Donald’s reply to you repeated the ‘surely if Sue was innocent, she would have told the police’ line.

            She knew Steven Gleeson … he would help her and Bob with offloading the dinghy. He was living in his car up along the ‘spit’ of so-called reclaimed land, along which was – and still is – the rowing club.

            Gleeson told me personally that the cooker that he used for the sausages on the night of 26Jan2009 was bought by him:

            Please accept the following as a true record of part of that first day of Susan Neill-Fraser’s unsucessful 2nd appeal:

            On 1Mar2021, I attended the Supreme Court in Hobart. I was there to observe Susan Neill-Fraser’s second appeal against her conviction for the murder of her partner, Bob Chappell.

            There was already a group of Neill-Fraser supporters outside the court when I arrived. At some stage, we seemed to form a queue, below the steps. I became aware that the supporters were keeping lists showing the order of arrivals and of those they thought should have priority for entry. The reason for this (I think) was that the response to the Covid 19 pandemic meant that there were reduced seats available on the public benches inside the courtrooms.

            Someone drew my attention to a chap who was standing down towards the end of the queue. I was told that the person was Stephen Gleeson, the man who had been living in a car on the rowing club ‘spit’, by Marieville Esplanade on the day/night of Bob Chappell’s disappearance/murder.

            I left my place in the line and went to him. I had a conversation with him during which he seemed at ease and quite willing to chat with me. During the course of that ‘chat’, I asked him two specific questions concerning:

            1. The position of his car on the spit that night
            and
            2. The origins of the gas cooker which he’d used to cook up the sausages for his late night visitors.

            In answering my questions, he was cordial and relaxed. He told me that his car [as one drives up to the end of the ‘spit’] was not in the parking spaces to the left, by the rocks, but was over in the alcove, ‘out of the weather’.

            [The ‘alcove’ was a recess formed by the rowing club’s building being set back further than its neighbouring building. The Rowing Club’s building has since been extended northward, consequently the ‘alcove’ no longer exists.]

            He also told me that he had bought the gas cooker himself. I’d asked him if he’d got it from the person who had been living there also in a vehicle and who had been in New Zealand at the time of Bob Chappell’s disappearance. Gleeson told me ‘No’, that he’d bought the cooker himself. From memory, I think he called it a ‘Gasmate’ and may have mentioned Bunnings as the place he got it from. I think he may even have mentioned a price … something like $40.

            A friend of mine, Geraldine Allan, arrived, so I left Gleeson and greeted her. I gave her my own place in the line and went to the end of it. When the public were allowed into the courtrooms, most of those in line (including Gleeson) were admitted. I missed ‘the cut’, along with two or three others. Sometime later (after the morning recess?), I was able to get into the overflow courtroom, where Gleeson and others were watching the proceedings on video.

            At the lunch break recess, Gleeson did not remain in the courtroom foyer or outside the court for a smoke etc, but went further afield. I thought he’d called it quits, but when we were allowed back into the overflow room (c. 1:30pm), he arrived after we’d occupied most of the seats and sat down in one seat that was remaining. It was next to my friend, next to Geraldine’s seat. He sat there, quietly – as we all did – and listened to the resumption of proceedings.

            Finally, Mr Richter began to examine Meaghan Vass. She had just told the court that she had been on the [Four Winds] boat with Sam Devine and two others. She named Stephen Gleeson as being one of the others. [There was no reaction from Gleeson (who was 1-2 metres in the next row below me, in those public benches) as Vass gave that evidence. He sat there passively and without agitation.] Vass then described how after getting onto the yacht there was an argument and Sam had got stuck into Bob.

            Just at that moment as she was giving that part of her evidence, two uniformed court officers came into the (overflow) courtroom. I looked at them, wondering ‘Why two?’ They approached Gleeson and I heard one say to him,

            “You have to come out”.

            Gleeson stood up, and in a calm manner, walked quietly out with them.

            I did not see Gleeson again. When I was later able to speak to my friend Geraldine about what had taken place, I recall that she told me that she could smell beer on Gleeson when he sat down next to her. I think he must have had a ‘liquid ‘lunch’, down at his old stamping ground: ‘Knopwoods’ in Salamanca (now re-badged as ‘The Whaler’).

            It’s a bit disappointing that Ogilvie’s account of Sue definitely not wanting to mention Bob’s daughter Claire to the police, of her asking Ogilvie that her (Sue’s) interview (involving matters relating to Claire) be off the record… it’s a bit disappointing that people such as ‘Donald’ apparently overlook the significance of Ogilvie’s evidence, overlook the apparent tension inside the Chappell family and instead choose to write that easy stuff like:

            ‘Also, SNF told Ms Ogilvie about seeing homeless people around a fire. I think that if Sue wasn’t responsible for Bob’s death then if she did see homeless people around a fire that this alone should have been enough for her to have immediately on the morning of 27th told cops about it.’

            Bloody hell! Why would Sue have thought that necessary? Gleeson was right in the middle of the whole debacle … the police were there, the fire-brigade woke him up in his van … next to the dinghy … and asked him to move his car! He later tells police he heard nothing … had had a few drinks … was asleep etc.

            She (Sue) wanted to keep the matter of Claire’s mental health out of the public arena, so she didn’t mention that she’d gone down later that night. It’s not rocket science. She told the cops she’d stayed home that night … (to cover for Claire). So ‘bright sparks’ like Ellis make a song and dance about it … say Sue’s lied … and thus everything else she’s said is a ‘litany of lies’.

            Tim Ellis: you should be ashamed of what you have done. Oh dear, your ‘maybe a knife or a screwdriver, maybe anger bang once or more’ that was your nail in the coffin? [“Anger, bang. Maybe once, maybe twice.”] That was the rubbish that you got Blow J and the jury to swallow? You ought to be ashamed.

            You told the court:
            “She’s walking backwards and forwards and delivers blow – a blow or blows, or maybe stabs him with a screwdriver, I don’t know, he doesn’t look round, and so the body doesn’t have any marks of what you’d expect if someone had come down there, a stranger, intent on doing him harm, the body I suggest would have marks consistent only with being delivered by someone who he knew to be there, who he knew and expected to be behind him.”

            What a lot of crap that was, my dear ex Director of Public Prosecutions: no actual evidence as to the conjectured assault on Bob Chappel and no actual evidence as to how his body may have been marked … just your then-DPP’s rhetoric and a gullible jury – Garry Stannus.

            Finally, Peter: Sue’s evidence at trial was that (from a distance, at night) she saw figures (beyond the first launching ramp), saw some fire or whatever, didn’t want to proceed up along the spit and encounter them and having looked futilely out into the dark, in the direction of the Four Winds, seen nothing and taken the car back home. She did not approach those at the ‘fire’ … up by Gleeson’s car. It’s a narrowish roadway out into the water, and in the dark … I wouldn’t have approached them myself.

    • Chris M says:

      Email address could not be verified. Comment removed.

  14. Peter Martin says:

    I’d like to view the High Court waiting list. There seems to be many more recent matters being “slipped into” the queue ahead of Sue Neill Fraser.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Peter you write, “there seems to be …”. Do you have specific details/dates etc that prompt your observations?
      It’s extremely concerning if there is ‘jumping the queue’ in any HCA applications to be heard?

      • Peter Martin says:

        Thanks Geraldine for picking me up on this. I have found nothing on which to base my “there seems to be…” comment. Unless someone can help me out here I need to withdraw my unfounded claim. I guess it is the frustration of seemingly waiting forever for Sue’s hearing to be listed that so many of us are hanging our hopes on.

        • Donald says:

          Now that we know that you are willing to offer a baseless accusation against the High Court of Australia it might help you to learn the art of evidence based objective logical and rational critical analysis of the evidence in this case.

  15. Rodger Warren says:

    Hi Andrew
    I have absolutely no confidences in the Tasmanian Justice system.
    I will not set foot in Tasmania until Sue Neill-Fraser is released.
    Thanks again for the Wrongful Convictions Report.
    Take care
    Rodger Warren

  16. Robert Greenshields says:

    The continuity of the “no comment” status confirms the affirmation that there is something shockingly wrong within the judicial and administrative processes of the state of Tasmania.
    Sadly the transparently recognised failures, and Sue Neill Frasers injustice, is not confined to just the “apple isle”, while Australia has indisputable, massive failures, within the integrity and practices of all mainland policing institutions too, the problem becomes further aggravated as communities wilt under the pressure of an ongoing desensitisation of once respected values through political and administrative expediency, or a blatant manipulation and lack of honesty and partiality.
    All Australians deserve to be able to witness a far higher standard of law enforcement, we are no longer shackled to the barbarous colonial era, but wistfully, the obvious cultures of accepting the status quo of yesteryears, conventions/standards and brutality, are seemingly cemented well within the characteristics of the incredible Tasmanian administration, along with large sections of the states legal fraternity.
    Maintain the faith Sue, you are never out of the thoughts of Australians who live and value the merit of honesty, morality, egalitarianism, and integrity.

Leave a Reply to Made In America Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

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