Sue Is Innocent – new YouTube channel

A small group of activists in Hobart, with a small investment and a big target – Tasmania’s legal establishment – has launched ‘Sue Is Innocent’, a YouTube channel that intends to give an audio-visual voice to the concerns of Sue Neill-Fraser’s supporters. 

The first item is a five and a half minute professional quality video interview with former nurse Fiona Peate, a long time friend of Sue. “I want to talk to people who have known Sue who can show that she is not an evil person,” says Shaine, one of the group. “I’ve come across strangers who still believe Sue killed her first husband,” he says incredulously.

Fiona

Fiona refers to Sue as “very kind, very welcoming,” with a great sense of humour. “We got on great…and I never ever saw her be spiteful to anyone….It was never sniping as has been said in the press…”

Another video on the channel, ‘Action on the Hobart Waterfront’, shows the producers displaying mannequins painted red, handing out leaflets and explaining to visitors on their way off the ferry from the MONA art museum the background to the case.

The team took an interest in the case about a year ago and has since intensified its focus, and is adamant that “Sue didn’t get a fair trial,” and has become concerned that “there is something bigger going on in this case beyond what you’d expect. It’s not just a miscarriage of justice.” Shaine believes there is a culture of impunity that has been able to develop unchecked by a weak and compliant political class that has no appetite for reform. He was also made suspicious by the “over-reaction” of TasPol to things like Colin McLaren and Eve Ash’s work on the case.

The group intends to release video content on a regular basis, amplifying the voice of those who believe there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. Those voices were not heard during Sue’s original trial or subsequent appeals.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Sue Is Innocent – new YouTube channel

  1. Garry Stannus says:

    What a great initiative! Thank you Shaine and the group – thank you for interviewing Fiona and thank you for the ‘Red Mannequins Chat’ down at waterside Hobart. I congratulate you on this.

    Could I also suggest an interview with someone who was both a friend of Bob’s and a friend (and business partner) of Sue’s … I don’t want to bandy his name about (Andrew knows the person – and has interviewed him some years ago) and it might involve some interstate travel. Yet he was a mate of Bob’s at the time that Bob met Sue and remained a friend. Similarly, he has remained a steadfast friend of Sue’s all through the years of Bob’s disappearance and Sue’s subsequent arrest, her imprisonment and her failed attempts to prove her innocence.

    Whatever you do, I thank you for creating this You Tube channel. Andrew must love what you’ve done … the mannequin video reminded me of Andrew’s ‘Front Up’ series: it was talking to people – on the street!

  2. Mark Hawkes says:

    ‘ The obvious prejudice occasioned by Justice Blow’s using the wrench scenario as an exemplar (without actual evidence of such), in his advice in closing to the members of the jury… should have been seen – by the jury – for what it was: improper.’ – G Stannus

    ‘ There was no “wrench theory” formulated or advanced. From the opening I told the jury the Crown did not set out to prove exactly how or with what Mr Chappell was killed, but that he was killed by Ms Neill-Fraser. It was no part of the jury’s function to make a finding that a wrench or any other particular weapon was used.’ – T Ellis

    • andrew says:

      We would certainly agree that the Crown didn’t “prove exactly how or with what Mr Chappell was killed”, because that was all speculation, not proof. (There wasn’t even any evidence at trial that Mr Chappell had been killed.) We also accept that Mr Ellis set out to prove that “he was killed by Ms Neill-Fraser”, but we reject the inference that he actually did so. The jury were TOLD she had killed Mr Chappell, reversing the onus of proof. Nobody noticed. We also agree that the jury made no statement in court as to whether ‘a wrench or any other particular weapon was used.’ That was a matter for their deliberations to which we are not privy.

      This comment reads like a disingenuous attempt to apply a cleansing agent to controversial aspects of the trial. Why am I reminded of Lady Macbeth?

      • Owen allen says:

        This is mind blowing incest, their minds have imploded,; who let dogs out? I did and then I had to save the dingo; my female German Shepherd snapped her jaws shut on my fingers after I prised open her jaws and the dingo got his foot out. And the neighbours heard my yell in pain. And when my ex wife got home ftom work she drove me to hospital. And the rednecks were waiting just to affirm some siiting on the back of a ute. And we arrived at A&E and the jumped in the ute. I walked up 4 in a 3 seater ute, one was in police uniform. Tasmania, as Mr McDonald would say, is a free range lunatic asylum, ain’t that right Tim Ellis, and Alan Blow. Owen.

      • Father Ted Whalensky says:

        There is NOTHING bigger going on in this case– it all went according to a Long Proven Strategy used many times !

      • Don Wakeling says:

        As in ” Is this a ‘wrench’ I see before me ” ??

    • Garry Stannus says:

      Did Tim Ellis advance a ‘Wrench Theory’? (Ellis to SNF in XXN and in closing address):

      “Wrenches have been in your mind through this trial, haven’t they? It was a wrench, wasn’t it, or a similar sort of tool with which you struck Mr Chappell from behind and killed him?……..

      “Tools feature, as I said, Ms Neill-Fraser who produce[d], for the first time, that I can find in any statement or interview, in this Court, the first time that wrenches were missing when their yacht – or wrenches had been found to be missing when the yacht was at Goodwood, and that was quickly said, “Oh, well they disappeared at Goodwood” – it was tools, wrenches, what’s the significance of that being on her mind as to the very last time she sees Mr Chappell alive? The significance is as I suggested, those tools, and they weren’t just tiny little wrenches, you can guarantee they wouldn’t – why would you have tiny little wrenches on a boat, if they were tools? A great big fifty three foot boat, they’d need a bit more than a tiny little wrench and little box……..

      “Well she’s walking backwards and forwards, he’s getting increasingly angry. He’s giving her what she called in one of the interviews, ‘the usual harangue’……..

      “Anger, bang. Maybe once, maybe twice……..

      “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……..

      “Now I’ve suggested that wrenches have been on her mind as a sort of implement that she used to kill Mr Chappell……..”

      It sounds like a ‘wrench theory’ to me – Garry Stannus.

      • Rosemary says:

        yes definitely a wrench theory and what a load of balony was tossed around in that court room hoping it would stick in the minds of jurors and it did fill their heads so much there was no room left for critical thinking.

  3. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    Garry, with all due respect to Ian, I feel compelled to agree with you.
    The Juries Act 2003-Sect. 43 (3) states; “a verdict that the accused is guilty of murder or treason is to be unanimous”.
    To suggest that not one jury member, provided they were all properly counselled on this Act, did not have a “reasonable doubt” on all put before them then I must support your claim that the jury, whoever or wherever they are today must take blame for the verdict reached in the Sue Neil-Fraser trial hence, a wrongful conviction.
    This Act clearly states that a verdict has to be unanimous.
    This legislation allows for “reasonable doubt” and for the life of me how not one member of that jury could not find reasonable doubt, particularly in the matters you have raised again, then surely this puts the jury system at best in doubt.
    For 12 people being agreed on ‘speculation’ is beyond belief, if we are to be convinced that the jury system is reliable.
    So Garry, I have to agree with your assertion about the jury on this occasion.

  4. Ian Ronald Gardner says:

    I am thankfull to see the Parole and the Podcast is a good idea if it is well executed.
    Cannot blame the Jury for their decision as they had to go on the evidence presented by a lazy, incompetent Police Service and Prosecution. It was incomplete and tainted. Also, they were no doubt influenced by the Judge’s biased comments . Anyway Sue’s current situation is an improvement on jail and at least some Tasmanians have taken their heads of the sand,

    • Father Ted Whalensky says:

      You CAN blame the jury SYSTEM — we are talking serious results for the victims of the SYSTEM . JURIES should be sent thru a training School–such that they can immediately recognise when a mongrel act and SCREENPLAY is being presented. A jury should know when other members of the jury have been on previous Victorious Trials. The jury deserves to have it explained to them that when another jury member starts feeding them damaging “stuff” that wasn’t presented in the court – the jury has to be immediately dismissed ! A JURY should know that when the judge and prosecutors start working as a team– working and embellishing the same scurrilous screen play— STAND UP TOGETHER and give loud voice–“GET STUFFED YOUSE HOURABLE ONES ” ! IS THE EFFING JUDGE GOJNG TO IMPRISON THE WHOLE JURY ? THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS WIDE OPEN TO ABUSE– I KNOW THAT FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE .–PS. A JURY SHOULD “NEVER” EXCEPT FORENSICS ONLY FROM THE JUDGES LITTLE MATE — Without further verification .

      • Rosemary says:

        I agree juries do need training in evidence. Then they might be less likely to fall for the false speculation offered up to them to fill the evidence void.

        • andrew says:

          Judges could do with some training, too…

          • Don Wakeling says:

            Andrew, what would have caused the Jury to ask for the Judge to explain manslaughter to them? What part of the Crown case had any claim other than deliberate violent killing ?

          • andrew says:

            There is no obvious reason and I do not presume to assume anything the jury might have been considering.

          • Don Wakeling says:

            It’s ironic that rather than be the recipient of legal education, the powers that be awarded “justice”Blow an upgrade of his OA for services to the law and including, among other accolades, his contribution to legal education! ! And this was in 2018 when his disgraceful conduct in Sue’s case was well known to all. And, today, this legal educator is the Acting Governor of Tasmania, now known, even internationally, as The State of Shame.

          • Ross Cameron says:

            Quote of the day Andrew!

        • Father Ted Whalensky says:

          Detailed information is available to those who care to search– methods used to manipulate jury verdicts– how to slot in persons of proven scurrilous disregard for common decency– (those of a Policeymens brain). Youse all know the type–go after a young Sheila whose baby was eaten by a dog– then take 30 years to ADMIT that the police lied about possibly the most important evidence– fetal blood when there was none—SHIT– Sounds familiar. Of course IF the pigs can’t plant forensics or lie their guts out about the forensics–the other method used to achieve the desired verdict– insert the RAT. LOOK for yourself at some of the amazing verdicts and HOW the jury was stacked . Many countries DO NOT HAVE A JURY SYSTEM– Too easy to corrupt and too unreliable . We have in Queensland a famous professional juryman . Do we have a verdict for YOU !

    • Garry Stannus says:

      Ian, I’m not having a go at you … your ‘Cannot blame the jury’ comment is understandable, but I don’t share your view.

      I do blame the jury. I’ve had enough access to the trial transcript, etc. Surely, there must have been some, who could recognise Tim Ellis’s addresses for what they were?
      1 Direct evidence against Sue did not exist or could not be found: the jury heard that … and what … they put it aside? Did this not add to the innocence alternative against the prosecution’s weak circumstantial case?
      2 The wrench (screwdriver) scenario (in Ellis’s closing) should have been seen by members of the jury as ‘loose talk’ in closing and should have been objected to by Blow J.
      3 The obvious prejudice occasioned by Justice Blow’s using the wrench scenario as an exemplar (without actual evidence of such), in his advice in closing to the members of the jury… should have been seen – by the jury – for what it was: improper.

      I’m sure, if I put my mind to it, I could find other reasons why we should want to hold Neill-Fraser’s trial jury to account.

      So there you have it, Ian: I doblame the jury. I don’t believe they had reason to find Sue guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
      PS: Dtv Sinnitt told the court that the address that Meaghan had given as the place for her ‘sleepover’ on the night of 26Jan2009 …did not exist or could not be found. Did that admission not cause the jury to wonder?

      • Garry Stannus says:

        Oops, I omitted the spurious ‘blood in the dinghy’ claim by Tim Ellis … early in the trial. I say that the jury should have seen through that claim – or should have dismissed it given following trial information that luminol was not a confirmatory test for blood, but rather, a screening test…

      • andrew says:

        Yes, and … even though the jury were not taken to view Four Winds (a gross error) surely at least a couple of them must have been on bard a yacht given they lived in Hobart, a port, to realise that the prosecution’s scenario of Sue dragging a dead body from below up onto deck and into the dinghy was a ridiculous piece of speculation. As a yachtie friend of mine noted, nobody in that courtroom was nautical – otherwise the prosecution would have been laughed out of court.

        • Father Ted Whalensky says:

          In a decent system of “JUSTICE ” the Jury would have been taken to the yacht and shown how the deed was done–“EFF that” Screamed the Judge– that could damage my future as LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER ! The Politicians and Policeymens mightn’t love me any more !

      • Rosemary says:

        Thanks Garry, for just a small sample of what was wrong with Sue’s original trial. So many reasons the trial verdict should be completely set aside. So many parallels to the case in USA of Adnan Syed ( subject of the original true crime podcast called ‘Serial’). The prosecution finally admitted their error and he was released after 20 years. Sue may be out on parole but will effectively be silenced for the next 10 years. TAS justice system hoping everyone will forget about it by then? Prosecution, admit your error now and immediately end this MOJ!

      • Don Wakeling says:

        I blame the Judge and the prosecutor. They both knew the limits of the law and procedure for the conduct of criminal trial by jury. Both deliberately, illegally, and reprehensibly breached their legal duties. They each manufactured “evidence” , for which conduct they should each have been dismissed from office. They remain the shameful face of Taamian Law.

  5. Rodger Warren says:

    The YouTube videos are a great idea and will probably reach a different group of people.
    It seems only public opinion will force scrutiny of the Tasmanian Justice System.
    I still firmly believe that Sue Neill-Fraser will be fully exonerated.
    What I don’t know is when that will be.
    That is why like most people I am glad Sue has accepted a Parole.
    Take care
    Rodger Warren

  6. Hi guys.
    Well, front and centre in my mind of late is what has happened in Queensland with a government department that is under investigation for perverting the course of justice when DNA testing. Let’s let that run its course but the enquiry will result in thousands of criminal cases having to be gone over again. Yes, we have the innocent in jail and the guilty walking free all because they decided not to do tests and to get the GNA wrong. Does this not brilliantly overlap Sue’s trial on what we new at the trial, know now and have known for some time yet, the Tasmanian authorities hide behind the legal system.
    We know who was on the Four Winds that day? and we know what happened? We know there was a second dingy along side the Four Winds at around 5pm? We know at trial a derogatory statement was made by someone with a long criminal record to the police the day after Bob disappeared, wanting the police to drop charges against him? There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, yet Sue gets a phone call on the night of the incident from a guy who had got himself involved with Bobs daughter telling her that the Four Winds was sinking? And where is Bobs phone that was with him on the Four Winds? Who is hiding what from who.

  7. tony brownlee says:

    All the issues arising out of this terrible matter while relevant add up together to ‘Reasonable Doubt” and that is all that matters. I know not if Sue is guilty or innocent, I do though recognise that the evidence tendered at Trial and since trial can only lead to one conclusion: The Crown has not and did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
    It would be most interesting but impossible given the Tasmainian AG would never approve it, if Jurors in the Trial were to be polled? Whats the bet at least the majority of Jury members now dissagree with their original verdict.

  8. Brian Johnston says:

    When the cops charged Sue, did they at that point believe they had the case right.

    Did the cops take a lazy approach and think they had it right.

  9. Owen allen says:

    Tasmania sent me into a mental state of fight or flight. That is how they work. Intimidation, bullying, creating fear, then property damage and violence. And impropriety and cronyism nepotism and corruption, and Mr McDonald kept telling me, do not react. They were instituting war upon us by the law, and the law partook and encouraged thuggery in the village by outlaw, laws. So we were outlaw. So I took an oath, to fight Tasmania, why, because I have respect and would work with the ADF, also I have respect for the deceased like Tasmanian Ordinary Seaman, Teddy Sheean VC died trying to help his crew whilst on a sinking ship, shooting attackers, fighting to defend justice in the free world including Australia.
    Now Australia is not free, National Criminal Case Review Commission urgentky required and Human Rights Commisdion Enquiry into Tasmania Cronyism, Nepotism and Corruption, sorry to all you folks caught up in this. Repent, confess you wont be shot or hanged, 3 meals a day, as they say bed and breakfast.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Owen are you still in touch with Ronald McDonald, or has he left earth for a more peaceful rest?

      • Owen allen says:

        Geraldine, the last contact I had about a month ago with his son, Ron was in hospital in a serious condition, so I don’t know. I have had little contact in recent years; Ron wasn’t a young man and they nearly killed him a few years before. He retired from frontline action.
        Owen and thanks for asking. Ron was a great mentor.

        • Geraldine Allan says:

          Thx Owen.
          I knew Ronald say 2+ decades ago; he used regularly attend Tasmanian LAT (Legally Abused Tasmanians) & then PIN (Public Interest Network) meetings.

          • Owen allen says:

            Ron deserves a serious commendation for his committment to standing up and speaking out against social, legal, and political corruption.
            He wrote me after request by Tasmania Human Rights Commissioner, Robert Henderson contacted Ron by mail, and asked Ron if he would help me, and he did, for years, we were close, we experienced similiar vilification in Tasmania by local thug neighbours who were protected by Tasmanian Authorities. They sent me mad and that is their intention, they are masters of mind control. Tavistock has been down there for years, and Martin Bryant was meeting with a Tavistock expert prior to Port Arthur. Ask Andrew McGregor (Port Arthur) whom I met in my office opposite Tasmania Parliament when Ron introduced me to Andrew. As you are aware Geraldine, this is massive Tasmania Sociology being released to the world via modern technology, there is no turning back. Thanks for reaching out to me, Owen.

  10. Owen allen says:

    Well done, great intentions; but character reference, like character assassination is not worth a damn. See, I was character assassinated in Tasmania, and the assailants were character approved; this is good guy bad guy bull shit.
    Fight the authorities who have undermined justice in Tasmania. They are all guilty of perverting the cause of justice. Bring on a Human Rights Trial against Tasmania, they are perverts, Lest We Forget the Leader of Opposition who said Tasmania Police were too corrupt to do anything about, 1996. Owen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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