Sue Neill-Fraser was released on parole this morning and driven to the parole office in Hobart by her two daughters, Sarah Bowles and Emma Fraser-Meeker, reported the ABC.
Sarah Bowles said although they were excited to have her out of prison, “it wasn’t the outcome we’d hoped for. This has renewed our energy, having mum out to clear her name, overturn the miscarriage of justice, and seek justice for Bob’s memory as well,” she said.
Sue Neill Fraser was accompanied by her daughters as she reported to her parole officer this morning.(ABC News: Luke Bowden)
“I think one of my main goals will be to see what can be done to improve her health now that we’re outside of the prison system.”
Rosie Crumpton Crooke, president of the Neill-Fraser Support Group, said it took a lot of persuading for her to relent and apply for parole.
“Sue always said she would not accept parole, that she wanted to come out of prison exonerated and as a free woman,” she said. “She took a lot of persuading to take parole. We have given her our solemn, sincere undertaking that we won’t give up.
“If she was concerned that if she left prison people would forget about her, she needn’t be concerned about that. We would never forget about her, we would never stop fighting and that was certainly the message I was giving to her when she was considering whether or not to take parole.”
At wrongfulconvictionsreport, we too, will continue to shine the spotlight on this egregious miscarriage of justice, brought about by a criminal justice system that has defied the rule of law in pursuing her.
Outstanding website, which I heard about thanks to your appearance on the “Who Killed Bob?” podcast. Staggering and depressing number of unsafe convictions and plain factual innocence cases out there.
We need personal prosecution for those responsible for the most egregious cases, not just reviews or apologies. Prosecutors and others in the justice system responsible for wrongful convictions appear to be unaccountable. They should not be allowed to say known untruths to get a conviction and tick a box.
Does anyone have any information on what the next step is in the pathway to exonerating Sue? Are there legal moves going on in the background, more submissions to the A-G, actions by state politicians? Representations to human rights organisations?Surely this matter can not be allowed to wither on the vine?
The intention is to keep fighting, as Sarah Bowles told media. But for now, nothing public…and in private, the family is making sure Sue adapts well to her new life.
Good to read. Thanks.
“Good luck Sue and lets hope that the Tasmanian parole board does not hamstring your right to publish your thought’s, views or opinions.”
Methinks best if Sue does not publish views etc. Best for others who dont have to contend with the parole board to do it.
I was told recently by the Supreme Court registry that a litigant cant purchase tapes of the proceedings in the Supreme Court and cant purchase a transcript without a request to the registrar.
What happened to open justice!
Does anyone know if this is also the case in relation to criminal proceedings? SURELY NOT. Numerous times in NSW and the ACT I have cross referenced tapes and transcripts and found material on the tapes that wasnt on the transcript and vice versa! Once when I raised the issue with the NSW government I was told that the transcriber had a ‘discretion’.
If what I have been told is true and litigants cant purchase tapes of their cases and need to give a reason to the registrar before they purchase a transcript, it needs to be addressed by the Tasmanian Parliament and the Federal Attorney-General, quickly.
The federal government should withhold funds to states and territories who dont enable litigants to access to tapes and transcripts and waste funding on witch hunts as in the SNF case.
The Federal Government should take Vass into protective custody–get her to hell away from the Tasmaniac InJustice System–Before it’s too late ! She could be a real problem for their little “So Far Sucessfull Screen Play” If she ever has the courage she could bring the Darlings Unstuck– they know THAT– they won’t ALLOW THAT! Get her to SAFETY -away from the Tasmaniac Policeymens and their Murderous YACHT DRUG- THIEVING Henchmen . I’M SURE SHE WOULD SPEAK IF SHE FELT SAFE FROM THE TASMANIAC MURDER SYSYEM.The Federal Government has international Obligations to the Australian People to insure that this current can of worms is cleaned UP ! The SAS should release Derek Bromley from the stinking SA Prison system ! We all Know he is innocent– as is our Sue–The Various Appeals Courts Judges need to be prosecuted under International Law– It’s AN Obligation of the Federal Government to guarantee Justiceto ALL Australians ! Not some kind of Stinking Codswallop Joke for Overpaid Arrogant Pompous Gits !
The International Human Rights System—Australia is a party to seven CORE International Human Rights Treaties–ONE of these signed treaties– completely OVERRIDING ANY STATE JURISDICTIONS– Is THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS –Australias Compliance with these OBLIGATIONS–Is NOT NEGOTIABLE and is NOT to be totally ignored by any State System–wishing to maintain their Protection of Police and Political Corruption–(their power base). The Federal Parliament needs to ACT–SHOW SOME GUMPTION–ITS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO FORCE COMPLIANCE IN AUSTRALIA WITH THESE VERY IMPORTANT COVENANTS– ITS NOT some kind of gutless joke to sit back and ignore the actions of THESE CORRUPTED LITTLE TASMANIAC AND OTHER SYSTEMS–IT should be understood that the Highest Court Judges in Australia are in no way immune from these OBLIGATIONS ! Either Comply or get to HELL OUT–JUST THINK FOR ONE MOMENT WHAT THESE LITTLE SECOND RATE EXCUSES FOR DECENT CITIZENS HAVE DONE– IM TALKING TO YOU– HIGH COURT JUDGES-OBEY THE LAW ! for pities sake .BUT–I KNOW YOU WONT BEHAVE IN A DECENT MANNER–ONLY THE—– RISE TO THE TOP !
Brother, Tasmania is 3 tier government. Federal friends, and international friends. This is why they are so confident in holding the plebs down. Their tentacles are worldwide. They are headliners, major players in the international community. But Whalensky we can do it under democracy, I am calling in Major Tom, Roger Waters, Angry Anderson, Alice Cooper Father GOD, and every other volunteer to get on board. We do not have long, but remember, Thy Will Be Done, On Earth As It Is In Heaven, but, and, that is up to US. Us not the US per se. They have their own problems, all the same world wide.
Chio ,Owen.
Without writing a dissertation reply, the last time I tested ICCPR, Tasmania and some other states, did not have a domestic coverage.
Although Australia passed legislation in some areas that cover important elements of the ICCPR into domestic law e.g. discrimination, privacy and freedom of information, there remain numerous rights in the ICCPR that have not been domestically incorporated in accordance with article 2(2).
For readers inclined to research this, there’s much more scholarly-written about this lack, that I could articulate here.
Another bit of HREOC information — UN Human Rights Council
“… For years, the Coalition tortured the Australian Human Rights Commission. A little snip here, a massive cut there, annual funding crunched from $22.9 million to $14.6 million in 2017-18 when there was a rearrangement of how it got funded. By June 30 this year, it had sliced one in five staff. As a result, it’s been overworked, underfunded and spending when it had no money.
On top of that, the former government appointed commissioners without any actual process. You’ll remember Freedom Boy Tim Wilson, short-lived as a commissioner and short-lived as the member for Goldstein.
Then last year, the commission suffered the appointment of Lorraine Finlay. The position was not advertised. As I wrote last year Finlay’s background as a junior law academic gave no indication she could be up to the task (but life is full of surprises so maybe).
And all of that unaccountable and opaque behaviour had the AHRC (actually the government) on a warning from the UN Human Rights Council. Continue on that journey of undisclosed process, poor funding and lack of effectiveness and our human rights institution would permanently lose its A status, with reaccreditation now deferred until 2023, which gives it full participation rights at the UN Human Rights Council.
I’m sure the Coalition would have thought there was nothing wrong with that.
Justine Nolan, director of the Australian Human Rights Institute at UNSW, says she is optimistic that risk has been diminished. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has plans to legislate merit-based and transparent appointments processes. Now, says Nolan, the next two steps will be to ensure that the AHRC is properly resourced and therefore has the opportunity to be effective. …”
The full article was republished in the local THE EXAMINER, Friday September 30, 2022.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7923598/time-for-workplaces-to-do-heavy-lifting-and-prevent-sexual-harassment/
Sorry to change the subject but I was told something the other day that goes to the heart of the integrity of the justice system. I was told that a litigant at least in a civil matter cant purchase a tape of their civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania? Also, a litigant is not able to purchase the transcript as of right but needs to make a request to the registrar. How can this be right? I am shocked. Heaven help us all.
What about in criminal proceedings? Does anyone know?
Many times in NSW and the ACT I have cross referenced tapes with transcripts and picked up numerous errors. Words on the tape that were not on the transcript and vice versa! When I queried it once with the NSW government I was told that the transcriber has a ‘discretion’. One words can make all the difference, for example: I did – I did not…
I don’t know the situation viz acquiring tapes…but I do know that your concerns are well justified re transcits; see this article:
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/06/08/did-he-say-i-shot-the-prick-or-i-cant-breathe/
Just checking in folks, I might ask for international help, and domestic help.
National political help is possible, I have already submitted a document to a powefull force. But do they have the will, to walk the talk when reality stares them in the face. If we all help Sue Neill-Fraser, and the many others wrongly convicted, we help the world. I plea to all the users and supporters of illicit drug manufacturers, importers and dealers, give it up you support evil. If you have so much money to waste on cocaine give some to charity, clear your mind and look at what is happening around you, as you run and hide in drug euphoria. Face up, the world is turning to shit and you are helping. Owen.
When I “graduated” from my Old Alma Mater–that magnificent learning centre–Me a proud Westbrook Reformatory Alumnus–I couldn’t really spell or nuffing–So needless to say I worked in BATHURST PRISON LIBRARY–Till we set it on fire– them Steinbeck books burn good ! Of Mice and Men– I was a mouse ! Sure saw some injustices–not much has changed–SNF SUE IS JUST ANOTHER VICTIM OF THE SYSTEM–Enough said about that–We MUST NOT damage the HIGH REGARD what we have for the HOT SHOT PIGGERY ESTABLISHMENT !
The new NSW no body, no parole law might be great for those who actually committed murder. Not so great for those who are wrongfully convicted as was Sue and many others on the WCR site.
Thank God Tasmania hasn’t got it.
Got to agree Keith, to me it seems more than likely that the ever present opportunist/venal elements of our disgraced policing forces would manipulate the circumstances even more than has been recognised, to satisfy and gratify self determined desires and judgements.
Given the known history as recorded, it’s difficult enough now to ever believe that many members can professionally or impartially be trusted to operate within the required laws.
Yes Keith. Perhaps a review body (sorry, have forgotten the name we usually give it … and anyway, in Tas we don’t have one anyway) … perhaps a review body could assess the reasonableness (in particular cases) of a ‘no body, no parole’ statute provision. The jury retired on 14Oct2010 to consider their verdict, came back and asked to be allowed to retire for the night, and then on 15Oct2010 after questioning the judge about ‘manslaughter’ and verdicts without a majority, finally delivered a guilty of murder verdict.
We have great doubt about the safety of Sue’s conviction. We have ‘reasonable doubt’ and we know more than members of the jury knew at the time when they came to the now-much-challenged decision that Sue was guilty. (Incidentally, we might wonder about the jury process … Am I right in recalling that once the jury retired to consider their verdict … there was an impasse and the foreperson came back to ask) about the question of manslaughter?
And then came back to ask about ‘what if you don’t have a unanimous verdict?”
In the end, the judge’s advice seems to have led to the wavering juror/s being able to put aside the possibility of manslaughter and to agree to a verdict of murder. [In my view, the question of manslaughter is in the common parlance, a question of legally wilful actions resulting (without intention) in the death of a person].
What was/were the wavering juror/s thinking? That maybe Sue had whacked Bob on the head with one of those imaginary wrenches? Only in anger … exasperation … no intention beyond a supposed angered blow? That such an imaginary blow had actually killed him?
So how was it that ‘the waverer/s’ accepted Justice Blow’s explanations about manslaughter and became confident ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that Sue was guilty of murder? Oh, gee! Justice Blow’s first explanation was in my view, obtuse. The jury went away … but apparently still could not decide … at least one was still holding out against a verdict of murder.
Again the foreperson asked the judge about what they should do if they couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict … apparently someone was still unconvinced about murder-guilt-beyond-reasonable-doubt. Justice Blow’s guidance was – in my view – just as helpful as his earlier guidance.
Away the jury went again …
That day before, they had finally reached the end of the trial’s closing addresses … Justice Blow’s summing up had taken the greater part of that preceding day … 14Oct2010. In the last part of the proceedings that day, the jury had been allowed to retire, to consider their verdict. They had come back, wanting to retire for the night, it seems. As I write these words, it is now twelve years ago – exactly – since that jury retired for the night.
Next day, as I’ve already mentioned in my introduction, following its 15Oct2010 morning return, it seems the jury were not agreed on the question of guilty of murder. Possible ‘manslaughter’ was the sticking point. [You’d have to wonder, what trial evidence was there that would allow a murder verdict over manslaughter … and of course, innocence? Ellis’s ‘anger … bang … maybe once or twice?’]
It seems that they laboured over this for the greater part of the second day. Faced with the prospect of a second night – if I’ve properly understood the transcript – and with the jury being advised about unanimous verdicts, about the need to consider each others’ views and about majority verdicts on a three considerations (murder, manslaughter & innocence), they returned a guilty verdict. The wavering was over.
How had it been achieved?
Editor and Readers: my analysis of the jury’s dilemma draws on the trial transcript and has no knowledge of the actual proceedings within the ‘jury room’. Such proceedings are apparently by law not to be divulged. But the trial itself is in the public arena and my comments are based on that.
Good analysis Garry. The jury’s question considering manslaughter is perhaps the most damning of the prosecution’s speculation: it shows that the jury believed that the accused used violence against the victim. Yet there was no evidence to that effect. There was no body, as we know, so no injuries could be found and examined. This case makes trial by jury indefensible, unless the jury, like a judge, is required to provide reasons for the verdict.
Garry, is it worthwhile to me to note — 15 October 2010 was a Friday?
For decades, anecdotally, there’s been whispers that trials are strategically run with timelines for jury decisions in mind. Opinion has it that closing addresses are strategically timed to then allow the jury to retire within a timeframe that if behind closed doors matters are tedious, members have an eye on Friday and the weekend.
Mostly, members do not want their deliberations to continue over their ‘rest time’. There were times, when after closing addresses, jury members were not permitted to go home during their decision-making processes.
For credence, I was on a longer trial (5 accused) jury, where pressure of weekend hastened a decision. There had been prolonged discussion that quickly came to an end, when members saw late Friday afternoon looming. Additionally, one member was concerned about getting away early as he had a birthday present to buy for his wife before they travelled to the “shack” for the long weekend. I kid you not. Such is the seriousness of jury decisions, as experienced by this commentator.
Would ANY body be OK ?
As a lawyer who is not enamoured with the justice system and who met Sue on occasions when I was a teenager, as my parents knew her and her family, I am willing to look at the transcripts with a fresh pair of eyes. I will contact her supporters next year when I am next in Hobart.
You all know of course why her appeals werent successful dont you? It is because the government would have had to pay her compensation…..This way they dont…They gave her parole because they knew she was innocent and they dont have to pay her compensation…Keep fighting to have Sue’s name cleared. Such travesties of justice affect us all – now and far into the future.
“now, on top of all of the disgraceful conduct of the trial Prosecutor Ellis and the trial Judge, now the CJ of Tasmania, we have the latest bastion of justice, Simon Gates, President of the Law Society, having the arrogance to counsel the community to cease any criticism of the Sue Neill Fraser trial, or appeals as such criticism would cause the public to lose confidence in the judicial system and the Police.!!!”
What, no free speech in Tasmania now either at the direction of the president of the Law Society!!
Are there not any Tasmanian lawyers who are prepared to call out their President Gates for his published “warning” to the Tasmanian public not to criticise the judicial/police investigative processes in this case?
If Tasmanian legal practitioners except to hold any integrity, on the eyes of the public, they should immediately move their Society to call on the resignation of its President. When the President of a “Law” society has the colossal ego to tell the public to shut up, any hope for decency in democracy is threatened : not just by his singular outburst, but more profoundly because it bespeaks the arrogance of many others in positions of power in the the state’s Judiciary, Government and Law enforcement.
Good question..would any Tasmanian lawyers care to respond?
This blows my mind, knowing what I know, experiencing in Tasmania what I experienced.
My prognosis is, they are so confident of global totalatarianism which they are part of, which is going down; they do not really give a shit what we think about how they treat us, manage society, govern,rule.
For instance Chief Justice Blow has been flirting in Australia amongst his Judges promoting guilty of murder without a body. Owen.
OWEN — YOUR PROGNOSTICATIONS ARE TERRIFYINGLY PROGNATHOUS . You sure lead with your chin–An Obese Mercedes Driver for President–And No Body = No Crime ! And to hell with Juries–Grumpy Judge only Verdicts–mostly “NOT PROVEN”. Screenplays are for the theatre.
Brother I had to go to dictionary, but I tell you, if you witnessed what they did to me you might understand. I have no fear of the bullies of corruption, they toughened me up in Tasmania, and I attained a degree in Risdon Maximum, but by then I had already stood up to Stand Over Detectives. They blew my mind.
I thought to myself, you dogs, you are not police officers, you are dog scum, like Nazi Brownshirts.
“BUT somewhat ironically, we still do not know for sure what really happened to poor Bob!”
Says a lot about the idiotic conviction doesnt it! Good luck Sue, you have many supporters and believers and are in good company with many who have no faith in the justice system in Tasmania (and other places in Australia) to do the right thing.
What would all you lay observers think if a judge in the supreme court of Tasmania who heard an application in a probate case had worked with one of the defendants for many years and didnt disclose the fact to the plaintiff?
We can only but hope that that Judge is no longer on the Bench.
Unfortunately, not so….I have to make an application for him to recuse himself. I dont understand why a judge would not disclose the ‘former work relationship/partnership’ to the plaintiff. The Defendant’s solicitors already knew of course because the firm of solicitors acting for the defendant (one of three trustees of a will) is the same firm that the judge and the said defendant lawyer were partners at together for years. Cosy eh!
But, good to see that your client has an astute and capable lawyer.
A recent article in “The Ocean Sailor”—-(Nantucket) Warned Ocean Yachtsmen about visiting Hobart–with its reputation for boat thieves who seem immune from prosecution . Even Joshua Slocum avoided the area after previous experiences with night time paddlers . When he did disappear– his Wife shot thru- like a Bondi Tram–before the Tasmaniac Police did her like a New England Turkey !
The WORD is getting around ( about the Hobart Yacht Thieves and their protection) “OCEAN SAILOR” and “KRAKEN YACHTS”– Hitting the BIG TIME NOW ! The Tasmanianc inJustice System is being ridiculed–In The World Yachting Fraternity–YOU LITTLE BEAUTY !!–NOW LETS SEE IF WE CAN STOP THE SYDNEY-HOBART–A STEP TOO FARCICAL ? Not SO sure –Look what we done to Mussolini !
I am compelled to ask how could anyone say/think or put in writing “reading of the trial transcript clearly shows the jury got it right”? Is this correct- was this stated? Are we talking about the same case? Why would anyone, let alone anyone in a position to understand legal matters, claim this? I am dumbfounded. Perhaps the mountains of advice from eminent lawyers, journalists, academics, along with the numerous books and documentaries about an alleged serious miscarriage of justice have been missed, overlooked, misunderstood or ignored? It is my view that it is the Tasmanian legal system itself that has caused any lack of confidence – just read the articles by Bob Moles and Andrew Urban for a start! What happened to BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? Urgent inquiry needed it would seem.
Yes, somewhere, I saw such a comment and had much the same reaction as you, LB. I’ve read that transcript many times, have used a ‘fine tooth comb’ on it in its entirety (putting into chronological order everything given as evidence at the trial. Indeed – on Tasmanian Times -I asked for the transcript to be made public and this happened via the help of another person. This is how we obtained the transcript.
I was puzzled/bemused at how people can access the same document and come away with opposing views of what may be inferred from such a document. I usually put it down to innate bias, sometimes to listening to yapping dogs and sometimes to having focused only on those bits which support a prior disposition … whether to believe or to suspect.
It’s a bit like a dog chasing its tail.
There a few bits in the transcript that didn’t look good for Sue, but of those bits, they can also be seen in a positive-for-Sue way. On the entirety of the evidence at trial, I can only say that had I been a juror I would have voted for a ‘not guilty’ beyond reasonable doubt verdict.
Supporting that, I must say that I’ve seen much that supports the proposition that the trial miscarried. Further, I’ve seen much that supports the claim that the police investigation was flawed and narrow in focus. Not only that, but there is the further matter of what police have done in the aftermath of the trial, to bolster their successful charges. The Jeff Thompson matter indicates that police appear to have ‘doubled down’ in their belief that Sue was guilty and thus, to have believed that anyone who tried to uncover evidence to the contrary was attempting to pervert justice.
LB: you probably don’t want ‘chapter and verse’ on this. Can I finish by saying that we need an Inquiry into all these matters… Sue and family – and all Tasmanians – need a return to sanity, to make Tasmania a state where we can trust the government, the courts and the police.
Sue Neill-Fraser was a victim of a legal process that can only be termed a “kangaroo court”. Although now widely yet unofficially exonerated by mainstream Australia, there are still a good number of people who are sitting on the fence, undecided as to her guilt or innocence. I had one yobbo say to me “Well at least she won’t be able to get her hands on Bob’s money!” That may be his idea of justice, it is certainly not mine. It is beside the point of the conviction and in fact quite misogynistic and offensive. A second Coronial Inquest into the disappearance of Bob Chappell needs to be conducted to put all of the evidence on to the table for detailed consideration, nothing left out, nothing excluded, all considered. But the judicial system in Tasmania seems to be content to “let sleeping dingoes lie”. As with the Lindy Chamberlain case, many people who had once bought the prosecution’s case hook, line and sinker later began to openly express doubts. So the Tasmanian justice system would be unwise to consider the Sue Neill-Fraser case “closed”, never to be re-opened again. Eventually public pressure may become so overwhelming that an Inquest in future will become inevitable. It already seems inevitable, but the Tasmanian justice system are the only ones who appear to be in denial about something that should be obvious.
It’s almost unbelievable that successive Government Ministers have stood back and taken no action to legislate a full Inquiry into this travesty. It is glaringly clear that the Judiary ( Brett J excluded) has just put their fence up around the Trial Judge (Blow CJ, the DPP procecutors and the Police, instead of condemning each of them for misconduct of almost every criminal law principle and ethical conduct. The Attorney General should be thrown out of office for her total failure to call a full Inquiry where Blow, Ellis, the appellate Judges, the Police and all others who either created or perpetuated this atrocity can be exposed and publicly shamed for what they have done .
The appellate judges … with the notable and laudable exception of dissenting Estcourt J.
Yes, I should have exempted Estcourt J, as I now do. Thank you Andrew.
Yes indeed,
Don the number one sequence of evidence in this case of the dumb cops that proves Sue is NOT GUILTY, is that when she was interviewed by the cops she didnt request for a solicitor to be with her. She spoke to the cops in the interview as best she could under the circumstances of being upset loosing Bob with the cops firing dumb questions at her to make her guilty from the time they took her in. From what I have seen of partners being murdered is they report a partner missing and a great plea on TV has any one seen this person. The next step is they will not talk to the police until their solicitor is present, some time later the body is found and then they get charged with the murder. If Sue had done this murder she would have been frighten, so she would had have a solicitor present.
Good points, Graeme.
May Sue find strength everyday along with her ever caring daughters who have been under so much stress and scrutiny from the public eye. I do recommend Tai Chi from the Utube of a morning or evening to try to relax.
At the same time we must also remember the Pearn family who lost their daughter on the 24th March 2013 by a rather large obese driver whom we all know as a former partner of Clarke and Gee on the Midlands Highway. As my Elder friend said the spirits are waiting.
The Rule of Karma by Hari Krishna …..
Thanks to Charles Wooley for his wonderful supportive article.
Said oversized person should never be allowed to drive again. How do you get away with causing the death of someone – no reasonable doubt there – and only being disqualified for two years and getting a slap on the wrist?
Ian–Vass knows exactly what happened to BOB–She stated as much in a Court of Law–also that Sue was NOT on the effing boat ! Is that not enough ? How can a person make a statement– clearly in front of all those in Court and elsewhere–ITS TOO LATE– ya can’t just say —I was lying– or the Policeymens have scared the shit out of me–or what is her explanation?
And now, on top of all of the disgraceful conduct of the trial Prosecutor Ellis and the trial Judge, now the CJ of Tasmania, we have the latest bastion of justice, Simon Gates, President of the Law Society, having the arrogance to counsel the community to cease any criticism of the Sue Neill Fraser trial, or appeals as such criticism would cause the public to lose confidence in the judicial system and the Police.!!!
Is he stating the carefully decided views of the Law Society and it’s members, or, did he just decide that, as President, he could have his own opinion. HE is not the Society, he is it’s servant. Look at his history of engagement with the AGs dept. and the office of Solicitor General. He has been tared with the same brush as that other bastion of bias, Michael O’Farrell, former Solr General, who has now accepted from Taspol, the “task” of inquiring into Taspol conduct.
The President goes further and declares that reading of the trial transcript clearly shows that the jury got it right.
The community doesn’t need counseling from this “lawyer”. One of his main objectives, he proudly declares, is to promote the Well-being of society members. Perhaps he could restrict his activities and opinions to that persuit. In that regard I’m sure we’d all like to hear what support he will help to provide for Jeff Thompson, the falsely accused and judicially condemned lawyer
r ( even whilst awaiting his own defended jury trial) who ,pro Bono, and with video demonstrated propriety, sought to find real justice for Sue Neill Fraser.
President of Law Society ?? Just another ” officer of the law” who can’t see the forest for the wrench’s.
An antiquated system of criminal “justice” with ‘legal games ” played by the prosecution and directions by the judge to the jury which is composed of mostly people who are ignorant of how the Law works or of technical matters eg forensics , etc.Worse still, the judge directs the jury to the decision they should arrive at ! So , what is the point at all of having a jury ?
Time for a Commission of Inquiry into corrupt Tasmania Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Tasmanian Government. Time to remove a certain lawyer in charge of Tasmanian Law Reform. For legal reasons I do not wish to name him or elaborate how he broke the Law in my case . In my opinion , the Fox in charge of the Hen-house!
The long and winding road… to Justice. And not there yet! Miles to go. The daughters always in support. The pressures on all. The sadness of the rift with some of Bob’s family. The moment of freedom … but still, it’s a Clayton’s freedom … still with the conviction … still with ten years of parole to serve. Still with only memories of the life that was – that life went forever, it had gone forever with Bob’s disappearance. I have the good fortune this morning to be meeting with two friends – strong supporters of Sue – who are coming north and will catch up at my ‘Peredelkino’. Tomorrow we will be joined by our other amigo and so will take place an opportunity to celebrate Sue’s release from prison.
There will be a down-side … we know – we have met – fellow prisoners who on release from prison have come out in support of Sue and, equally importantly, some have said how Sue had saved their lives when, in the despair of prison, Sue had offered them warmth, support, fellowship and help. These women exist and are grateful to Sue for her humanity. What is the downside? Will Sue’s release on parole make it harder for those who remain behind?
We need an Inquiry. We need the Government to step in, to initiate it. Something went wrong here, in the investigation into Bob’s disappearance, in Sue’s arrest, conviction at trial and imprisonment for thirteen years. We need answers but after so many years, all we still have are questions.
Am happy for Sue and her daughters amd family that she is out of jail. Shameful she was convicted and jailed in first place for a crime she didn’t commit. Such sloppy biased police work on all fronts. It was obvious from start there were other strong suspects for Bob’s murder. Everyone should take special notice of this case because something similar can happen to any one of us. There has been so many wrongful convictions for murder in Australia. Sue please know alot of people in this country support you and want to see your conviction squashed.
Totally agree Christine: “Everyone should take special notice of this case because something similar can happen to any one of us”…is the most important point the community needs to understand about this sorry saga, that and that the true perps have been roaming free all this time (except when in prison for other criminal activity of course).
So happy to see Sue with her daughters finally. What a price they have all paid for that outcome many years ago. Hopefully justice will prevail eventually.
I am so pleased that she is out and with her family.
But so sad she is not exonerated from from the cloud still hanging over her.
Those who determined there was no reason to doubt were doubtless the most unreasonable kind of Jurors for reason of having undoubtedly having had their minds confabulated beyond all reason by a doubtful Prosecutor so that they unwittingly lost the ability to adjudicate twixt certainty and doubt and as do all Jurors put to task under The EAJS, …..fell back on ASSumption to create guilt by imagination.
Fxxx The INjustice System of OZ.
Bite me !
Starting to have grave doubts about reasonable doubt ? In case you don’t know– Years of research in more than one Psychology Faculty have come to the conclusion that Many Many people regardless of educational backgrounds–dont truly understand–
” Beyond reasonable doubt ” One of these Departments recently released fairly conclusive findings “People with power ALWAYS abuse that power–ALWAYS “. That’s the end of that then ?
A photograph of the utmost joy.
Yes
Great to see Sue home and in good hands. Lets separate that but at the same time keep pulling the pressure on the system that got this so wrong. Go you good thing Sue.
I am delighted for Sue and her family that she has now been released. A travesty that none of her appeals were successful.
Sue is lucky that one of the requirements of parole was to that she had to admit guilt. because “Sue always said she would not accept parole, that she wanted to come out of prison exonerated and as a free woman,” The parole board could have used that knowledge to keep her locked up if she was forced to chose.
That position of being forced into a position that a lot of the wrongfully convicted have to consider, and in the case of no body no parole that is impossible to address if you are innocent.
While I was acquitted in the High Court of Australia (after 2,373 days) it is rumoured that in QLD the parole board is seeking that ALL who apply for parole admit guilt and acknowledge their guilt or parole will not be offered. That would have been a decision that I am glad not to have to consider.
I would implore those readers that actively support the work of the wrongfulconvictionsreport, continue to shine the spotlight on all miscarriages of justice, brought about by a criminal justice system that at times defies the rule of law in whatever state of Australia you are in.
Good luck Sue and lets hope that the Tasmanian parole board does not hamstring your right to publish your thought’s, views or opinions.
I think you mean that she DIDN”T have to admit guilt??
It’s the ONLY drop of compassion afforded Sue, when the parole board made a concession and released her, without compelling her to admit guilt!
The Parole Bard does not have a regulation requiring admission of guilt. It wasn’t compassion..it was the rules.
There maybe some confusion with “admission of guilt”. Post Parole though it may be different.
You can, in some jurisdictions plead guilt, without admissions, or even being “represented”. This will allow you to be released to plead whatever you were charged with, and/or at the same time face the Court as a confessed offender.
Sophie’s Choice. Either way, you bet on the Bench.
This entire matter is as all appear to agree, just a sick and very sad event. I have written elsewhere: I know not if Sue is guilty or innocent, but what I do know and it burns into our collective thoughts, is that the Crown’s evidence produced at Trial and subsequent appeals, demonstrates so very clearly: “reasonable doubt”.
But there is more than reasonable doubt Tony. There was dna and confession by a third party witness who was brow beaten out of the picture. This case is absurd bullshit, and it ain’t over yet. Tasmania Police are too corrupt to do anything about; words of the Tasmania Leader of Opposition 1996, to myself and my ex wife in his parliamentary office; and so they must all be compromised not to roll them. Cronyism, nepotism, feudalism, nazism, corruption, that is Tasmania.
Yes, that is what makes it an obvious miscarriage of justice. The elites of the judicial “status quo” of Tasmania have clearly behaved in an intimidating and obstructive manner towards those who might interfere with their established narrative. We now know that so much “went overboard” in this case – lost evidence, overlooked evidence, excluded evidence (I could go on), and ultimately the trial. BUT somewhat ironically, we still do not know for sure what really happened to poor Bob! Essentially the jury convicted someone of murder on the basis of “Don’t know what happened for sure really”.