The new book by investigative journalist, Andrew L. Urban, THE EXONERATION PAPERS – SUE NEILL-FRASER, disputes the Tasmanian Attorney-General’s justification for refusing the many requests for an inquiry into the controversial 2010 murder conviction. Urban also cites lawyers who present a dozen appealable grounds that have not been considered by the courts. 

 “I am calling out the Attorney-General’s excuses as invalid. This book provides the evidence that Sue Neill-Fraser’s murder conviction is wrongful many times over,” says Urban. “It’s not just one or two errors and broken rules but a dozen or more. Sue Neill-Fraser should never have had to face court in the first place.”

 Among those putting the case for a wrongful conviction is Tony Jacobs, former Principal Crown Counsel and a Crown Law Officer in Tasmania for over 30 years, who lists errors that he claims show her (now deceased) defence counsel’s “flagrant incompetence”. Flinders University legal academic Dr Bob Moles, who has followed the case for over a decade, argues that the trial failed many legal rules; and the majority decision refusing the 2021 appeal was contradicted by the dissenting judge.

Sue Neill-Fraser’s former lawyer Barbara Etter APM together with Canberra barrister Hugh Selby, prepared a detailed dossier cataloguing the many failures of the police investigation – and exculpatory evidence withheld – which was tabled in the Legislative Council of Parliament in August 2021.

Urban’s book also shows how the Tasmanian Integrity Commission, the Legal Profession Board, the Tasmanian Law Society and the Bar Association have all failed to demand the proper administration of justice.

“Tasmanians shouldn’t be satisfied with such a poor standard of their legal processes,” adds Urban.

This sequel is devoted entirely to the case of Sue Neill-Fraser, which was the leading subject of his previous book, Murder by the Prosecution, described in the foreword by high profile barrister and former Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC as a “troubling exposé”.

THE EXONERATION PAPERS – SUE NEILL-FRASER is published (Wilkinson Publishing) in the wake of Sue Neill-Fraser’s release on parole in October 2022, after serving 13 years of a 23 year sentence. It comes 10 years after Urban began to follow and write about the controversial case, in which Neill-Fraser was convicted of the murder of her partner Bob Chappell on Australia Day 2009.  

The 14th anniversary of her arrest on August 20 will be marked by a rally on Saturday, August 19 at Tasmania’s Parliament House, organised by the Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group.

 The book will be launched by former Premier Lara Giddings on Wednesday, August 23 at Fullers Bookshop in Hobart. Sue Neill-Fraser is expected to attend.








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


  1. SUe DUnnitt says:

    you could not investigate your way out of a wet papaer bag, you Dork.

    • andrew says:

      SUe DUnnitt (clever, eh?), your parents should send you to school, but in the meantime your criticism has alerted me to never find myself inside “a wet papaer bag”. And Go the Dorks!

      • Helen says:

        Andrew one has to laugh at some of these uneducated responses. It has now been proven that there are 50% of Tasmanians with literacy problems – very sad but a fact. Very interesting that with this Celine Cremer missing Belgian tourist the police did not acknowledge Ted Mead’s (excellent bushwalker, Conservationist et al knowledgeable areas in the bush) with his differing concepts where she may have ventured far from where the police searched even with a Cadaver dog. Also police were not interested in her parents undertaking a search with skilful people – Defence would have done a better job.

        Sue is innocent. The Rule of Karma is very close.

  2. Owen allen says:

    Excellent work Andrew.

  3. Peter Gill says:

    The book sound interesting. This article led me to the Wikipedia entry for the Integrity Commission (Tasmania), an entry which was rather scary to read.

    • Father Ted Whalensky says:

      According to the Wikipedia entry for the Integrity Commission Tasmania – its been nobbled by the Politicals – A CCRC will almost certainly be emasculated by our dear leaders using the same strangulation method – choke it to death !

  4. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    The truth is guys it’s not “Democracy”, it’s “Representative Democracy” and look what that has brought us in recent years with representation from all of our “Honourable men and women”!
    Looking forward to reading the book Andrew.👍
    Have often thought do we reply to this and many other blogs simply to satisfy our own opinionated reasoning or as Robert says it’s because “…the tsunami of deceit and selective incompleted politicised influencing, is wearing extremely thin…”! Well I could not agree more.
    Observing how often an elected representative directly answers a question when asked leaves no doubt in my mind that the profession of ‘influencing’ is on shaky grounds. We seek unbiased responses only to fobbed off with “we inherited this” and the old party political hum drum continues.
    Sue’s case has been one of those such examples of hand-balling I would argue!
    The blame game has been played out and we are no longer willing to accept this rhetorical claptrap.
    There is however still the tendency to look up to politicians similar to the way many have looked up to the clergy who over the year’s let many of our families down.
    Should “The Exoneration Papers” be gathering dust in the archives of the Tasmanian parliament then by introducing them once more in your book for the reading public to mull over I can only but believe that quite a few ‘public servants’ in Tasmania on reading it will also recognise their folly.
    Blogs are one thing, books are forever.

  5. Brian Johnston says:

    The thread of the article is the police sort of somehow got it wrong, screwed up. If they could be made to see the errors of their ways we could put this case right.
    Is this just naive hogwash?
    I am not having a go at Andrew he has put a lot of work into this case.
    There are a huge number of innocents being found guilty for various reasons, incompetence, shoddy work. laziness, solve the case at any price, etc.
    In the Sue case we need to ask:
    1. Did the police screw up.
    2. Did the police think they had the right person
    3. Do they still believe Sue is guilty.
    4. Have the police realised their error and are now covering up.
    5 Was Sue gaoled deliberately.
    6. Does someone in high places know who the killer(s) is are.
    I believe someone in high places has to know Sue is innocent and wont act to help Sue.
    Which raises further questions
    7. Are the killers being protected.
    8. Have the killers been protected from the beginning.
    It would appear there is a huge conspiracy involved and it would help if Sues team could solve the case.
    William Pepper once said the only way I can help King is solve the case. It was a huge amount of work and he solved the case though officially the assassin is still James Earl Ray the innocent.
    Sue is out of gaol and that is the end of it.
    The only way to help Sue from here is
    9. Fluke a beak through
    10. Prove who killed Bob.
    11. Find the body. There has been a tip off of how his body was disposed of though no follow up.
    12. Mount a civil case.
    Talking about the case has achieved nothing and is unlikely to achieve anything.
    The civil case should have been done years ago.
    Believing the truth will win out is naive.
    Talking about the Keogh case while talking about Sue has not helped and may have hindered the matter.
    If Moles was so damned clever he would have Sue out.
    One aspect that has troubled me all along is Sue’s Lawyer Gunson.
    Did Gunson for whatever reason believe the police had their man and that Sue must be guilty. It is then just a small step to assist the police in gaoling Sue.
    Sue’s supporters should have hammered Gunson while he was alive.
    Gunson surely – even if he orininally believed in Sue’s guilt – must have had second thoughts.
    Does Sue’s family have it in for Gunson today.
    The second matter which troubles me is Elise Archer’s position. She must know both sides of the case. What are her inner thoughts. i shudder to think.
    The pro bono appeal failed.
    A civil case must be undertaken. Funds need to be raised. Starting right now.

    • Owen allen says:

      You do not understand Tasmania. They will coninue to lie as they slide into Hell. They worship the Devil, Tassie Devil, devil this devil that.
      They are proving to the world there is no justice in Tasmania.

    • Helen says:

      Well we have seen what happened to Victoria Caffasso an Italian tourist who was murdered at Beaumaris Beach and the police not only contaminated the scene but did not cordon it off now. Dont get me started. Also where is Celine Cremer the Belgian tourist !!!!Ted Mead experienced bushwalker with vast knowledge of the Tasmanian bush – police are not interested in his insights. Ted is a Tasmanian conservationist naturalist photographer and author. Did the police just give us – high time all experienced bushwalkers along with her family join us and search high and low in Philosopher Falls. Did the police take fingerprints of her car. I also had a prowler in my yard and the police took over 25 mts two years ago and did not even enter my property to have a good look. Within that time my daughter and her partner came around within that time and went right round the property. Toothless tigers.

  6. Father Ted Whalensky says:

    The thought of a visit to Hobart for the events on August 19 and 23 – hard to resist- However – having tramped much of the World – Two territories in particular scare me – North Korea and Tasmaniac ! South Australia ?? The New York Subway pales by comparison – The Six bullets in the face London Underground – they do have a CCRC !

  7. Steven Fennell says:

    Tasmanian police think you may have committed a crime – The jury decides from day one that the police must have a case. GUILTY.

    • Owen allen says:

      Tasmanian Police, say you have committed a crime, so you have.
      Playing guitar daily, same time same place, busking for weeks. A car parks close to where the busker sits, whom new previously the owner. Did she still own it? Did she lend it to some one? Why did she park there?
      I busked as I had been doing, I was arrested and placed in Risdon Maximum Prison, for breaking a restraining order. And after 7 months, I was found guilty by Magistrate Shan Tennent who sentenced me to 6 months prison. I was kicked out of prison that very evening at about 5.00pm, in the winter, and of course the sentence was changed for the record to 7 months.
      But on the other hand Tasmania Police protect their gentry. Argued with me in denial after a stock broker strangled me as a taxi driver, threatening to arrest me. I told them to Fuck Off. I was arrested a couple of days later.

      • Father Ted Whalensky says:

        Sounds Like Entrapment – A not uncommon tactic used by Tasmanian Police (and persons using their policeymen mates) To do one over – If youse is a wealthy Codger and had a top QC ( KC) representing you – (and if the Judge is one of your friends –
        – effing unlikely ) – the person would have been warned not to harass you by deliberately parking their car at your routine work spot – AS IF
        they didn’t set you up ?

        • Owen allen says:

          Thanks Whalensky; I was aware that was the probability, but soldiers do not turn around and go home. It was a heavy price to gain the evidence. They set themselves up; and tried to destroy me going into Maximum Security. More story over the river in Risdon. And later, they tried again when I attended a seminar on Prison Reform, chaired by Greg Barnes, criminal lawyer. I noticed a patrol car at morning break, smoko on the footpath. At lunchtime I recognised a suit who looked me in the eyes as he came out of the building. He had punched me in the head one night whilst I was handcuffed, hands behind my back as I was being placed in the back of a police car. (Harassing police). That charge, guilty without a plea, guilty in absence, I was in the Remand Centre. I never had an opportunity to mention police assault in court.
          After this day I went into hiding and bolted, they waved goodbye up north near the ferry, tailing me and driving alongside laughing. Laughing Detectives.
          I wasnt prepared to do a couple of years inside, I had enough evidence, now it has to come out. Remember, the Tasmania Leader of Opposition told my wife and I Tasmania Police, are too corrupt to do anything about.

  8. Robert Greenshields says:

    “Tasmanians should not be satisfied with such a poor standard of their legal processes”.

    Australians should not be satisfied with such a poor standard of their governing administrations.

    Judicially, along with every other aspect of state, territorial, and federal governance we seemingly have been continually duped and deceived by successive governments and politicians, who in most cases adequately mirror one another.

    My generation, I believe, has also been deliberately misinformed through the continuity of an arrogationally inspired disinformation culture and status quo, that ultimately has demeaned integrity morality and honesty, while positioned perceived predominants have been more than happy to witness it flowing down to societies looked upon lesser echelons, because through closely associated influences they are minimally affected. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and now sadly Ukraine confirm my disposition, but I recognise prior generations also suffered, and in many forms far greater.

    With a national population of a mere 27 million persons, who in most cases I concur, respect credible authority, the tsunami of deceit and selective incompleted politicised influencing, is wearing extremely thin, and Sue Neill Frasers case, though looked upon as a Tasmanian issue, can, I believe, be readily transposed to any other location within our nation.

    Good luck at and for, the book launch.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Robert, how succinctly you summarise the reality.
      “My generation, I believe, has also been deliberately misinformed through the continuity of an arrogationally inspired disinformation culture and status quo, that ultimately has demeaned integrity morality and honesty, while positioned perceived predominants have been more than happy to witness it flowing down to societies looked upon lesser echelons, because through closely associated influences they are minimally affected….”

    • Ben Dean says:

      Well said. A raft of recent ‘entirely circumstantial cases’ in Tasmania, show this Pillar of Democracy is currently crumbling.

    • Father Ted Whalensky says:

      Does a law degree just make one a more cunning rat ? A professional Liar ? Appeals for justice should never be heard by Hot Shot Judges – The law is an ass – Appeals should be an appraisal of common sense facts – not smart arse law – A jury system might deliver Justice if under no circumstance – “Stuff”- can be concealed by the conniving Judge/ DPP and Lawyer gang of four – with their little secret tete-a-tetes – a jury must have access to every slimy twist and turn – no clever concealments – DNA dogs vomit ! And keep your Stinking screenplay with tales of spanners and impossible feats of strength – the citizens faith in the rule of law and the justice system – So doing people over is the way to go – remember well the Praise heaped on Westbrook Queensland Childrens Prison by the State Minister – with a lovely law degree – a trained liar ! With a stinking mongrel happy grin ! They were swine then – still are – right up to PhD level – ( Hitler’s Judges teeming with PhDs in Law )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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