Fallacious prosecutorial circular reasoning and lack of compelling evidence results in life imprisonment for Cedric and Noelene Jordan, as contributor Benjamin Dean explains.
In August 2023 Cedric and Noelene Jordan were sentenced by Justice Robert Pearce, in the Tasmanian Supreme Court (Launceston), to life imprisonment, for the murder (in 2009) of their granddaughter’s father, their daughter’s former husband, Shane Barker, of Campbell Town.
The married couple, now aged in their 70s, were sentenced to 22 years imprisonment, with a 12-year non-parole period.
The trial ran for 10 weeks and the Crown evidence was entirely circumstantial.
In March 2025, Cedric Jordan began the process of appealing the conviction in the Hobart Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court has heard arguments from both sides, but no date has been set.
Similar to previous entirely circumstantial evidence cases before the Tasmania Criminal Court (since 2010 with the conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser), the trial of the Jordans was absent of sufficient police investigative evidence to establish the essential facts of the case.
That is, the essential facts necessary for a valid inference of guilt.
In the Jordan’s trial, the only essential fact proven was that Shane Barker had been murdered.
However, there was insufficient evidence to directly connect anyone to the crime.
But, in the State of Tasmania, with the Tasmanian Government, all major Political Parties, and Judiciary continuing to deny all ongoing public, academic and legal fraternity concerns, the consequence is the Tasmania Public Prosecution has been free to refine a flawed form of circular reasoning, that has convinced both Judge and Jury of the accused’s guilt, in these trials designated as ‘entirely circumstantial cases’.
In the Jordan’s trial, and with an absence of sufficient Tasmania Police evidence to connect anyone to the crime, the Public Prosecution began their argument with what the Crown is trying to prove.
They began with the unproven fact, that Cedric was the murderer, to then advance the argument of ‘how’ and ‘why’ Cedric had committed this crime.
The Public Prosecution effectively circumvented the need for sufficient evidence to prove the ‘who’.
Beginning with the unproven fact, that Cedric was the murderer, the Prosecution then inferred the circumstances of ‘how’ the crime was committed.
In trial, this flawed reasoning that led to the conviction of the Jordans was alluded to by the defence lawyer Patrick O’Halloran when he expressed: “The prosecution has started at the end point and worked backwards to make pieces fit that don’t fit.” 1.
The Trial Judge in his sentencing comments, Justice Robert Pearce noted “the facts almost all follow from the verdict”.2
Implying the Prosecution’s argument began with the conclusion of guilt, to know ‘how’ Cedric committed the murder. Yet alarming the Trial Judge did not recognise its fallacious form, and therefore not a proof.
Instead we witness the Tasmania Public Prosecution continue to convince the Court of the Accused guilt, by an argument that makes no logical distinction between the Innocent and the Guilty.
Albeit an fallacious argument form that is inherently doubtful.
Disturbingly, this prosecutorial strategy used across the State of Tasmania has returned a 100% conviction rate for ‘entirely circumstantial cases’, starting with the conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser in Tasmania 2010.
This includes all cases reviewed being upheld.
A conviction based on flawed reasoning means the Innocent will not be protected from being sent to prison.
Consequently, the democratic principles of Equality in Law are being rendered null by the Tasmania Criminal Court. It is a Criminal Legal methodology that has failed to embrace basic inter-disciplinary Intelligent Analysis Tradecraft, or a scientific methodology for the treatment of evidence. Not to mention the absence of any critical skill criterion when selecting a jury.
The evidence presented to the Launceston Supreme Court, suggested Barker had died after being shot at about 7 pm, on Sunday 2 August 2009, in his front yard (Campbell Town), with a .22 calibre firearm.
Barker had only just returned home from his regular Sunday dinner at his mother’s home, also in Campbell Town.
After arriving home Barker took several things inside that had been given to him by his mother, to then return outside with his keys, which were found on the ground the next day.
Evidence presented suggested that he was shot 4 times in his front yard. Once in the front of his upper body – deemed a superficial wound by the coroner – and probably while he was standing and facing his killer. He was also shot three times in the back. The projectile paths indicated Barker was likely kneeling or lying face down on the front lawn when three shots were fired into his back.
Barker managed to move inside into the hall, as his final place, and locked the front door. One of the shots to Barker’s back proved to be fatal. He was found the next day.
The evidence suggested the murder weapon was a .22 calibre firearm, and probably a repeater, (relative to the assumed time between shots), but the type was unknown (ie whether, bolt, level, pump, or semiautomatic reload mechanism).
Police found a single shiny .22 spent cartridge casing on Barker’s front lawn, one of many casings strewn across Barker’s property. Hunting was part of Barker’s and the Jordan’s culture.
It was assumed as a reasonable probability the single shiny .22 casing came from the murder weapon.
The other three spent casings have not been found.
There was insufficient ballistic or forensic evidence to connect anyone to the crime scene. It had rained during the night. There was, furthermore, no confession made by the convicted couple that they had any connection to the crime.
But conversely (and thus fallaciously) by starting with the conclusion of guilt, the Crown Prosecution’s narrative of ‘how’ Cedric committed the crime was as follows;
Cedric, being an ‘experienced hunter”, had “… planned, (this) pre-mediated and intentional murder”. Having ‘laid in wait’4 for Shane Barker to return home from his regular Sunday tea at his mother’s place, then shot Barker 4 times with an unregistered .22 pump action rifle fitted with a silencer3 in his front yard.
The Prosecution conjectured Cedric then walked back to the car with the rifle, where Noelene was waiting (and therefore complicit), before the couple continued their 1.5hr journey from their home in Swansea, to Launceston for (a KFC) dinner.
Noelene’s phone had pinged a telco tower in the outer suburbs of Launceston around the time of the murder. The shortest route (but not the only route) to Launceston from Swansea is through Campbell Town. The Jordans initially claimed they stayed at home, but when confronted with the phone record, they admitted they went to Launceston for a KFC dinner. They claimed to have lied about staying home in fear of being targeted by police.
The Crown believed the Jordans had stopped on their way to shoot Barker in Campbell Town, before continuing on to Launceston.
No murder weapon was found
No silencer was found. But Police thought a silencer likely since a premeditating murderer would consider noise suppression. And a silencer is more effective on a .22 than other rifle calibres.
There was no CCTV or eyewitnesses of the Jordans in Campbell Town at the time of the murder. Let alone any compelling evidence found at the crime scene.
Nonetheless, despite this evidential paucity, by believing Cedric was the murderer, then the circumstances of the case were able to be inferred from this ‘fact’.
Consequently, much of the prosecutorial argument was in the form of ‘A murderer would hate, lie and make up stories to cover their tracks. Therefore here is evidence to infer hate, lies,’ and made up stories by the Jordans. Thus (fallaciously) affirming they are the murderers.
It is fallacious because there is no logical converse equivalence. Hence there is no logical distinction being made between the Innocent and Guilty.
Since it may be the case that all murderers lie, but the reason people lie is mostly not because they have murdered someone. All liars are not murderers. There is no logical converse equivalence.
Nevertheless, by continuing this form of argument of beginning with the premise that Cedric Jordan was the murderer, then it also followed the murder weapon would be a firearm in Cedric’s control. Whether found or not.
To establish this essential fact of the case, since the murder weapon could reveal ‘who’ is connected to the crime, the Tasmania Police found a witness having once seen Cedric ‘test’ fire an unregistered pump action .22 rifle, at a property called Brambletye, sometime prior to the murder.
In court, the existence of this firearm was denied by others, including the Jordans.
However, and more importantly, no spent .22 cartridge casings were found at Brambletye to match the spent casing on Barker’s front lawn. There was insufficient evidence to know if this firearm existed, let alone any proof to establish the murder weapon – albeit necessary before it is rational to infer the ‘who’.
Nonetheless, and reminiscent of previous entirely circumstantial trials, sufficient evidence was not considered necessary by the Tasmania Public Prosecution to claim to know (in detail) the murder weapon.
Certainly, the Trial Judge sentencing comments saw the significance of the murder weapon to connect Cedric to the crime, when he suggested, ‘The murder weapon was likely an unregistered .22 pump action rifle …It has never been recovered but would have been easy to dispose of.” (Ed: echoes of Sue Neill-Fraser trial….)
But unfortunately he did not recognise the fallacious argument where sufficient evidence and testing required to establish the murder weapon is essential be able to infer the ‘who’.
Nor did the Judge seem at all perturbed by his own speculation about the how the Jordans disposed of the ‘murder weapon’. Considering it was an inferred fact, based on a yet to be proven ‘fact’.
As defence lawyer Patrick O’Halloran exclaimed, “There are no eyewitnesses identifying Cedric Jordan, there’s no smoking gun, there are no fingerprints of Cedric’s, no palm prints, no … credible motive”.4
But all alternative explanations were irrelevant, when the facts follow from a starting premise of guilt.
Neither the Trial Judge, nor the Prosecution, nor Tasmania Police, thought it relevant to the discovery of truth, to consider or explain to the Court why a premeditating ‘experienced hunter’ did not aim to kill on each and every shot?
Or why a ‘pre-planned killing’ by an ‘experienced hunter’, who ‘laid in wait’ did not take the first opportunity to shoot when Barker first arrived home? But instead ‘laid in wait’ in the hope to get a better aim, if and when, Barker was to return outside again, on that wet, cold, dark August night.
Or why an ‘experienced hunter’ would superficially wound their victim?
Or why Barker’s keys were on the front lawn?
Or why a pre planning killer would only pick up 3 spent cartridge casings. Indicating a not well planned pre planned killing.
This competing hypothesis pointed towards an unplanned escalation between an unknown perpetrator and Barker. Which seemed a more likely fit to the circumstances. Yet an alternative explanation denied by both Police and Prosecution. It was irrelevant to convicting the Jordans.
Refs/notes/more reading
- 1. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-21/tas-barker-murder-trial-wed/102266936
- 2. The Supreme Court of Tasmania, Comments on Passing sentence, Jordan, C H https://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/sentences/jordan-c-h/
- 3. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-26/judge-sums-up-in-shane-barker-murder-trial/102514440
- 4. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-21/tas-barker-murder-trial-wed/102266936
PART TWO
The ‘elimination matrix’
In the absence of police investigative evidence to be able to follow leads in the 2009 murder, by 2015 the case had gone cold.
To rekindle the investigation, Detective Inspector Mark Lopes was assigned to the case. One of the detective’s first initiatives was to employ a police analytic tool, known as the ‘Elimination Matrix’.
During evidence Lopes gave in Court, he explained, “I worked on the basis of elimination. If you can’t eliminate them, that’s how they became a person of interest”. He went on to explain that “At the end of it there were 97 persons of interest, 95 of those were able to be eliminated, two persons were left, and they were Mr and Mrs Jordan.”5
However, Inspector Lopes was never required to explain to the Court why the matrix had shifted the burden of proof onto persons of Interest who could not prove their alibi. Other than knowing the Jordans were in Launceston on the evening of the murder.
Or explain how this is to deny the presumption of Innocence, by reversing the Onus of Proof. Bearing in mind it is rational to be both innocent yet unable to prove one’s alibi.
Nor were Lopes or the Prosecution required to explain why the Matrix had eliminated the two unknown persons of interest seen by eyewitnesses in Barker’s street on the day of the murder. Whereupon one of those persons of interest, driving a white 4WD, which was parked outside Barker’s house, and the occupant seen talking to Barker for some 15 minutes. Later, around the time of the murder CCTV in Campbell Town recorded a vehicle consistent with the description of the person seen talking to Barker early in the day.
Neither of these unknown persons of interest were able to be identified or came forward during the investigation. Nonetheless these ‘known unknowns’ were eliminated by the matrix.
The Police and Prosecution essentially elevated an unknown to being a known, and therefore discarded as irrelevant to the task of convicting the Jordans.
The ‘Elimination Matrix’ was no longer working
In 2017 Lopes ordered a search of Jordan’s highland property, where police claimed to have found three(?) .22 cartridge casings that ‘matched’ the unique signature on the shiny spent .22 casing found on Barker’s front lawn the day after the murder. A unique signature being the indentations and striation inscribed by a firearm on a spent cartridge casing following the action of loading, firing and ejecting the casing.
Tasmania’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Darryl Coates SC, in summing up, repeatedly referred to the ‘same’ firearm. Implying the ‘same’ weapon that had both killed Barker had also been shot at the Jordan’s highland property.
The Prosecution by asserting the firearm to be the ‘same’ was to imply the ‘match’ as perfect (ie 100% certain). Effectively elevating a possibility to being an absolute.
At trial, the Prosecution, referred to Tasmania Ballistics to have ‘looked down a microscope’, to compare casing signatures. And at length mentioned their long experience and dedication of duty to support the confidence for knowing when a ‘match’ is absolute.
However, the Prosecution did not describe to the Court any Australian Ballistic Standard for correlating and quantifying the probability for a match. There was no mention of a method for 3D digital topographic mapping of a spent cartridge case signature (albeit a method returning a greater precision than observing reflective light through a microscope). No ballistic standard was given that were reflective of the ballistic standards developed by NIST6. Which emulate similar standards for how DNA is presented as a probability in criminal trials.
Nor did the Prosecution make any mention of the need for a sufficiently sized data set in determining the precision of this probability.
Furthermore, the Prosecution ignored the inherent uncertainty by assuming the shiny spent casing on Barker’s lawn had (absolutely) originated from the murder weapon, when asserting the ‘same’ firearm.
Consequently, all reasonable doubt was eliminated by elevating possibilities to absolutes
However, for argument’s sake, if this match was in fact perfect, then all family and friends (including Barker when married to the Jordan’s daughter, divorced 2007) who had shot at the highland property within the relevant timeframe, would need to be eliminated by the Matrix.
But the Elimination Matrix was no longer needed albeit an elimination essential to validly infer the ‘who’.
But contrary to the fact that Shane Barker was known to have unregistered firearms, and he also shot at the highlands property7, this was never considered as a legitimate competing hypothesis for seeking the truth.
Since, to the Tasmania Prosecution and Police, finding a ‘match’ at the highland property was consistent with the belief that Cedric Jordan was the murderer, and further elimination is therefore redundant.
And besides, the murder weapon had already been established as a firearm in Cedric’s control. Albeit unfound, knowing it ‘..would have been easy to dispose of.’
The Prosecution dedicated time in trial to describing how much effort and time the Tasmania Police had spent searching for this murder weapon, in all the known places Cedric had been.
Not finding this murder weapon was implied as unfortunate but not considered as evidence of being totally wrong about the place to look, or wrong about the assumption of who the perpetrator was.
Nonetheless, the murder weapon had been established as one in Cedric’s control. And it all proved an effective argument to convince the Tasmania Criminal Court of the Jordan’s guilt.
The Obligation of Authority to meet a Proof of Guilt, to be beyond a reasonable doubt – is a Standard without any explicit definition described by the rules of logic. Judgements of guilt based on flawed reasoning will result in innocent people being convicted. To not be alarmed at this continuing error is to deny the Obligation of a democracy to uphold fundamental Human Rights.
The conviction of the Jordans dictates the urgency for a thorough overhaul of the Australian Justice System; criminal prosecutorial methodology and the need for adopting systems of inter-disciplinary analysis of evidence and intelligent tradecraft.
In the recent ABC’s reporting of the Cedric Jordan’s proceedings (see link below) in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Hobart, the Tasmania Prosecution again relied on a fallacious inference of the evidence when he argued ‘They (the Jordans) had identical ammunition to what was used (in the murder)…”.
The ammunition found at the Jordan’s residence was a common brand (Winchester), if not the most popular brand amongst Tasmanian .22 shooters.
Analogous to this would be a witness seeing a white car running a red light. There is no red light photo to uniquely identify the car driver. But you have a white car. And the police believe you did it, consequently this evidence is consistent with this belief.
But if 50% of all cars owned are white, then most white car drivers will not be the offender.
Similarly having a .22 firearm and hold Winchester .22 bullets strongly supports innocence as the most probable (and rational) explanation.
But believing Cedric Jordan was the murderer, then it was not surprising to have found ‘…identical ammunition to what was used…’. This inference follows from the verdict of guilt.
It is fallacious circular reasoning of repeating the conclusion.
Furthermore, considering an appeal process in Tasmania is in the form of self review, and with the Director of Public Prosecution in a position of a conflict of interest to defend one’s professional judgement and integrity, and a string of compensation claims if this flaw was to be acknowledged, then the Jordan’s chance of acquittal seems highly unlikely.
The Tasmania Criminal Justice System does not represent a pillar of democracy, but is instead undermining its foundation.
The innocent are not protected in the State of Tasmania, when the discovery of truth has been lost in the criminal process. Allowing this flawed criminal procedural methodology to continue will inevitably cause further suffering, and the imprisonment of the innocent.
- Benjamin Dean holds a BSc degree, and took part as a selected and trained volunteer in the Melbourne University crowd sourcing Intelligent Analysis programme – SWARM (funded through IARPA). He has closely followed Tasmanian ‘entirely circumstantial trials’ beginning with the conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser in 2010.
News of Cedric Jordan’s progress in appeal
Refs
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268349948_NIST_standard_bullets_and_casings_project
Rotten Apple Tours, Information –
If you want to murder a friend-
ship them to Tasmania .
In jest he sayeth ? Not really !
The human spirit is courageous and bold
– a miracle of wisdom ?
Not me, mate! Cowardly and timid !
Thank you, Sue Neill-Fraser, for your steadfast courage !
It has been an eye-opening inspiration for many good citizens – an inspiration to look more closely at our justice system shenanigans – Tedeschism and flexible forensics !
Hopefully, not in vain do we gaze upon these horrible creatures of dystopian
despair !
With no explicit definition of a Proof of Guilt, a simple way to consider these ‘entirely circumstantial evidence’ trials (to be beyond a reasonable doubt) is to compare them with a traffic offence. If I am snapped by a speed camera, (presumed an instrument built with scientific precision), then the essential FACTS of the offence are: the infringement did in FACT occurred, at a specific TIME, and undisputable PLACE(all recorded), and there is no reasonable possibility ANYONE else could have been involved. (since I was driving a work car with a log book)
Unlike criminal convictions based on entirely circumstantial evidence in Tasmania. SNF – no compelling evidence of Bob Chappell’s death, let alone a MURDER(Dr Robert Moles in review). No compelling evidence of Sue AT THE CRIME SCENE (as argued by Defence). And yet multiple confessions both public and private, plus a large amount of DNA, from SOMEONE ELSE at the ‘crime scene’. Clearly indicating other’s involvement.
The Jordan’s case: Sufficient evidence of MURDER having occurred, no compelling evidence of the accused at the crime scene, and all competing hypotheses of other’s involvement have been (erroneously) discarded.
Stephen Roy Standage, Imprisoned for Jarvis and Thorn murder; Jarvis was assumed to have been murdered(part skeletal remains found in the bush with no evidence to suggest how he died), no compelling evidence to prove Standage was at either crime scene(other than a string of possibilities), and any evidence of others unaccounted for was discarded in process. I admit Standage might be a shady guy, but the Onus is on the Crown for a proof. Suspicious is not a proof. Despite the many many witnesses testimonies presented in Court unfavourable to Standage’s character.
Australia(incl the democratic world) is in need (at least) of an explicit definition for a Proof of Guilt.
Ben – Unfortunately, your description in your first paragraph of traffic speed and red light camera accuracy is flawed .You have made a very big presumption
regarding the settings honesty and competence of machines taking in hundreds of millions of dollars for government.
Software bugs /software corruption
/ hardware faults /electromagnetic interference/ power surges / secondary high energy particles generated by cosmic rays – I kid you not !
When a machine photo is popped out at the den of honesty showing a bulk fuel tanker speeding at 220 kph. That malfunction is usually, but not always dumped. Seen as a not viable prosecution. However if Grandma gets pinged at 135 kph in her Morris Minor – she’s gone ! Even though this is an equally silly proposition.
Take them on – they’ll do a job on you…
You’d cry too – if it happened to you ..
Andrew .
I’m blowing my own trumpet, i know , but –
If you want to murder a friend, take them to Tasmania –
Wisdom from a baby ?
But wait , there is more…The human spirit is courageous and bold
a miracle of wisdom –
Not me mate! A coward of the first Order.
I’ve been done over by the Australian Tedeschism .
Prison is not for cowards !
Dear Sue Neill-Fraser you maybe not realise. Thank you, Sue, for your sacrifice-
An inspiration for many decent citizens .
Hopefully, not in vain…
It is absolutely disgraceful that prosecutors can make up any story they like with no proof.
This is very similar to my partners conviction and even similar words used like fanciful improbable unrealistic.
I find out next tuesday the decision of my oartners apoeal but am not very hopeful with the amount of corruption in the injystuce system
Andrew . An epiphany – let’s replace juries with crowd sourcing intelligent analysis . Selected and trained volunteers.
That probably wouldn’t work in the Rotten Apple. No intelligent citizen would volunteer to voyage to that place !
Not even metaphorically with those judge / prosecutor teams presiding.
It’s not all bad news. If you want to murder a friend- take them to Tasmania.
Their “system” will fit up some other innocent poor blighter . Just don’t drop your anchor in Hobart Town.
You may be done for stealing apples .
You got apples in your boats pantry – and mud on your boots . You lied that you didn’t drive thru Huon Valley in your white car. A witness saw a white car .
You can’t remember when you bought those delicious apples in the Salamanca market ?
We have a reliable witness in Risdon –
You bought no apples –
You stole them apples, didnt you..!
Heinrich, it is a good idea replacing the jury with critical thinking trained volunteers. It would be relatively cheap, and simple strategy. The Prosecution and Police suddenly finding their arguments and evidence inadequate would be forced to upgrade to avoid ongoing embarrassment.
It’s time we started jailing prosecutors and Judges who ignore basic Common Law precepts.
The legal profession in Oz is just one giant racketeering scam.
I agree toally
SNF re-visited. Justice in Tasmania is very smelly indeed.
Yes, and there are others…Club Tasmania, the old boys just can’t do justice …
Also not just tasmania the whole of australia
So many innocent people and their families lives are ruined for all this corruption.
Yes
; I have direct evidence shocking as it is yet ‘tis true.
Wrongful convictions in Tasmania (& elsewhere) are atrocities at the hands of highly paid Tasmanian Crown law & TASPOL officers.
Repeating: I have direct reliable evidence.
When are Tasmanians going to unite in a way that exposes the real criminals? So far, apathy prevails.