Andrew L. Urban
Less than a dozen in notional number*, less active and certainly less transparent than the Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group, but incessantly annoying, the group of commentators on this blog I have dubbed the Tim Ellis Support Group, uses innuendo and obfuscation to support former DPP Tim Ellis in prosecuting Sue Neill-Fraser for murder, a conviction we (and thousands of others) consider egregiously wrongful.
Readers may have noticed that several recent comments by ‘Jenny’ on stories related to the Sue Neill-Fraser conviction have been rejected in Moderation. ‘Jenny’ is one of nearly a dozen commentators* who belong to this group, who have posted 65 comments since 2019, almost all in response to Neill-Fraser articles.
They are unable and/or unwilling to accept that this conviction lacks merit and credibility. They argue over the fire extinguisher, the angle of sunlight that changes the colour of the controversial dinghy, they argue that Sue Neill-Fraser lied about her movements and therefore is clearly guilty of murder … all in the hope of mitigating the embarrassment of the prosecution.
I’ve grown sick and tired of it.
In a comment posted on March 19, 2026, ‘Jenny’ asked:
Why are you publishing comments about the vehicle accident in which Mr Ellis was involved in and which resulted in the death of a young women? How is any of that relevant to what occurred prior and during Neill-Fraser’s trial, and during her first appeal. Those comments don’t serve any purpose other than to poison people’s minds about the person who was leading the prosecution team in the trial of Neill-Fraser.
I replied:
“Since you ask … the relevance of that deadly car accident in 2013 to our coverage is that it explains to readers (who may not already be aware) why Mr Ellis is no longer the Tasmanian DPP. At the time of the accident, it was a lifetime appointment. Mr Ellis, born in 1955, was just 58. He was appointed DPP in August 1999. He was fired after being convicted of negligent driving causing death. … Within two years of the crash, the law was changed to limit DPP terms to 10 years…”
It was a terrible way to end his career as DPP. Like a Greek tragedy, you might say.
A couple of recent comments from ‘Jenny’ exemplifies the antics – and note her reference to Peter L (known to us as Peter Lozo and one of the members of this group):
1 As was explained by Peter L. on Tasmanian Times several years ago, although it was a theory of the police, and hence the prosecution, that Bob’s body was lowered into the dinghy, it is plausible to consider** that it wasn’t absolutely necessary to lower the body into the dinghy completely but partially across the side or entirely in the water. My understanding is that the prosecution didn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to how Bob’s body was removed from the saloon nor how it was removed off the yacht. All the jury had in this respect was that a winch was likely used and that a dinghy was likely used.
2 My view is that the trial had more than sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict beyond the reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, there are a people, such as Hugh Selby, who don’t understand that evidence. For example: the viewing geometry on the afternoon of the Australia Day was such that a white dinghy at portside of Four Winds at 3:55pm and at 5pm was such that the dinghy would appear to be grey rather than white. Sue agreed that it could have been her on Four Winds at 4pm when she was told that there was a dinghy at Four Winds at that time. Given that she lied about being at Bunnings between 4pm and 8:30pm the jury would have concluded that she lied because she was on Four Winds way past 4pm.
**Indicative of the quality of informed thought in the context of evidence: “… it is plausible to consider…” LOL!
Full of innuendo and absurd propositions while avoiding questions of real inculpatory evidence, the comments are, at best, silly, at worst disingenuous. Having to moderate the regurgitations of this sort of rubbish masquerading as serious comment over the years has stretched my patience. ‘Jenny’ has support group partners:
Grant Stevens
Craig
C Walsh
anonymous
Beverly
FG
TE
DB
Peter
How do I know this? The unique tell-tale ID included in posted comments seen by the moderator. * Of course, they may not all be different humans …
______________________________________________________________
The author investigates the circumstances that led to the trial and conviction of child welfare officer Frank Valentine on charges of historical sexual and physical abuse at the Parramatta Training School for Girls decades earlier. It is his fifth book exposing what he considers to be unsafe convictions.
Kindle $11.99 Paperback $23.20
It is odd though that Max Jones gave evidence at the appeal that he thought the DNA from Meaghan Vass had been deposited 1 to 2 days before being collected by a forensic scientist. Does this mean Vass could not have been on the boat on the 26th or 27th, or are Selby and Etter suggesting there is new scientific evidence that Max Jones was wrong? Is there a published scientific paper that gives a valid way of dating the deposition of a DNA sample to within a day within a one week period? What if we just don’t know the answer to this DNA timing question and never will? Just another case of science having its limitations, I guess, no matter how much those with a legal mind try to bend DNA to fit their agenda, to either prosecute Sue, or exonerate her. DNA is innately already rather twisted, which is part of its genetic charm.
Reluctant to re-entertain this ‘zombie’ subject in the comments (it won’t die) I’ll just remind readers that Meaghan Vass has claimed she had vomited on the deck…when witnessing her male companions fight with Bob Chappell, owner of the yacht). Sue Neill-Fraser wasn’t there. This was deadly to the prosecution case. It had to be eliminated. Hence prosecutor Tim Ellis dismissed it as a “red herring” … multiple times. I can’t think of any reason why a 15 year old homeless girl, as she then was, would willingly and falsely insert herself into this murder trial with such an admission. She wasn’t a willing witness.
This is our adversarial system in action: it isn’t about finding the truth. It’s about scoring a conviction.
DNA fun fact – DNA is destroyed by acid and vomit is full of strong acid so the plentiful high quality DNA found from Vass on the deck simply did not come from vomit. Ask any lab DNA scientist about the chances of that happening! Or just Google it – lab scientists take great care to extract DNA into a mildly alkaline solution as we know acid wrecks DNA.
Thanks Fatwa, I stand corrected. Maybe it wssn’t her vomit…
Some if not many, seem to forget or just do not know, that a criminal prosecution is a ‘competition’ between the Prosecution and the Defence, nothing more. A criminal conviction does not mean the defendant did it, likewise a not guilty verdict does not prove up innocence, neither proves up any truth simply, who is better at their job than the other!
Well, yes, but perhaps “better at their job” might need some qualification…eg better able to swing a jury? Better presenting speculation as fact? That sort of thing …
Andrew, your persistent, evidence-based scrutiny of this case continues to cut through the fog of official denial and it’s sorely needed.
The exchanges between Selby and Ellis are illuminating, even if they highlight how fiercely some will defend a conviction built on sand rather than confront uncomfortable questions about disclosure, forensic handling, and prosecutorial overreach.
Robust disagreement is healthy in any system claiming to deliver justice; it sharpens arguments and exposes weak points. But when debate slides into personal barbs (integrity lectures from someone whose own record includes a fatal negligent driving conviction yet swift reinstatement to practise) or veers into realms of science fiction (absurd solo-body-winching scenarios presented as fact to a jury), it stops being constructive and starts smelling suspiciously like damage control.
No doubt the defenders see themselves as guardians of the profession’s tarnished halo.
Rather than admit the occasional catastrophic error; or worse, systemic blind spots they circle the wagons and polish the badge.
Pass the airsick bag; the altitude of self-regard up there must be dizzying and a very clever comment. Keep holding the line, Andrew. The public deserves facts over fiction, and transparency over tribal loyalty.
No doubt they’re fellow members of the corrupt legal cartel. Rather than admit the profession is mistake-prone and wallowing in corruption, they double down on attempting to maintain whatever lustre they imagine the profession still has.
Pass the sick bag, quickly now.
Jack, I hope you don’t mind I borrowed you”Pass the sick bag, quickly now” comment