Author Archives: andrew

‘I know we’re innocent … these things just did not happen’

Posted on April 1, 2023 by andrew

‘I know we’re innocent … these things just did not happen’ A jailed NSW couple protest their innocence as a new podcast – Shadow of Doubt – investigates their convictions for ‘depraved’ abuse. By RICHARD GUILLIATT in The Weekend Australian … Continue reading →

Posted in General articles | Leave a comment

Marco Rusterholz and the question of doubt

Posted on March 30, 2023 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  A comment posted by reader Nick Albu (if that is his real name) raises a number of issues to challenge Marco Rusterholz’s claim of innocence, in the wake of his double 2015 murder conviction and failed appeal … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 19 Marco Rusterholz | 6 Comments

Stonewalling 101: the legal system’s dirty little secret

Posted on March 29, 2023 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban Under the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers, parliaments make laws, the executive administers and enforces laws, and the judiciary adjudicates disputes about the law. The judiciary is thus insulated from outside oversight; that’s a good … Continue reading →

Posted in General articles | 2 Comments

Inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann case begins work

Posted on February 17, 2023 by andrew

The inquiry into the handling of the Bruce Lehrmann case by ACT police, the DPP and virtually anyone associated with it, can expect to come across a witches brew around the discontinued rape allegation against him by Brittany Higgins;  how … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 18 Bruce Lehrmann | 7 Comments

Extinguishing reasonable doubt with unreliable allegations

Posted on February 15, 2023 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban.  The 2015 double murder conviction of Marco Rusterholz presents a significant concern about the Tasmanian criminal justice system, as it extinguishes the requirement for guilt to be established beyond reasonable doubt, relying on questionable allegations.    

Posted in Case 19 Marco Rusterholz | 6 Comments

Folbigg diaries a “dump” of her emotions

Posted on February 15, 2023 by andrew

Convicted child killer Kathleen Folbigg told a close friend she used her incriminating diaries to “dump” her negative emotions in her grief and blamed herself, feeling that she had “failed as a mother, a woman”, letters tendered in an inquiry … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 17 Kathleen Folbigg | 49 Comments

Derek Bromley “on the steps of the High Court”

Posted on February 4, 2023 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban.  On the eve of his 40th year of imprisonment, Derek Bromley “finds himself, figuratively speaking, on the steps of the High Court of Australia for the second time,” writes his long-time friend and supporter ROBYN MILERA on … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 05 Derek Bromley | 10 Comments

Malpractice, Incompetence And Lies: the Manock curse – Part 2

Posted on February 2, 2023 by andrew

Journalist Andrew L. Urban and retired barrister Kevin Borrick KC reveal how South Australia’s legal fraternity contributed to the ongoing scandal that began with the unqualified forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock and spread like cancer, infecting the entire system. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Case 02 Henry Keogh, Case 03 David Szach, Case 04 Gordon Wood, Case 05 Derek Bromley, Forensic evidence, General articles | 11 Comments

Malpractice, Incompetence And Lies: the Manock curse – Part 1

Posted on February 2, 2023 by andrew

Journalist Andrew L. Urban and retired barrister Kevin Borrick KC reveal how South Australia’s legal fraternity contributed to the ongoing scandal that began with the unqualified forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock and spread like cancer, infecting the entire system. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Case 02 Henry Keogh, Case 03 David Szach, Case 05 Derek Bromley, Forensic evidence, General articles | Leave a comment

Did “mistakes and misdirections” prompt Marco Rusterholz murder conviction?

Posted on January 21, 2023 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban.  It’s one thing for a man convicted of murder to protest the verdict. It’s quite another to painstakingly dissect the trial judge’s summing up, as Marco Rusterholz did, to point out where he thinks “mistakes and misdirections” … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 19 Marco Rusterholz | 29 Comments