Author Archives: andrew

Now it’s cancel forensic science, champion junk

Posted on November 13, 2021 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban. “The events surrounding the retraction of a properly peer reviewed journal article point to a forensic science community in Australia that can over-ride scientific publishing processes in order to suppress criticism.” So conclude Chris Brook, Niels Lynoe, … Continue reading →

Posted in Shaken Baby Syndrome | 3 Comments

What supporters of Sue Neill-Fraser’s prosecutor have to say

Posted on November 10, 2021 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban. We have rejected for publication a barrage of recent comments (11 at last count) from a reader who is advocating in favour of Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction and defending the prosecutor, Tim Ellis SC. But on second thoughts, … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 60 Comments

Did Sue Neill-Fraser’s defence counsel contribute to her conviction?

Posted on November 9, 2021 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban Sue Neill-Fraser was convicted of murdering her partner Bob Chappell on Australia Day 2009, aboard their recently purchased yacht, Four Winds. His body was never found. It wasn’t enough that the police investigation was a miserable wreck, … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 13 Comments

Sue Neill-Fraser and the High Court: what went wrong?

Posted on October 30, 2021 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban.  Our recent ‘ENQUIRY into Sue Neill-Fraser’s unlawful murder conviction’ stopped short of examining what went wrong when in 2012 she sought leave to appeal to the High Court, after her 2011/12 appeal to the Court of Criminal … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 40 Comments

Dead babies, experts dead wrong, in deadly consensus

Posted on October 23, 2021 by andrew

They call it Shaken Baby Syndrome, an outdated medical consensus that is just junk science yet it deprives parents of their living children. Last week’s tragic story of Michigan’s Tonia Miller on the online journal On Shaken Baby is another … Continue reading →

Posted in Shaken Baby Syndrome | 2 Comments

Tasmanian legal system on trial

Posted on October 22, 2021 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban. To highlight how badly the Tasmanian legal system went off the legal rails in its treatment of Sue Neill-Fraser, we have drawn up a short list of charges we would argue at court in an ideal world … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 16 Comments

Is Tasmanian Parliament complicit in covering up injustice?

Posted on October 20, 2021 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban. Four judges, two DPPs and a defence barrister compounded the flawed police investigation into the disappearance of Bob Chappell on Australia Day 2009 (whose body has never been found), for whose murder Sue Neill-Fraser has been convicted. … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 24 Comments

Non-contentious legal principles to overturn Sue Neill-Fraser conviction – by consensus

Posted on October 19, 2021 by andrew

In a submission to the Members of the Tasmanian Parliament this week, legal academic DR BOB MOLES of Flinders University, articulates the non-contentious legal principles in the Sue Neill-Fraser case; “if any one of the substantive points is sustained, it … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 10 Comments

The criminal justice system seemingly cannot reform itself

Posted on October 12, 2021 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban. What has the criminal justice system learnt from the wrongful convictions decades ago of Lindy Chamberlain, Derek Bromley, Henry Keogh, Andrew Mallard, Gordon Wood and many others? With at least three murder convictions currently under a cloud … Continue reading →

Posted in General articles | 11 Comments

Kathleen Folbigg – The Science v The Courts

Posted on October 11, 2021 by andrew

Follow ‘the science’? So far, as we reported in March 2021, the courts have resisted that call in the case of Kathleen Folbigg, convicted of murdering her children and in prison for the past 19 years. With more new expert … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 17 Kathleen Folbigg | 19 Comments