Category Archives: Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser

Speculation and bias – tools of trade for prosecutors and judges

Posted on December 30, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban A bit harsh, that headline? Well, sure, there are judges and prosecutors who do not generally use those tools, but in the world of wrongful convictions, it is not uncommon. In trials and in appeals, these nasties … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Case 11 Robert Xie, Case 17 Kathleen Folbigg, Case 19 Marco Rusterholz | 2 Comments

Does it pass the pub test = does it pass the common sense test?

Posted on December 10, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  Common sense would tell you that a migrant with imperfect English accused of murdering a whole family but claiming to be innocent would not make a confession to negate his alibi to a stranger in jail, even … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Case 07 George Pell, Case 11 Robert Xie | 5 Comments

Tasmanian Legislative Council urged on “a wide-ranging powerful commission of inquiry” into Sue Neill-Fraser case

Posted on December 3, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban You won’t be surprised that the Tasmanian Government is continuing to stonewall on the calls for an inquiry into the Sue Neill-Fraser case, firmly keeping a blind eye on the mountain of reasons in favour of one. … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 12 Comments

Is Sue Neill-Fraser’s murder conviction built on fraud? LIA says yes.

Posted on December 2, 2025 by andrew

LIA, the new Legal Intel AI, has identified at least four issues as potential grounds that might be framed as a ‘fraud on the court’ in the case of Sue Neill-Fraser. One would be enough. Given the shameful history of … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 4 Comments

No valid reasons to dismiss calls for an independent review of the Sue Neill-Fraser case

Posted on November 18, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  Given the failures of two previous appeals by Sue Neill-Fraser against her discredited murder conviction, Tasmania’s legal system is still defying serious scrutiny. The latest Etter/Selby report highlights both the reasons and the need. Former Tasmanian Attorney … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 4 Comments

Hobart Mercury readers again voice their concern at Sue Neill-Fraser conviction

Posted on November 17, 2025 by andrew

It’s been 15 years since Sue Neill-Fraser’s now discredited trial, but spurred on by the latest Etter/Selby report tabled in Parliament which sets out new material challenging the conviction, Tasmanians are calling for an inquiry– again.

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 4 Comments

Bring on the Valkyries to recover Sue Neill-Fraser

Posted on November 15, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  There seem to be two schools of thought on how to try and overturn Sue Neill-Fraser’s murder conviction by those who believe, as we do, that it is plainly wrongful. One school holds that the best way … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 3 Comments

Failure to investigate and properly disclose information – why?

Posted on November 13, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  In the latest explosive Etter/Selby report tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament this week digging into the police investigation of the Sue Neill-Fraser conviction, the authors ask: Why did that failure to investigate and properly disclose information happen? … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | Leave a comment

DNA red herring bites prosecutor – new report

Posted on November 13, 2025 by andrew

If you see furious senior Tasmanian police lurching red faced out of their HQ, they are probably clutching a 78-page report that just landed which sets out why an independent inquiry into the conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser can no longer … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 20 Comments

Can we legitimately call it a ‘justice’ system?

Posted on October 28, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban In just the three cases that were cited in our recent series (Oct 20 – 26 2025) allocating seven of our Red Herring Certificates to a total of 8 judges and 3 prosecutors who we believe have … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Case 11 Robert Xie, Case 26 Frank Valentine, CCRC | 5 Comments