Category Archives: Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser

‘Rotten to its core’: No saying sorry in Tasmanian justice

Posted on January 30, 2026 by andrew

“A woman was convicted of murder on false evidence. She spent 13 years in prison. Her family has suffered. Both trial and appellate courts have been duped.” HUGH SELBY looks for contrition in the Tasmanian judicial system and finds none. (from CBR … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 4 Comments

Sue Neill-Fraser petition on its way to Tasmanian Governor and Premier

Posted on January 23, 2026 by andrew

With nearly 40,000 verifiable signatures, the petition calling for a judicial inquiry into the contested conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser for the murder of her partner Bob Chappell will be handed Tasmania’s MLC The Hon Meg Webb at the January 24, … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 2 Comments

Tasmanian Parole Board’s condition on Sue Neill-Fraser unlawful

Posted on January 22, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  The Tasmanian Parole Board last year acted contrary to the High Court’s rulings when it tightened the parole condition on Sue Neill-Fraser, prohibiting her from claiming her innocence of the 2009 murder of Bob Chappel, her former … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 4 Comments

Justice Estcourt stands with Sue Neill-Fraser

Posted on January 21, 2026 by andrew

It was no doubt a shock to Tasmania’s legal establishment when one of its most senior judges delivered a dissenting opinion – not because of his dissent per se, but because he argued to uphold the appeal against the most … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Case 19 Marco Rusterholz | 5 Comments

Barrister, politician, filmmaker, artist to speak at Sue Neill-Fraser Hobart rally Jan. 24

Posted on January 14, 2026 by andrew

A rally in Hobart Parliament Gardens remembering Bob Chappel and showing support for Sue Neill-Fraser on Saturday, January 24, 2026 will mark the 17th anniversary of Chappell’s disappearance (January 26, 2009). Chappel’s body has never been found; Neill-Fraser was controversially … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 6 Comments

Politicians make fake excuses to avoid accountability

Posted on January 4, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban Australian PM Anthony Albanese is not the first political leader to make phony excuses to avoid an inquiry – and for similar self serving reasons: to avoid accountability. Regular readers will remember how back in July 2023, … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 27 Comments

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 | 11 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 | 9 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 | 13 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