Dead babies, experts dead wrong, in deadly consensus

They call it Shaken Baby Syndrome, an outdated medical consensus that is just junk science yet it deprives parents of their living children.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 heart wrenching example of how a stubborn myth overcomes medical science. And below, author and anti-SBS champion Chris Brook reveals the secrecy that keeps the public ignorant. Continue reading

Posted in Shaken Baby Syndrome | 2 Comments

Tasmanian legal system on trial

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 (and outside Tasmania). The charges are based on legal opinions supported by evidence in the Etter/Selby papers and the Dr Bob Moles submission – all recently delivered to Parliament. (There are several other reasons to have the conviction set aside; many known for years.)  Continue reading

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 16 Comments

Is Tasmanian Parliament complicit in covering up injustice?

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. Following two recent legal submissions to Parliament, is it plausible to deny the need for a judicial review of the case? Will anyone ever be held to account? Is Parliament complicit in covering up an egregious miscarriage of justice if it fails to act?  Continue reading

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 24 Comments

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

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 will satisfy the test for the overturning of the verdict at trial.” And he explains “Why we should reach a consensus.” This is an extract of his submission.   Continue reading

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 10 Comments

The criminal justice system seemingly cannot reform itself

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 (Neill-Fraser, Xie, Folbigg), and the near miss of the Singh* case, exhibiting failures that were contributing factors in past convictions, we have to conclude that the answer is: nothing.  Continue reading

Posted in General articles | 11 Comments

Kathleen Folbigg – The Science v The Courts

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 evidence that is claimed to exonerate her, the conflict between ‘the science’ and ‘the courts’ has reached a point that reveals the weaknesses of both. Below, we publish extracts from Quentin McDermott’s exclusive report in The Australian (Oct 8, 2021).  Continue reading

Posted in Case 17 Kethleen Folbigg | 12 Comments

A federal ICAC?

Where is the case that screams the need for a federal ICAC, asks MARGARET CUNNEEN SC *?  Continue reading

Posted in General articles | 22 Comments

Sue Neill-Fraser appeal: if Vass ‘wasn’t on the boat’ why insert herself into the case after trial?

Andrew L. Urban.

If the three judges considering Sue Neill-Fraser’s appeal decide that Meaghan Vass’ DNA was there by secondary transfer (as the Crown argues) and thus she was not at the crime scene on board Four Winds … they have to accept the logical conclusion of their decision: the homeless young Vass took enormous risks by willingly inserting herself into the case after the trial … for what?  Continue reading

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 45 Comments

QUIZ – test your knowledge of the Sue Neill-Fraser case

This week 11 years ago, Sue Neill-Fraser entered the witness box to give evidence at her trial for murdering Bob Chappell. This week also marks seven months since her latest appeal hearings before the judges (Wood, Escourt, Pearce) who are yet to deliver their decision. Continue reading

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 13 Comments

The disturbing case of Derek Bromley – marking International Wrongful Conviction Day 2021

To mark International Wrongful Conviction Day, Harold Levy *, publisher of The Charles Smith Blog in Toronto, invited Dr Bob Moles of Flinders University in Adelaide to provide his insights into the case of Derek Bromley, which, he says, features “the most disturbing feature” of any wrongful conviction in the Anglosphere. (Also see our post marking the day, October 2 – yesterday Australian time.)  Continue reading

Posted in General articles | 6 Comments