Andrew L. Urban.
The mass media played a crucial role in shaping public opinion against Robert Xie, convicted of viciously murdering five members of his wife’s family in 2009 – wrongfully, we maintain. As with wrongful convictions of the past (from Lindy Chamberlain to Gordon Wood), those opinions are based on assumptions, misrepresentations and emotion, not evidence. The mass media failed to cast a critical eye over the case; it still does. Continue reading
Andrew L. Urban.
A homeless girl’s DNA, a strange grey dinghy, witness misidentification, tunnel vision, no murder weapon, no body, an impossible murder scenario … nothing adds up to a valid murder conviction in the case of Sue Neill-Fraser. Hear all about it … Continue reading
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, Anders Erikson and David Balding, in a scathing paper just published in Forensic Science International, condemning the retraction of a peer reviewed article about Shaken Baby Syndrome that challenges the junk science around the subject that is accepted, yet produces wrongful convictions. Continue reading
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, some of the comments are worth publishing as examples of what is being put forward. We are accused of bias in favour of the accused for failing to publish such comments. So here are some of their obviously unbiased contributions to the discussion. (Name withheld.) Continue reading
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, the prosecutor speculated impermissibly without evidence and the trial judge failed to intervene … oddly enough, her own counsel often seemed to be aiding the Crown’s case. Continue reading
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 Appeal in Tasmania was (wrongfully, in our opinion) dismissed. Some commentators have made the mistake of claiming that the High Court also dismissed her appeal. Not so; the High Court refused leave to hear it. On what basis? Continue reading
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
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
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
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