Andrew L. Urban.
In the reasons published by the judges in the Sue Neill-Fraser appeal, they had to have considered “all of the evidence at the trial. This requires consideration of the transcript of the evidence at the trial and also exhibits tendered on the trial, and the view of the scene that was undertaken by the jury on the first day of the trial.” But the jury was never taken on board for a view of Four Winds. Continue reading
Andrew L. Urban.
In another judgement (after the trial and the first appeal) that will forever be a stain on Tasmania’s legal system, Sue Neill-Fraser’s latest appeal against her 2010 murder conviction was dismissed by a majority of 2:1 of the appeal judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal, it was announced in the Supreme Court of Tasmania at 9.45am on Tuesday, November 30, 2021, six years after the then new further right to appeal legislation was passed in 2015, introduced by then Attorney-General the late Vanessa Goodwin. Continue reading
Andrew L. Urban.
The long awaited decision of the judges in Sue Neill-Fraser’s final appeal against her 2010 murder conviction will be handed down in the Supreme Court of Tasmania at 9.45am on Tuesday, November 30, 2021. Continue reading
Andrew L. Urban.
The recent world famous Kyle Rittenhouse trial was televised, live from the Kenosha Court; had it not been, the malicious misrepresentations of the case which most mass media echoed would have left the public unaware of why the jury acquitted Rittenhouse on five charges, including two of murder. The 2020 mid-protest confrontations were recorded and played in court for all the world to see. But in most cases, without footage of the alleged crime, it is not only the jury but the appeal court that may find it useful to view the court proceedings. Continue reading
Muhammad A. Aziz and Khalil Islam are innocent of the 1965 murder of Malcolm X – it has now been revealed. The Innocence Project has announced that a joint investigation unearthed new evidence of the men’s innocence, including Federal Bureau of Investigation documents that had been withheld from the defence and prosecution. (News reports) Continue reading
Andrew L. Urban.
An uninformed or misinformed jury can’t be expected to arrive at a safe, reliable verdict that serves justice. Did Sue Neill-Fraser’s jury hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? It seemed more like speculation, malicious testimony and witness error. A case of garbage in – garbage out? Continue reading
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