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They call it Shaken Baby Syndrome, an outdated medical consensus that is just junk science yet it deprives parents of their living children.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
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
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
Where is the case that screams the need for a federal ICAC, asks MARGARET CUNNEEN SC *? Continue reading
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