Sue Neill-Fraser – the crux of the appeal & best case scenario

Andrew L. Urban

After hearing the appeal against Sue Neill-Fraser’s controversial 2010 conviction of the 2009 murder of her partner Bob Chappell, the three judges walked out of No 1 court in Hobart’s Supreme Court on March 3, 2021, and into the waiting chamber of legal history, with the crux of the appeal echoing in their ears. And in ours …  Continue reading

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 48 Comments

Junk science to keep littering courts

Andrew L. Urban

National cabinet (that bastard child of the pandemic) has dumped the review by the nation’s Attorneys-General into junk science that was to lead to reforms in crucial evidence presented in courts. Continue reading

Posted in General articles | 6 Comments

Robert Xie hounded, wounded, wrongfully convicted

Following our exhaustive, 3-part examination of the case starting on April 23, 2021, now, 10 years after his arrest, we expose the cumulative injustice that was perpetrated on Robert Xie in the wake of a vicious attack that killed almost all of his wife’s family. This step-by-step deconstruction reveals in sharp relief how the  administrators of justice pursued him and failed the law. Continue reading

Posted in Case 11 Robert Xie | 8 Comments

Laughter in court

We believe in the importance of comedy, and agree with writer, actor, philosopher Stephen Fry who once said, “It is easy to forget that the most important aspect of comedy, after all, its great saving grace, is its ambiguity. You can simultaneously laugh at a situation, and take it seriously.”  Continue reading

Posted in General articles | 11 Comments

Tunnel vision by another name

Andrew L. Urban

Tunnel vision compromised the police investigations into the deaths of Bob Chappell in Tasmania and five members of the Lin family in NSW (two of many examples), with Sue Neill-Fraser convicted of the former and Robert Xie convicted of the latter. Both wrongly, we firmly believe. It also happens in science, where it has another name: motivated reasoning.  Continue reading

Posted in General articles | 7 Comments

Robert Xie conviction requires urgent High Court correction – Part 3: evidence matters

Andrew L. Urban, Phillip Chapman

 The conviction of Robert Xie for the blood-soaked, savage murder of five members of his wife’s family in 2009 – going against his alibi – took four trials, including the longest trial in NSW legal history for a single defendant, and over $1 million in costs to the taxpayer. In Part 1 we examined the judge’s role. The subsequent appeal (on 8 grounds) against the conviction was refused. In Part 2 we examined the role of the Appeal Court judges. In Part 3 we examine evidence that defies the conviction and thus supports the validity of Xie’s alibi.  Continue reading

Posted in Case 11 Robert Xie | 2 Comments

Robert Xie conviction requires urgent High Court correction – Part 2: Appeal Court judges erred

Andrew L. Urban, Phillip Chapman

 The conviction of Robert Xie for the blood-soaked, savage murder of five members of his wife’s family in 2009 – against his alibi and absent a credible motive – took four trials, including the longest trial in NSW legal history for a single defendant, and over $1 million in costs to the taxpayer. In Part 1 we examined the judge’s role. The subsequent appeal, on eight grounds, against the conviction was dismissed. In Part 2 we examine the role of the Appeal Court judges. Continue reading

Posted in Case 11 Robert Xie | 6 Comments

Robert Xie conviction requires urgent High Court correction – Part 1: Her Honour erred

Andrew L. Urban, Phillip Chapman

The conviction of Robert Xie for the blood-soaked, savage murder of five members of his wife’s family in 2009 took four trials, including the longest trial in NSW legal history for a single defendant, and over $1 million in costs to the taxpayer. But that conviction – going against his alibi and absent a motive – rests on just a couple of elements that the prosecution urged the jury to accept as reliable evidence, to negate Xie’s alibi. We examine the judge’s role.  Continue reading

Posted in Case 11 Robert Xie | 1 Comment

Prosecutor’s allegation haunts forthcoming Jeff Thompson trial

Andrew L. Urban

The allegation by Jack Shapiro, a lawyer at the Office of the Tasmanian DPP, that Hobart solicitor Jeff Thompson “duped” a prisoner in the course of working on the Sue Neill-Fraser appeal, is haunting Thompson’s forthcoming trial on charges of perverting justice. The next directions hearing on the matter is listed for next Monday (April 26, 2021); will the court address the allegation against Thompson, who has yet to be tried? Is Shapiro’s allegation likely to ‘poison the jury pool’?  Continue reading

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 34 Comments

Shadow of Doubt – the movie that shone a light

As the judges of the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal consider their decision in the case of Sue Neill-Fraser, we publish ANDREW L. URBAN’s review of the Eve Ash documentary, Shadow of Doubt, published on the film’s July 2013 release. The movie alerted the public to the egregious miscarriage of justice that was perpetrated against Neill-Fraser by the Tasmanian criminal justice system.  Continue reading

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 12 Comments