Comments

<Back to Article

  1. Before protesting the ‘wrench theory’, perhaps Mr Ellis should have read Justice Blow’s direction to the trial jury.  At page 4 thereof, Justice Blow mentions use of the aforementioned wrench to dispose of Mr Chappell as a ‘theory’ put forward by Mr Ellis - a ‘theory’ the jury should consider.  The word ‘theory’ is used five times in just one paragraph in relation to Mr Ellis’ ‘wrench’ scenario.  See below.

    ‘Now, from time to time, there have been things – possible facts suggested to witnesses in questions and the witnesses have either said they don’t know or said that that’s not correct or something like that.  A suggestion of a fact in a question isn’t evidence.  Let me give you two examples.  Mr Ellis in – at the end of his cross-examination of Ms Neill-Fraser, put to her a series of propositions as to, for example the killing of Mr Chappell with a wrench, and she denied that.  Well, what he said, the suggested facts contained in his question, aren’t evidence.  They’re a theory; they’re a theory that you ought to consider.  But when the witness – when Ms Neill-Fraser said, “No, that did not happen”, her evidence is “No, that didn’t happen” – it’s your role to evaluate that evidence and consider whether you accept it or not.  The suggestions put to her aren’t evidence but – but they’re a theory and you – you, of course should consider that theory, but at this stage it’s no more than a theory’.

    Also, Mr Ellis notes his ‘fleeting’ mention at trial of Ms Neill-Fraser’s involvement in the disappearance of a Mr O’Day.  He says –

    ‘…namely that she had been involved in some way as a peripheral witness in the police investigation of the disappearance of a young man named O’Day, son of a well known private investigator, last seen in the vicinity of the Tasman Bridge. It was thought likely but not certain he had suicided but no-one saw him do so and his body was never recovered. The jury could not conceivably have taken my fleeting comment in any other way but that she knew from that involvement that doubt can remain where a body is not recovered’.

    So, Ms Neill-Fraser knew ‘that doubt can remain where a body is not recovered’?  Well, the Tasmanian legal system certainly showed her, didn’t it?  She was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the absence of a body, or a murder weapon, or witnesses or compelling forensic evidence or motive.  Everyone involved must be so pleased with themselves.

    Finally, a recent comment on circumstantial evidence from Ian Barker QC (the lead prosecutor in the Lindy Chamberlain murder trial) to put things in perspective –

    ‘I am afraid that judges are becoming increasingly reluctant to direct juries to treat significant circumstantial facts as requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt before taking them into account, in support of a Crown case. But as with other aspects of the administration of justice the tide continues to run against the person on trial.’
    http://www.criminalcle.net.au/attachments/CIRCUMSTANTIAL_EVIDENCE.19.05.2010.pdf.

    Posted by Barbara Mitchell  on  18/06/15  at  02:26 PM
  2. Barbara: You are confused. The question put to Ellis is worded ‘YOUR wrench theory’. He answered that. It’s not for Mr Ellis to speculate about what Blow might be thinking when he raised the issue of the wrench.

    Even if I was to entirely disregard every lie Neill-Fraser told, she still looks guilty as hell. And entirely ignorant of modern technology; footage from the atm, records of stars-ten-hash calls and CCTV in Bunnings. Her ignorance of technology and her loose tongue have been her undoing.

    It’s pretty disgusting to watch a wealthy woman being so strongly supported because of her position in society whilst a powerless and poor person’s name is shamelessly dragged through the mud. It’s been established she was probably nowhere near the boat. It’s shameful. As is the complete disregard for the Chappell family.


    Editor’s notes: edited for legal reasons and points 1 & 2 of the TT code

    Posted by Sel  on  18/06/15  at  03:34 PM
  3. I was an applicant in a Tas SC case in which the then DPP , acting as counsel for a respondent government agency, claimed that both sides were in agreement that two individuals had been denied procedural fairness in an amendment to a draft planning scheme.

    There had been no such agreement.  It was a matter of record that the amendment had not been publicly advertised, as required by law, meaning that that everyone in the municipality had been unlawfully denied procedural fairness.  The DPP’s statement meant, in law, that only those two people had been denied natural justice, an assertion for which there was no evidence whatsoever.

    Fortunately (in my view) for the DPP, my counsel refused my instruction to challenge the DPP’s assertion, claiming it was “irrelevant”. He was appointed to the SC bench himself a few months later, where he later heard the Neill-Fraser case.

    John Hayward

    Posted by john hayward  on  18/06/15  at  06:28 PM
  4. Thank you Tasmanian Times for publishing this. We need all the clear thinking we can get around this issue.

    Posted by moo  on  18/06/15  at  07:25 PM
  5. From the trial transcript Mr Ellis summed up the the crown’s case thus…..

    CT 1392 DPP ELLIS CLOSING

    Anger, bang. Maybe once, maybe twice. But here comes the – here is perhaps the significance of there being no body found. Why, if this is a complete stranger to Mr Chappell and a complete stranger to the boat, would there be no body left on board? That doesn’t make sense, does it. But if in fact it was someone who was closely connected to the boat, closely connected to Mr Chappell, and who would be able to be behind him without raising his attention because they’re known to be in that space, where there’s only one way in.

    She’s walking backwards and forwards and delivers blow – a blow or blows, or maybe stabs him with a screwdriver, I don’t know…

    Many people have commented that the truth in this concluding statement to the jury is the…... I don’t know

    Posted by Jennie Herrera  on  18/06/15  at  09:22 PM
  6. # 2 Okay, let’s lose the word ‘theory’ and call it, as per Justice Blow, a ‘series of propositions’ put by Mr Ellis about the use of a wrench to fatally injure Mr Chappell.

    The lady from the Women’s Weekly wants to know from whence Mr Ellis’ series of propositions - or hypothesis, or speculation, or conjecture, or whatever - was derived, given there is no evidence to support it.

    And, thanks to Justice Blow, the jury – you know, those 12 lay people who decided Ms Neill-Fraser’s fate – were left in no doubt that Mr Ellis’ propositions were a ‘theory’ they ‘ought to consider’.

    I’m not confused, Sel, but I am mightily disturbed by what (I see) has passed for justice in this case.

    Posted by Barbara Mitchell  on  18/06/15  at  10:38 PM
  7. No, we aren’t going to just lose words from a written question because you didn’t get the reply you wanted. 

    Women’s Weekly asked Ellis a question - in writing - and he answered it. Quite thoroughly.

    If you want to change the question asked of him into something you would prefer they had asked, so you can accuse him of not answering it, don’t expect him to reply. That’s not how interviews work.

    Posted by Sel  on  19/06/15  at  08:09 AM
  8. #7 On the subject of words I am reminded of some very good advice given to me many years ago…
    if you can’t explain something simply….you probably don’t understand what you are talking about.

    Explanations in response to questions, as we so often hear in Parliamentary debates, can often appear to be very thorough but provide little substance or no facts in the answers.

    Posted by Isla MacGregor  on  19/06/15  at  09:32 AM
  9. Ellis and Blow can speculate all they like, but, on the evidence,  their musings don’t come close to the proof beyond the reasonable doubt needed for a sentence of this severity.

    John Hayward

    Posted by john hayward  on  19/06/15  at  10:23 AM
  10. Very helpful of Mr ellis to provide additional background information on how he ran the prosecution case against Sue Neill-Fraser. It will provide a good balance when the Woman’s Weekly article is published. The usual tactician has got in first. #2 highlights how differently things cn be taken. So in relation to Justice blow’s “wrench theory” although I suppose if he has called it that then one could assume as he is the arbiter of the court that the jury should take his word for it that Ellis advanced this theory. The question I must ask that in light of a lengthy 3 week trial with detailed forensic evidence that Mr Ellis has said was not essential to the prosecution case but only that juries these days expect such detail.  Given that the jury, after an exhausting lot of 3 weeks worth of trial evidence, and deliberating for 18 hours late into the friday night, why they were not given a recess to come back on the Monday so that they could have a weekend to think it over and return more refreshed to consider the result of such an intense case?

    Posted by Rosemary  on  19/06/15  at  11:01 AM
  11. Inappropriate Parallel Drawn Between Bradley Murdoch and Sue Neill-Fraser Murder Convictions?

    Discussion in the Public Interest ...

    I am providing the following comment in the public interest.

    In today’s article in The Mercury by David Killick, what seems to be an inappropriate parallel is drawn between the Bradley Murdoch conviction for the high profile death of British tourist Peter Falconio in the NT in 2001 and the Sue Neill-Fraser murder conviction here in Tasmania in 2010.

    Cont ...

    Posted by Barbara Etter  on  19/06/15  at  01:43 PM
  12. See here:

    http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/former-tasmanian-dpp-tim-ellis-backs-guilty-verdict-in-sue-neill-fraser-case/story-fnj4f7k1-1227404757988.

    Reference should also be made to a recent item on the Tasmanian Times website which today’s Mercury article draws upon: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/tim-ellis-and-the-australian-womens-weekly-/

    Cont ...

    Posted by Barbara Etter  on  19/06/15  at  01:43 PM
  13. Mr Ellis is said to have written to the Australian Women’s Weekly, in an email dated 5 May 2015, as published on the Tasmanian Times website ...

    Read the rest on my website here:

    http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/inappropriate-parallel-drawn-between-bradley-murdoch-and-sue-neill-fraser-murder-convictions-discussion-in-the-public-interest/

    Posted by Barbara Etter  on  19/06/15  at  01:46 PM
  14. Tim Ellis to say anything different would have been strange, Tasmania’s DPP and Police would not want this conviction overturned ... All that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is Bob Chappell is missing any thing else is guesswork or speculation because there are so many other possibilities why he is missing eg:just fallen overboard after going up on deck,foul play by another person just as feasible as any other theory.

    Posted by William Griffin  on  19/06/15  at  02:12 PM
  15. #7 Do you have a thesaurus, Sel?  If you do, perhaps you could look up ‘theory’. It has many commonly used synonyms, including proposition, hypothesis, conjecture, et cetera.  Maybe we could use the alternate word Mr Ellis chose at page 1407 of the trial transcript.  In his closing address to the jury he said - 

    ‘Now I’ve suggested that wrenches have been on her (Ms Neill-Fraser’s) mind as a sort of implement that she used to kill Mr Chappell’.

    Would he be happier, do you think, if the Women’s Weekly asked about the basis for his ‘suggestions’ about the wrench being used as the alleged murder weapon?

    Mr Ellis also refers to his statement in summing up at page 1392 of the trial transcript as follows –

    ‘Why, if this is a complete stranger to Mr Chappell and a complete stranger to the boat, would there be no body left on board?’

    Did he mean to imply that a complete stranger WOULD leave a body on board the yacht?  If so, how is that sensible?  Later in his lengthy email to Ms Horsburgh he refers to ‘these CSI days’, and he’s quite right.  Thanks to detailed television accounts of forensic procedures, it would be safer, and more likely correct, to assume everybody knows that a body should be disposed of as carefully and completely as possible.

    Posted by Barbara Mitchell  on  19/06/15  at  03:02 PM
  16. So ok to compare the Chamberlain case with the case of Ms Neill Fraser, but not the case of Murdoch.  The relevance of The Murdoch case is that there was no body and no weapon located.  How about the Bruce Burrell case where neither of his victims have been located.  As for forensic evidence, that is a total furphy as she was already linked to the boat where there is reason to believe the murder occurred.  She was certainly linked to the life jacket that she denied knowledge of by forensics.  A reasonable opinion for the jury to come to was that she denied it was her jacket because it potentially linked her to where the dinghy was located!

    Posted by John Dodd  on  19/06/15  at  06:11 PM
  17. I don’t intend to reply to everything, but Ms Etter’s comments ” in the public interest ” are misleading, as I have attempted to post to her blog but she has so far not accepted for posting.

    Murdoch’s case, including the appeal, concerned three charges: murder of Falciono, and deprivation of liberty and aggravated assault of Lees.

    In relation to the Lees charges, there was direct and DNA evidence against him. In relation to murder there was no direct evidence, no witness to it , no means or manner of murder, no admission and no DNA link between Murdoch and Falciono . It was entirely circumstantial ; one of the circumstances being that the person who committed the crimes against Lees was likely the murderer as well .

    When the Court quoted by Mrs Etter’s referred to “the case” it referred to all three charges, it is misleading to suggest it was only referring to murder in order to try to distinguish it from Neill-Fraser’s .

    Posted by Tim Ellis  on  19/06/15  at  07:58 PM
  18. 1 & 10 seem to argue that the jury’s decision was affected by the comments about the, now so called, “wrench theory”.

    They ignore the fact that the defence also put up a number of propositions for consideration by the jury.

    The simple fact remains that theories are not evidence and the judge (as in any normal court case) pointed that out.  How evidence may be interpreted is put forward in all criminal trials.

    Posted by John Dodd  on  20/06/15  at  06:57 AM
  19. #11 ‘Inappropriate Parallel Drawn Between Bradley Murdoch and Sue Neill-Fraser Murder Convictions?’

    Wow Barbara Etter! From everything you could have responded to, you chose this?  Although it seems a little irrelevant, even pathetic, it actually tells me you have nothing of substance.

    If SNF confessed today, some would tell her she is mistaken. After all - Tshirts, DVDs, Books, CDs and social gatherings….

    Posted by Mark Hawkes  on  20/06/15  at  09:50 AM
  20. I was accosted some time ago, to sign a petition in relation to the conviction of Neil Fraser, which sought to have her freed.I knew little of the case and refused to sign.
    I subsequently read the transcript of the trial, which left no doubt in my mind that she was guilty of the murder.
    Yet after the trial and subsequent appeals, her supporters continue to proclaim her innocence and like Neil-Fraser herself, produce myriads of red herrings to confuse the issue.
    There is currently, and rightly so, a huge outcry in relation to domestic violence against women. Does society condone the murder of male spouses as forgivable?
    I have personal knowledge of a woman who waited for her spouse to fall asleep, pressed a rifle to his head and blew his brains out. She claimed that he had inflicted much abuse on her over the years. He may or may not have. She was never brought to trial. I do not know what occurred in their personal life but the victim never had an opportunity to put his side of the story.
    I think there are double standards at play here, in regard to Neil-Fraser’s crime.

    Posted by Richard Kopf  on  20/06/15  at  10:32 AM
  21. In no way do I pretend to understand every corroborating-or-not aspect of the SNF trial and subsequent guilty conviction. 

    As it relates to “misleading”, my understanding is that in the Falconio case, there was a direct, up close, eyewitness as to the accused Murdoch being present in close vicinity, or at the same incident, whereas there is no such eyewitness evidence up close in the SNF case.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  20/06/15  at  01:26 PM
  22. 21 - There is plenty of evidence that Ms Neill Fraser was present in close vicinity to Mr Chappell as she is the last known person to see him alive.  There was also an incredible lot of suspicious behaviour on her part that night.

    SNF supporters have made comparisons with the Chamberlain case and Mr Ellis made a comparison to the Murdoch case.  No two cases are the same, but the point is there are plenty of examples of people being convicted where there is no body.

    (Bruce Burrell was convicted of 2 murders and the bodies have still not been located.)

    Ms Etter, in her blog, refers to Mr Ellis’ statement, “The position in this respect is no different to the conviction of Bradley Murdoch for the murder of Peter Falconio,  a wholly circumstantial case with no weapon or manner of death claimed or proven, and a case on which I believe the Womens Weekly has run articles but never questioned the validity of the conviction.”

    But he was actually referring to the fact that the prosecution did not have to prove the manner and means of his death and used the Murdoch matter as an example to support that part of his argument.  He did not refer to the Murdoch case as a parallel one.

    So to be fair it is not Mr Ellis who has misled.

    Posted by John Dodd  on  20/06/15  at  03:32 PM
  23. I haven’t seen any “new” or “compelling” evidence that wasn’t available at the trial. What the supporters of Ms Neill-Fraser really want is the chance for another trial with another jury, preferably with a guarantee that they will acquit her. If that doesn’t work, then they’ll try for another trial and keep on going until finally a jury lets her off.

    Posted by Andrew Gaggin  on  20/06/15  at  07:59 PM
  24. I would like to say that I find it to be most fortunate that Mr Ellis has put on the public record some of his views about certain issues in this case. To be able to have some sensible discussion with the person who was responsible for the prosecution in the Neill-Fraser case is as valuable as it is unusual. I had assisted last year in providing a report to the Forensic Science Services in Tasmania in relation to this case. In it I said that whilst the court proceedings in criminal cases are adversarial, a post-conviction review of a case need not necessarily be so. All of us, whether prosecutors, forensic scientists, judges, barristers, solicitors, academic lawyers or members of the public have a common interest in ensuring the conviction of those guilty of crimes, and the identification of those who may have been wrongly convicted. In any post-conviction review, we should all be on the same side - that of justice.

    I would be interested to know if Mr Ellis would express his agreement about the following matters to assist in the further public discussion of this important case:

    The post-conviction review of a case is not to determine whether the convicted person is innocent or guilty, but whether they have had the benefit of a fair trial. If they have been subjected to a trial which is not fair, they are entitled to have their conviction set aside, and, in certain circumstances, may then be subjected to a retrial.

    In some cases, the conviction may be set aside, even where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.

    On an appeal, if there has been a significant error at trial, which cannot be excused under the proviso, it is appropriate for the conviction to be set aside, and either a verdict of acquittal is entered or an order is made for a retrial.

    In the Neill-Fraser case, a forensic scientist gave evidence of the results of ‘luminol’ tests which had been undertaken. It was said that the tests were indicative of blood-stains about the boat and the dinghy. I have claimed that the admission of this evidence was a significant error. Luminol is a presumptive screening test. The witness said that it was a test ‘for blood’.

    That was misleading. It is a test which will give a positive result to around 100 substances, including cleaning agents, paints, vegetable matter and many others. If it is a test for anything, it must be a test for all those 100 substances to which it is known to give a positive result.

    Luminol is sprayed on an area, and with the lights out, and with special lighting on that area, one looks to see if it glows or sparkles as a reaction to something. The witness said that it was possible to determine if the luminol was responding to blood as opposed to any of the other substances which it is known to react to, by observing the way in which it sparkles and by observing the length or duration of the glow or sparkle. That was incorrect and unscientific. It if were true, glow and sparkle charts would be published and luminol testing would no longer be a ‘preliminary screening test’ and its status would be changed to that of a confirmatory test. That has not occurred.

    Luminol can also appear to give a positive result because of overspray. The product has an inherent luminosity about it, and if one sprays the area more than once in an attempt to enhance the quality of the response for the purpose of a good photograph, then it may appear to produce a positive result. In such circumstances, it is not in fact reacting to anything.

    One only has to ask if it is correct that in this case luminol test results were given in evidence without being the subject of additional confirmatory tests. It is clear from the transcript which Mr Ellis refers to that it was. It is also clear that the results were said to be a reaction ‘to blood’, and that this could be known simply from visual observation of the luminol reaction. It is perfectly clear that the admission of preliminary screening test results without being backed by further confirmatory testing has been referred to in the law reports as a classic error. It was the type of error which was made in the IRA bombing cases (the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6) where swabs of hands were said to be confirmatory of the presence of nitro-glycerine. It subsequently turned out that the nitrates in some soaps, and substances such as shoe polish and the plastic backing on playing cards would produce similar false positive results. The men concerned in the Birmingham 6 case had been playing cards as they travelled on the train from Birmingham to Liverpool. Similar errors were made in the Lindy Chamberlain case and in the Edward Splatt case.

    Cont ...

    Posted by Dr Robert Moles  on  21/06/15  at  06:54 PM
  25. When our previous book (Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice) was published in Toronto in 2010, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada referred to it in a lecture which he gave in Edinburgh, Scotland, shortly afterwards. In listing some of the basic errors which the book had referred to in miscarriage of justice cases, he said that:

    “In their study of miscarriages of justice in Britain, Canada and Australia, Professors Sangha, Roach and Moles identify recurring problems common to the experience of those jurisdictions. 

    These include the use of preliminary tests as conclusive evidence …” (emphasis added) The Hon Thomas A Cromwell, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, 2 March 2011 “The Challenges of Scientific Evidence” The Macfadyen Lecture, Royal Society of Edinburgh.

    Readers will note that the book was published in August 2010 and the trial of Ms Neill-Fraser took place in September 2010.

    Perhaps Mr Ellis could agree to the following:
    Preliminary screening test results were given in evidence at this trial.

    They were not supported by confirmatory tests.

    They were said to be in response to the presence of blood.

    It would then be clear that this was a legal error at trial. It should also be clear that there was a ‘significant possibility’ that it may have influenced the verdict of the jury. That being so, Ms Neill-Fraser is entitled to have the verdict set aside.

    Of course, I would be happy to provide the relevant confirmation of all this from the transcript of the trial and to provide appropriate citation of legal authorities.

    Unfortunately, when this issue was raised with the forensic services in Tasmania, the response was sent by an Assistant Commissioner of Police. I was surprised that the police would intervene in such a matter. The Chamberlain Royal Commission had emphasised many years ago the importance of ensuring that the forensic services in Australia should be operationally independent of the police. The Commission recommended the establishment of an independent National Institute of Forensic Science. When a NIFS was set up in Australia it was put under the control of all the state and federal police commissioners. However, I had not realised that a scientific query addressed to the Forensic Services in Tasmania would be responded to by a senior police officer. The response was to the effect that the police have confidence in forensic services in Tasmania, and no further correspondence on this issue will be entered into. An opportunity for constructive dialogue was thereby terminated.

    I am most hopeful that the involvement of Mr Ellis in this discussion might provide a further opportunity for constructive engagement on this issue. It is worth pointing out that the DPP guidelines state that a DPP must act as a minster for justice and act with fairness and not unreasonably pursue a guilty verdict. In the UK we have identified around 20 cases where prosecutors have joined in with a joint submission that an appeal should be allowed. There have now been some 380 convictions overturned since the Criminal Cases Review Commission was established there. As I said at the outset, the review of cases to identify possible wrongful convictions does not have to be an adversarial process, and all of us interested in the proper administration of justice should be able to work together to achieve proper outcomes.

    I would welcome the opportunity to work on these issues with people such as Mr Ellis or the forensic scientists involved. I have very constructive relationships with such people elsewhere in Australia, Britain and Canada, and there is no reason why Tasmania should be reluctant to identify and correct appealable error.

    Posted by Dr Robert Moles  on  21/06/15  at  06:58 PM
  26. THE MYSTERY OF THE EPIRB

    The EPIRB from the ‘Four Winds’ was supposedly washed up on the rocks behind the small beach at the Maning Avenue Reserve.

    Only two lots of fingerprints were found on it: some clear ones belonging to the man from Glenorchy who handed it in to police and some less clear ones belonging to Bob Chappell.

    So there are 2 vital questions:

    1.  If the DPP is right in saying Bob Chappell was killed in the well of the yacht and his body was winched up to the deck then how did he run up the pilot house stairs, take the EPIRB from its bracket, get out on deck and throw it overboard?

    2.  If he didn’t do this then how did the EPIRB get from the ‘Four Winds’ moored off Marieville Esplanade past all the yachts moored round the Royal Yacht Club, do a loop round Wrest Point and then head into the Maning Avenue beach to end up on rocks behind the beach?


    If Bob Chappell had gone out to throw the EPIRB overboard then he could simply have dived in himself and swum to shore. He was a strong swimmer and the yacht was moored less than 500 metres from the beach. In a few minutes he could have been knocking on the door of his mother-in-law’s house on Marieville Esplanade and asking to use her phone. It seems more likely his prints were on the EPIRB from when he installed or checked it.

    1.  If Bob Chappell DID throw the EPIRB overboard then that makes a nonsense of the case the DPP put to the jury and which the jury accepted as being the truth “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    2.  If Bob Chappell DID NOT throw the EPIRB overboard then ...

    Posted by Jennie Herrera  on  21/06/15  at  07:22 PM
  27. I think it would be more enlightening if folk dwelt on what seems to be the significant issue: namely, the sequence of lies and changes of statements by Ms Neill-Fraser about her whereabouts on the night, rather than on trivial irrelevancies like a hypothetical wrench.

    I would also love to hear what the new evidence might be.

    Posted by Luigi Brown  on  21/06/15  at  08:49 PM
  28. Too much Doubt – Inquiry Now.

    Elizabeth Perey

    On Saturday 20th June the Hobart Parliament House Lawns were jumping . Approximately 200 people attended a Rally at midday to hear and sing along with the Grand Jury, a band formed by a group of Melbourne lawyers, musicians and friends who are so concerned about Sue Neil-Fraser’s treatment they have written several songs about her case.

    Great songs. Great band.

    “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King Jr.  I believe Sue Neil-Fraser did not get justice; she did not get a fair trial. We all should be concerned - if it could happen to Sue, it could happen to anyone!

    There are so many things about her case that don’t stack up. From day one there has been circumstantial evidence only. No body. No weapon. No witnesses. In spite of this, not a shadow of doubt in many peoples minds that this woman murdered her partner of 20 years!

    It truly beggars belief! I am involved because my sense of justice is outraged!

    And the more I learn, the more outraged I become. We must encourage action to overturn this troubling, unsafe verdict. She may be guilty, she may be innocent, but she did NOT get a fair trial. 

    Her partner,Bob Chappell, whom she is accused of murdering, is officially listed as a Missing Person. He could be now be living in the South of France for all we know! Which is no more fanciful than being convinced his partner of 20 years murdered him! 

    My personal take on this, is that foul play was involved and that it had nothing to do with Sue Neill-Fraser. But of course only the person or people involved truly know. This case is similar, but worse than the Lindy Chamberlain case. Much worse.

    This is the sixth year Sue Neill-Fraser has been in gaol. She was sentenced to be locked behind bars for 26 years, reduced to 23 years on appeal.

    This woman has been tried by her community without any real hard evidence, and if there ever is a retrial, it is essential that the judge not be Tasmanian.

    Posted by Elizabeth Perey  on  22/06/15  at  07:36 AM
  29. #27 Sue Neill-Fraser has admitted to telling one lie. That does not make her a murderer.

    Posted by B. Oates  on  22/06/15  at  11:30 AM
  30. #28 “This woman has been tried by her community without any real hard evidence ...”

    ....except for the evidence of Ms Neill Frasers own words, from her own mouth, and actions proven by the records she left at telstra and various CCTV cameras.

    Posted by moo  on  22/06/15  at  12:37 PM
  31. 27# Have you ever been interviewed by police etc, I have been on both sides and it is damn unnerving, if telling lies is what makes her guilty then lock up most of the politicians because they make it an art form 28 # the south of France is just as hypothetical as what was presented at trial. In my opinion if he is deceased it is quite feasible he has fallen overboard and drowned simple accident the sad part is and you are right and it seems to be common in Tasmania trial by public opinion hear half a story does not matter if its true or not and believe it as though it was fact.Although if Bob Chappell turned up tomorrow alive how that would cause some havoc and explaining ...

    Posted by William Griffin  on  22/06/15  at  05:18 PM
  32. Thank you #31. The only thing we actually know for sure is that Bob Chappell is missing….. except the perpetrator if he was the victim of foul play.

    There are too many questions, and a review of this case is warranted. Hopefully the new legislation (with a broadened scope) will facilitate that.

    Posted by B. Oates  on  22/06/15  at  06:37 PM
  33. I took interest in this case a year or so ago and instead of being influenced by the media I decided to read the transcript of the SNF court case and treat it as if I was juror.
    Well it didn’t take long until I thought, wow all these things that happened to SNF on the night her husband goes missing are very strange. Why on that night in the early hours did she check who had called her by dialling *10#. Then when asked where were you on the night your husband went missing she says “I wandered around Bunnings for several hours”. The police advised her Bunnings was shut for most of her alibi, then when she insisted she did go that night she was not on the security cameras at Bunnings. Then a couple of weeks later (still sticking to Bunnings alibi)when her daughter was advised a low quality camera shot of her falcon car was taken in Sandy Bay on that same night, SNF arranged a meeting with Ms Ogilvie ABC reporter and changed her whereabouts on the night her husband goes missing.
    Richard Kopf post #20 mentioned domestic violence being not accepted when women murder men. I think after reading this case about 6 times, people on the free SNF case are sadly blinded by the concept that older age lower middle class women like SNF would not kill.
    After thouroughly studying the case notes I think SNF is fairly clever, not with the police. but she has fooled her supporters with style.

    Posted by John Wiseman  on  22/06/15  at  08:23 PM
  34. #29 Which is the one lie that Ms Neill-Fraser has admitted to?  Which of the many in her alibi(s) for the night does it relate to?

    And I too have read the transcript.  I can’t imagine how a jury could have arrived at any conclusion other than the one they did.  I can only assume that the SNF Boosters Club has not read it.

    And I’d still love to hear about the “new evidence”.  Is it a new alibi?

    Posted by Luigi Brown  on  22/06/15  at  09:36 PM
  35. #32 has summed up the case very well.

    #33 John, you have highlighted one of the red herrings of the prosecution when you say “a low quality camera shot of her falcon car was taken in Sandy Bay Rd on that same night” Every one was led to believe that in evidence and it was even said to the Jury and much discussion has ensued over the months and years based on that and you have re visited it here. But if you take a careful review again of the transcript you will see that the DPP makes special mention to the Judge that the cctv footage (photos never shown to the Jury) is not tendered as evidence as an actual picture of the falcon car. It was just another of one of those “suggestions”.

    There is more to this case once you delve deeper into it than at first appears through a superficial glance. That is why experienced legal people such as Dr Bob Moles, Robert Ricther QC and others in the legal profession have for good reason proposed it is an unsafe conviction based on the many errors in the trial. The supporters agree with their observations and have not been fooled!

    Posted by Rosemary  on  23/06/15  at  05:27 AM
  36. with all due respect John if telling lies is what makes her guilty then lock up most of the politicians because they make it an art form in the USA and Australia lies have sent people to death row some to be spared others not,the reason I am in favour of a retrial is just that if lies are all that is there to prove guilt then this is a dangerous conviction and it is all that I can see can be proved BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT everything else is guesswork and speculation .

    Posted by William Griffin  on  23/06/15  at  06:00 AM
  37. William Griffin.
    If a politician was on a murder charge and lied about her alibi such at being at Bunnings at the time of the murder, lied about her ownership of the jacket found near the scene of the crime, set up an alibi to justify the fact that her car was seen but not until after her daughter advised her that police had CCTV footage of it and so on, I think that particular politician would be locked up. Don’t you?

    William, had she fessed up and spoke of what really happened, instead of creating a school of red herrings, perhaps her sentence might have been more favourable to her. In America, plea bargaining, is an effective way of resolving disputed crimes.

    Posted by Richard Kopf  on  23/06/15  at  10:03 AM
  38. #37 My answer is no to your “… I think that particular politician would be locked up. Don’t you?”

    My experience is that numerous supposedly-honourable persons have lied when under investigation and / or within the courts, including those who are appointed to positions of high trust.

    The list (with supporting evidence) is not limited to politicians. In fairness to a number of past and present elected representatives, some are honourable and it seems unfair to paint them with the same “lie” brush.

    Perhaps a deeply-informed peep within the overall Crown Law Justice system may shine a ‘lie-light’ on some of the players in the game.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  23/06/15  at  10:53 AM
  39. Further to my #38, there are two (2) “lie” rules (SCR) that operate within the Tasmanian justice system.
    1.  If it looks like a lie, walks like a lie and quacks like a lie it is “an honest mistake your Honour”;
    2.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

    Rule 1 is for the prosecution when caught out in a lie, rule 2 is for the accused.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  24/06/15  at  09:54 AM
  40. Deleted as off-topic

    Posted by Richard Kopf  on  30/06/15  at  11:26 AM
  41. Sue Neill-Fraser should not be compared to Bradley Murdoch. However! It is claimed Sue got her story a little mixed up, like she lied. Joanne’s Lees story made no sense and that was written off as trauma. Maybe Sue suffered trauma.
    Bradley Murdoch should be considered innocent.

    The Territory got the Chamberlain and then the Falconio case wrong and Tasmania got the Port Arthur and now the Chappell case wrong.

    NSW got the Belanglo Forest case wrong. Milat should be considered innocent.

    The whole justice system needs a complete overhaul

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  09/07/15  at  03:50 PM
  42. So many accusations in these comments about Sue’s lies. She told one lie, that she had not left the house that night. Remember, she’d received a weird
    phone call on Australia Day night that unnerved her and she went to the Esplanade to see if Bob’s daughter was down there; within hours, she is confronted with the fact that Bob is missing and the yacht sabotaged. She might, like some of the Crown witnesses, be confused and mistaken. Please look up the word ‘confabulate’ in the dictionary. It is a word used in psychology when there is a memory loss, particularly from shock or trauma.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  05/08/15  at  11:03 PM
  43. Lynn: Quit saying Susan-Neill Fraser only told one lie. The whole world knows this isn’t true and its starting to reflect more on you than it does on her! She told dozens of lies - about returning to the scene, about her red jacket, where she parked the car, pressing star-ten-hash, being at Bunnings, their relationship. The list goes on. To say she told ONE lie, for someone who claims they attended the trial, is nothing short of dishonest! Please desist. Apart from anything else, pretending she told one lie wont convince a Judge. Nor will it free Fraser. You’re wasting everybody’s time. You’re not even using confabulate correctly. Not unless she was in shock that she had the audacity to actually kill someone.

    Posted by Sel  on  09/08/15  at  06:12 PM
  44. Sel, #43, could you “quit” exaggeration.
    “The whole world knows this isn’t true” — Whole world?
    “She told dozens of lies” — Dozens?
    “You’re wasting everybody’s time” — Everybody’s?

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  09/08/15  at  07:19 PM
  45. 43# thank you for the lecture for us silly people ... I will say it as simple as I have said all along the only thing that is for certain here with no other viable option is Bob Chappell is missing presumed dead ...everything else is speculation.And I put my full name on here not 3 letters.

    Posted by William Griffin  on  09/08/15  at  09:33 PM
  46. I note the comments of Dr Robert Moles, these comments that have been formulated in the mind of a highly educated mind with a substantial insight in what it is that constitutes a flaw or a failure occasioned by an appointed prosecutor to the case on trial.
    I believe my comment has relevance to the subject matter of this article as it relates to the quality of presented court-room evidences.

    I have a question to put forward that relates to a prosecutors discretionary powers, however I understand that this forum may not be the most appropriate news and discussion forum to express my question in its factual detail, my reasoning being that the publication of such as the question that I have rather briefly alluded to may create a bother for the Owner, Editor and amazingly fair comment adjudicator, of the Tasmanian Times.

    This matter I allude to here- is now in the hands of Tasmania’s Attorney General, also holding the appointment as Tasmania’s Justice minister, Ms Vanessa Goodwin.

    ...

    Posted by William Boeder  on  10/08/15  at  12:54 AM
  47. Lynn’s comments on the SNF issue have been respectful, consistent and informed.  I respect and enjoy her comments and I thought her “It’s time to talk about Sue” was one of the better articles published on this subject. 

    It seems to me that what is often lost sight of in the public debates about the SNF case, is that many people who might be regarded as being SNF supporters are actually people who are concerned that a fair trial was not held. 

    I have no opinion either way on the question of SNF’s guilt or innocence I’m not in a position to be able to know.  But it seems open to me to assess the judge’s refusal to require/allow the recall of the person whose DNA was found on the boat, as constituting, in my opinion, a miscarriage of justice.  After MV had given evidence as to her whereabouts on the night, it was found that she was not where she had said she was on that night.  Her DNA was on the boat, she said she was at X (or even Y) on the night in question.  The policeman checks on this, finds no such place exists.  This surely entitled the defence to request (and morally obligated a presiding judge) to allow the witness MV to be recalled in order to shed some light on the discrepancy in her evidence.

    Natural justice, in my opinion, would require that she had been called back to explain the discrepancy in her evidence.  I thank Lynn for her continued comments.  In my opinion her remarks are always temperate, reasoned and thoughtful.  I value her contributions.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  10/08/15  at  06:15 PM
  48. Okay. Let me rephrase. The whole world may not know, but the entire justice system does. And they are the only ones that matter. But I won’t rephrase the other. Dishonesty about a legal case DOES waste everybody’s time. It’s not helpful - especially not to Neil-Fraser herself. I found more than a dozen lies in the transcript before I stopped counting. The actual number is immaterial since it clearly wasn’t ONE. Dishonesty won’t free Susan.Why can’t we have an honest discussion on this?

    People can cast dispersions on homeless people (whose DNA was almost certainly transferred to the boat) and tell lies to defend Neil-Fraser if they want. It won’t do any good. It simply reflects on the writers character. If you can’t find honest issues with the trial to assert, you have to ask yourself…and ad hominem attacks on Ellis is of no use either. He isn’t even prosecutor anymore.

    Posted by Sel  on  15/08/15  at  10:35 AM
  49. #47 And you would want a young innocent - yes innocent! person dragged through the system again for what/why? Compared to those that charged SNF you know not much, to even suggest the idea. IMO you would know less than Tim Ellis. How do I know? I can read.

    Summing up - SNF supporters are past the point of harmless silliness by a long shot.

    Posted by mark  on  15/08/15  at  01:46 PM
  50. Mark#49.  I’m sure that I know less (about the law) than Tim Ellis and probably know less about the circumstances of the case that those who charged SNF.  And I appreciate the point you appear to be making, in your “And you would want a young innocent - yes innocent! person dragged through the system again for what/why?”

    Well, Mark, the short answer to your “what/why?” question is justice/and the failure/refusal to recall a witness, who wasn’t where she had said she would be, on the night of the disappearance.

    Your use of the description “young innocent – yes innocent!” is open to question.  That the witness was young at the time is not in dispute, but her DNA was found on the yacht following Bob Chappell’s disappearance.  For some time that DNA had remained unidentified, but came to be identified as hers, thus (Trial transcript P634): 

    35
    Right.  You had DNA taken from you by forensic or police personnel
    following an arrest, is that right?……Yes.

    And that was in relation to a stealing matter?……Yes.

    Thank you. 

    This witness gave conflicting evidence as to where she was living on the night of the disappearance.  She gave one address to the Basha Inquiry (an examination of a witness prior to a jury being present) and then, a minute or so later, when the jury entered, she gave another address.  At the time of Bob Chappell’s disappearance, she was already known to police (see Trial transcript: Ll 5-15 P752).  Then subsequently, in relation to the stealing charge, a DNA sample was taken and it matched with the unidentified DNA which had been found on the yacht. 

    After MV gave her evidence to the court, Detective Sinnitt testified that on the night of the disappearance, she had not actually been at her address, that she had told the shelter at which she was living that she would be at a ‘sleepover’ at an address in Mt Nelson (Trial transcript: Ll 10-26 P754).  He had got this information via an email from staff at the Shelter.

    Mr Ellis did his best to prevent this information being given to the court, raising s69(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 2001 (Trial transcript: Ll 6-11 P755) and it seems, getting the better of the judge, who, till then, had seemed to have been inclined to dismiss Ellis’s hearsay objections out-of-hand.

    The judge, ruling against the defence and instructing the jury to ignore the contents of the email which the Detective had received from the Shelter, then allowed Detective Sinnitt to resume giving evidence.  He testified (Trial transcript: Ll 1… P778) that he went to the address that had been given to him as her sleepover place on the night of the disappearance, but that it didn’t exist.  There was no such address.  Her DNA was on the boat.

    Following legal argument, the Defence applied for her to be recalled.  Mr Ellis opposed this and the Judge refused to have her recalled to explain the discrepancy.  ‘In my book’, that occasioned a miscarriage of justice. 

    It must be stressed that this information only came to light after SNF had been charged with murder.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  16/08/15  at  10:49 AM
  51. 47 and 50. The issue of MV was dealt with at the Appeal Court and then at the High Court. 

    Thus two teams of justices (a total of five Justices, two of whom were Chief Justices) didn’t rule against the trial judge on this issue.

    It may be argued that the VPFSD report of 2014 on their analysis of the DNA sample constitutes “a new and compelling” evidence for the recall of MV or the overturning of the conviction. However, I have previously provided comments on the VPFSD report by suggesting that it is quite possible to transfer a significant amount of DNA via a chewing gum stuck to a person’s shoe. This is something that needs to be considered by forensic scientists. Finding evidence that MV was not into chewing/bubble gums is a very quick way to dismiss my hypothesis that MV need not have been on the Four Winds yacht for a substantial amount of her saliva based DNA to have been deposited in one location on the deck of the yacht (right next to the entrance gate of the yacht). Note my use of ‘hypothesis’ rather than ‘theory’.


    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD

    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  21/08/15  at  06:44 PM
  52. #50 ‘The – somebody made sure that the
    bilge pumps didn’t operate when the water level reached a
    particular height. Somebody made sure that the alarm didn’t
    sound when the water reached a particular level.’(Justice Blow)

    And you’re suggesting it could have been a young homeless girl out there up to this no good. And the cops couldn’t prove it so pinned it on SNF. And the Jury fell for it. Fair dinkum Garry, have a good think about it mate.

    Posted by mark  on  22/08/15  at  07:22 PM
  53. #50 G’day Garry, I’ve just re-read Justice Blow and am now interested in ‘The - somebody made sure ...’

    This was in summing up. Was Justice Blow about to say ‘The defendant…’ ‘The accused…’ ‘The homeless girl…’ and then went with ‘somebody’?

    This has probably been discussed before. I didn’t pick up on it earlier. You couldn’t make this stuff up could you.

    Posted by mark  on  22/08/15  at  09:12 PM
  54. #52 Mark you have highlighted another weakness in the trial, the lack of knowledge and experience of yachts by most in the courtroom. “Somebody”?; Bob Chappell cannot be ruled out as the person responsible for those things being turned off as he had been working on the electrical system. The ‘crime’ scene was a shemozzle and trampled on by many including marine police without a proper log or inventory of its initial state. Interference cannot be ruled out.

    Valuable insight from this experienced yacht person is worthy of note..

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/exceptional-circumstances-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case/

    So many unanswered questions still remain. It is only an assumption that the yacht sabotage was to destroy evidence of a murder. No proof of either.

    The DNA of a homeless girl should be properly investigated as it could lead to further lines of enquiry to assist with understanding the mystery of Bob’s disappearance.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  23/08/15  at  02:45 AM
  55. In relation to the seemingly unsatisfied prosecutorial undertakings based on what had been submitted as the ‘accepted’ evidences in the SNF case, in my opinion are not sufficient in that they ‘required a theorised addendum’ to contribute to the Judges decision.
    Let us not forget the comment delivered by leading Australian barrister Mr Robert Richter QC when delivering his comment, that ‘casts doubt upon the conducts and processes toward this case matter ...
    The technicalities that have since arisen from within this case, are in fact acceptable to the institution of Australian criminal law, this being so should provide the call for the SNF decision to be set aside.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  23/08/15  at  01:33 PM
  56. #54. Rosemary, Regarding your last sentence: I totally agree with you that the Vass DNA sample on the Four Winds yacht requires further investigation.

    Whilst I don’t think it well help SNF’s cause, as a scientist (non-forensic) I am keen for the advancement of science including the field of forensic science.

    Unlike Bob Moles (who appears to be keen to be proven right, at least with respect to the difference of opinion between himself and Mr Ellis on the subject of the Crown expert witness statements regarding the luminol argument) I am keen for forensic DNA experts and the police to disprove my scientific hypothesis of how Vass DNA based saliva most probably ended on the Four Winds yacht. I also like to state that if any further forensic experimental work and further police investigations is carried out with respect to this issue and if the conclusion is that my hypothesis wasn’t proven incorrect then it does not mean that my hypothesis is correct: it just adds scientific credibility to the validity of my hypothesis. 

    I would be more than happy to donate funds towards a fundraiser to support further scientific and police enquiry regarding the above mentioned issue.

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD

    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  24/08/15  at  05:50 PM
  57. I think I have mentioned before that I attended a Forensic science lecture for lawyers where I asked the question regarding the shoe transfer proposal. There has been no science on it (hence an opening for you Dr Lozo) but at the same time because of that it could not be discounted, and that is what gave the proposal legs in the trial because of the lack of science around that to negate it or support it. That left it open for it to be theorized about as it sits now. From your calculations as given in one of your previous posts it would seem that it is out of the price range to do the study properly unless funded in some way. I would take from Dr Moles’ comments that he wished to faciliate a co operative effort rather than adversarial one in relation to these things where such forensics can be focussing on finding the answers such as you propose. That would be progress.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  25/08/15  at  11:31 AM
  58. To Rosemary (#57) and anyone else who has commented on the Vass DNA sample or has an interest in this issue:

    I am still still commenting on this case here because I like to raise awareness that the Vass DNA sample offers a unique opportunity to advance the field of forensic science in the area of secondary transfer of DNA. 

    My suggestion is for Barbara Etter (via her associations in the Forensic Science community) to seek out a university professor of Forensic Science who might be interested in an experimental study on the secondary transfer of DNA with a view of submitting an application to the Australian Research Council (ARC). I consider this topic to be suitable for a ARC funded PhD research project.

    For the benefit of those who may not have read the summary of my hypothesis, “The Chewing Gum Hypothesis” I refer you to my posts of several months ago ( see #159, #161, #177 and #205

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/comments/34482/).

    Rosemary: As for the approach undertaken by Dr Moles -  it is my opinion that Bob needs to adopt a more objective and flexible approach than what he has demonstrated so far in this case (and the Keogh case in Adelaide, which I have also researched). I am happy to list my areas of concern.

    The most relevant example here concerns Bob’s statement on 60 minutes about the VPFSD report. Since Ben Lohberger wrote a comment on this I refer you to his comment #8 http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz.au/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-and-dr-bob-moles-

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD

    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  25/08/15  at  06:30 PM
  59. #58 My view Dr Lozo is that your proposed study is worthy that seems a long shot in getting off the ground and although it has been brought up by the SNF trial it should be addressed as an advancement in forensic study on a broader scale.

    However in terms of new and compelling evidence or tainted trial I leave that to the legal people. I think the priority is trial fairness overall and the important part here is if the proposed new right to appeal legislation will be broad enough to address all problems in the trial.

    As time goes by I am feeling this is more like a slice of swiss cheese, as there are so many holes in the trial that don’t add up not just one. It needs a thorough going over in its entirety. I wonder if some international forensic body might take up a study of your transfer hypothesis.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  26/08/15  at  10:19 AM
  60. I too leave the legal issues to those qualified in the relevant field of law.

    I think it highly inappropriate for non-legally qualified people to meddle into the affairs of law and post comments that to me appear to be driven by emotive reasons rather than by the knowledge of the criminal law. I also consider it highly inappropriate for those not trained in the scientific method of enquiry and investigation to run off with one scientific report and exaggerate its significance and meaning, such as what, in my scientific opinion, has happened in this case with respect to the VPFSD report.

    Scientists in general like to see several independent studies before they accept the validity of the new claims made. I am very sceptical of a scientific report that appears to me to be based on an incomplete experimental study.

    As an experienced research scientist it is my opinion that a comprehensive scientific study, purely for the advancement of forensic science, ought to be pursued with respect the Vass DNA sample.

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/08/15  at  02:20 PM
  61. ...

    Has the prosecution proven it’s case? The answer is no (in my opinion) because (to me) they invented a scenario and presented fiction as fact. How could the jury find guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?. Quite simply, they couldn’t for the same reasons. Invented scenario and fiction as fact. It is not the role of a jury to base their decision on whether they have ‘somehow been convinced’. No. Their decision must be based on whether the case has been ‘proven’ which is considerably different to ‘sort of convinced’. There are far too many innocent people gaoled because of bungling police methods and shonky prosecutions. Bare in mind that 30% of murders are committed by spouse/family. Mix in a coppers hunch and it goes like this. The police become involved look around and say the wife did it. This is the nominative approach. They then say build the case around her. The police develop a fixation and like a dog on a bone they will not let go. SFN did not help herself with her strange explanations. Next step guilty. all over. I do not know whether SFN is guilty or not. I was not there. I do not find the trial helpful in forming an opinion or a judgement. The whole thing is a screw up (in my opinion).

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  26/08/15  at  04:58 PM
  62. The grey dingy in the Susan Neill-Fraser case:


    I haven’t had any indication from the SNF support group (Ash, Etter, Giddings, Moles, etc) on whether they are interested in knowing why and how context influences what we perceive (in the visual domain) and why the Four Winds dingy CAN be perceived to be GREY in some contexts.

    Dr Bob Moles will be surprised to learn that what is perceived as being white in one visual context can be perceived to be grey in another visual context.

    Perhaps the above mentioned people, particularly Dr Moles, ought to review all the witness statements at the SNF trial about the colour of the dingy that was spotted next to the Rowing Sheds on the morning of the 27th Jan (i.e. the Four Winds dingy).


    It may also be helpful to look at the colour of the squares labelled A and B in:


    Does this Optical Illusion Fool You? Amazing Checker Shadow Illusion by Edward H. Adelson!


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0i8ZKTyIaQc

    OR look at


    Incredible Shade Illusion!


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o

    Cont ...

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  08/09/15  at  08:30 PM
  63. OR look at


    Test Your Brain Perception - Different shade of gray?


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BnPbT3wgfG8


    Maybe then Dr Moles will want to correct the following statement in his review of Eve Ash’s doco ‘Shadow of Doubt” (http://shadowofdoubt.tv/dr-robert-moles-review-of-shadow-of-doubt-18-june-2013/):

    “The old joke is about how a biased person can make black look like white. In this case the investigator actually said that a white boat might look like grey on the water – without any evidential basis for such a remarkable claim”.


    Was the “investigator” referred to by Dr Moles biased or did this investigator have some insight into visual perception that escaped Dr Moles and the rest of the SNF support group?


    The SNF support group also needs to be aware that the perceived shape and the size of an object (in this case the Four Winds dingy) can also vary because perception of these visual attributes of an object are also influenced by the context (and the viewing angle). It is also important to keep in mind that eyewitness accounts of what they saw may not be as accurate as we believe it to be.

    It is truly amazing how such a misconception about human vision went unnoticed during the four years of the making the Shadow of Doubt doco (given that at the trial a few eye-witnesses referred to the Four Winds dingy as being grey in colour)! A keen, impartial and objective observer of the data presented in this case concerning the eyewitness statements of the various dingy sightings (afternoon of 26th Jan and on the morning of 27th) ought to have noticed that perhaps it is the same dingy.

    As for the perception of an object’s brightness and colour:  the main concept to understand is that the perceived colour and brightness of an object is determined by the CONTRAST AT THE BOUNDARY rather than by the intensity of light that is projected from the object’s surface towards our eye! In our visual cortex, the contrast that is sensed at the object’s boundary then quickly propagates to the region of the visual cortex that represents the surface of the object, thus allowing us to see the object’s surface, its brightness and colour. Since the contrast is detected at the object’s boundary it therefore follows that the perceived brightness and colour of an object is dependant on the visual context in which the object appears.

    We are all well aware that the perception of a sound and the meaning of a word is context dependent but most of us don’t seem to realise that the same happens in the visual domain.

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  08/09/15  at  08:31 PM
  64. Cont…

    In other words, our perception of a visual object does not depend on the absolute intensity of the light nor on the absolute colour of the light that is reflected from the surface of the object towards our eyes but depends on the INTENSITY  DIFFERENCES (and colour differences)  that our visual system detects at the EDGES (the boundary) of the object.  If the viewed object (such as the Four Winds dingy) has patterns/stripes on it then they too contribute to the overall percept. Note that the intensity (and the colour) of the illuminating light onto the area of interest (as well as the reflectance of the various surfaces) also plays a significant role on what is perceived. It is also worthwhile to note that shadows can influence what is perceived. Thus, I wouldn’t rely too much on Mr Conde’s interpretation of what he saw (lee cloth; scuffed and faded dingy, etc) from 50 metres or so.


    It is my opinion that it was very naive, improper and misleading at the SNF trial to show Mr Conde a photo of the Four Winds dingy (a close-range photo) and then ask him whether the dingy he saw on the Australia day (from a distance of about 50 metres on an overcast day against the backdrop of a large white yacht) is the same dingy as in the photo. It would have been more appropriate to position the Four Winds dingy next to the yacht on an overcast day and ask Mr Conde (and the Jury) to look at it from approximately the same distance (and  the viewing aspect) as on the Australia day. 


    Lawyers and forensic experts (particularly forensic pathologists) would benefit from a seminar on visual perception and visual pattern/object recognition.


    On a different subject concerning the Four Winds dingy: reading the various comments on a few threads about the SNF case I noted that a number of people also have a misconception about the stability of an inflatable dingy. Inflatable dingies of the type in question (with large buoyancy tubes along the sides) are very stable and it is possible (if the dingy is large enough) for one person to tip out the weight of a dead person without tipping the dingy over (I am a physicist so much understanding is theoretical; I have no experience with such dingies; am looking around to find a suitable dingy and a ‘victim’ for an experiment). 


    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/09/15  at  06:21 AM
  65. #62,63,64 trouble is these witness perception experiements would need to expand to other problem areas as well. ie what is the different perception in regard to weather conditions. witnesses who claim on the night the water was choppy and windy v the witnesses who claim it was calm and still? well at least that can be compared to weather reports. It all smacks of too much ‘interpretation’ ‘manipulation’ over and above colour perception. that is just one small needle in the haystack. I call this the swiss cheese case. It has so many holes in it.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  09/09/15  at  09:13 AM
  66. Sue Fraser-Neill is either guilty or innocent. The case is a complete screw up. This has to be sorted. A retrial now! This time lets do it right.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  09/09/15  at  02:56 PM
  67. #65 Rosemary,

    My point is that the Four Winds dingy can be and has been perceived to be grey in colour. I provided some further insight into this issue by summarising the relevant cortical mechanisms  of visual perception.

    I would have thought that a well experienced, impartial and intellectually honest  analyst would have first tabulated the following two crucial sets of eyewitness data before claiming that it was a different dingy (or that a white dingy cannot be seen to be grey, etc):

    Set 1: eyewitness statements about the colour of the dingy that was spotted next to the rowing sheds on the morning of 27th Jan. There is no doubt about the identity of this dingy. It was seen by several people  (including the rowing coach and several police officers whose statements are in the trial transcript). Interestingly, the very first written description of that dingy was 2 or so days later by the rowing coach in an email to the members of the rowing club. He described it as being GREY (I wonder whether this email  gave the investigating police detectives  a clue at the very early stages of the investigation that the  Four Winds dingy can be seen to look grey when in water; did Eve Ash and Dr Bob Moles miss this little clue when Dr Moles wrote his review of Eve Ash’s doco?). Has anyone since the trial ended noticed this at all before I came along? Is this a good example of the so called “Tunnel Vision” on behalf of the prominent members of SNF’s support group?

    Set 2: eyewitness statements about the dingy that was seen tied to the Four Winds yacht in the afternoon of the 26th Jan (or that was seen leaving that area sometime between 7:45 pm - 8:30 pm; see Etter’s website)

    Am I the only person to have have done a systematic study and analysis of the “Critical  Grey Dingy” issue by generating two Tables and then comparing the corresponding entries in the two tables, etc?

    #65 & #66, As for the perceived holes (or screw-ups) in this case and their significance: depends on the observer and what that observer attends to! 

    Note: I am not against a review of this case. I just can’t find a justification for it (I am not into subtle issues of legal technicalities so won’t comment on that issue other than that I certainly won’t jump onto the miscarriage of justice bandwagon because of the opinion of some prominent legal experts). Anyway, what we are doing via this forum is very useful as it gives SNF’s legal team a broad perspective on what members of the community perceive to be some of the main issues. I consider my own contribution as being a small part of a mini-review and it is for free!

    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/09/15  at  04:47 PM
  68. Dr Lozo,There is no doubt that most people saw the white with blue trim “Quicksilver” dinghy,but did not take a lot of notice until after Bob Chappell disappeared. On reflecting back on it a day or two later,there were numerous colours mentioned:

    “a white tender, just looked like a normal blunt nose tender”.
    “White light grey Zodiac”.
    “grey with dark blue trim”.
    “a light grey inflatable dinghy”, adding it looked new.
    “a grey and blue dinghy, like a small skip”.
    “a small grey tender”.
    “somewhat dark in colour… and very small”.

    Some sightings were in the morning or early afternoon; one witness who helped Sue lift the outboard motor out of the sand at 2.00 pm, on reflection, described it as “white, light grey”.
    Your comments on light and perception are applicable in all these cases.

    However, it is Mr Conde’s confident description that stands out as different. At 3.55 pm he was motoring back to the marina. He had owned recreational boats “for 30 something years”. He described a “dark grey rubber dinghy”. When cross-examined about the colour, he said “battleship grey”. Owing to the choppy conditions, it made sense to him that it was “hard up” alongside the yacht. When shown the photograph of the Quicksilver dinghy, he said, “The dinghy I saw, as I said, Mr Ellis, was - I believe it was larger and I believe the dinghy I saw had a lee cloth across the bow… This does not have a lee cloth. The bow… also seems to be somewhat blunter… the Quicksilver dinghy in the photograph is not the dinghy I saw at five to four on Australia Day last year”.
    Under cross-examination by the defence counsel, Detective Sergeant Conroy revealed that the previous evening, the prosecutor had requested him to re-interview Mr Conde. In this interview, he described the width of the dinghy as “beamy” - too wide to fit the storage racks at the yacht club. He drew a diagram for the detective with a pointed bow rather than the traditional stub nose, and he described it as older, worn, faded and scuffed, not the sort of dinghy belonging to a pleasure craft.

    How much more differentiation do you need to give credence to the evidence of Mr Conde? If this isn’t of some value, I question whether taking statements from people after an event has any value at all.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  09/09/15  at  08:55 PM
  69. #67 mr Conde, a boat person of some experience speaks of a dark grey shabby(worn and signs of use) commercial looking dinghy with a lee cloth. these are remarks additional to colour and includes shape etc. the quicksilver dinghy was new looking, white with distinct blue stripes and is a known object and available or similar one that could be used for colour perception testing. but that would not work for a critical witness sighting of the dinghy in the dark of night. too many variables as I see it to work in a proper clinical trial. As for the yacht, sightings at 50m v 300 m looking in the wrong direction and other difficulties. There is only one sure sighting of Sue and that was the 1.30-2pm ish one at the beach where Sue was helped by someone to get the motor free out of the sand. this is hardly a strong case. In fact it is very weak. 52 shades of grey

    Posted by Rosemary  on  09/09/15  at  10:13 PM
  70. From Poiroit, thru Clouseau, hence here… the denoument:  Peter Lozo proposes – again - that in sunshine or in shade, two white objects will appear as:  one white ... and one grey … when one is viewed immediately beside the other.  Yet this was all essayed before, in 241 tortuous comments on Lynn Giddings’ quality article:  her humane: “An unscientific reading of the case”, in the which however we were bombarded by Peter’s midway contribution.  Yet there, once he entered the stage, he told us we weren’t allowed to reply to him unless we gave our scientific credentials and then, and only then, would he decide whether a reply from him was warranted.

    EXHIBIT 1:  Photo of white ‘Quicksilver’ dingy next to a white yacht … [Here].  You can find the same link (which I earlier provided) in #196 at http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/weblog/comments/an-unscientific-reading-of-the-case/ … No one in their right mind would call the dinghy in this photo ‘grey’.

    Did you look at the pic in my link?  If not, why not?
    Why should we accord Peter’s comments any credence at all given that he tells us that according to (his) science …

    I can confidently tell you that the Four Winds dingy will be perceived as being grey when viewed from distance against the background of a larger boat that is also white but has a higher reflectance thus appearing to be brighter than the dingy. It is a simple fact of how our visual system perceives the brightness of the same object when that object is viewed against the backgrounds of different contrast!

    I went through the law and the science.  I did whatever I could think of to give Peter his ‘scientific’ due.  You, the reader, only have to read my comments on that laborious thread in order to understand the understatement in my reply…

    The Four Winds tender (dinghy) was/is white.  It had a blue horizontal ‘trim’ around its circumference with the name ‘Quicksilver’ prominently showing on the side.  I’m attaching a link to a photo […] which shows the same sort of dinghy.  As it happens, it’s beside a (larger) white yacht.  I’m no scientist, but I’d hardly call the tender ‘grey’ in comparison to the yacht.  I expect all levels of discourse on Tasmanian Times, but I also expect those who display scientific credentials below their name, to exemplify the same in the content of what they contribute in comments.

    So what was the scientific reply?  … Peter told us that (#227) he was

    waiting for the “big intellectual guns” of the SNF support group to challenge [his] scientific reasoning and opinions. [He considered] the following three people to be the big intellectual guns of the SNF support group: Barbara Etter Eve Ash Bob Moles

    which in my amateur opinion is a cop-out, an avoidance of the meticulous research and discussion that I and others had contributed in that thread.  Peter also (#195) had told us

    I am ending my further comments on this case with a copy of my email to Barbara Etter (with a cc to Eve Ash). I won’t be engaging in any further comments on this forum.

    (if only it had been so) and in telling us that he’d sent through his ‘report’ to the ‘big guns’ and that

    I am not interested in your non-scientific and non-objective opinions on my own scientific and objective writings posted here. Please do not respond to my posts unless you have a valid scientific point to make for I am not interesting in your non-scientific arguments! Thank you very much.

    ... I was prompted to exclaim ...‘Would only that that had been the case!’ 

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  09/09/15  at  10:49 PM
  71. If there exists at least one person who saw the Four Winds dingy on water and stated that it was grey then does it not validate my original claim of several months ago that this dingy can be perceived to be grey? Does it also not expose the short-sightedness of research done by the producer of Shadow of Doubt? Does it not suggest that perhaps it was the Four Winds dingy that was seen by Conde at 3:55pm, by witness P36, by witness A?

    Who wants to debate a perceptual scientist on the issue of visual perception? Well at least some of you made a list of who saw what. That is a good start towards a more complete and unified understanding.

    Peter


    Editor’s note: minor edit see points 1 & 2 of the TT code http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/09/15  at  11:08 AM
  72. Lynne, I know what Conde stated in court; and what he stated in his Stat Dec (got this from a video clip where Eve and Barbara talk about it). So why do you keep telling me what he stated given that my earlier comments on this indicate that I am fully aware of what he stated.

    Have any of you printed all my comments on this issue plus all the witness statements plus a few photos of the Four Winds dingy and taken it to your local university to ask a professor of psychology for an opinion on my analysis? If not then get onto it!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/09/15  at  11:53 AM
  73. #70 thank you Garry for supplying that info. It hasn’t even been established that all these grey/white sightings are actually of the four winds dinghy so that in itself would undermine any scientific study of the perceived colours of dighies by those providing testimony. Secondly, without a connecting sighting of Sue then all these dinghy sightings are still in the realm of supposition. There are many other points in the trial to make it an unsafe verdict, we dont need to labiur over one thing. Even Judge blow said the evidnce of the ‘shape of a woman’ is weak and not to give it too much weight in the totality of the trial so even the best scientific study would not be value for money in this case.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  10/09/15  at  01:21 PM
  74. Good point Rosemary regarding what hasn’t been established in this case regarding the mysterious dingy (I will come back to this point below). However you are too quick to dismiss what further scientific research (both analytical and experimental) can contribute not only to this case but also to the advancement of the field of forensic science and criminal law. Given that vision and visual memory play a  huge role in criminal trials (e.g. the fallacy of perception and memory) it is of utmost importance that those in the leadership of this case (as well as those who are not science educated and trained but tend to meddle in scientific affairs often with naive and incorrect assumptions) about how the brain processes visual information and how visual memories are stored, etc.

    Below is a letter that is in SNF’s petition to Attorney General Vanessa Goodwin. The letter incorrectly states the following:

    “There was a VERY different dinghy to Sue’s at the crime scene, seen by 4 different people…”

    Was there a VERY different dingy? If so who established it and how? 

    Any reasonable scientist will say hey if you haven’t tested this with the Four Winds dingy how can you be certain that it was a different dingy? Did the leadership of the SNF support group seek expert opinion (from a visual psychophysicist) before writing the letter meant for the AG??

    Since it has NOT been established by anyone (not even me) that the dingy sighted was not  the Four Winds at the Four Winds yacht then shouldn’t the mentioned Attorney General be aware of this? 

    One cannot on the basis of an experiment establish whether the mysterious grey dingy was the Four Winds dingy. What one can try to establish is the opposite: that is to try to prove that it wasn’t! What can be established via experiments (psychophysical experiments) is a measure of what can be accurately perceived about the Four Winds dingy under the relevant conditions and distances and how this compares with statements of Conde and others. One can then form a well informed decision that is based on a systematic scientific study.

     Rosemary and Garry: in fact it was after reading the above mentioned petition and letter recently that led me to return here for some more detailed comments on visual perception (and DNA) with a view of writing an unsolicited letter to your AG and an extended article to the Tasmanian Times.

    “Attorney General Vanessa Goodwin MLC

    Premier Will Hodgman

    Investigate Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction with a Commission of Inquiry. Please look at the facts, the non-disclosure of evidence by the crown of material evidence, the lack of following up of leads and the new and fresh evidence. Sue was not tried fairly. There is DNA of another person AT THE CRIME SCENE who lied about her whereabouts that night. There was a VERY different dinghy to Sue’s at the crime scene, seen by 4 different people, never followed up.

    The Tasmania government must act immediately to rectify this unsafe verdict.”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/09/15  at  05:51 PM
  75. Cont….

    Since it has not been established that it was not the Four Winds dingy at the yacht after 4 pm

    and

    because there is evidence that the Four Winds dingy can be perceived to be grey when on water

    and

    because Susan Neill-Fraser was in her dingy at around 2:00 - 2:30 pm on the way to the yacht

    and

    because Susan Neill-Fraser has not been able to provide an alibi for her whereabouts between 4 pm - 9 pm (a block of 5 hours)

    and

    because she did not dispute that it was not her nor her dingy at the yacht at 3:55pm

    then

    is there any reasonable doubt that Susan Neill-Fraser was on the yacht until 7:45 - 8:30 pm given that a motorised light grey dingy with one person on-board was seen leaving the area of the yacht and heading in the general direction of the yacht club?

    If you think that there is reasonable doubt then please identify the doubt and provide a reasonable justification for it. Keep in mind that the various sightings were from significant distances (50 metres - 150 metres or more) and some were not provide immediately but after a passage of some time (from 12 hours to several months).

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/09/15  at  07:35 PM
  76. Garry Stannus,

    I saw that photo several months ago when you first mentioned it. I didn’t ignore it. I was waiting for you to ask me why the top portion of that dingy is perceived to be white and brighter than the boat behind it but you didn’t ask me.

    Is it not obvious to you that the top portion of the dingy is receiving DIRECT SUNLIGHT and that the portion of the larger boat that is immediately behind the dingy ISN’T receiving direct sunlight? In this case the dingy looks brighter because it is illuminated by a brighter light source. I actually laughed at the example you chose to use in an attempt to discredit the claim(s) made by an expert in the brain’s mechanisms of visual perception.

    Under the condition of even illumination (an overcast day can be considered to have even illumination) and assuming that the larger boat has a higher reflectance  than the smaller boat (and if both are of the same white paint) then the smaller boat will be perceived to be GREY in colour when it is viewed in front of the larger boat even though it is perfectly still reflecting strong white colour! An instrument will detect white colour coming from that boat whereas the visual brain of the human observer will perceive the little boat to be grey!! Brains are CONTEXT-SENSITIVE sensory information processing systems!

    Because of the importance of this issue I will submit an article in the near future.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/09/15  at  12:22 AM
  77. John Biggs,

    Here is a copy of your comment of several months ago when Garry Stannus at comment #195 gave a link to a photo of another dingy (his Exhibit #1):

    “#196 An excellent reply to the arrogance displayed in suggesting “the science” applied to a couple of isolated incidents will solve a hideously complex problem. As I suggested earlier and as you are now filling out in detail, you can’t just apply a theory top down in a complicated issue and say now we have the truth. We don’t. One tree, even two trees in this case, do not give the shape of the forest. A case of severe tunnel vision.”

    I noticed that neither you nor Garry asked me for my explanation of that example. My perception was that both of your motivations was to prove me wrong rather than to be open to learning new knowledge.

    Read my explanation now of what is going in the scene shown in the photo used by Garry.

    I hope that you (and Garry) review your understanding of the subject. I am not just using theoretical knowledge here but knowledge that I gained over a 25 year period of reading experimental literature (written by visual psychophysicists). I am concerned at how quickly you and Garry are prepared to ‘debunk’ a perceptual scientist. Who suffers from tunnel vision?

    Peter Lozo

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/09/15  at  02:58 AM
  78. better find that battleship grey dinghy so the dinghy perception experiments can proceed.

    Posted by rosemary  on  11/09/15  at  09:36 AM
  79. #78. Is that a sarcastic way of saying “thank you Dr Lozo for providing us with a useful insight into visual perception and for explaining to us why an object that is perceived to be WHITE in one visual context can be perceived to be virtually of ANY SHADE OF GREY, from PALE GREY all the way to BATTLESHIP GREY and even CHARCOAL GREY, depending on the context”.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/09/15  at  11:48 AM
  80. On the Vass issue:

    This comment is meant for the SNF support group even though I am singling out Garry because of his repetition of the subject.

    Has anyone bothered to note the evidence provided to the investigating detective about the time Ms Vass left the place where she stayed. It was 3:30 pm on Australia day?

    According to my calculation she COULD NOT have gotten to the river bank in time to have then gotten onto a dingy (either alone or with others) and then travelled on the dingy to the yacht and then stepped onto the yacht before 3:55 pm - the time at which Conde was looking at the dingy and the yacht. Twenty five minutes of time!! 

    Well if we then go on and assume that the dingy that was seen by Conde was a different dingy to that seen by another group at 5pm then that leaves  no more than an one hour for the first dingy to go away and the next dingy to come along and park itself on the same side of the yacht and also being of some shade of grey! You may say that it is the same dingy but it went back to shore to pick up Vass. In that case can you explain why the description of the 3:55 pm dingy isn’t the same as the desription of the 5pm dingy?

    Garry: I did my analysis  several months ago and it appears from my reading about this case that my analysis is significantly more comprehensive as it is more detailed and is based on a broader range of information than that used by you or others who commented online. 

    The only scientifically reasonable, impartial, intellectually honest, physically plausible and rational conclusion I reached (based on the above mentioned timings; descriptions of the various dingy sightings combined with my specialist knowledge of the field of visual perception; my understanding of the literature on DNA and the mechanism of secondary transfer; absence of alibi from SNF in the period 4-9 pm) is that it was one dingy the whole afternoon and that it was Sue Neill-Fraser on-board committing the crime.  

    Therefore I will restate: Scientific analysis supports my conclusion that Vass was NOT on-board the Four Winds yacht despite the DNA, despite the VPFSD report, despite Dr Moles’ statement on 60 mins, etc.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/09/15  at  12:43 PM
  81. #79 all I am saying is that until we have an exact dinghy to compare with, then it is still speculation which or any of the ones you mention are a true sighting of quicksilver or other dinghies.  it is also questionable and doubtful the speculated sighting of Bob at 5pm on Four Winds.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  11/09/15  at  03:31 PM
  82. #81 What is an EXACT dinghy????

    I am getting a little tired of your scientifically naive pursuit of the issue at hand. I consider it very disrespectful of you not to thank me for my insight but are skirting around with sarcastic comments, some of which digress beyond the issue at hand.

    I can go down to the beautiful city of Hobart (have been there on two previous occasions at UTAS) and demonstrate to Dr Moles, Mrs Etter, Ms Ash.. and the whole SNF group, and to your premier and the AG, that a quicksilver dingy (or any other dingy of similar paint colours) can be perceived to be white in one natural setting on water and yet can be perceived as being dark grey in another natural setting on water!

    Please word your sentences carefully to reflect what you already know and that is that I did not speculate anything about Bob’s sightings at 5 pm and that in fact I did not accept Mr Lorrain’s statement to be relevant because the geographical location of where he was looking did not match the actual location of the Four Winds yacht by a considerable angle and distance. I agree with the SNF support group on this issue. If I recall correctly, a couple of German tourists sent an email saying that it was most probably their yacht.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/09/15  at  05:02 PM
  83. Cont…  

    Would it not be big news in Tasmania if two PhD qualified people  from Adelaide (one a lawyer the other a scientist)  were to have a face-off on River Derwent to see who can prove what about white dingies!!

    Your call SNG support group! Perhaps you can get 60 minutes to fund and film the experiments given the high profile nature of the case!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/09/15  at  05:33 PM
  84. Dr Lozo,#80, paragraph 3. In Mr Ellis’ closing address to the jury, he used the words, “I don’t know”, among a list of ‘suggestions’. Because we do not know what happened on the yacht, I have many thoughts rolling around in my mind of possible people and scenarios of which two are: (a) unknown person/s in a battleship grey dinghy around 3.55 pm seen by Mr Conde, and (b) a group of homeless youth going out in the evening, remembering there are 2 unidentified male DNA on the boat and an unidentified female, if not by DNA, then by fingerprint. They would perhaps have gone out hoping for a bed, food and alcohol or a safe place to use drugs; they would not have gone out with malicious intent against Bob Chappell. If he were still on the yacht when they arrived, and if a fight broke out and he died as a result, then it may be a case of manslaughter. Or he may have died of a heart attack when he found himself out-numbered 4 to 1. There are so many possibilities of which Mr Ellis’ is one. All I know is, I sat through the trial and I felt the jury’s verdict was unsafe and we were left with too much doubt.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  11/09/15  at  05:36 PM
  85. Dr Peter Lozo, irrespective of perceptual science how is it that the prosecution in this SNF case relies on doubt, theory and the non conclusive disappearance of another, seems hardly enough substance to convict a person of causing the death of that missing other.
    Were I to disappear beneath the waves of the ocean from my boat who must bear the blame, a relative, a partner, an enemy, an associate, even say a happenstance person?

    The fact of one causing one’s own death seems not to have been contemplated in this SNF case.

    With all due respect many of your claims in regard to this case matter are similarly based on presumption, not on fact.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  11/09/15  at  11:30 PM
  86. The comments on this site will continue on and on and achieve very little. The colour of the dinghy for one. What has occurred in this case is as follows. Many other cases have gone through the same procedure eg Lindy Chamberlain and remember the police have ‘got it right’ and are not going to back down. Not without a fight.

    The police investigate the Bob Chappell disappearance. They look around and by hunch or a copper’s nose they arrive at a conclusion that SFN did it. At this point it is all over for Sue. The police then build the case around Sue. The prosecution continue the line and the judge also gets caught up. People think the police act like Sherlock Holmes and go looking for clues. No. They build a case after they decide who is guilty. The jury to often buy all this thinking the Sherlock Holmes stuff. The jury often think the defence is just trying to get a guilty person off. If a new trial finds SFN not guilty the police and prosecution will just say ‘The jury released a guilty person’. And the whole process starts all over again on the next case.

    The whole police, prosecution, jury and justice system has to be completely overhauled. Why wasn’t the Lindy case the turning point? Simple. The system does not want to admit failure. Bob Moles and others should be working to overturn the system.

    There was no wrench or body. The whole SNF case is based on speculation termed as circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not evidence. The prosecution present fiction as evidence. They in effect write a novel. The nonsense has to stop. A case has to be a turning point.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  12/09/15  at  01:48 AM
  87. #82 I am not being sarcastic, ‘exact’ I mean that described in detail by Mr Conde or find one that looks as close in colour to his ‘battleship grey’ for the experiment . The 5pm sighting I quote from the Judge’s finding, on sentencing, rather than your judgement (and I think you are more accurate than the judge on that one). I agree with Dr Moles for a collegial approach rather than an adversarial. I feel that so far what you propose is only a small part of the trial it total, there are many other aspects that need to be addressed. this thread on TT has become very tunnel visioned, but we mustnt get so caught up on this to detract from other deficiencies in the trial. If an experiment can be set up, even filmed, it would have to be something done with total independence, with no agenda other than finding out the truth. but as I see it whatever the outcome, without a witness sighting of Sue it has no great weight other than to show witness perception can be innacurate. and any unknown person could have used the dinghy, to say it is sue is still only speculation. And speculation is what the trial was based on

    Posted by Rosemary  on  12/09/15  at  05:53 AM
  88. ...

    The case of SNF is but one of many speculative decisions handed down by this State’s Supreme Court.

    As with many proven incidents within the Justice department here in Tasmania, that seem to have failed the people, one case in particular is the TCC case concerning John White and Bryan (the giggler) Green.

    One confederate pleads guilty, the outcome being no record of conviction, a good behaviour bond and a smile from the presiding judge.

    As regards the second confederate, we all know the fact of double jeopardy stood between a conviction or even a light finger smack.

    I will retain other cases of this kind of the delicacy and diplomacy offered by this State’s Supreme Court, under lock and key, of this of my compendium of files that have questions of doubt roiling within them.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  12/09/15  at  08:12 AM
  89. #84 - #87

    I refer you all to my #75.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/09/15  at  09:52 AM
  90. Now a slightly humorous approach:

    Are there any red or yellow or green dingies in Hobart? 


    All the sightings  are about a grey dingy


    white-pale grey

    light-grey

    mid-range grey

    battleship grey

    charcoal grey

     

     Is this where the famous SHADES book got its title from?


     It was a Grey day too! Then, out of a grey cloud comes along a grey haired scientist from Adelaide who says hey you down there in Hobart town, it is one and the same dinghy!  Isn’t this character rude by saying hey you just don’t know your science of visual perception. He says hey there Hobartians, stop searching for the battleship grey dingy or any other shade of grey dingy but search for a white dingy that can appear to be battleship grey or any other shade of grey. No mystery here dear Hobartians!


     Hobartians aren’t happy with this reincarnated version of half Poirot half Clouseau character from Adelaide who is trying to show them the light, the road to higher wisdom. Go away they say, we trust the other Dr from Adelaide. He knows the difference between a white and a grey dingy. He knows the laws of DNA too. He even knows the law of laws. Hang on says the scientist Dr, the real and true laws are those that are discovered by physicists. They can also explain why even a red dingy can appear to be dark grey because they know how light of different frequencies interact with air particles. They know that a blue dingy will loose its ‘blueness’ and will appear to be a shade of grey before a red dingy looses its ‘redness’ to become a shade of grey. They know that the first colour on the Four Winds dingy that will suffer from degradation due to the atmospheric loss of transmission is the blue which will then appear to be a shade of dark grey. They know that as the dingy is removed further and further from the observer its projected image on the observer’s retina becomes smaller and smaller. The white and the the dark grey parts (which were originally blue) of the projected dingy image will now tend to merge such that the observe will form a percept of a dingy whose colour is a shade of grey, the shade being dependent on the illumination and the background against which the dingy is viewed.

     


    Hobartians do not like this explanation so they join forces in an attempt to cover up their desire  not to learn from Dr Poirot-Clousea and wish him to de-incarnate himself.


    The motto: it is physicists who are the ultimate seekers of the truth!!

     

     

     

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/09/15  at  11:49 AM
  91. Dr Lozo, please don’t lump all ‘Hobartians’ in together.

    There are many readers of this and other SNF threads on TT who feel the conviction was sound and justice was done for Bobs family. You are on a hiding to nothing trying to argue the facts with the SNF supporters. As you will have noticed they are willing to ignore inconvenient truths in regard to this case, and anyone trying to point out the flaws in their argument is denigrated and attacked.

    When it comes to this fascinating case, all ‘Hobartians’ are not of the same mind.

    Posted by moo  on  12/09/15  at  02:19 PM
  92. You are very right moo!

    I hope that had you been following my comments over the 5 months (here and on several other threads on Tasmanian Times) you would have quickly realised that I am actually referring to the comments of the SNF support group & associates but chose to use ‘Hobartians’ in my ‘humorous post’.

    Most of my comments are directed to the following people:

    1. Lynne Giddings (demonstrated bias against Ms Vass);

    2. Eve Ash (biased and scientifically naive research for the Shadow of Doubt doco);

    3. Barbara Etter (best critical analyst here but biased towards her client; understandable);

    4. Garry Stannus and John Biggs (both non-scientists and yet seem to be motivated to debunk the claims made by a scientist);

    5 Rosemary (scientifically naive and skirts around non-relevant issues);

    6. Bob Moles (improper use of a forensic report on 60 mins; incorrect and inappropriate statement in his review of Shadow on Doubt regarding whether a white dinghy can be seen to be grey).

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Physicist/Vision Scientist
    Aelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/09/15  at  06:54 PM
  93. #86 Well said Brian, you have summarized this thread and the SNF trial perfectly

    Posted by Rosemary  on  13/09/15  at  12:07 AM
  94. #93. Dear Rosemary, I aver to your comment as I also consider how well Brian has summarised this Justice Department sanctioned case result.

    The Justice Department here in Tasmania has many reasons to keep its handiwork and its history of conducts well below the line of sight, or maybe even locked away in some anonymous appearing underground vault.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  13/09/15  at  12:02 PM
  95. Garry Stannus/John Biggs:

    - do either of you have any questions with respect to my explanation of colour  & brightness perception of the Four Winds dingy as a function of context and viewing distance?

    - do either of you have a doubt (a reasonable doubt) that Susan Neill-Fraser was on the Four Winds yacht during the 5 - 6 hour block from about 2:30 pm to about 7:45-8:30 pm on Australia Day as suggested in my analysis of the evidence, summarised at my comment #75?

    - does anyone still hold the view that Ms Vass was on-board the Four Winds in light of my analysis summarised at comment #80 (and my Chewing Gum Hypothesis of Secondary Transfer, mentioned on this and earlier threads). The time she left the house she stayed at was 3:50 pm on Australia day (rather than 3:30 pm; my error in memory recall).

    - at least one of you used the term “Tunnel Vision” in relationship to my comment several months ago on another TT thread related to this case. What is Tunnel Vision? I prefer to call it ‘Selective Attention’. Did I not get a doctorate for a dissertation on Selective Attention (within the context of visual information processing)?  and am thus scientifically qualified to understand and recognise who on this thread (and related threads on TT) has demonstrated (via their writing) signs of attending to information that agrees with his/her views and beliefs at the expense of not noticing other pertinent information which  raises doubt about the completeness and the accuracy of their own understanding of the subtle issues that arose in this case?

    Peter Lozo

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/09/15  at  12:30 PM
  96. Gee whizz Dr Peter Lozo, some of your comments seem to me like cross-examination (XXN) of other commentators.

    Go easy — everyone has the right to an opinion unless it is directly unreasonable. In that instance Editorial manage that.

    My understanding is citizen participation in a Tasmanian Times discussion does not translate into an obligation to come under persistent XXN by another participant.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  17/09/15  at  03:30 PM
  97. Gee whizz Geraldine Allan, I and my comments have (been) ridiculed by a retired professor of Psychology? (Biggs?) and a part-time musician? (Stannus) and I can’t recall a person by the name of Geraldine Allan stepping in and saying anything about it or addressing any of my posts.

    I am not ridiculing either of the two gentleman but am asking them if they have any questions they wish to address to me or whether they have any reasonable doubts on where Neill-Fraser was between 2:30 - 8:30 pm on the last day Bob Chappell was seen alive.

    Perhaps you want to seek another opinion (outside the SNF support group) on the fairness of the approach been undertaken by those who disagree with my analysis. There are too many people on here with little or no skills in critical analysis (let alone skills in scientific analysis). That is of no concern to me but when they address me or my comments then I do expect them to ask me questions or ask me for a more detailed explanation rather than use “tunnel vision” on me or make sarcastic remarks.

    I note that a number of people are biased (including you) because of their prior negative experience (either directly or indirectly) with the Tasmania’s judicial system.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/09/15  at  05:11 PM
  98. Dr Lozo — were you invited or request to present your opinion? If not, don’t expect others to directly respond to your analysis, PHD or not.

    It is not for you to decide whether I am biased or not. Because of what you refer to as my “prior negative experience (either directly or indirectly) with the Tasmania’s judicial system”, that does not mean I am biased. I give myself credit for being capable of offering fair opinion. I believe I have done that.

    I may well know (not believe) more than you think. Because that may be the case doesn’t mean I have to persistently blurt it across Tasmanian Times.

    At times, less is more.

    BTW, there is much more substance and integrity to Garry Stannus than a part-time musician. Your remark appears belittling. Knowing Garry, I believe he is far too gracious and intelligent to afford your observation a response. Nonetheless, it requires one and I’ll do it.

    I don’t intend to further engage in discussion with you, as it appears fruitless and increasingly undignified. Hence from hereon any dialogue you have will be with yourself.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  17/09/15  at  05:48 PM
  99. #98 Geraldine: From my perspective this thread (and related threads) are about the SNF case and in particular whether Bob was murdered by Sue. I have written a lot to date since April so please feel free to address my analysis of the case. Please feel free to ask me to clarify any parts you don’t understand.

    I am not interested in debating about non-relevant and/or peripheral issues (I don’t know either of the two gentlemen but took a guess as to who they are based on a quick internet search).

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/09/15  at  07:04 PM
  100. Thank you, Rosemary (#73).  While agreeing with the thrust of your remarks, for me it is important to follow any point in a discussion to its natural end.  Peter Lozo has put the case that the “dark grey” dingy seen by an experienced yachtie alongside the Four Winds was actually a white dinghy, with blue trims, smaller in size, with a differently shaped bow and with a shadow across it bow which however, the experienced yachtie, Paul Conde, had identified as a ‘lee cloth’. 

    Peter asked (#71) “If there exists at least one person who saw the Four Winds dingy on water and stated that it was grey then does it not validate my original claim of several months ago that this dingy can be perceived to be grey?”

    His question was logically appealing… for less than one minute.  I mean, a careful person would ordinarily ask for the identiy of the person who was supposed to have made such a claim.  Peter didn’t tell us.  One begins to suspect a petitio principii (circular argument) is in operation, that given Peter’s personal logica… here:

    PI   A white object (such as a Zodiac ‘Quicksilver’ dinghy) can under certain conditions, appear grey
    PII   A witness saw a dinghy (larger, different bow shape, plus lee cloth) and perceived it to be “dark grey” and “battleship grey”
    C   Thus, this larger, differently bow-shaped, plus lee cloth, “dark grey” and “battleship grey” dinghy was actually the smaller, white with narrow horizontal blue trims, differently bow-shaped Four Winds dinghy.

    ...that sometimes white things can seem grey, and this seemed battleship grey, therefore this was white.

    Peter did not tell us, Rosemary, whether in actual fact there was even one single person who, having sighted the Four Winds dinghy on water, was of the opinion that it was grey.  I can’t find anything in the Transcript which corroborates Peter’s suggestion.  I admit that I am nonplussed.  The question remains:  is Peter’s a circular argument or perhaps just a simple non-sequitur?

    Meanwhile, all this takes us away from a proper consideration of the guts of this article:  Tim Ellis’s responses to the questions put to him by the AWW.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  17/09/15  at  07:33 PM
  101. Peter has mentioned the identity of at least one person on more than one occasion Mr Stannus: the rowing coach who wrote an email to the 50+ members of the rowing club 2 or so days after he saw the Four Winds dingy next to the rowing sheds!

    Read the transcript (like Lynne Giddings did) and find out for yourself the name of police officers and their descriptions of the Four Winds dingy Mr Stannus before you reply further so that we are on common ground!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/09/15  at  07:52 PM
  102. Peter Lozo’s post #204 posted on 15 April 2015 
    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/an-unscientific-reading-of-the-case/

    Statement of Mr Balding (page 1028) - note his description of the colour of the Foyr Winds dingy:

    “I’m the coach of the Sandy Bay Rowing Club which is situated off Marieville Esplanade, Sandy Bay. At about 5:45am on the 27th January ’09 I arrived at the rowing club to take training. When I arrived Mr Farmer, who is the father of one of the rowers, told me that when he arrived he had found an inflatable dinghy floating off Errol Flynn Beach which is the beach between the end of Marieville Esplanade and the rowing club. I saw that the dinghy was tied to rocks beside the rowing club, it was grey with dark blue trim and had an outboard motor attached to the back.”

    Subject closed!!

    P.L.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/09/15  at  08:06 PM
  103. Dr Lozo, I thought I closed the subject at #68. I agreed that many people who saw the white dinghy with blue trim described it as grey or some variation of its true colours. But long before your scientific input, I had arrived at the conclusion that most witnesses had looked at the Quicksilver dinghy but their descriptions of it differed for a different reason: memory failure. If you see a man running down the street and someone calls out ‘Stop thief’ and you have your wits about you, you might note accurately the clothes he is wearing and his height and colouring. If you are asked days later “Did you see a man run down the street? Can you give a description of him and what he was wearing?” and you hadn’t heard ‘Stop thief’, your memory is likely to fail you as it did most of the other witnesses. It was not important to them on 26 January to take much notice, or even on the morning of 27. It was not important until it was headlines in the paper.

    Mr Conde’s description stood out as completely different from any of the other’s; that’s why the DPP sent a detective to interview him again during the trial, but the subsequent interview did not help the Crown’s case. Mr Conde stuck to his guns. One would hope that an employee of the Australian Taxation Office might have his wits about him, enjoy a good memory and be in a position to give an accurate description of what he saw at a later date. Even without his ‘battleship grey’ observation, every thing else in his description was completely different from the Quicksilver dinghy.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  17/09/15  at  11:11 PM
  104. The Tunnel.  As much as 99.9% of people would like the mystery of the disappearance of Bob Chappell to be solved and the truth found, it is ‘off message’ of this thread.  (Re: #92 Hobartians v SNF support group & associates). There are many, many people who don’t fit into your generalized grouping who feel that this is a miscarriage of justice/unsafe verdict and worthy of a review)

    The original article by Mr Ellis to start off this thread was giving examples of some circumstantial evidence from the trial that may have swayed the jury to convict. (Note no real evidence)

    The opposing views are to say that the verdict was unsafe and many reasons given by people who have either or both read the transcript or attended the court to see it firsthand. Somehow it got onto perception experiments on the witness descriptions of the dinghy. As an interesting exercise Dr Lozo I wonder if you were to go through all the comments (ignoring colour of the dinghy and DNA) and look at all the other concerns people have raised in relation to the conduct of the trial and why they feel it is an unsafe verdict? Do it objectively without calling every one biased that has this view.

    In relation to my point (#87) and your (#95 re: the 5-6 hours) I make this observation. You are demanding that the burden of proof rests with the accused. Remember our law is based on “innocent until proven guilty”. The burden of proof should be on the crown prosecution but in this case is based on a character assassination in my view. Have this in mind when you speculate on what occurred in those 5-6 hours. Even with your scientific study of the colour of dinghy etc. It still does not place Sue at the crime scene. So you may prove it was the quicksilver, white with blue trim, new looking etc. was sighted but you are still only left with a guess, suggestion, speculation, made up fiction, that it has Sue in it. There is absolutely zero proof of the suggested murderous attack on Bob Chappell by Sue (with a wrench, and it must have been a big wrench because it was a big boat, or a screwdriver) or I don’t know. As stated by (#86 circumstantial evidence is not evidence).

    The unknown occupants of the battleship grey dinghy (or other colour) have not been found to see what they were doing in those 5-6 hours.  At the end of the Tunnel can only sit unsafe verdict!
    A relevant quote for this thread, “...one fact is worth a thousand opinions”

    Posted by Rosemary  on  18/09/15  at  04:12 PM
  105. Rosemary, 99.9% - really??? 

    An intellectually honest person wouldn’t pull out a random number out of her/his head but would refer to a survey, such as the one posted by Barbara Etter on her website, as below:

    “Final Results of the Sue Neill-Fraser Poll

    Posted by Barbara Etter on 19 March 2013 | 0 Comments

    The final results of the 60 Minutes poll on whether Sue Neill-Fraser should have been convicted or not are in. 79% to 21%. See Facebook at  http://www.facebook.com/60Minutes9

    Interesting that there was a further 5% swing once the show was watched in NT, SA and WA. WA has had more than its fair share of proven Miscarriage of Justice cases so perhaps people in WA were more alive to this issue?”

    Please do not address any further nonsensical, naive and convoluted comments to me. Thanks.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  18/09/15  at  08:30 PM
  106. Lynne,  Thank you for #68 & #103.


     I really appreciate the effort you have put into searching carefully through the transcript and writing out the list of the various descriptions of the Four Winds dinghy at #68. 

    I am not at all surprised that this dinghy (which I would describe as an inflatable and motorised 4-6 person dinghy that is  WHITE with LIGHT BLUE stripes) was described  by Mr Balding (the rowing coach) and the various police police officers in a variety of colours.  Now imagine if the same dinghy was to be viewed by the same group of people from a distance of 50 metres or more  at different times of day on an overcast day where typically the light illumination is much weaker and is diffuse (uniform).

    We can discuss Conde’s battleship grey dinghy in future. 

    Below is a reference to an interesting Article I thought you might enjoy reading. 

    Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

    Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  18/09/15  at  09:38 PM
  107. #105 That is very petty remark. I was not refering to a poll of anyone about her conviction I was observing the true answer to the disappearance of Bob.

    For statistical purposes the apathy vote could be quite high ie do not care about the case at all, but I would suggest 100% of those interested in the case would appreciate the truth not just conjecture. My 0.1% would allow for perpetrator/s.

    and in regard to my posts as you are not the moderator I feel that all remarks on a public post are open to comment

    Posted by Rosemary  on  19/09/15  at  11:43 AM
  108. Peter, In acknowledging my comments in #68, I think you ignored my last sentence when I asked what value is there in taking down all these inaccurate witness statements. Why bother? And could I politely say that your own visual perception of how I spell my name, is inaccurate!

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  19/09/15  at  08:04 PM
  109. To SNF supporters, associates and non-supporters:

    I am moving over to the latest thread on this case (see the article by Eve Ash) so will leave here with this final comment:

     


    The BRD (“beyond reasonable doubt”) test is a SUBJECTIVE test.

     

     

    1. I am satisfied BRD that in this case:


    (i) the circumstantial evidence that was presented by the prosecutor (Mr Ellis) was sufficient for the jury to arrive at the GUILTY verdict;


    (ii) the jury made the correct decision.

     

    2. I am also satisfied BRD that:


    (i) there is no known neurobiological mechanism by which a continuous period of 5-6 hours of a person’s episodic memory can be wholly or substantially erased 12-24 hours later by stress, trauma and an intake of a valium tablet, particularly if that period of time corresponded to the last few hours that that person spent with their long term lover;


    (ii) that the confabulation theory promulgated by some of SNF’s primary supporters (Giddings, Ash, Etter) is a non-scientific nonsense. Memory confabulation may be applicable to short term memory lapses, such as in getting confused where one parked their car in a regularly used car park, but Giddings, Ash & Etter have ignored the role of the associative memory recall.

     

    (iii) that SNF consciously and purposefully lied to the Police (and misled the Police) in order to divert attention away from herself.

     


    3. I am also satisfied BRD that Ms Vass (the then homeless girl) had absolutely nothing to do with the Four Winds yacht.

     


    4. I am also satisfied BRD that the fellow named Moles from Adelaide (the non-scientist who featured on the 60 minutes program) was absolutely incorrect in his interpretation of the VPFSD report.

     

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Physicist/Vision Scientist
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  19/09/15  at  08:12 PM
  110. The case was built around Sue. Two dinghies. Hmmm. One has to go. Simple. Write one out, morph one into the other, a little confusion. Problem solved. Sue’s gone. Talking about shades of grey is not helpful. There was either one dinghy or two.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  19/09/15  at  09:51 PM
  111. I have sat here and read with some interest Dr Lozo posts yes perception plays a big part that is why as investigators we teach trainees to interview everyone because the older person sees a young person the young person see’s and older person because of perception.But please do not think that because you have a doctorate that you know better than anyone.The ONLY thing BRD is Bob Chappell is missing most likely dead all your opinions and mine and anyone else puts forward is guesswork and theories.Before I posted this I sat and spoke to a person with degrees in Medicine,Science and Bio medical Science who stated he thought there were too many other possibilities for the conviction to be safe.

    Posted by William Griffin  on  20/09/15  at  08:05 AM
  112. Peter (#95), asked me some questions.  Here are my answers:

    - I don’t have any questions with respect to his explanation of colour & brightness perception of the Four Winds dingy as a function of context and viewing distance.  I accept as a first principle that the perception of colour is both subjective to the perceiver and relative to the surroundings*.  However, in my opinion, Conde ‘s evidence withstands Peter’s remarks.

    - I did not read his #75.  I began to read it, but bailed out.  I prefer that when likely-to-be-disputed claims of fact are made, that they be referenced.

    - MV’s DNA was on the Four Winds.  It may have been transferred there, it more likely was directly deposited.  Luminol is used (Transcript, P639L45, P646L41, P669L18) as a screening test for blood.  Thus the circumstances in which MV’s DNA was found were suggestive of her blood being on the deck.  Ms McCoul (the Forensic Scientist who looked for blood on the Four Winds and on its dinghy) gave evidence (P641L5) that blood stains can be divided into two categories

    ...transfer type staining and drop type staining.

    Her further evidence (P662L44) included that the MV deposit (Item 20, Area 11 of the Four Winds) when sprayed with Luminol showed a pattern of 11 possible drops within an area of (P670L10) approximately 210 by 260 millimetres in size.

    - I don’t think it was me that said Peter had ‘tunnel-vision’.

    *With regard to Peter’s (#102) “Subject closed!!” comment, concerning identification of one person whose evidence was that the Four Winds dinghy was ‘grey’, it should be noted that Mr Balding’s final evidence was that the dinghy found in the pre-dawn on Short Beach was light grey.  (P1030L5):

    Do you know what’s sometimes called warship grey – you know you see these big grey war ships come into port…Yes.
    You’re not talking about that grey, are we?…….No, it’s a – it’s a light – a light’ish grey.

    A light’ish grey -…….Yeah.

    - merging on white?…….Well I stick to light grey.

    In short, Mr Conde and Mr Balding both seemed to resist the idea that a single dinghy could appear to be both battleship grey and light grey.  Incidentally, Peter some time ago hypothesised [#218: Here] that the lee cloth seen by Conde was only a shadow. Now (#106 this thread) it seems as if he wants us to consider that the dinghy may have been viewed on an overcast day.  Seems like he wants ‘two bob each way’.  In any case, overcast and/or sunny, the alignment at mooring of the Four Winds at 3:55pm 26Jan2009 is known. Peter originally said that it was aligned to the SW, and then had to correct his statement, if I remember correctly, to recognise that in fact the vessel was facing to the SE.  There’s a quite useful app on the net (suncalc.net) which can be used to see that at 5 mins to four on that day, the sun was close to the NW position, thus any shadows that the Four Winds may have cast would have fallen nearly lengthwise along the yacht, and not perpendicularly across the bow of the unidentified dinghy tethered alongside.  Thus, not a shadow across the bow, but a lee cloth.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  20/09/15  at  12:33 PM
  113. we have covered the dinghy colouring. Let’s move on.
    If SFN murdered Bob with a crack on the head with a wrench then there are points to consider.
    1) One would expect a degree of blood around the scene.
    2) Sue with a bad back through horse riding injuries is accused of disposing of the body.
    3) Sue drags Bob to the winch. Unlikely.
    4) Blood on Sue. Blood everywhere especially where dragged.
    5) How does Sue winch Bob.
    6) Does the winch have a hook
    7) Does Sue put the hook in Bob’s belt.
    8) Was Bob wearing a belt. Was he wearing pyjamas
    9) Did the dinghy test positive for blood. And how much and what part of the dinghy.
    10) More than likely at least two people would be required to dispose of Bob
    11) Was Bob even murdered on the boat
    12) Retrial required

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  20/09/15  at  06:42 PM
  114. #112 Garry, I saw an email notification and read your post. Great work! 

    Re lee-cloth vs shadow: 

    - You did great here. However, when I did my analysis several months ago I used a broader range of data to help me with my analysis;

    - in particular, I used the photo of Neill Fraser taken on the morning of 26th at the yacht club by Bob’s sister;

    -  from that photo I saw that it was an overcast day with light cloud cover (the sun can still penetrate to some extent and cause shadows; see the photo);

    - I  made an educated  projection from that photo to conclude that since it was a light cloud coverage that the condition wouldn’t have changed much by 4pm other than the position  of the sun  + wind);

    - now, the SE direction that the yacht was facing at could have been anywhere between SSE and SSW;

    - a few degrees misalignment between the orientation of the yacht and the direction of the sun would cause the rear mast to cast the shadow across the yacht (and then onto the dingy if the dingy was in the path of the cast shadow; the width of that shadow would be around 30 - 40 cm);

    - note that since the dingy was on the portside (same side as Conde & Clarkes) it wouldn’t have received any direct sunlight if the above mentioned misalignment occurred; as such the dingy would have been perceived by Conde & Clarkes to be darker than if it received direct sunlight;

    - Conde stated that the dingy was LARGE dark grey (he gave an estimate to be about 12 feet in length);

    - Clarke (who was on Conde’s boat) stated that that it was a SMALL grey dingy;

    - the length of the Four Winds dingy is  very close to 12 feet (basically the same length of the dingy Conde saw at the yacht and whose length he estimated to be 12 feet);

    - note that I did NOT state that it was definitely a shadow, but have used the qualifier “may” two times; see my comment #218 at which I copy below.

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/an-unscientific-reading-of-the-case/

    “How did the “Unscientific Reading” become a Scientific Debate?

    Anyway: I think that some of you may have arrived at a trivial insight by now that perhaps the so called “lee cloth” that Conde claimed to have seen may in fact have been a shadow from some structure on the Four Winds yacht!

    Thus, a very simple geometrical analysis has led me to propose a hypothesis that Mr Conde’s perception may have been that of a shadow on the bow of the dingy which he interpreted as being the lee cloth! His perception of the shape of the dingy (particularly the bow) wouldn’t have been accurate either.”

    - since the Four Winds dingy was described as being white, white-pale grey, light grey, grey, by various people then it is quite possible for it to be perceived as being grey - dark grey when viewed from a longer distance, particularly if it was in the shadow of the Four Winds yacht;

    - if  Clarke & Conde (from a distance of about 50 metres) perceived a grey - dark grey dingy (and their opinion on the length differed remarkably:  small versus large) can one really trust that that would also be their perception if they saw the same dingy from a shorter distance and out of a shadow (say less than 10 metres; the distance from which Mr Balding and several police officers saw the Four Winds dingy next to the rowing sheds);

    Can one trust the accuracy of perception of an object’s shape, colour and size from a distance of 50 metres or more?

    Can one trust the accuracy of memory recall?

    NOTE: if you wish to pursue this subject further then please do it on 

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/sue-neill-fraser/

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  21/09/15  at  12:56 PM
  115. #111

    • perhaps you can ask that person (the one with “Medicine,Science and Bio medical Science” qualification) to write down for you their preferred possibility based on the available information so that you can post it on-line for my critical review. I am not interested in blank statements.

    • I don’t know what you teach but based on my understanding of your professional background (as described on the internet) and my educated prediction of your limited skills in critical  analysis (as evident from your writing about this case) I very much doubt that you know much about major crime investigation. Are you an instructor in a police academy or do you train experienced  police officers how to investigate a major crime such as murder? I DON’T think so!

    NOTE: if you wish to pursue this subject further then please do it on  
    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/sue-neill-fraser/ 

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  21/09/15  at  01:32 PM
  116. #108 Lynn - please accept my apology for misspelling your name elsewhere; a good friend of mine is named ‘Lynne’; good example of confusion or confabulation; perhaps I am working in an automatic mode).

    • You (as well as Eve and Barbara) are very happy to accept the accuracy of Conde’s perception of the dinghy he saw at the Four Winds yacht even though that perception was formed over a very brief period of several minutes and from a distance of 50 metres or more!

    • You also trust the accuracy of Conde’s memory recall of that perception, which was provided to the police quite some time after 27th January.

    BUT you, Eve and Barbara, are proposing that a CONTINUOUS 5 HOUR PERIOD of Neill-Fraser’s EPISODIC MEMORY could not not have been recalled accurately as soon as 12-48 hours later because of confabulation or stress, psychological trauma and valium intake!!

    Wow!!!

    NOTE: if you wish to pursue this subject further then please do it on  
    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/sue-neill-fraser/ 

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  21/09/15  at  04:10 PM
  117. My last comment on this page is the arrogance of some to believe they know better than us poor fool’s who have seen first hand what happens when an investigation is badly handled and the subsequent consequences . Have I trained police officers simple answer yes.Will I waste my time with people who attack anyone whose opinion differs not likely enjoy talking to yourself.

    Posted by William Griffin  on  21/09/15  at  04:27 PM
  118. I don’t think that you instructed in the Police Academy nor that you trained  experienced police officers on major crime investigation  such as murder! 

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  21/09/15  at  06:20 PM
  119. #116. Apology accepted.

    I accept Conde’s description of the dinghy in conjunction with Mr Gunson SC’s cross-examination of Detective Sinnitt (Transcript of the Trial pp.798-807 ff). Remember, Conde made his statement to the police on 29 January, within a couple of days of Bob Chappell’s disappearence.

    Briefly, Sue had said that she didn’t know what time she left the Four Winds, but she didn’t think she stayed very long. When Det Sinnitt told her that a witness had come forward who had seen a dinghy tied up to the yacht at 3.55 pm, Sue said, “It must have been me on the yacht ... Stayed longer than I first thought”. When cross-examined by the defence counsel, “Did you inform her at any stage on this day that a grey dinghy had been seen behind the Four Winds at 3.55?” Det. Sinnitt said “No”. When also asked, “didn’t you think it somewhat unfair to leave the accused with the impression that her dinghy, that is the Four Winds dinghy, had been seen behind the Four Winds at around 3.55 when you knew a grey dinghy was there?”, he replied, “Well I didn’t leave her with any impression”. Defence Counsel,” And you were content to let her think that it was a white dinghy from Four Winds?” Reply: “I didn’t know what she would think. I was after her version of events from that day.”

    Earlier, Det Sinnitt’s partner, Det Constable Milazzo, had agreed with the Defence Counsel that Sue had ended up adopting Det. Sinnitt’s calculations” (i.e. of a timeline), commenting that originally Sue had been confused about times.

    Believe you me, I did not come to my conclusion as simply as you make it sound.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  21/09/15  at  07:47 PM
  120. Lynn No. 119

    The police allowed Sue to believe she left the yacht later than she previously thought.

    This is outrageous and a good way to morph two dinghies into one. A step in stitching Sue up.

    I understand Sue was interrogated for several hours without a lawyer present. Was Sue read her rights as in the US system. Who knows what Sue went through. Here is Sue thinking that she is helping and all the while she is condemning herself.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  21/09/15  at  10:01 PM
  121. Bob Moles previously (No.24) said that in any post conviction review we should all be on the same side - justice.

    This comment is naïve.
    Should be, won’t be, weren’t and aren’t.

    If we were all on the same side - justice - the SFN case would have played out differently. Those that gaoled Sue do not wish to admit defeat. Sue stays.

    To free Sue is to put the justice system on trial as it should be. The justice system should have gone on trial after the Chamberlain case.

    Bob and others have said the SFN case is the worst case. Wrong. It is one of many.

    I do not know if SFN is guilty or not. I was not there. I suspect she may be innocent. What I do know is that the police and prosecution for whatever reason got it into their heads that Sue was guilty.

    This has been going on for years Read Presumed Guilty by Bret Christian.

    It is all very noble that Bob Moles is assisting in the SFN matter. Sure lets get the innocent out. We also have to stop the innocent going in. This should have happened after the Chamberlain case which went world wide. The academics should have screamed for change. Silence. The SFN case is one of many happening and happening world wide. E.G. Barry Beach USA. and many in NZ.

    Sue was found guilty by an invented and fanciful story. Circumstantial evidence. Not real evidence. Fiction presented as fact. Wrench, fire extinguisher, body winched, body dumped in channel. Crazy stuff.

    What I would like from T J Ellis QC or anyone else is a step by step explanation on how exactly Sue on her own used the winch and how she attached it to the body. How the body was dragged up steps? constantly getting snagged and then manoeuvred over or through the railings and then lowered into the dinghy.  I certainly hope this is known. It is quite an amazing feat for one person of limited strength and a bad back. If it was at all possible it would have taken considerable time to do so. An exhausting procedure. More than likely Bob’s ‘body?’ was whipped away by two or more people

    Bob, with respect you are telling us things we know. What we need are suggestions on how to obtain a retrial in this and other cases. We need suggestions on how to change the system, all of it, police, prosecution, judge and jury. How the new system should be structured. Maybe a panel of judges.

    It is quite possible that Bob was murdered and that the killers? are at large. We have to know.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  21/09/15  at  11:04 PM
  122. #106 (Part 2). Last paragraph. WOW indeed. I can speak from experience on this one. When my husband collapsed from a prolonged nose-bleed and I found him on the bedroom floor in a pool of blood, looking as if someone had cut his throat, I thought he was dead. Thankfully,he moved and spoke to me as the ambulance arrived and took him to hospital. Although he was alive and here, I was haunted by the spectacle that had confronted me and traumatized for 2 days. I would not have wanted to be questioned about any 5-hour period leading up to it a couple of days later.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  21/09/15  at  11:57 PM
  123. #121 Brian, I have read Bret Christian’s Presumed Guilty, along with other books on miscarriages of justice. Several have a common denominator — police and prosecutorial impropriety.

    You write — “I do not know if SFN is guilty or not. I was not there. I suspect she may be innocent. What I do know is that the police and prosecution for whatever reason got it into their heads that Sue was guilty”. I concur.

    It is well past time for a full and proper examination of the Tasmanian criminal justice system. Until that happens, there is always a chance that innocent persons may well be found guilty of a crime they did not commit. For any government to repeatedly turn a blind eye to that possibility is a shameful situation.

    Yep, fix the justice system.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  22/09/15  at  08:00 AM
  124. Exactly my point Lynn!

    The brain’s are wired such that the emotional part of the brain (amygdala) enhances the memory of emotional events such as the day one’s loved one is injured badly or disappears. These types of memories stay around for a long time. Without amygdala, our lives and memories of events would be markedly different.

    Unless Sue had a neurological disorder, her memory of the afternoon and the evening of the Australia day would have been stored very vividly in her brain. Each time she went back to the Marieville Esplanade (such as after 10:30 pm on 26th Jan; and then next morning of 27th) would have via association re-activated her memory of the time she spent with Bob on the yacht and where she went after that.

    Therefore it was not possible for her to have confused her memory of what she did and where she was on 26th Jan with some other day. Her first written statement to the police on 28th Jan was thus a conscious lie about going to the Bunnings.

    Had the DPP used a forensic psychiatrist to give expert opinion on memory and confabulation we would not be debating the issue now.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/09/15  at  08:11 AM
  125. I have a vivid memory of several hours of either side of the time when my mum died (that was 35 years ago!) but I cant’t recall what I did and where I was a day before that or the day after: that particular day is etched deeply in my brain. Same with the time when my father died 11 years ago. Same with other emotionally relevant events in my life.

    I have the benefit of being well read about human (and animal) memory structures and their role and about the role of amygdala in the processing of emotional episodic memory so am confident about my claim that Sue CONSCIOUSLY LIED in her 28th Jan 2009 statement about going to Bunnings, etc. 

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/09/15  at  08:46 AM
  126. #124. Sorry Peter, Sue told the police that she was at Bunnings walking up and down the aisles. Then she said, “Anyway, you’ll see it on the security footage”, or words to that effect. The point is, she was aware of the security cameras and police modus operandi, so why would she lie when she knew she would be caught out?

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  22/09/15  at  09:59 AM
  127. #125. You might be well read, Peter, and grieved after your parents died, but I have experienced similar shock to Sue - panic and completely stunned, dazed. I could not have told police what I was wearing, what my husband was wearing, whether or not I had gone shopping during the day, what we had for dinner, if we had eaten. I have had many loved ones die, but never the shock of what looked like a murder.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  22/09/15  at  10:10 AM
  128. #99 Peter, you seem to think that your opinion is the basis for this thread. If you want it to be I suggest you write your own article as you are taking this thread off topic to be a platform for you supposed science when in the end it is only your subjective opinion which is no more valid than anyone else on this thread.

    The point of the thread is an unsafe verdict and unfair trial. What you are contributing is mainly saying that the police investigation and crown case was not thorough and missed all these points that you are bringing up.

    (as in your reference to this comment#98 Geraldine: From my perspective this thread (and related threads) are about the SNF case and in particular whether Bob was murdered by Sue. -)

    The bottom line is that whatever your scientific conclusions have brought up they are diversions and on the periphery to how the trial was conducted, and unfairly writes off great comment such as we see here.

    It is only your guess on what occurred in the mysterious 5-6 hours. Sue could have easily said I was home watching tv by myself and you wouldn’t believe that either. You would have nothing to go on if Sue was not so talkative; that can be also taken as a view to help look at all possibilities for Bob’s disappearance.

    Just because your amygdala works well for memory doesn’t mean it is universal. Many of us if doing the same thing day after day can be confused on details. Have you not done a renovation requiring many trips to hardware stores etc.? And even when it may be an emotional event memories are not always that good. Yes it is an unusually long period of no memory but in the end that does not conclude with guilt.You are still only left with conjecture.

    An interesting article could be based on scientific results of a test on your chewing gum hypthosis/theory/suggestion/.......

    similar to this one (link below) on secondary dna transfer,

    shows us your skills.

    https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/secondary-dna-transfer-of-biological-substances-under-varying-test-uDBpIRetMD

    there is a very good reason the VocPol forensic lab speaks of a large deposit as primary DNA. And you seem to have missed it.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  22/09/15  at  10:20 AM
  129. #126 Sue is made our to be clever and calculating. well if anyone had 12 years to plan a murder then slip up on a simple issue that you would not benefit financially for 7 years on a missing person?????? So many simpler ways to stage an accident for sure. Too many things do not add up in this trial motive being one major one. Too much doubt. Inquiry Now!

    Posted by Rosemary  on  22/09/15  at  10:32 AM
  130. Ditto Lynn #125

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  22/09/15  at  10:40 AM
  131. Ditto Rosemary #128

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  22/09/15  at  10:42 AM
  132. Lynn, I gave two seminars at the Centre for Neuroscience, Flinders University (1995; 2014) about the brain; in the 2014 seminar I showed a slide of how amygdala influences what is being processed in the visual part of the brain. I know the subject of human (and animal) memory very well, both from a neuropsychological and the neurophysiological perspective. Thus my knowledge goes well beyond my own experiences in life.

    I don’t think you will find a single psychiatrist who would seriously entertain the possibility that Sue confabulated and got her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive mixed up with another memory from one or more days earlier. If Sue’s defence attorney felt that there was a serious issue about Sue’s memory I would think that he would have had a forensic psychiatrist as an expert defence witness.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/09/15  at  11:00 AM
  133. Correction to my #130 - Ditto Lynn #127

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  22/09/15  at  12:42 PM
  134. Correction to my #132 (three seminars: 1995, 2003; 2014)

    Ed: I submitted another comment earlier (on the UNIVERSAL role of the amygdala on memory in primates; and how amygdala can ‘hijack’ the rational and the reasoning faculty of the human mind) but it hasn’t been moderated. Please advise.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/09/15  at  01:25 PM
  135. Peter #124,125, 132 - , the position that emotional/traumatic events are remembered in more detail or better, to speak plainly, is not well supported in the literature to the degree that you are stating)

    the enhancement that you speak of in #124 is true in terms of traumatic or strongly emotional memories being more deeply encoded, yet there is ample evidence demonstrating error in detail of memories associated with trauma.

    this evidence includes greater error associated with high stress interrogations compared to low stress interrogations (memory of interrogator) (1) and error <quote> “not
    limited to trivial events, but instead, included non-trivial
    events such as ‘‘being shot’’, ‘‘being shot at’’, ‘‘witnessing death of a friend’’, ‘‘viewing human remains’’, ‘‘being physically injured’’, and exposure to ‘‘firefights’’ <end quote> (review article 2)

    i think you should recognise this evidence in you statements.

    1. Morgan, C. A., et al. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Psychiatry and the
    Law, 27(3), 265–279.

    2 - Morgan, C.A.,  Southwick, S.  (2014) ‘Perspective: I believe what I remember, but it may not be true’ . Learning and Memory. Volume 112, July 2014, Pages 101-103

    Posted by abs  on  22/09/15  at  05:07 PM
  136. I am very familiar with amygdala’s role of increasing the cortical arousal during emotional and traumatic experiences. I am aware that increased cortical arousal (which is propagated to the neocortex via Layer I apical tufts of pyramidal neurons in Layer 2/3 and Layer 5) will boost the firing frequency of the pyramidal neurons in these layers and that this will lead to much stronger memory encoding of the visual, auditory, olfactory and somatosensory neural patterns of activation, that in some cases can lead to PTSD, etc. I am also aware that an over-arousal can have a negative effect on the ability to store memories effectively (there is an inverse U function involved here).

    Thus, amygdala in Susan Neill-Fraser’s brain would have ensured that her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive would be deeply engrained in her memory and that the memory of that day doesn’t get confused with less emotionally significant memories of the day before Bob’s disappearance. She may not be able to recall every single detail of that afternoon-evening nor be accurate about the details but she would not have confused that day with any other day.


    If you think that I am incorrect then perhaps you can advise Neill-Fraser’s solicitor on which forensic psychiatrist would seriously entertain the notion that Neill-Fraser experienced confabulation and thus was confused as to whether she was in Bunnings on the afteroon she last saw Bob alive.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/09/15  at  07:04 PM
  137. Peter, you are largely ignoring the research i have cited in #135, plain and simple.

    Except for acknowledging the U-shape function of stress hormone/neurotransmitter levels on memory function (which begins to undermine your first statement in the following paragraph), you are dismissing research evidence that undermines the certainty with which you promote your hypothesis.
    the key word in my paragraph above, is ‘certainty’.

    i am new to this thread and admittedly not followed the trial. i am interested in why Susan was stressed
    the last time she saw Bob?

    your last paragraph, i am not interested in

    Posted by abs  on  22/09/15  at  10:05 PM
  138. #137 abs - I prefer that you provide your full name..

    Anyway, I did read the two studies you referred to.

    In both cases we are dealing with cortical over-arousal because personal fear experienced by soldiers during war related traumatic events causes over-activity in the limbic system (hippocampus, amygdala, etc). No wonder that a significant number of war veterans suffer from PTSD. As I stated in my previous comment, over-arousal has a negative effect on memory storage. Even so, a person experiencing such a fear will remember that experience for a lifetime.


    Over-arousal due to extreme fear during traumatic experiences can also cause hallucinations. In such cases the cortical arousal signals are so strong that they can activate neurons rather than just modulate their firing frequency. 

    Had you read my earlier comments you would have realised that I have been stating that eyewitness accounts aren’t as reliable as we tend to think.

    I am of a firm neuroscientific opinion that Neill-Fraser DID NOT confabulate on 28th Jan when she gave a written statement to the police but consciously lied about going to Bunnings on the afternoon of the Australia Day. Bunnings wasn’t on the way to her home but is a significant detour, which would have been remembered given that that afternoon was the last time she saw her long-term lover alive.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/09/15  at  07:33 AM
  139. Cont..

    I didn’t say anything about Sue being stressed so am not sure what you are referring to.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/09/15  at  08:17 AM
  140. #135 & #137

    I gather that what you might be trying to infer is that Sue was stressed during the period 26-28th Jan and that because stress has a negative effect on the accuracy of memory encoding and recall (as supported by various experimental psychological studies) that therefore it is valid to state that Sue wouldn’t have been able to accurately recall on the 27th & 28th Jan her EPISODIC memory of the afternoon-evening of the Australia day (how long she was on the yacht; what she did in the period 4:00 - 9:00 pm; whether or not she took a significant detour to Bunnings before going home; whether or not she left her car at the Esplanade or drove directly home or drove to Bunnings then home, etc, ).  ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! (on the grounds of the emotionally significant relevance of that afternoon-evening to Neill-Fraser’s personal episodic memory which would have been encoded very strongly)!

    Just how ridiculous do you think the TasPol detectives were? What seasoned major crime detective would believe the non-sense told by Sue?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/09/15  at  09:20 AM
  141. Courtesy has been bypassed insofar as — “… upper case words are the equivalent of shouting”.

    Some simple style points that would ease Tasmanian Times‘s editing workload

    1. Lower case letters are quieter and softer on the eyes; upper case words are the equivalent of shouting. Tasmanian Times simply doesn’t have time to retype comments or parts of comments which include capitals. Sorry, but comments which include sentences in capitals will be deleted.
    http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  23/09/15  at  09:42 AM
  142. Peter, i am not providing my real name, why is it relevant to you?

    I would prefer if you cease promoting the simplistic proposition that amygdala arousal is the only variable relevant to accuracy of memory within this case, but you seem to want to persist ;)

    the literature demonstrates that there are many variables involved. including level of stress, time of stress relative to events remembered/misremembered (i.e. stress present during encoding, consolidation, or retrevial), central vs peripheral information of events remembered/misremembered, ‘habit’ memory favoured over ‘cognitive’ memory, memory for ‘emotional’ information favoured over memory for ‘non-emotional- memory, different memory systems involved, etc the list goes on.

    when you state that things experienced during trauma will be remembered for a lifetime, you need to include that there is the potential that things that did not happen will could be ‘remembered’ (i.e. mis-remembered) for a lifetime, and that there is evidence that misremembered information can be associated with a higher degree of confidence in its authenticity than things that did actually happen.

    to focus in on a couple of quotes from you-  in #124 - “Therefore it was not possible for her to have confused her memory of what she did and where she was on 26th Jan with some other day”

    and in #136- “Thus, amygdala in Susan Neill-Fraser’s brain would have ensured that her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive would be deeply engrained in her memory and that the memory of that day doesn’t get confused with less emotionally significant memories of the day before Bob’s disappearance. She may not be able to recall every single detail of that afternoon-evening nor be accurate about the details but she would not have confused that day with any other day”.

    the research literature does not support these statements,  pure and simple. the literature on stress and memory is highly complex and contains much inconsistency and contrast in results. it cannot be reduced to a ‘stressed state = accuracy in memory’ hypothesis.

    remember it is you who are stating that other things are not possible, i am not stating that she did not deliberately lie, only that the research evidence supports the proposition that misremembering due to stress cannot be ruled out.

    I am simply here stating that based on the research literature, one cannot with great certainty, rule out, confusion,  confabulation/false memory formation in memory due to the presence of stress. you have not made you case for that.

    Posted by abs  on  23/09/15  at  10:13 AM
  143. Peter, admittedly i need to catch up on the specifics of this case to address #140, however, as i have stated, i am not inferring anything beyond that the research does not support a position of certainty that Sue memory would not be subject to mis-remembering/confabulation if stress (ie the thing that leads to amygdala activation) was present and impacted upon encoding, consolidation, and/or retrieval of information.

    lets be clear, you are the one stating certainty in your position, i am not

    Posted by abs  on  23/09/15  at  11:13 AM
  144. #141

    Check out #39 at


    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/an-unscientific-reading-of-the-case/

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/09/15  at  01:31 PM
  145. #142 & #143

    I am putting my scientific reputation online by giving my full name and profession and locality (Adelaide, SA).

    If you wish to engage me further on psychology, neuropsychology, neurophysiology & neuroscience of memory and emotions then please play fair and put your own reputation on-line by using your full name.

    I am happy to discuss to the nth level of detail and complexity (all the way down to the neural dynamics of chemical synapses and the Spike Dependent Timing Plasticity) if you wish to pursue to that depth but you will need to play fair and put your own reputation online by using your full (and real) name.

    I have not stated the certainty of the ‘accuracy’ of the memory encoding & recall to fine details but have and do ascertain that gross details will be encoded deeply and accurately!

    Cheers,

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Physicist/Vision Scientist
    Consulting Scientist (Perceptual & Neural Dynamics)
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/09/15  at  01:55 PM
  146. .....


    Relevant portion of Sue’s Stat Dec (28th Jan; pg: 58-59 Trial Transcript):

    ” I then drove Ann home at around 1:00am I then returned to Marieville Esplanade, the wind was getting up and I thought I had to get to the boat and see if Bob wanted to leave the boat. When I got to the tender the outboard was buried and I needed help in getting it free. This was near the rowing club, a different position from the Royal where I later tied it. The wind was up and the chop got me very wet. I tied the tender up to the side of the boat, the leeway side which was the right hand side, I did not stay on the boat very long. Bob was a bit snappy. I was of the opinion Bob could have come off the boat due to the weather. Bob had checked the charts and said the wind would drop out and said he had decided to stay on the boat. In the end I left him the mobile, asked if I should pick him up in the morning for work. He said he may not even go to work so I left it at that and thought he’d ring if he wanted. I was sure he would change his mind later and call me to get him. Given the wind I decided not to take the tender to Marieville Esplanade I decided to take it to the Royal Yacht Club where it would be easily managed. From towing it up I went to Bunnings Hardware on the Brooker and then came home. Ann was not home by then as it was getting late, Ann had gone to Bruny Island for the night, she was being picked up after 4:00pm, I am sure when I got home it was starting to get dark. I stayed out at Bunnings for a long time, I did not buy anything but browsed. I drove our Ford Falcon wagon. I stayed alone at home that night. I made several phone calls and received a call from Richard King over some family members. It was 10:30pm when I got off the phone. The following morning I was notified that Four Winds was sinking by the police radio room I then went to Sandy Bay.”

     

    Now read: 


    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/the-so-called-bunnings-lie-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case/show_comments


    and


    http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/the-burning-issue-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case-why-did-she-lie/

     


    It is thus the SNF support group (primarily Lynn Giddings, Eve Ash and Barbara Etter) who are promoting the ‘confabulation theory’  for the reason Neill-Fraser stated in the Stat Dec that she went to Bunnings and spent a lot of time there (browsing).


    I am stating (based on my earlier scientific opinion) that Sue did not confabulate on this significant issue but chose to  consciously lie about it to the police in order to divert their attention from considering her as being on the yacht for long enough to commit the crime of murder (given that she was the last known person to have been with Bob on the yacht in the afternoon of Australia Day).

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/09/15  at  03:53 PM
  147. Peter No 140 Last paragraph

    How ridiculous do you think the Tasmanian police detectives were. What seasoned detective would believe SNF lies.

    Peter you are straying onto new territory on this one. The police and prosecution, forensics and coroners with the help of the media have either screwed up to many cases or deliberately gaoled the wrong person to often.

    Sue for whatever reason was nominated as the killer. Sue 1)Used a wrench as a weapon. 2) Used the winch. 3)Used the fire extinguisher as a weight. 4)Dumped Bob’s body in the channel

    Sue may? be the murderer but Nos 1,2,3 and 4 are all invented. They are not even circumstantial evidence. Peter they are fiction. If the police knew Sue did it, why can’t they tell us how they know. And how Sue used the winch.

    The coroner said Sue acted alone. Bizarre. He doesn’t know that.

    The point is Sue was incorrectly found guilty. Sue has to be released and we do the whole process all over again because it was not done right the first time.

    Bob Moles said about 1% or less are innocent in gaol. To know the 1% we have to know who they are. The 1% is a wild guess. In serious crimes such as this the true figure would be much higher.

    Do I have to supply a comprehensive list of wrong or dangerous convictions. Here are several.

    Gun Alley Murder. Melbourne. Wrong person hanged.
    Chamberlain
    Beckett. Framed.
    Wood. A disaster.
    Barry Beach. USA. Out and back in. A disgrace.
    Arthur Allan Thomas. NZ. Framed. Planted evidence.
    There are hundreds.

    Then there are the innocents who can’t get out. A classic case was James Earl Ray the alleged murderer of Martin Luther King. A set up.
    Scott Watson. NZ
    Mark Lundy. NZ

    Sue was not interviewed by the police. Sue was interrogated for I believe seven hours without a lawyer present. Sue mentions winch, extinguisher and ropes in the confused interrogation naively believing she is helping. Sue’s words were used against her.

    Peter, it would help if you supported a retrial if for no other reason than to clear all doubt. You weren’t there. You know no more than the rest of us.

    As the situation stands Sue should not be in gaol.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  23/09/15  at  10:52 PM
  148. #146 That’s a lot of trees to give the opinion that Sue had opportunity, but looking at the Forest how many others had the same opportunity?

    There is still no evidence of it, only opinion.

    So it ends up a very long way of saying something that is not really adding anything concrete to the narrative.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  24/09/15  at  07:06 AM
  149. peter, i don’t support your idea of what constitutes fair play. ...

    Peter, you have again simply failed to address what i have posted earlier, that you are promoting a very simplistic account of the science of <stress/emotionality/heightened amygdala activation and effects on memory>. the research is very complex,  you need to provide a much more detailed account of why the research i cited does not apply to your hypothesis

    again i will give you a lead, was Sue distressed when she was at bunnings??. if not then why would you state this in #136- “Thus, amygdala in Susan Neill-Fraser’s brain would have ensured that her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive would be deeply engrained in her memory and that the memory of that day doesn’t get confused with less emotionally significant memories of the day before Bob’s disappearance “-

    Posted by abs  on  24/09/15  at  07:13 AM
  150. By using their full name one also says:

    ‘I am open and will be intellectually honest when commenting on this case and when providing a critique of another persons view of the case. My reputation is online and therefore I will comment only on those aspects of the case to which I can contribute in a rational and intellectual way.’

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  24/09/15  at  08:29 AM
  151. ....

    Why some people with no name jump in without reading the trial transcript (and Barbara Etter’s website) and think that Sue was in Bunnings?

    Did Dr Lozo say that Sue was in Bunnings??

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  24/09/15  at  08:49 AM
  152. ....

    It was intellectually dishonest in #149 to leave out the following (the last sentence) of my quoted paragraph (from my comment at #136):

    “She may not be able to recall every single detail of that afternoon-evening nor be accurate about the details but she would not have confused that day with any other day.”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  24/09/15  at  09:15 AM
  153. Peter, #151
    sorry i’ll rephrase - was Sue distressed the last time she saw Bob??. if not then why would you state this in #136- “Thus, amygdala in Susan Neill-Fraser’s brain would have ensured that her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive would be deeply engrained in her memory and that the memory of that day doesn’t get confused with less emotionally significant memories of the day before Bob’s disappearance “

    as for all the ‘intellectual dishonesty’ stuff (which you have thrown around quite liberally to others i note), I have a differing idea. i see no reason why you want to discuss my anonymity on this forum, other than to discuss that rather the research i have cited and variables i have identified to argue that memory and stress/emotionality/amygdala arousal is more complex than what you base your assertion on.

    Posted by abs  on  24/09/15  at  12:16 PM
  154. • ask Sue!

    • why is it relevant?

    • the research you are referring to is irrelevant here!

    • yes it is more complex but amygdala is what you ought to focus on (role in emotion, cortical arousal, memory and grief, yes Grief is the key word here).

    Please do not address me further.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  24/09/15  at  06:19 PM
  155. For those persons that are still in doubt as to the integrity of Tasmania’s Justice Department and the arena from where most all of the injudicious findings arise from, (being this State’s Supreme Court) let me say that I have in my possession conclusive evidence that displays this very fact in the conduct of a particular case in this State of Tasmania.

    No more will I be influenced in the charade that becomes the function of this particular court of law.

    That this same use of inconsequent evidence is of particular concern, is indeed relevant to, or applicable to, the SNF case in that there was no proper conclusive evidence produced by the court or by this State’s then serving DPP.

    Furthermore my research into case law has delivered the fact that ‘nil conclusive evidence’ is said to be not too far removed from ‘the lack of genuine factual evidence,’ however let that be no hinder to the further proceedings of making a judgement in and toward a contested matter.

    Thus we now arrive upon an interesting and often quite controversial stage of proceedings whereby the lack of genuine faultless evidence does not necessarily halt the continuing proceedings of a serious matter being contested by this State’s Supreme Court.

    For any person, (be they a practitioner of law, or even a court judge by their appointment, (to such role as a presiding judge in this State’s Supreme Court) to dispute the veracity of my claims as are stated herein would indeed be a journey into the mythical land of serendipity.

    I call upon the persons that gain their daily bread from their active service within this State’s judiciary to arguably overturn or disprove my expressed opinions.

    Another avenue for consideration is that a higher court being sought to appeal an established Supreme Court finding can then by way of its mechanisms over-rule a prior judgement.

    The point that I contend here here is another of the many curiosities that dwells within the framework of the entire of Australia’s judicial system and its undertakings.

    A recent case reviewed by myself was of a matter being contested by none other than Australia’s most prolific Insolvency practitioners, Korda Mentha.

    The outcome to this case is still mysterious in what may be finally reasoned and or delivered during its current stage of procession.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  24/09/15  at  08:04 PM
  156. abs #135 and #153

    I liked your quotation in #135: ‘I believe what I remember, but it may not be true’. How well that describes Sue.

    No one knows the whereabouts of Sue between 2.00 pm and 9.17 pm on Australia Day 2009 when she made a phone call to her daughter.

    It was a long weekend and another witness showed how easily one can become confused on a long weekend. She had seen Bob Chappell arguing with his sister on the previous day, not on Australia Day with Sue.

    Telephone records show Sue rang Bunnings on Australia Day; she had Bunnings on her mind. Did the police check Bunnings CCTV footage for 24 and 25 January? Could Sue also have confused her days on a long weekend?

    We know that Sue was under Bob’s feet after boarding their yacht around 2.00 pm. She told police, “He was snapping at me like a crocodile”, a strange comment to make if she had murdered Bob; surely words of an innocent person giving an honest answer. So there was tension between them, they had a tiff, and Sue left, leaving her mobile phone with Bob. Sue thinks she did not stay long on the boat, so probably left within an hour.

    Did she go to Mitre 10 rather than Bunnings? Mitre 10, a short detour for her, is more likely if she left her car on the Esplanade and walked home. I speculate she then went home, had tea, before making her phone call to her daughter.

    At 10.00 pm, Sue received a phone call from a stranger about Bob’s younger daughter. At this time, she had no idea that Bob was missing and the yacht sinking. Initially, it seems she was not too troubled about the call, having given the caller the phone number of Bob’s son. As the evening wore on, she states she became more ‘unnerved’ about the phone call so she walked down to the Esplanade to put her mind at rest.

    The fact Sue saw homeless people around a fire-pot makes me think that she was there around 2.00 am when the night got chilly. Mr Hughes did not see homeless people around a fire-pot before midnight. My guess is that, after returning, Sue wonders if Bob rang while she was away, so at 3.08 am, she dialed star-ten-hash and assumes Bob’s asleep.

    On 27 January, when called to a sinking yacht, not knowing Bob’s whereabouts, she told police she was home that night because she didn’t want to involve Bob’s daughter. She thought Bob would think it unforgivable if his daughter ended up in the news.

    Sue told me that when she boarded the yacht in the afternoon and saw Bob’s pipe, she suspected foul play; she did not believe he would go willingly anywhere without his pipe.

    If you are not out to ‘hang’ Sue, this speculation, mixed with some facts, in my opinion, is as credible as the Crown’s proposal.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  24/09/15  at  09:37 PM
  157. There are two distinct aspects to this case

    1) Is SNF guilty or innocent. Answer. Don’t know.

    2) Did SNF receive a fair trial. Answer. No. Sue was gaoled by non circumstantial evidence. Fiction.

    First step is to have Sue released.

    Second step is to reconsider the whole case.

    Problems.
    1) The police and prosecution do not want Sue released.
    2) The police and prosecution do not want the case reopened for examination.
    3) Right or wrong it now more important for justice to be seen to be done rather than to consider the outrageous possibility than a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.

    The whole police approach has to stop. The nominative approach and build the case around him or her has to cease. This method has no checks and balances.

    The justice system is broken.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  25/09/15  at  12:14 PM
  158. ...


    Note the last sentence in #156:


    “If you are not out to ‘hang’ Sue, this speculation, mixed with some facts, in my opinion, is as credible as the Crown’s proposal.”


    Who was amongst the first people to start ‘hanging’ the then homeless teenage child (Vass)?


    Check this out:

     

    “Interesting that Sue Neill-Fraser had told Detective Constable Marissa Milazzo and Detective Senior Constable Sinnitt that she had been watched tying up her dinghy in the afternoon by a “Girl with dark hair” while “A guy on slipway” was nearby. On the day that Meaghan Vass walked into court, she had dark hair. Could it have been the same girl? 
    When the defence counsel cross-examined Detective Senior Constable Sinnitt, we learnt that, after forensic turned up a DNA ‘match’ for Meaghan Vass, she had been residing at a women’s shelter and had requested to be elsewhere for the night of Australia Day 2009. She gave an address on Mount Nelson, overlooking Sandy Bay, for her sleep over. It is interesting that it is now known that her DNA was not transferred onto the yacht on someone else’s shoe; she put it there herself.”


    Posted by Lynn Giddings, 25/08/2014 11:58am (1 year ago)

     

    http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/an-analysis-of-the-supreme-court-trial-the-court-of-criminal-appeal-submissions-and-decision-and-the-high-court-application-in-relation-to-the-meaghan-vass-dna-sample/

     


    Looks like Giddings started ‘hanging’ Vass from the first moment she saw her in court during the trial. Why??? Socio-economic status?? Long-term friendship with Sue’s late mother?? Or both of the listed??

     

    Very interesting indeed!

     

    Has Sue Neill-Fraser grieved? Her amygdala would have kicked in on high gear from the moment she received a phone call from the police early the following morning on 27th. Her mind would have raced all over the memories of the afternoon-evening of the day before (images of Bob, images of the yacht, sound of Bob’s voice, how long wash she with him on that day, did they make love or was there tension, etc, etc). These memories would have flooded her consciousness further solidifying their strength. Her ability to memorise  what was going on around her from midday of the 27th would have been significantly impaired due to very high cortical arousal (as abs would recognise). 

     

    The above would be a natural limbic reaction of an innocent brain to the realisation that its long term emotional attachment to another person (a long term lover) may have ended abruptly and that the lover most probably met with foul play.

     

    But, if Neill-Fraser was involved in foul-play then something extra would have happened in her limbic system. Amygdala would further and significantly boost the cortical arousal by evoking the  Emotion of Fear (fear of being found out). In this case there would be competition between fear and grief. Too much to bear. Need valium to calm down the limbic system. Fight for survival wins. The frontal cortex decides to lie in order to survive. However, TasPol’s major crimes detectives aren’t fooled and win in the end! Justice served. Don’t blame Vass or Ellis or TasPol for Neill-Fraser’s actions!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  25/09/15  at  12:35 PM
  159. Dr Lozo #158
    Firstly, I have never thought Meaghan Vass murdered Bob Chappell. She is one of several theories I have about Bob Chappell’s disappearance. Did two homeless couples go out to the Four Winds believing it was unoccupied because its dinghy was tied up at the Yacht Club? Were they looking for food, drink and a bed? Did they surprise Bob? Did he have a heart attack? Did a fight break out between the males? Did he sustain a punch that was not intended to kill him? If the answer is ‘yes’ to these questions, then the charge is manslaughter.

    Secondly,The problem with Vass stems from the judge making a decision not to have her recalled after we learnt from a detective in cross-examination that she wasn’t at the address she had given the court, that she was in that area that night, and that in her own cross-examination, she sounded as if she might know something but wasn’t telling the police anything. Had she been recalled, her connection might have been clarified and she might be right in the frame, or not at all. Now she is left dangling with other possibilities.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  25/09/15  at  01:13 PM
  160. Peter No. 158

    You now have Sue as guilty.

    The alleged murder carried out by Sue and as described by the police and prosecution was a very brutal and strenuous act involving considerable strength. It is obvious that this was an act carried out by one or more males -female assistance unlikely - and not by an older single female with limited strength and a bad back. Get real. Get retrial.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  25/09/15  at  01:19 PM
  161. Lynn Giddings, I must admit how readily your scenario fits upon the same major framework upon which was attached a different set of conclusions that were presented by the former DPP that were to become the influencing evidence up for consideration by the presiding Judge.

    ...

    This having been so, this set of chosen items went on to become the accepted block of evidence that was consequently to be firmly relied upon by the presiding judge.

    Ultimately this block of prosecutorial evidence that would also enable the judge to present his summary of this matter, then to deliver his instructions to the jury upon which they the jury must consider and rely upon to determine their verdict.

    Surely therein may lay the grounds to lodge an appeal based on that proffered ‘but limited sifted selected set of evidence and same for the occurring events, by the former DPP,’ when your offered presentation of events that you have provided here Lynn, ‘can indeed fit upon the same basic framework of this contentious case.’

    It is my opinion the basis for a renewed appeal could rely upon, “that the presiding judge having erred in his restricting himself to favour the prosecutorial presented block of evidence” without allowing for the scope of a full disambiguation of the totality of each and all available items of gathered presentable evidence to hand.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  25/09/15  at  02:37 PM
  162. #159 Mrs Giddings,

    • Have you for one minute considered the potential psychological damage you may have caused to that child by your online comments?

    • Have you considered that these days the potential employers of that young woman may search internet to check on her background and come across your strong opinion of her potential involvement in a major crime?

    • Have you considered the potential of that child to reach beyond Lara’s achievements if she had equal opportunity in life with a stable and happy childhood with lots of encouregment and financial support?

    I am from South Australia and recognise your very unfair online attack on that young woman. In my mind, you and Moles (the un-scientific chap from Adelaide) are the worst offenders of reason and witch-hunt in this case.

    Have you made an attempt to contact that young lady in question with a view of aplogising to her?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  25/09/15  at  05:17 PM
  163. Lynn, I record abundant admiration for the courage you have displayed when every so often, you have lead the open discussion re the apparent miscarriage of justice relating to Susan Neill-Fraser (SNF). It must have been difficult to get the balance between your loyalty to Sue’s mother and not wanting to in any way jeopardise your family. Well done.

    Post-conviction, SNF is unable to participate in any public debate as it relates to her. I find some of it indeed distasteful and disrespectful. First and foremost, any convicted person is a human being and has a family, as do all others involved in this matter. At no time have I considered you have shown any disrespect; you have stayed with the facts as (i) you heard them during trial and (ii) otherwise been reliably advised.

    Thank you for your brave and generous contribution towards obtaining true justice in Tasmania.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  25/09/15  at  06:46 PM
  164. Dr Peter Lozo, I have lately arrived to the opinion that a number of your comments are lacking in any substantial measure of deserved merit.
    For example this following question of yours that has your postulation that you appear to be taunting this Mrs Giddings, comment #162.

    “Have you for one minute considered the potential psychological damage you may have caused to that child by your online comments?”

    I find that almost your entire #162 comment to be a borderline offensive comment with its lead in question, that has you verily depict this Mrs Giddings person to be a creator of mischiefs based solely on the basis that she does not agree to your constructed forms of hypothesis.

    Your post trial hypothesis of what may or may not be an affected portion of one’s brain, regarding the trial of SNF as the defendant ...

    Where apologies are being called forth from Mrs Giddings by yourself, of which I believe to be an unwarranted determination by you to ridicule the thoughts claimed as held in the mind of said Mrs Giddings.

    I claim that you now owe Mrs Giddings an apology for your assertions that better suggest Mrs G is guilty of ‘not being convinced as to your own determined hypothesis.’

    Posted by William Boeder  on  25/09/15  at  07:28 PM
  165. #156 - Posted by Lynn Giddings, the quote is the title of a brief review article published in “Learning and Memory”.

    it is behind a paywall and i do think i can share it on this site (copy-write?)

    here is the abstract

    <“A growing number of research findings have challenged the conception that memory for traumatic events is highly accurate or even indelible in nature. Research involving soldiers indicates that realistic levels of high stress decrease the accuracy of eyewitness memory. In addition, recent findings from several studies show quite clearly that memories for stressful events – including those from combat trauma – are malleable and vulnerable to alteration by exposure to misinformation. Under high stress, our brains facilitate the formation of “gist” memories that allow us to avoid future dangers but which may not contain the detail and precision demanded by the judicial system. Although mental health professionals ought to play a role in educating the courts about mental illness and trauma, it is unwise for them to become advocates for the idea that traumatic memories are indelible, factual accounts of events.>”

    now that i am instructed not to address #154,
    what now is being posted by Dr ‘here-whom-is-not-to-be-addressed;’#158 (;)  is addressed here -

    the hypothesis in #158 is plausible, it may have happened,

    however applying a plausible account as a certainty, is terribly misguided. more so because of it coming from a scientist.

    what plays out in a person’s mind during, prior to, and after, a traumatic experience is so complex and difficult to predict. and how a person then incorporates preceding, current, and following information once trauma occurs is highly complex, variable, and difficult to predict.

    Peter, saying things (including research) are “irrelevant” instead of engaging in debating why they are irrelevant is avoidance. jeez, and others are accused of intellectual dishonesty (and in the interests of the afore mentioned: to be fair you mostly just used the term liberally in general terms ;)

    if the scientific research on memory accuracy, including false/misremembered, confabulation, memory enhancement vs detriment,  etc (the list of applicable variables is long) is “irrelevant” to a discussion on Sue’s memory during the time period, and the effects of stress/emotionality?amygdala activity, well ......i just don’t know.

    actually i do i know, you do not want to be addressed, so I will address others interested.

    what is being presented by Dr Peter Lozo, is a simplistic account that conveniently fits his hypothesis. it is plausible as are many other accounts.

    IMO he promotes himself beyond his (publicly available) area of expertise. He now lectures on Cognitive and Clinical Psychology. which is well and good for those who do not run from discussing relevant science. i would ask him how many hours/minutes he has spent treating trauma, dissociation or grief (or in formal training on these). (let that stand will ya Linz, I forfeited an earlier one gracefully..:) :)

    interested others here. he has not made his case that other accounts can be dismissed, plain and simply.

    way back in #142 i took a first step into ‘scientific’ discourse by citing research and citing variables that are relevant -
    -  including level of stress,
    - time of stress relative to events - remembered/misremembered (i.e. stress present during encoding, consolidation, or retrieval),
    - central vs peripheral information of events remembered/misremembered,
    -  ‘habit’ memory favoured over ‘cognitive’ memory, -
    - memory for ‘emotional’ information favoured over memory for ‘non-emotional- memory,
    -  different memory systems involved ,
    - etc the list goes on. 

    Peter seems that he doesn’t want scientific discourse.

    for those who can access it , a more detailed review of research)-

    Lars Schwabea, , , Oliver T. Wolfa, Melly S. Oitzl (2010)
    Memory formation under stress: Quantity and quality
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
    Volume 34, Issue 4,, Pages 584–591

    i am happy to paraphrase out of the text of these review article for people if they are interested in specific variables mentioned above.

    i have no belief or position as to guilt or innocence of Ms Neill-Fraser.

    Posted by abs  on  25/09/15  at  10:41 PM
  166. ....

    If there was a problem with Sue’s memory  then it would have been picked up by Dr Ian Sale (the forensic psychiatrist she was referred to by a GP). If Neill-Fraser’s defence attorney saw any merit in pushing the ‘memory problems’ issue then he would have had Dr Sale (or another forensic psychiatrist) on the witness box as an expert witness.


    Learning under stressful situations is impaired hence why I agreed that Neill-Fraser would not have been able to memorise much of what was going on around her from about 10 am the morning after Bob’s disappearance (most of her attention would have been to internal memories of the day before rather than on the external world). 


    But she has a deeply engrained memory of the afternoon-evening (the last time she was on the yacht with Bob) of the Australia day, as well as the first few hours of the following morning. I doubt she can remember much of the 27th other than the first hours of the day.


     There was no evidence of any significant stress in Neill-Fraser’s life on the Australia day that would impair acquisition of information related to that time (hippocampus learns very quickly; its memory stays up to few days; is consolidated by recall, upon which it starts getting encoded into long term memory elsewhere in the brain, etc). There is no known neurobiological mechanism that can erase that memory 12 or more hours later. If there was a traumatic experience in her life that afternoon-evening then it would have been brought about by her murdering Bob, in which case she would be dissociating from those memories.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/09/15  at  08:23 AM
  167. .....

    Therefore, the research quoted is irrelevant to the understanding of whether or not Neill Fraser comfabulated on 28th Jan by stating in her Stat Dec that she went to Bunnings and spent a lot of time there. As for my lectures, yes I did give a few in the area mentioned field (and covered the hottest topic in neuroscience: consciousness and awareness). What is the big deal?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/09/15  at  08:40 AM
  168. Re my #163 “you have lead (sic) …”

    Lynn, I suspect intermittently, some discourse has felt like lead, to you.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  26/09/15  at  09:10 AM
  169. #165.  I agree ABS that the science is complex and to jump from it to an opinion of guilt is innapropriate. It is also off track of the discussion of a misscarriage of justice and does digress, interesting, but not really contributing to the discussion on the unsafe verdict in the trial of Sue Neill-Fraser . The non scientist, though eminent legal mind Dr. Bob Moles puts it simply in my quote below.
    (plus quite a few other legal points to demonstrate an unsafe verdict):-

    You don’t have to establish that Sue Neill-Fraser is innocent, you don’t have to establish that Meaghan Vass is guilty of anything,’ .
    ‘You just have to show that the case put to the jury was incorrect and that would be in itself sufficient to warrant a retrial.’

    Posted by Rosemary  on  26/09/15  at  09:43 AM
  170. .....

    How and why did the anonymous  Dr ignore the known fact that Sue saw a forensic psychiatrist (this is in the trial transcript) but her defense attorney did not have a forensic psychiatrist or any other medical expert in the witness box?


    Helps to understand the context of the case before offering a challenge to someone who read the transcript. It is obvious that the challenger was poorly prepared. Why jump in with such a vigour and refer to an experimental study where the participants of the study did not face a case of emotional arousal as part of grief process that starts as soon as one is told that their loved one has disappeared and probably murdered? Grief is a universal phenomena in all humans (and animals) with fully functioning brain (including amygdala). Most of us here have experienced some sort of grief and know from that experience that we tend to remember for a long time such emotional events.

     

    There is no known neurobiological mechanism that would have prevented Neill Fraser from having a very good memory on 28th Jan (at the time she signed the Stat Dec) of the afternoon-evening of 26th Jan. She demonstrated that she had a good memory of 2 pm when a man helped her with the dingy; she demonstrated that she had a good memory of 10:00 - 10:30 pm that evening when she talked about her phone conversation with Mr King. She talked a little about what she did on the yacht but claimed on 28th that she was on the yacht for a short time but was in Bunnings for a long time.

     

    Would it surprise the anonymous Dr (the challenger) that I have an online scientific critique on the opinion of a number of forensic pathologists although I have no education or training in medicine? Looks like I may have been on the right track with respect to that case (we will find out when the trial starts next year).


    See

    http://www.cla.asn.au/News/keogh-free-royal-commission-needed/

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/09/15  at  10:09 AM
  171. Peter, I did not refer to “an experimental study”  (Peter - #170), I referred to a couple of review article that capture scores, if not hundreds of scientific studies. I note that you have not yet referred to one here.

    the research cited is relevant as it demonstrates, in no uncertain terms that there are a vast list of relevant variables.

    when doing scientific research on human behavior, the greater the number of variables relevant, the greater the ‘error terms’ (a statistical term) that need to be incorporated into a ‘model’ (here, ‘model, is roughly equivalent to a ‘hypothesis’).

    there is a clear difference between myself and Peter (who is giving very mixed signals about whether he is happy to be addressed or not ; )

    the difference, as recognised by others (e.g. Rosemary in #169) is that I am not stating that I am confident of what happened, Peter is.

    He claims (#170) that there is “no known neurobiological mechanism that would have prevented Neill Fraser from having a very good memory on 28th Jan (at the time she signed the Stat Dec) of the afternoon-evening of 26th Jan”.

    which, within this context, is akin to saying that the phenomenons of false memory, confabulation, misremembering (of which there are literally thousands of research articles) do not exist!! please do not be mislead by this statement, it reads as a motherhood statement to accompany a magazine feature. although what i refer to is behind paywalls, i could assist anyone wanting access to research.

    the memory system the the good Dr refers to is part of the neurobiological picture. the amygdala does not “ensure” anything, (Dr Peter Lozo in #136). The amygdala ‘modulates’. Ones ability to manage stress (frontal lobe based executive function) is also relevant.

    I have stated, and will state again the Dr Peter’ s account is plausible. Yet it is also plausible that less emotionally valiant information, peripheral information, retrospective information (being at Bunnings) was processed with inaccuracy due to the onset of a distressed state (the above cited research is directly relevant here).

    Please note people, that while i cite relevant research on the impacts of stress/distress on memory, Peter (in #170) cites his own contribution to a blog where the editor has replied to his contribution with the following, -

    <quote>

    “Dr Lozo quotes selectively from the blog site he mentions. Dr Lozo does not quote the following:
    “A subsequent report obtained by the Crown in 2014 confirmed the findings of the 2004 report – as did two additional reports by the defence, each from highly credentialed experts. They variously established that what were thought to be bruises to the leg were not in fact bruises, and that the alleged bruising to the head was in fact artifactual – it was caused during the process of the autopsy. The pathologist who gave evidence at trial subsequently admitted in proceedings before the Medical Board and the Medical Tribunal, that much of the evidence he had given at trial was incorrect or not supported by appropriate evidence.”

    In other words, no credence whatsoever can be put in any analysis of the “bruising” because bruising simply did not exist in any relevant legal sense. The Appeal Court was told be expert forensic witnesses that the death was “probably” accidental. It would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a murder occurred in circumstances where an Appeal Court has already found that it was a “probable” accidental death. The Appeal Court left open the option of a new trial…but only on “non-forensic” evidence. – Ed.

    <end quote>

    http://www.cla.asn.au/News/keogh-free-royal-commission-needed/

    (reviewed and edited)

    Posted by abs  on  26/09/15  at  06:58 PM
  172. ....

    Great job abs!

    Not sure what you agenda is nor why you write the way you do but I am happy for you.

    Since you have something very useful to contribute I am sure it will go a long way towards Barbara Etter’s preparation of the case if and when the appeal comes up.

    Once again: well done!

    Cheers,
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/09/15  at  07:59 PM
  173. abs #171 and others

    This is what i imagine Sue went through on 27 January 2009. She says she was wandering around in the middle of the night, or rather early hours of that morning, looking for her step-daughter. My guess is she came home around 3.00 am and pressed *10#. She went to bed very late, probably still troubled by the strange phone call she had received the previous night. She is woken up around 7.00 am to be told to come down to the Yacht Club, her beautiful new yacht is sinking. She leaves home already fatigued from lack of sleep.

    Members of the Chappell family and her own join her, all worried and mystified about what is going on. Police all around. Sue must fear foul play as an option, but tries to remain positive and hopes that Bob will show up with some explanation. She probably has moments of anger that he didn’t ring her. As the hours go by, they all become more anxious and fretful. They hear some reports, I suppose, from the authorities who return to shore from the yacht. No doubt the word ‘sabotage’ is mentioned. She is not allowed on board until late afternoon and then she sees Bob’s pipe and fears the worst because he would not have left his pipe behind if he had gone freely.

    Without any knowledge of the science of psychiatry, but only my own personal knowledge of what happens under stress, I am not at all surprised that by 28 January, and having taken valium the previous day, she is muddled and confused about the afternoon of 26 January. To me that would seem normal and, had she by any chance been in Bunnings on 25th and we know she phoned them on 26th, she could easily be tripped up by impaired memory in her statement to the police on 28th.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  26/09/15  at  09:10 PM
  174. Is there an example in literature where otherwise a mentally healthy adult forgets a period of 5 continuous hours 12 hours later when they hear that their long term lover is missing presumably murdered?

    Is there an example in literature on memory and learning where participant said something like the following when asked what he/she remembered from the experiment:

    “Sorry, I don’t remember anything because I wasn’t present”?


    What happens under stress?? Not as many details are registered but the person will register that they were under stress and will be able to recall what caused the stress. Then they will remember where they were when that something caused them stress.

    Perhaps Sue’s mind was in Bunnings but her body and her dingy were at the yacht!

    Like I said earlier: Since Dr Ian Sale (a forensic psychiatrist) wasn’t called by Sue’s defence attorney as a witness then it is most probable that Sue was making things up. She is described as being rich. Rich people can afford to have a number of mental health experts to appear as expert witnesses on their behalf in court if the issue is memory or confabulation. She had not a single expert witness. She had no witnesses at all! Sue Neill-Fraser did not exist mentally between the hours of 4 pm - 9 pm Australia day!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  27/09/15  at  08:07 AM
  175. ......

    #173 Why do you imagine that?

    Which part of your imaginary scenario is more likely than the scenario that was presented at the trial?

    Did you not note Sue’s recall of the torch with blood on it? Was that recall real or was it a confabulation? What prompted Sue to remember that? Did it occur to her that she may have cut herself on the yacht but wasn’t sure whether it was her blood or Bob’s blood? We know that it was Bob’s blood, but my question is why would she have accurately recalled seeing a torch with blood on it and then told the police about it?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  27/09/15  at  08:23 AM
  176. Well defined abs and Lynn Giddings, there is so much forcibly injected evidence, plus the admission given post the case trial…..... “A subsequent report obtained by the Crown in 2014 confirmed the findings of the 2004 report – as did two additional reports by the defence, each from highly credentialed experts. They variously established that what were thought to be bruises to the leg were not in fact bruises, and that the alleged bruising to the head was in fact artifactual (?) – it was caused during the process of the autopsy. The pathologist who gave evidence at trial subsequently admitted in proceedings before the Medical Board and the Medical Tribunal, that much of the evidence he had given at trial was incorrect or not supported by appropriate evidence.”

    This verily qualifies the calls for a newly lodged appeal, as do so many other compelling instances of ‘doubt and presumption’ that were relied upon by the prosecution to proffer his own biased theory evidences, which in turn went on to influence both the judge and jury during the original controversial trial of this mystifying case.

    Again this supports my earlier claims or be they contentions, (that sound and proper justice had not been accorded toward, or were denied to the accused) is again confirmed by the many and various ‘individual merited reports,’ (as well as the number of biased theories “As I had previously noted” were offered by the prosecution) that have been provided by a number of the attendees to this article or subject ‘case matter,’ that confirms that true and proper justice is not necessarily the end product of that which issues from the Tasmanian Supreme Court.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  27/09/15  at  12:58 PM
  177. There are experts in the study of memory who point to its vulnerability and fallibility in us all. 

    A couple of pertinent quotes and links – “My work has made me tolerant of memory mistakes by family and friends. You don’t have to call them lies. I think we could be generous and say maybe this is a false memory” - comment by professor of psychology and social behaviour, and of law, Elizabeth Loftus in http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/09/elizabeth_loftus_interview_false_memory_research_on_eyewitnesses_child_abuse.html

    And “It is just as misguided to conclude that someone who misremembers must be lying as it is to defend a false memory in the face of contradictory evidence. We should be more understanding of mistakes by others, and credit them when they admit they were wrong. We are all fabulists, and we must all get used to it” - comment by psychology professors Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons in http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/opinion/why-our-memory-fails-us.html?_r=0

    Perhaps Dr Sale wasn’t called upon (#174) because of factors such as a trial protocol allowing defence lawyers to have a valued right of last address to the jury if they haven’t called witnesses, and a possible assumption at the time that the important trial issues would be around the quality or lack thereof of the prosecutions’ evidence, not the defendant’s memory.

    Posted by justice supporter  on  27/09/15  at  02:56 PM
  178. ....

    #276 William, Had you followed the Adelaide news on that case since my online comment on March, you would have realised that:

    - it was announced over a month later that the case is going to trial!

    - same evidence will be used by the DPP (August news; the same set of bruises other than possibly one out of 15; therefore the editor of CLA and Bob Moles were incorrect in their interpretation of the bruises and the 2014 Full Court report)!

    - Dr Lozo was vindicated; Dr Moles got it wrong!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  27/09/15  at  03:00 PM
  179. A Right to Participate in an Important Family Decision Denied to Bob’s Family!

    There were a number of family gatherings during the week of Bob’s disappearance before Bob’s sister left (at least Sue, Tim and Ann  were present).

    Since Bob’s son Tim was also called by Mr King late evening 26th and because Sue and Tim informed one another in the morning of the 27th of Mr King’s calls

    then

    why didn’t Sue inform Tim and Ann about going back to Marieville Esplanade after Mr King’s call by saying something along the lines:

    “Tim and Ann, I went to the Marieville Esplanade after Mr King’s call to see if Clair was there. Shall I inform the police given the sensitivity concerning Clair’s mental health? And at the same time I can tell them that I saw homeless people around a fire. These homeless people may be potential suspects in Bob’s disappearance”

    Susan Neill-Fraser denied Tim Chappell (Clair’s brother) and his aunty Ann Sanchez an opportunity to participate in a very important family decision that may have led to an early breakthrough in the case! She  took it upon herself to keep totally quiet about it (and thus lie to police). This would have continued permanently had it not been for an ATM photo of a car that looked similar to the car owned by Bob and Sue. By that time the trail for the homeless people (if they existed that night at that location next to the rowing sheds) was very cold.

    Is it not therefore rational for me to conclude, in light of the above and within the context of the whole case, that Neill-Fraser wanted it kept secret  that she went back to the Esplanade and that her reason wasn’t to protect the interests of the Chappell family but to protect herself from being considered a potential suspect in Bob’s murder?

    Does my analysis make more sense than that offered by Neill-Fraser and her key supporters such as Ash, Giddings & Etter (the so called ‘white’ lie proponents)?

    How does my simple analysis compare with the complexity of the argument presented by Barbara Etter in her post titled:

    “The Burning Issue in the Sue Neill-Fraser Case - Why did she Lie”

    on her website 

    http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/the-burning-issue-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case-why-did-she-lie/

    Etter ends her article with the following brief paragraph:

    “In any case, all of us at some time in our lives have told lies for what we consider to be justifiable reasons particularly if we want to protect sensitive or valued family relationships. The fact that we may have lied, hardly makes us murderers.”

    I totally agree with both of the above sentences. 

    But hey, this was a missing persons/murder investigation where Tim Chappell and Ann Sanchez (as Bob’s son and sister respectively) ought to have known right from the start that Sue returned to Marieville Esplanade. They had the right to participate in the family decision as to what is to be told to the police. Sue denied them that right!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  27/09/15  at  04:41 PM
  180. Peter at #178 & #179.
    You have asked me about certain aspects about the case or trial matters that are somewhat out of my league.
    However something that is in my league is that (what I see as) the bias held by the prosecution, then that the assumed theoretical or hypothetical scenario’s had been transferred into the mind of the presiding judge at a particular time before and or during the trial, therefore this factor would also have its relative containment in the judges mind, via his summary delivered to the jury and by nature of these aforementioned theories and or hypotheticals, when in consequence, may well have influenced the jury that these same scenario’s were to be part of their considerations.
    As for Dr Moles, he and his supportive colleagues have every right to challenge Tasmania’s justice system, especially toward (what I see as) the fumbled forensics, dodgy-deal legal representation, as well as this State’s bigoted view held toward its appeal processes.
    I put it to you Peter, that if a man’s wife asked her husband if he considered her to be rather ugly in her external physical appearance, it would be a brave man that did not resort to telling a white lie in that she was quite acceptably beautiful in his very own eyes.

    Further I contend that the correct carriage of justice in this State, especially in this State’s Supreme Court processes, cannot be honestly pronounced to be free of unwarranted external interventions and or influences.
    Were that this State’s Supreme Court process be concluded as infallible, then a number of upper echelon persons in this State would have enjoyed an extended period of residence in this State’s Risdon Prison.
    For any person to deny my statement in regard to this Supreme Court process matter, he or they would soon find themselves floundering about in stupefaction were I to produce evidence to the contrary.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  27/09/15  at  08:50 PM
  181. ......


    Thought that this may be of interest given the recent debate on Memory, Stress, Grief, etc..


    Stressed memories: how acute stress affects memory formation in humans.


    Journal of Neuroscience  2009 Aug 12;29(32):10111-9.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19675245


    Abstract:


    “Stressful, aversive events are extremely well remembered. Such a declarative memory enhancement is evidently beneficial for survival, but the same mechanism may become maladaptive and culminate in mental diseases such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Stress hormones are known to enhance postlearning consolidation of aversive memories but are also thought to have immediate effects on attentional, sensory, and mnemonic processes at memory formation. Despite their significance for our understanding of the etiology of stress-related mental disorders, effects of acute stress at memory formation, and their brain correlates at the system scale, remain elusive. Using an integrated experimental approach, we probed the neural correlates of memory formation while participants underwent a controlled stress induction procedure in a crossover design. Physiological (cortisol level, heart rate, and pupil dilation) and subjective measures confirmed acute stress. Remarkably, reduced hippocampal activation during encoding predicted stress-enhanced memory performance, both within and between participants. Stress, moreover, amplified early visual and inferior temporal responses, suggesting that hypervigilant processing goes along with enhanced inferior temporal information reduction to relay a higher proportion of task-relevant information to the hippocampus. Thus, acute stress affects neural correlates of memory formation in an unexpected manner, the understanding of which may elucidate mechanisms underlying psychological trauma etiology.”


    First paragraph in Introduction:


    “Information encoded into memory during stressful experiences is generally well remembered (Kim and Diamond, 2002), especially if this information is relevant to the stressor (Joëls et al., 2006; Sandi and Pinelo-Nava, 2007; Smeets et al., 2009). Although this phenomenon represents adaptive behavior, dysregulation of the underlying mechanism might result in psychological trauma and thus potentially mental disease (McEwen, 2004; de Kloet et al., 2005). Past research has put strong emphasis on the mechanisms by which acute stress enhances memory consolidation (Roozendaal et al., 2006). It is widely assumed that rapidly unfolding neurochemical events during the initial stress phase exert immediate effects on attentional, sensory, and mnemonic processes (de Kloet et al., 2005). However, such putative effects of acute stress have received little attention and remain poorly understood.”


    Interesting!


    Note the bit “relevant to the stressor”. I have previously argued that Neill-Fraser’s episodic memory (her personal experiences of what she saw, what she heard, what she was doing, how she felt, etc) on the afternoon-evening of Australia Day would have been well remembered 12 or more hours later because that period of time had significant emotional relevance to her life because that was the last time she spent time with her long term lover Bob. I also explained why her memory of what happened after the first few hours on the morning of the 27th would have been significantly impaired (very high cortical arousal coupled with focussing on the internal rather than the external world).

     

    I hope that this helps.

    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  29/09/15  at  08:58 PM
  182. .....


    Cont…

    Perhaps I ought to add an important point because it appears that some people may have a misconception about memory enhancement effect induced in an  emotionally aroused brain.

     

    Memory enhancement due to increased (emotionally induced) cortical arousal can occur days (even weeks) after the memory is first encoded.

     


    This would happen when for example a week after a person spends time with a loved one they are informed that the loved one was involved in a car accident and has died. Upon hearing the tragic news the person’s brain would be emotionally aroused and be flooded with memories. Typically, the person would ruminate over the memories of the last time they were together. These recalled memories would  thus be enhanced and stay around for a long time, although the integrity of the memories may not be very high.


    I will give two examples from my own experience:


    1. There was about 7 hours between the last time I visited my mum in hospital and the time I received a phone call that she died. I have a very good memory of my last visit to her even though that was 35 years ago. My younger sibling and I were there at the same time. Both of us remember that last visit to our mum although our memories of the details are slightly different (this was dependent on what we were attending to at the time of the visit). I also have a very good memory of the day I received the call but I can’t remember anything about the following day.


    2. There was approx 5 days between my last visit to my father and the time I received a call about his death (that was 11 years ago). I have a good memory of that last visit.  I also have a good memory of the day I received the call but I can’t remember anything about the day after.


    The interesting thing is that the memory of my last visit to my mum is significantly more vivid and detailed than the memory of my last visit to my dad even though mum died 24 years before dad. I interpret the reason for this to be twofold: (i) higher emotional reaction to my mum’s death; (ii) shorter period of time between my visit to her and the time I found out she died.


    In Neill-Fraser’s case, there would have been a maximum period of about 16 hours (3pm to 7 am) or as short as 11 hours (8 pm to 7 am) between the time she last saw Bob (alive) on the yacht and the time she received a call from the police. There is no reason why two days later (at the time of providing a Stat Dec on 28th) her memory of that last afternoon-evening with Bob would be washed over or forgotten such that she would confuse that last day with another day and another episodic memory and thus state that she went to Bunnings and spent a lot of time there (without buying anything).


    Taking valium at around midday on 27th wouldn’t have had any measurable impact on Neill-Fraser’s mental capacity 24 hours later when she provided the Stat Dec where she stated that she went to Bunnings and spent a lot of time there (browsing). Further, there is no evidence that she was under any form of stressful interrogation by the police at that time.


    In summary:


    1. There was no reason on 28th Jan for Neill-Fraser not to be able to recall very well what she did and where she was on the afternoon-evening of the 26th Jan (and how she got home: walking or driving; and roughly what time she got home, where she was coming from, where was her car, etc).


    2. There was no innocent reason for Neill-Fraser to immediately (and for several weeks) withhold from the Chappell family (and the police) the fact that she returned to the Marieville Esplanade late on 26th Jan/early hours of 27th.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  30/09/15  at  07:51 AM
  183. in relation to *181-

    If I am understanding correctly the application of this article is to argue that events preceding the introduction of stress in Sue experience would be enhanced by that stress. Ie that the elicitation of a stressed state enhances memory of what occurred 12 hours or more prior to that elicited stress.

    The article cited by Peter, does not support this the way Peter argues. The experimental design is that participants viewed stress evoking vs neutral videos and picture and had their memory of these videos and pictures tested the next day via a cued response format.

    The experimental paradigm is not consistent with what Peter argues, as in the experiment, stress is evoked during memory encoding, however Peter is attempting to use this evidence to argue that events encoded into memory 12 or more hours prior to an stressful event are enhanced.

    his points out a single quote “relevant to the stressor”, which in the article is supported by citations <Aston-Jones and Bloom, 1981; Ramos and Arnsten, 2007>

    .Aston-Jones and Bloom, 1981 “Activity of norepinephrine-containing locus coeruleus neurons in behaving rats anticipates fluctuations in the sleep-waking cycle” The Journal of Neuroscience, 1 August 1981, 1(8): 876-886;

    <abstract>

    Spontaneous discharge of norepinephrine-containing locus coeruleus (NE- LC) neurons was examined during the sleep-walking cycle (S-WC) in behaving rats. Single unit and multiple unit extracellular recordings yielded a consistent set of characteristic discharge properties. (1) Tonic discharge co-varied with stages of the S-WC, being highest during waking, lower during slow wave sleep, and virtually absent during paradoxical sleep. (2) Discharge anticipated S-WC stages as well as phasic cortical activity, such as spindles, during slow wave sleep. (3) Discharge decreased within active waking during grooming and sweet water consumption. (4) Bursts of impulses accompanied spontaneous or sensory-evoked interruptions of sleep, grooming, consumption, or other such ongoing behavior. (5) These characteristic discharge properties were topographically homogeneous for recordings throughout the NE-LC. (6) Phasic robust activity was synchronized markedly among neurons in multiple unit populations. (7) Field potentials occurred spontaneously in the NE-LC and were synchronized with bursts of unit activity from the same electrodes. (8) Field potentials became dissociated from unit activity during paradoxical sleep, exhibiting their highest rates in the virtual absence of impulses. These results are generally consistent with previous proposals that the NE-LC system is involved in regulating cortical and behavioral arousal. On the basis of the present data and those described in the following report (Aston-Jones, G., and F. E. Bloom (1981) J. Neurosci.1: 887–900), we conclude that these neurons may mediate a specific function within the general arousal framework. In brief, the NE-LC system may globally bias the responsiveness of target neurons and thereby influence overall behavioral orientation.

    so it clear for all to see the relevance of this citation.

    <continued in next comment>

    Posted by abs  on  30/09/15  at  10:13 AM
  184. continued from last comment ...

    the second citation undermines that attempted use of this short quote by Peter.

    The important memory system relevant to the impact of stress upon one’s ability to recall and accurately utilise ‘relevant’ information encoded prior to an elicited stressful state, is the Norepinephrine (NE), prefrontal cortical based, attention neural networks. This memory system is commonly known as ‘working memory’.

    It is ‘working memory’ that would have played a dominant role in a persons capacity to recall, and integrate (into their current experience) ‘representational information”, i.e. information no longer in their environment: the information as to what S N-F did in the “12 or more hours”  prior to becoming stressed is processed dominantly dependent upon prefrontal cortical ‘working memory’ capacity.

    the research literature demonstrates that high stress impacts negatively upon this system. see below for the abstract and introductory paragraph from the article that is used to support the quote “relevant to the stressor”.

    Ramos BP, Arnsten AF (2007) Adrenergic pharmacology and cognition: focus on the prefrontal cortex. Pharmacol Ther 113:523–536.

    <abstract>

    Norepinephrine (NE) has widespread projections throughout brain, and thus is ideally positioned to orchestrate neural functions based on arousal state. For example, NE can increase “signal/noise” ratio in the processing of sensory stimuli, and can enhance long-term memory consolidation in the amygdala and hippocampus through actions at α-1 and β adrenoceptors. Over the last 20 years, NE has also been shown to play a powerful role in regulating the working memory and attention functions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Moderate levels of NE released under control conditions strengthen prefrontal cortical functions via actions at post-synaptic α-2A adrenoceptors with high affinity for NE, while high levels of NE release during stress impair PFC cortical functions via α-1 and possibly β-1 receptors with lower affinity for NE. Thus, levels of NE determine whether prefrontal cortical or posterior cortical systems control our behavior and thought. Understanding these receptor mechanisms has led to new, intelligent treatments for neuropsychiatric disorders associated with PFC dysfunction.

    <from article introduction - paragraph 1>

    “The cognitive functions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) are arguably the most advanced in our cognitive repertoire, and likely the most vulnerable to disruption. PFC circuits have the unique ability to represent information that is no longer in the environment- even in the face of distraction and to use this “representational knowledge” to guide behavior, thought and affect. This process is often referred to as “working memory”. Working memory is thought to arise from networks of PFC pyramidal cells with shared properties engaged in recurrent excitation. These networks are thought maintain task relevant information during the delay period when stimuli are no longer present in the environment (Goldman-Rakic, 1995; see Figure 1). During this period that follows cue presentation, prefrontal neurons show increased firing rate in association with a specific location in the visual field where the cue was presented (i.e. 90° vs 45 °; Figure 1). The ability of PFC neuronal networks to keep task-relevant information ‘online’ in the form of delay-related firing is thought to represent the physiological basis of working memory. These firing patterns are tuned by GABAergic inputs, and by proper catecholamine modulation (Rao et al., 2000; Constantinidis et al., 2002). Optimal PFC network firing allows the regulation of attentional focus, the inhibition of inappropriate motor responses, and planning for the future.”

    <from paragraph 2>

    “ Even in young, so-called “normal” individuals, PFC cognitive abilities fluctuate, eroding when we are fatigued or when we are exposed to uncontrollable stress. Even mild uncontrollable stressors have been shown to impair PFC working memory functions in both humans and animals (reviewed in Arnsten, 2000a).”


    hope this is coherent as i am time limited

    Posted by abs  on  30/09/15  at  10:14 AM
  185. having just read Peter’s # 182,it contains statements that are demonstrably false by the the research on the topic, one statement is -

    “There is no reason why two days later (at the time of providing a Stat Dec on 28th) her memory of that last afternoon-evening with Bob would be washed over or forgotten such that she would confuse that last day with another day and another episodic memory and thus state that she went to Bunnings and spent a lot of time there (without buying anything).”

    Peter continues to push a position (ie “no reason”) that is demonstrated to be false.

    ie the research i have cited in many posts above clearly show that there are plausible, scientifically backed, ‘reasons’ as to why hypotheses involving misremembering/confabulation/memory detriment etc cannot be easily dismissed as he has attempted to do.

    after re-reading a post of mine from above (#183) referring to Peters #181 where he points out the “relevant to the stressor” snippet, it occurred to me that I had missed an important point, the whole sentence that he samples from is -

    “Information encoded into memory during stressful experiences is generally well remembered (Kim and Diamond, 2002), especially if this information is relevant to the stressor (Joëls et al., 2006; Sandi and Pinelo-Nava, 2007; Smeets et al., 2009).”

    thus it undermines his own use of it because of the first part of the sentence…

    Posted by abs  on  30/09/15  at  01:10 PM
  186. .......


    The finale:


    • Susan Neill-Fraser and her imaginary lies got sunk by a 12.25 am ATM photo and a 3.08 am call from her landline!


    • Susan Neill-Fraser’s conga of imaginative supporters got sunk by an Adelaide scientist and his musings about visual perception, DNA in a chewing gum, and the neuroscience of memory & grief.

     

    How does he say goodbye to so many wonderful and welcoming people whose interesting speculations didn’t stand up to the rigour of critical reason, rationality, logic, physical plausibility and the test of reasonable doubt?

     


    Andrew Rule’s imagination describes it so well in his article titled


    “Talk all you like, but Susan’s lies clinch it”


    http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/talk-all-you-like-but-susans-lies-clinch-it/story-fni0ffyu-1227291427182

     

    so the Scientist chose to use the following words from Andrew’s article as his departing words:


    “But no matter how many earnest legal wonks, cynical opportunists, noisy ratbags and conspiracy theorists encourage Neill-Fraser’s loyal but deluded relatives and their social circle, this isn’t a just cause.”

     

    Hasta la vista, baby!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  01/10/15  at  01:45 AM
  187. #186 Interesting finale;  ... As Mr Poirot pointed out most truly, in a fictional murder mystery, “when one fact supports another fact but neither of them turn out to be facts”
    (edited)

    Posted by Rosemary  on  01/10/15  at  08:36 AM
  188. Dr Lozo,
    ... What were your words a little while ago - “Subject closed”? The subject will not be closed until the case is looked at again by means of an inquiry or a re-trial.

    ...

    I went to court with an open mind and my antenna went up when Mrs Zochling said that the “lady in the box” was not the lady she saw arguing with Mr Chappell, yet the trial rolled on. For me, not because I knew Sue’s late mother, but because I sat through the trial, I firmly believe I witnessed a grave miscarriage of justice and I get concerned that a brutal murderer might be at large in our community. Then I have to remind myself, we don’t even know for sure that Bob was murdered or is dead.

    I do not blame the jury for getting it wrong, they could only be as good as the information fed to them, which brings me to the CCTV camera that caught, what appeared to be, a Ford Falcon station wagon driving along Sandy Bay Road at 12.25 am. The prosecutor told the court that the footage was “inconclusive” and, indeed, it did not show a driver or a registration number. There would be a countless number of Ford Falcons in Hobart. The prosecutor also said that the photo was “not advanced as proof”. So why mention it at all? Why bother with a photograph, if you can’t prove it is Sue driving her vehicle? A timeline is only as good as the truth of the facts supporting it.

    And, as for Bunnings, Sue told the police that she walked up and down the aisles and added, “should be on footage”, meaning she was aware of security cameras in the store, so why lie, knowing she’ll be caught out?

    And what of the latex glove that the jury were told Sue put on to clean up the crime scene, when it was not her DNA in the glove at all. Admitting the mistake at the appeal was far too late: the jury had gone out believing it was Sue’s and found her guilty.

    Regardless of all the various opinions, there simply remains “Too Much Doubt”.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  01/10/15  at  11:44 AM
  189. #186

    i take this to be an acknowledgement that Dr Peter Lozo is unable to back his earlier assertions, when challenged with the scientific literature on the effects of stress on memory.

    it stands above that he made repeated assertions, regarding the science of memory, that are clearly incorrect, in the way he has attempted to apply them.

    he now chooses to exit by avoiding the science that has been put to him and quoting a newspaper article ...

    furthermore Peter states that people’s contributions here didn’t “stand up to the rigour of critical reason, rationality, logic, physical plausibility and the test of reasonable doubt”.

    this is essentially the case with his own position regarding the dismissal of a hypotheses of confabulation/misremembering due to the effects of stress on memory and executive functioning/working memory.

    he has made strong assertions, been presented with scientific evidence that either undermines or refutes his assertions, and then does not counter with scientific evidence. rather on frequent occasions, he tries to counter with personal experiences, citations of his own contribution on another blog site, newspaper articles, or simply repeats what has just been refuted with evidence.

    the reality is that there is a very interesting scientific debate to be had here and he is choosing to avoid it. we have barely scratched the surface of the research base.

    in relation to a fanciful statement within his “finale’: no boat was sunk here in the fields of the “neuroscience of memory & grief” , Peter.

    Posted by abs  on  01/10/15  at  12:13 PM
  190. The question still remains for Hasta la vista baby, that the conduct and methodology of this trial by judge and jury, whereby the prosecution relied on presumption, theoretical scenario’s, then to be reliant upon this resulting probability event is an erroneous delivered verdict, in my opinion.

    Then that this decision has been endorsed by the skills of a seasoned journalist not at all qualified as to the proper procedural conduct of, (that which for the purposes of this case was typical of this State’s strongly biased improper determination to rely on probable circumstances) will never constitute a correctly conducted bona fide carriage of justice ... in lieu of proof beyond all doubt.

    If the endorsed basis of this Andrew Rule assessment of what should and what should not be the overriding manner adopted by all of Australia’s Supreme Court conducted trials, then the basis of law as it is written and intended for carriage has in itself become a false basis of law contra to the Australian system of law and justice.

    Then one must consider that this same tenet of Australian law, toward its conduct and its carriage, “has provided the very means to reject and appeal against such a wilfully biased product of Supreme Court procedure with its inherent faults, findings, then of any and all of its doubted judgements issuing therefrom.”

    The provision of a higher court of appeal that has the power to overturn whatever the type of deficient or defective process and or judgement that has arisen from any one of Australia’s Supreme Court case conducted trials is absolutely essential.

    This singular fact has indeed become a vital component to ensure that the cause of law in Australia cannot allow itself to become compromised so simply in being wholly reliant upon that which issues from an Australian Supreme Court trial.

    Furthermore when case precedent is cited from countries not under obligation to the Australian Constitution.
    This in my opinion is an unwarranted abhorrent determination to impose non-Constitutional alien references that “cannot and must not” be allowed their entry of alien influence as to be relied upon as a reference item, at any time, nor to ever become an interference into or upon our Australian Constitutional laws.

    Over to you Hasta la vista.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  01/10/15  at  01:12 PM
  191. I am impartial. My only interest in this case is from a justice perspective and this case is a shocker (in my view).

    The debate over memory and confabulation has gone on long enough. ... Peter, you do not ‘know what happened’. It was an unfair trial and an unsafe verdict (in my view). Fact.

    Innocent people up and down the country and around the world are going to gaol all the time. I do not wish to use this site to compare and talk about other cases.

    The whole system from police to appeal is broken.

    I do not believe for one moment that Sue cracked Bob over the head with a wrench and then either fumbling in the dark - crazy stuff - or with the lights on - more crazy stuff - winched Bob’s body around the boat and into a dinghy. The prosecution case is just plain crazy (in my view).

    ...

    This story is fanciful and unsupported by evidence. There is not even any circumstantial evidence. The whole story is an invention.

    If Bob is dead then a reasonable speculation would suggest a third party was involved.

    Bob’s disappearance and the boat sabotage could be two separate events. We just do not know because the whole case is a screw up. Sue was targeted (in my view)

    Guilty or not the prosecution case has not been proven.

    Get a retrial.

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  01/10/15  at  03:52 PM
  192. #190 William, the Supreme Court specified standard of guilt for a jury in a criminal trial is proof beyond “reasonable doubt”. That is different to “... proof beyond all doubt.

    Try getting a judge to explain that standard to a jury before it retires to consider a verdict. I did; the judge abruptly declined.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  01/10/15  at  05:19 PM
  193. abs at #183 makes this point

    The experimental paradigm is not consistent with what Peter argues, as in the experiment, stress is evoked during memory encoding, however Peter is attempting to use this evidence to argue that events encoded into memory 12 or more hours prior to an stressful event are enhanced.

    From this observation, abs in #184 explains the concept of ‘working memory’ and notes that

    the research literature demonstrates that high stress impacts negatively upon this system.

    and

    Even mild uncontrollable stressors have been shown to impair PFC working memory functions in both humans and animals

    abs’s point #185 is particularly telling, where he quotes Peter’s

    Information encoded into memory during stressful experiences is generally well remembered [...] especially if this information is relevant to the stressor

    abs rightly points out that the memories that are enhanced are those formed from information received during stressful experiences. Peter’s #181

    I have previously argued that Neill-Fraser’s episodic memory (her personal experiences of what she saw, what she heard, what she was doing, how she felt, etc) on the afternoon-evening of Australia Day would have been well remembered 12 or more hours later because that period of time had significant emotional relevance to her life because that was the last time she spent time with her long term lover Bob.

    seems to suggest that if I come under some significant stress tomorrow, I will remember what I heard, today, what I did today, how I felt today etc.  I think I prefer abs’s view on this question.  By the way, Marie and I were married 45 years ago and I can remember much from that day, even now.  But I wouldn’t have a clue about the day before our wedding.

    So Peter now farewells us again …  He began his foray onto TT [#131 Here] with a side-swipe at SN-F’s ‘vocal supporters’ and their ‘speculative opinions’ and a recommendation that we search for the body of a certain Dr Chapman somewhere in the Derwent!  That was his first error.  He told us that the Four Winds was facing to the SW, then had to correct that furphy.  Then he confused retro- and anterograde memory, did he not? There were other errors and corrections.

    Now Peter farewells us with borrowed words, labelling us

    “... legal wonks, cynical opportunists, noisy ratbags and conspiracy theorists [who] encourage Neill-Fraser’s loyal but deluded relatives and their social circle…”

    I think abs put the situation pretty well in his/her #189 summary (above) of Peter’s contribution to this thread, recognising that some of Peter’s propositions were demonstrably false, that he used avoidance of the actual science, lacked rigour of critical reason, rationality, logic and so on.  Before the censor pulls out the pen, let it be remembered that these are the terms that Peter himself used on us.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  01/10/15  at  10:30 PM
  194. I will quote from the very same journal paper as did Peter, [Stressed Memories: How Acute Stress Affects Memory Formation in Humans - Here] Just as abs pointed out, Peter didn’t seem to understand the import of his own (#181) quote:

    Information encoded into memory during stressful experiences is generally well remembered [...] especially if this information is relevant to the stressor

    Had Peter gone to the essence of that paper, he would surely have reached the Results section, from which I quote:

    Effectiveness of stress induction: memory enhancement
    Memory was tested in a CR test [...] the subsequent day. Stress enhanced memory performance: pictures encoded during the stressful experience were more often remembered 1 d later than pictures encoded in the control condition [...]. This stress effect on picture encoding did not change over time during the encoding session (as evidenced by a nonsignificant stress by encoding block interaction, [...][...] indicating that this stress modulation was a rather stable state during the entire scanning session. As expected, memory performance was better for negative than for neutral pictures [...]However, this picture valence effect did not interact with stress induction […].

    More to the point, Peter might have quoted the following from the paper’s discussion section:

    Here we show that acute stress profoundly affected the neural correlates of memory formation, and it did so in a region-specific manner. Reduced hippocampal responses were associated with better memory formation under stress, both within and across subjects. Furthermore, in early visual areas, stress led to an increase of activity, which was accompanied by a negative subsequent memory effect, whereas stress-enhanced activation in inferior temporal regions was accompanied by a positive subsequent memory effect.

    Now while Peter’s taking his short walk outside in the snow, I’d love to get back to the essence of this thread ...

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  01/10/15  at  10:31 PM
  195. If you saw Marie today and then the two of you didn’t see each other for say 3 days and then on the third day you get a call that Marie died then not only will that day stay in your memory for a very long time (because of the emotional arousal) but so will your memory of today (the last day you saw Marie). The reason for the latter is that your brain (as part of the grieving process) will ruminate over your memories of Marie, particularly about the last time you saw her alive, thus consolidating that memory to last a lifetime. 


    One does not need scientific literature to verify this (definitely not the rat literature). Ask those who have lost a loved one whether they remember the last time they saw them alive and what was the time gap between being notified about the death and seeing the loved one alive. Can be the same day. Can be a week or a month.


    The emotional arousal can enhance memories that are already encoded but only when they are re-activated during a recall! As simple as that. Ask your GP.


    The paper I quoted is irrelevant to the SNF’s Bunnings  confabulation theory (I used the paper to show that stress can enhance memory encoding; no other reason). The literature cited by abs is also irrelevant to SNF’s Bunnnings confabulation theory. 


    What is relevant is the fact that SNF’s emotional arousal would have kicked in as soon as she got a call from the police early on 27th. Whatever thoughts she had of Bob and the yacht, and in particular whatever memories went through her mind about the afternoon-evening of the Australia Day, would have been amplified to last her for the rest of her natural life. Since she had a long term emotional attachment to Bob (and a month old attachment to the yacht) then the memories of the Australia Day (their last day together) would have flooded her mind on the morning of 27th.


    Signing off.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  02/10/15  at  08:41 AM
  196. thank you Garry,

    just quickly, the research paper Peter cited, as we have noted, is specific to stress experienced during encoding: thus inconsistent with how he was attempting to use the citation.

    a separate important point is that it is one ‘experimental’ research paper, ie a paper detailing one experiment.

    two of the citations i provided (see 1 and 2) are ‘review’ articles, ie they review the relevant research at question, capturing scores or hundreds of ‘experimental’ studies. there are other reviews not yet cited (see 3 and 4).

    the point being that the scientific research relevant is very complex, involving many, many variables from literally hundreds to thousands of experimental studies. . For Peter, to use (incorrectly) one phenomenon to state, with certainty, that his account is the only account possible is inconsistent with scientific procedure.

    1. Lars Schwabea, , , Oliver T. Wolfa, Melly S. Oitzl (2010) Memory formation under stress: Quantity and quality Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews Volume 34, Issue 4,, Pages 584–591

    2. Morgan, C.A.,  Southwick, S.  (2014) ‘Perspective: I believe what I remember, but it may not be true’ . Learning and Memory. Volume 112, July 2014, Pages 101-103

    3. Arnsten AFT. Stress impairs PFC function in rats and monkeys: Role of dopamine D1 and norepinephrine alpha-1 receptor mechanisms. Prog Brain Res. 2000a;126:183–192.

    4. Arnsten AFT, Robbins TW. Neurochemical modulation of prefrontal cortical function in humans and animals. In: Stuss DT, Knight RT, editors. Principles of Frontal Lobe Function. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002. pp. 51–84.

    Posted by abs  on  02/10/15  at  09:19 AM
  197. #186 I addressed Dr Lozo’s thoughts about Sue being sunk by footage from the Commonwealth Bank security camera at 12.25 am in #188 but not the word, “sunk”. What “sunk” Sue was not that footage but the statement given to police by a person with a criminal record against a woman who had led a blameless life and had no record at all.

    I suggest Dr Lozo read the transcript of the trial from page 8 onwards for a few pages. The defence counsel, in my opinion, rightly objected to this witness being called. Without his prejudicial testimony, I believe,there was no case to answer.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  02/10/15  at  10:41 AM
  198. # 195 In the battle of the scientists ‘signing off’, I note that in the face of having your speculation refuted, just repeat yourself….However in the light of not being able to “see the forest for the trees” there is so much focus on memory that what has been totally overlooked is the function of ‘recall’, and it has been bundled in the mix when it is a totally different subject all on its own. If we really want to get down to the nitty gritty?

    Posted by Rosemary  on  02/10/15  at  10:42 AM
  199. #192. Thank you Geraldine for your correction to my comment #190.

    I would further like offer that the heavy bias held by this State’s judiciary toward persons outside of their preferred societal community (though not to include those in the legal practitioner enclaves) will ever be the target of aggravated bias and conjecture.

    Furthermore this has just been demonstrated by the actions of Eastcourt J in his application to the Federal Police to relent on their legally justifiable reasons to confiscate the proceeds of the crime committed by John Eugene Gay.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  02/10/15  at  10:57 AM
  200. #195 Dr Peter Lozo continues to repeat what has been refuted and now posts in a way (“One does not need scientific literature….”’, ” Ask those who have lost a loved one”’ “ask your GP” etc”) inconsistent with the scientific approach he wishes to champion.

    BTW, Peter, it was you who cited a statement in #181 (...“relevant to the stressor”...) that was referenced by an article from the ‘rat literature’.

    he now makes a claim that the research literature on the effects of stress on memory encoding, recall, and working memory, is irrelevant to how stress effected S N-F memory of events leading up to finding out about Bob (according to a confabulation hypothesis).

    he finishes with referring to his ‘hypothesis’ as “fact”.

    #198

    correct Rosemary, I referred (#183, 184) to the norepinephrine modulated effects of stress/emotionality/trauma etc of prefrontal cortical ‘working memory’ functions as very relevant to the discussion.

    Recalling from memory and utilising ‘representational information’ (e.g. information pertaining to the hours,  day/s, weeks etc) prior to a stressful/traumatic episode can be negatively affected by stress. this provides a firm basis for not rejecting the confabulation hypothesis. i do not argue that the literature provides a firm basis for confirming this hypothesis. 

    from the many posts above it stands that Dr Peter Lozo has not been able to back his assertions with evidence, he now will have us believe that the evidence that undermines and/or refutes his position is irrelevant.

    Posted by abs  on  02/10/15  at  03:31 PM
  201. Having worked for many years as a grief counsellor in a private practice (Clinical Psychology) I concur with Dr Lozo’s assessment of the case. Specifically, I back up Dr Lozo’s statements that Ms Neill-Fraser’s memory of the last day she spent time with Mr Chappell would have consolidated due to reflection back in time. Reflection on the events of the very last day she was with Mr Chappell would have been a natural reaction to a sudden loss of a long term de-facto relationship that appears to have ended as a result of Mr Chappell’s murder.

    It is my professional opinion that there was no valid psychological basis for Ms Neill-Fraser’s claim of having memory problems associated with the day she last saw Bob on their yacht and what transpired after she left him on-board their yacht - whether she drove to Bunnings for the rest of the day  or whether she drove directly home that day. 


    Human memory for personal experiences is much more robust than it seems to be appreciated. Part of the reason for the robustness is that memory is distributed across a number of brain regions such that different types of memories (memories for objects, memories for locations, memories for sound and speech, memories for movement, memories for smell, etc) are stored in different parts of the brain. A recall of partial memories of one type is likely to trigger the memory of another type. Strong associations between different memories would help in memory recall.


     A severe concussion can disrupt the encoding of experiences shortly before and after a concussion. I don’t know whether Ms Neill-Fraser had a concussion on the day in question but since this doesn’t appear to have been mentioned I can only assume that a concussion didn’t occur.

    Posted by Jane CS  on  07/10/15  at  02:51 PM
  202. #201

    Jane CS

    would you like to address the considerable scientific research evidence cited by myself above that undermines and/or refutes Dr Peter Lozo’s (and now your’s) position?

    can you back your “professional opinion” with evidence?

    there is a great deal of information presented above that is detailed, explained, and supported by citations of scientific studies and reviews.

    you need to address this short-coming in your post.

    Posted by abs  on  07/10/15  at  08:38 PM
  203. #201 — Jane, it seems to me considerably unprofessional as a clinical psychologist, to publish your “professional opinion” insofar as you failed to
    (1) identify yourself/your credentials, and
    (2) you’ve never consulted with the specific person (SNF) about whom you publish your diagnosis.

    My personal opinion is that it is insufficient for you to base a ““professional opinion” on what you’ve read. By this time, most observers are aware that all relevant details remain undisclosed. Undeniably, as it stands, it is an unprofessional and biased opinion. If I were Susan Neil-Fraser, I would be grossly offended.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  08/10/15  at  06:42 AM
  204. I wrote in my #201 “most observers are aware that all relevant details remain undisclosed”. More appropriately and succinctly, I might have said most observers are aware that not all relevant details were disclosed before and at trial(s).

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  08/10/15  at  07:04 PM
  205. #202  abs


    * I saw and read what you copied and pasted from some articles. I am a bit perplexed by your need to copy and paste sections from various articles, some of which is scientifically complex and well beyond the interest of  this thread (such as in #183 and #184) and yet you haven’t made an attempt to link any of it to the current issue of concern (Ms Neill-Fraser’s claims before and during the trial about memory problems and blackouts). One issue concerns her initial statement of having gone to Bunnings and spent many hours browsing there.

    * I fail to see where it was explicitly stated by you how any of what you have referred to it is related to Ms Neill-Fraser’s alleged memory problems for the critical day in question.


    * I also fail to see where it was explicitly stated by you how any of the literature you referred to refutes what was stated by me (and by others).


    * I wonder which of my own statements you consider to be refuted and on what basis. I am keen to hear your detailed scientific objections to any of my own statments.


    * It seems to me that you have a superficial understanding of the science so are copying and pasting from various articles without explaining how it relates to this case.

     


    #203 Geraldine


    * I am a retired neuropsychologist from USA. My CV lists: BSc (Hons), Masters in Psychology and a PhD in Neuropsychology. I am in Sydney on an extended vacation visiting relatives. One of the relatives has friends in Hobart and is aware of this and other online articles.  A month ago I was  shown the Women’s Weekly article and thought it worthwhile to research the case further. I went online  to gather as much information as I could and also downloaded the trial transcript. I studied Ms Neill-Fraser’s statements to the police and her responses during the trial.  My understanding is that Ms Neill-Fraser had no known neuropsychological problems at the time of Mr Chappell’s disappearance. On the basis of the trial transcript (assisted with many articles on this case) I formed an opinion that  Ms Neill-Fraser’s claim of selective memory problems for the day of Mr Chappell’s disappearance is most likely a fabrication.

    Posted by Jane  on  09/10/15  at  10:14 AM
  206. #205 Jane — I maintain my previously stated position.

    In spite of your defence of reading available material, I still consider it unprofessional to form and publish a “professional opinion” without having consulted with the person who is the subject of that opinion.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  09/10/15  at  11:44 AM
  207. #205 It would be simple in a murder trial to have a foolproof alibi, If as you say the selective memory problems is ‘most likely a fabrication’ it would certainly not be seen as very clever as Sue was described by the trial judge.  It would not be clever to give so much voluminous information at all. A smart guilty person would say zilch. A simple fabrication would be ” I was home reading a book or weeding the garden. But even so the main thrust of the trial is the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt. And that was not done.  By inference you (and others) are saying that she lied therefore she had opportunity during that time to do the sinister deed of killing and disposing of Bob.
    yet so many others factors don’t really back that up. That is where a more serious fabrication (suggestion) has taken place. There are alternate possibilities of a killer/s not explored, and this case is more than one point of memory. So a true loss of memory for whatever reason or a fabricated one still does not solve the case at all, it is still an unsolved mystery. And the memory question is only one small piece of the puzzle. Your efforts Jane in researching and adding your thoughts to the case are worthwhile and help to get more people thinking. It is very complex and if you put that consideration to many other aspects of the case I cant imagine how large an epic could develop out of it all.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  09/10/15  at  12:14 PM
  208. #205 Jane

    being perplexed is not an argument.  it seems to me that you may not even understand the locus of the point. which is apparent if you read the relevant posts/sections of posts between Dr Peter Lozo and myself. it starts at with Peter (#124,125, 132), which i begin addressing in #135.

    Peter stated in #124 - “Therefore it was not possible for her to have confused her memory of what she did and where she was on 26th Jan with some other day. Her first written statement to the police on 28th Jan was thus a conscious lie about going to the Bunnings.”

    note the certainty with which his statement is made. this is the locus of my contribution here. i have made the argument that the scientific literature (i.e. what is known about the effects of stress upon memory/working memory function) does not support Peter claims of certainty. i have backed my position with reference to, and explanation of, the relevant scientific research.

    i have clearly stated on a number of occasions that Peter’s account is plausible, in fact in #200 i state - “ this provides a firm basis for not rejecting the confabulation hypothesis. i do not argue that the literature provides a firm basis for confirming this hypothesis”.

    i have provided scientific evidence by the standard scientific process of citing relevant studies, quoting and paraphrasing the relevant sections from those articles, and explaining why the evidence is relevant and why it undermines/refutes some of the statement that Peter has made. (contrary to your assertion in #205)

    i do not see why this needs to be repeated for you. your ‘failure to see’ (sic) is not mine to own ;)

    you, however have not presented a detailed argument backed by referencing scientific evidence to support you statement in #201 -  “I back up Dr Lozo’s statements that Ms Neill-Fraser’s memory of the last day she spent time with Mr Chappell would have consolidated due to reflection back in time.”

    rather you state #201 - “It is my professional opinion that there was no valid psychological basis for Ms Neill-Fraser’s claim of having memory problems associated with the day she last saw Bob on their yacht and what transpired after she left him on-board their yacht - whether she drove to Bunnings for the rest of the day or whether she drove directly home that day”.

    this is clearly wrong as the research i have cited demonstrates that there are “valid psychological” bases.

    as for your statement of my “need” to quote abstracts (BTW, Peter also cuts and pastes whole abstracts ;), it is clear why they have been posted by what is stated in #183 and #184. Peter had cherry picked a snippet “…relevant to the stressor…”, the abstracts in #183 and #184 were the references to that sentence that Peter selectively quoted from. In #183 and #184 I clearly detail that the first abstract seems to be quite irrelevant to how Peter was attempting to use that selective quote and the second abstract undermined how Peter was attempting to use that selective quote.

    Therefore, contrary to what you state, they are relevant to the thread (ie to counter how Peter was attempting to support his earlier statements), and I did link them. As for scientific complexity, other posters here have demonstrated that they have comprehended what I have “cut and paste”, so perhaps you could alert yourself to that.

    to be cont.

    Posted by abs  on  09/10/15  at  01:36 PM
  209. continued…

    in the interests of perspective with Jane stated qualifications, I am a Clinical Psychologist, (Ph.D in Clinical Psychology). I have refrained from using this as the basis for my contribution here as i concur with Geraldine in #203 about it being inappropriate to offer a “professional opinion” when proper professional opinions in this context are usually built upon proper professional procedure of having conducted an proper assessment involving a comprehensive clinical/forensic interviews and drawing of relevant scientific literature to form a ‘professional opinion”.

    additionally it would not be appropriate, as i contribute here anonymously and due to the real, important and serious topic being discussed

    it is appropriate to challenge a contributor, by means of drawing upon scientific literature, who has made inaccurate claims about processes upon which the scientific literature is based.

    Jane, I would like to know if you are prepared to engage with the science on memory/working memory function in relation to the effects of stress. that is detail why your contribution should be believed without being backed by publicly available scientific research. presently you have made no attempt to do so and have posted information about your ‘professional opinion” that has only served to regress the scientific debate here from science based specifics to opinion based generalisations and motherhood-type statements.

    Posted by abs  on  09/10/15  at  01:37 PM
  210. .....

    Thanks for the thumbs up Jane.


    I wasn’t intending to comment any further on this thread but thought to come back with one statement given that you are now of  the same conclusion as me (in relation to the Neill-Fraser case and in relation to the comments made by abs).


    I too noticed that the character named abs has a rather odd and superficial understanding (in my view) of the context of the case as well as the relevant science of human memory.


     He (or she) appears not to have known the full context of the case  but at comment #135  cited two articles by Morgan and colleagues which he/she claims to refute my own understanding of the relevant science and its application to this case.

    I don’t think that he/she carefully read the 2004 article to understand the conditions under which more than 500 military personnel participated in the reported study.


    The first sentence on page 269 of the Morgan et al. 2004 article states the following critical bit of information that abs seems to have overlooked:


    “All participants were exposed to the stress of uniform sleep and food deprivation for approximately 48 h prior to being subjected to interrogation stress. Upon release from the POWC, all subjects were given access to food and rest.”


    The person named abs did not explain how uniform sleep and food deprivation for 48 hours (followed by a stressful interrogation) mentioned in the Morgan et al. study relates to Ms Neill-Fraser’s case!


    The person named abs did not state how the results of the Morgan et al. study  relate to Neill-Fraser’s claimed confabulation and memory problems about her movements and actions on the day of Mr Chappell’s disappearance - the very day on which she last saw him alive and the very last afteroon she spent time on the yacht with the man she subsequently claimed was intending to marry!


    The person named abs did not state how the various cited articles refute my conclusions at #124,125, 132, etc.

    No wonder I stated in $154 the following:


    “the research you are referring to is irrelevant here!.”


    I have said enough for now but do intend to come back in the future with an article on how Cognitive Neuroscience can be applied in this case to detect deceit purely on the basis of EEG and Event Related Potentials (with accuracy greater than 90%). I may also add that a number of years ago (in late 1990s) I was invited to deliver several  specialist lectures to Honours Psychology & Cognitive Science students at the School of Psychology, Flinders University, on theoretical & experimental aspects of: Adaptive Resonance Theory; attention and selective attention; learning, and memory; recognition; event related potentials; and the neural correlates of consciousness and awareness. 


    Ciao,

    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/10/15  at  05:37 PM
  211. None of the ‘scientists’, or people with qualifications has answered the point I made at #126. Sue told the police they would see her on footage, so why would she lie about Bunnings when she knew she would be caught out? If you need the relevant parts in the transcript of the trial, see page 740 line 34 and page 815 lines 17-23. Why would she give 8 hours of interview to the police and decline a lawyer? Why would she admit to Bob Chappell’s sister and an ABC reporter that she had gone down to the beach looking for her step-daughter, had she murdered Bob? That’s certainly not the behaviour usually exhibited by offenders. I have had over 20 years experience in that field of which 5.5 years were as the first female welfare officer in Risdon Prison where Sue is now languishing in the female section.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  09/10/15  at  08:30 PM
  212. #209 abs


    * I will consider your request after I get an explicit statement from you on how the literature you cited (particularly the  Morgan et al  study) is related to this case and how it refutes my statements. 


    * I will be available until Sunday evening for further comments, after which I will be travelling to Africa and thus won’t be pursuing this communication further.

     


    #210 Peter


    * I read the same sentence. I agree with your opinion that the Morgan study is irrelevant to this case. It is beyond comprehension why a Clinical Psychologist (abs) didn’t notice that sentence and consider its implication before using that article here.

    Posted by Jane  on  09/10/15  at  08:57 PM
  213. I am a he, Peter, welcome back :)

    you are again trying to infer that I state ‘confabulation’ as certain, of high probability, or even, more likely than not.  i do not. this has been made clear through out my posts (i pointed this out to Jane).

    i commenced debate with your numerous assertion at an entry levels (so to speak), due to you using scientific information incorrectly.  You speak with certainty when scientific evaluation gives ‘likelihoods’. remember you have a ‘case’ to prove tiger, not me.

    take note, at least Jane settled on “most likely”

    The Morgan references were relevant initially because you were making blanket statements about the involvement of the amygdala.

    Peter in #136- - “Thus, amygdala in Susan Neill-Fraser’s brain would have ensured that her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive would be deeply engrained in her memory and that the memory of that day doesn’t get confused with less emotionally significant memories of the day before Bob’s disappearance”.

    If the Morgan reference is not relevant, because the encoding happened during stress, then that takes the debate to more specific level (see my earlier follow-up citations, e.g Schwabe et al. 2010) of involving pre-frontal cortical working/memory processes..

    Working memory under stress involves processes of recalling information not encoded within stressful events (ie without enhancement), incorporating that representative information into the current stressful situation memory formation. 

    Lars Schwabea, , , Oliver T. Wolfa, Melly S. Oitzl (2010) Memory formation under stress: Quantity and quality Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews Volume 34, Issue 4,, Pages 584–591 -

    here is a quote from that article (i don;t think i need to explain the link, the last sentence captures it.

    “In summary, the modulating influence of stress on memory depends on the context and convergence of stress hormone action (de Kloet et al., 1999, Diamond et al., 2007 and Joels et al., 2006). Memory is facilitated when stress and GCs are experienced within the context of the learning episode, i.e. when the stress hormones exert their actions on the same neural circuits as those activated by the learning experience, and around the time of the event that needs to be remembered. However, if the hormones and transmitters released by stress exert their action out of the learning context (e.g. when they are present during memory retrieval), they are mainly interrupting memory performance.”

    are you saying that, whilst you accept that encoding can be negatively affected due to the presence of stress, working memory processes active during the recall, or replaying, of ‘representational information’ (12 + hours prior) is immune from detriment??

    That is, in face of the citations i referred to, demonstrating evidence showing detrimental memory related effects to working memory/pre-frontal Norepinephrine pathways from stress experienced during the attempted recall, and replaying??

    BTW peter my Ph.D was on encoding, retrieval and EPRs,  :))

    to other posters here - ERPs (event-related potentials: EEG epoched averages time-locked within experimental paradigms) will not give certainty, they can provide a very useful brick, or even in rare occasions, a cornerstone, to the the wall of knowledge

    both you and Jane now have made claims based on stated professional credentials (which we hear more of in #206) with no reference to science or literature (prior to being presented with some) that the non-scientific members could follow-up up on. it is not behaviour for me, thank you.

    Posted by abs  on  09/10/15  at  10:53 PM
  214. Peter, Abs and Jane,
    I will leave you similarly-qualified folk to sort out your differences and interpretations. I am not qualified to join your debate on these matters that are totally over my head. Consequently, nothing said has altered my opinion that Sue only told one lie and was a very confused person, like Mrs Zochling. But what does strike me is that you all seem to be trying ‘to make one size fit all’ without knowing or interviewing Sue Neill-Fraser. We humans are each unique persons and often someone is an exception to the rule.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  10/10/15  at  07:54 AM
  215. both Jane and Peter have the opportunity to address the literature on working memory and stress that I have cited, rather than trying to create the false impression that the Morgan studies are all that have been cited.

    again the Morgan references are relevant to specific statements Peter was making in blanket fashion. and i agree with them that they are not central to debating the positions they are promoting. so lets get to the central issue, prefrontal cortical working memory process and stress.

    both seem intend on avoiding the evidence cited that does not support the case they are trying to make. e.g. prefrontal cortical working memory detriment from stress.

    both seem content to make general statements about my capacities, rather than fully engage with the literature. if that is what they choose for themselves, so be it….

    Jane, it is not “beyond comprehension” why people cherry pick the evidence they want to refute ;) while i feel that i should not have to spoon feed, as I am not the one who is making a case that is supposedly water-tight, why don’t we start with Schwabe et al 2010, Jane? -

    this statement (i copied and pasted due to my superficial understanding..yada yada) is as good a place as any -

    “However, if the hormones and transmitters released by stress exert their action out of the learning context (e.g. when they are present during memory retrieval), they are mainly interrupting memory performance.”

    the quote from the Arnsten and Robbins (2002) review i cited -

    “The abilities carried out by the PFC can also become impaired in so-called “normal” individuals under conditions of uncontrollable stress, fatigue, and with advancing age”

    your statement in #201 (cited below) is inconsistent with this evidence, as is Peter’s repeated claim of there being no know neurological mechanism for misremembering/confabulation-

    Jane in #201 - “It is my professional opinion that there was no valid psychological basis for Ms Neill-Fraser’s claim of having memory problems associated with the day she last saw Bob on their yacht and what transpired after she left him on-board their yacht”

    please note, if you choose to continue with musings about my capabilities as a scientist and clinical psychologist (done twice now!), it is not mine to own.

    those kinds of comments tend to divert debate, lower the standard, and give the impression that you are avoiding the actual scientific debate :)

    as well, after you leave for Africa this post will continue, and your public comments will be present for observation, deconstruction and analysis, so post wisely.  will you ever come across the internet again….

    Posted by abs  on  10/10/15  at  08:23 AM
  216. A further comment:

    *  People who confabulate are very certain of the validity of their false memory and do not forfeit them easily when presented with contrary evidence (see the quote below from a book on confabulation). Ms Neill-Fraser kept changing her position (without any apparent resistance) each time the police came up with new evidence until she totally abandoned the whole idea of having driven to the Bunnings store. According to the transcript, Ms Neill-Fraser changed her mind on three occasions: first when told that a dingy was seen tied to her yacht in mid-afternoon at 3:55 pm;  then again after being told that the store closed early on the public holiday at 6 pm; and then finally totally abandoning the Bunnings story after being informed that she did’t appear on the store’s security videos. This isn’t a typical example of a confabulator. I don’t accept her claims to be that of a genuine confabulator.


    “Confabulators do tend to resist changing their claims in the face of contrary evidence, but not with the tenacity of the deluded.”


    The relevant chapter (What is Confabulation; page 19) of the following book is available online at:


    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262582711_sch_0001.pdf&ved=0CC0QFjAEahUKEwjfpIWoxLbIAhVmMKYKHVv7DGM&usg=AFQjCNF3GY4d-RB95MJHHDspbGpoUpTI6w&sig2=ygvLqWo6ZIfVTw3_qJdjmg


    Title of the book:


    Brain Fiction

    Self-Deception and the Riddle of Confabulation

    By William Hirstein

    Posted by Jane  on  10/10/15  at  09:33 AM
  217. #216 You have the wrong impression Jane, the confabulation idea came from a person on the thread and not at all from Sue Neill-Fraser.  It has developed that Sue is now a dissected lab rat in an experiment rather than a real person. How anyone can make diagnositic suppositions on anyone without spending time with them beats me!

    Posted by Rosemary  on  10/10/15  at  11:33 AM
  218. #217. Rosemary well said. First & foremost Susan Neill-Fraser is a human being. How dare anyone treat her as less than that. also, she happens to be a prisoner.

    The chain of events that finds any person imprisoned does not automatically condone others treating them as less than human. That is disrespect. When professionals so act, that is unprofessional together with disrespectful.

    Undoubtedly Lynn, #211, you witnessed such activities in your time in the PSU. Shameful in my view.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  10/10/15  at  04:23 PM
  219. #216, Thank you Jane for your response with reference to a book citing some experimental research.

    The quote Jane cites is relevant and must be considered in the discussion. The author is well published with book chapters on confabulation in reputable publications.

    in context ,it is one sentence from a 23 page chapter by a Philosopher

    the Philosopher has demonstrated accumulated valid knowledge of ‘confabulation’, it being relevant

    the sentence is - 

    ““Confabulators do tend to resist changing their claims in the face of contrary evidence, but not with the tenacity of the deluded.”

    the sentence is not referenced in text and the expression is “do tend”.

    so another brick in the knowledge base, except we’re not sure how to set that brick ;)

    additionally, “deluded” is not defined, nor referred to a second time in the 23 pages,

    this is not strong or even mild evidence to use to defend a position when challenged with Review articles of scientific experimental numbering hundreds  

    Jane’s (#216) last two sentences are highlighted

    1- “This isn’t a typical example of a confabulator”.

    pretty consistent with ‘do tend’, so brownie points there

    ” I don’t accept her claims to be that of a genuine confabulator - “

    agreeing with Geraldine’s (#203 and 206) position,  a statement of that nature without having conducted an extensive clinical interview is lacking in evidence, literally so.

    it remains as Jane’s “professional opinion”

    i am continuing to wait for engagement with Prefrontal based working memory.

    Rosemary #217 and Geraldine #218, i apologise for the nature that this thread now has. it was my intention, initially, to balance what i perceived to be an inappropriate and incorrect use of scientific knowledge to make a judgement. a judgment made under claimed expertises .

    Lynn in #214 - equally i apologies, however i have presented a scientific argument against other’s stating they know because of science and stuff…i agree with you, re; an absence of a clinical interview prohibits a position of certainty.

    i have never made a judgement, only debunked certain claims made by Peter, with regard to the science he attempts to support his judgement with.

    there are known neurological mechanisms, i citing science on them, it is being studiously avoided.

    when i ask for science, suppose’d evidence of expertise is offen offered.

    Posted by abs  on  10/10/15  at  10:21 PM
  220. #219 abs, I understood your attempt to counterbalance.

    There are times in life when others refuse to accept anything that may interfere with their own (apparently) always-perfect thesis. You have put your argument. Those amongst us without scientific research background and biased views can still read and comprehend.

    For your what must have been at times frustrating, thanks for your efforts. They’ve not been wasted.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  11/10/15  at  08:16 AM
  221. #219 abs


    * The Schwabe et al (2010) article concludes in part as follows:

    “In summary, we show that learning under stress, i.e. during the early phase of the stress response, can have detrimental effects on subsequent memory performance. One possible explanation seems to be that stress acted as a distractor during encoding, diverting attention from the learning”.


    * How does the Schwabe et al. (2010) study explain Ms Neill-Fraser’s alleged memory failure at the time she wrote her Statuory Declaration on the 28th January about whether or not she drove to the Bunnnigs store (and browsed in the store for a long time) from the early afternoon to early evening two days prior; how does it explain her memory failure for what Peter identified as being the critical 5 hour episodic memory time period from 4 pm to 9 pm? He also lists other things such as how she got home and from which direction; whether she walked home or drove home; where was her car parked; how long was she on the yacht with Mr Chappell? roughly what time she got home?


    * My conclusion is that only a pre-existing neurological disorder or a significant concussion in the afternoon of the Australia Day would have affected her memory to that extent.  Her 28th Jan Stat Dec is very detailed about what she noticed on the yacht when she boarded it with the police on the afternoon of the 27th Jan. She wrote about some very fine details she noticed. Thus there was no apparent external sign that Ms Neill-Fraser was exhibiting any symptoms of being stressed when she wrote her 28th Jan Stat Dec. She certainly wasn’t under any stressful interrogation either.


    * Since there is no evidence that Ms Neill-Fraser experienced any significant stress on the day of encoding the critical episodic memory for the afternoon and evening of the Australia Day and since there is no evidence that Ms Neill-Fraser experienced any significant stress on the day of retrieving that memory two days later when writing her Stat Dec, I just don’t see the relevance of your arguments as presented here.


    * I agree with Peter that none of your (strangely) presented comments merit further attention. You have so far failed to explicitly link your knowledge of the scientific literature to the particulars of this case. After reviewing your comments my position is that you have also misrepresented the accuracy of Peter’s statements and his analysis of the case.


    * It was brought to my attention this morning that you made couple of comments on this case over 12 months ago on another thread:


     O&A (Objections & Answers) Why should Dr Bob Moles be heard by MPs? 


     http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/oa-objections-answers-why-should-dr-bob-moles-be-heard-by-mps/


     It seems to me that either you haven’t bothered over the past 12 months to familiarise yourself with the particulars of this case or are playing a game.

     

     

    I now need to start packing for my departure.

    Jane

    Posted by Jane  on  11/10/15  at  01:45 PM
  222. #221. What? — re your para commencing, “Since there is no evidence that Ms Neill-Fraser experienced any significant stress on the day of encoding the critical episodic memory …. I just don’t see the relevance of your arguments as presented here.”

    I’m not Einstein nor do I need to be in order to deduce that surely SNF had undergone a significant and probably unquantifiable amount of stress in the preceding 48 hours. That observation needs no further expanding to those who recall the chain of events to which I refer.

    I cringe when I read the term “there is no evidence”.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  11/10/15  at  02:44 PM
  223. #221 Are you for real Jane? Are you saying Sue was under no ‘significant stress’ on those days immediately following Bob’s disappearance? Under the circumstances, significant stress would have been ongoing for quite some time. Even so, this is still dissecting the minutia, when the larger picture warrants more attention and understanding.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  11/10/15  at  03:40 PM
  224. To the two ladies at #222 & #223 Geraldine and Rosemary


    * I  am talking about the lack of evidence to support the view that  Ms Neill-Fraser was under any significant stress on:


    - the Australia Day


    - and in the morning/afternoon of 28th when writing her very detailed account of her memory for the Australia Day and her memory of what she saw on the yacht on the 27th.


    * The detailed contents  of her Stat Dec of the 28th Jan are sufficient for me to conclude that she didn’t exhibit any external sign  of  significant stress to impair her memory (working memory)  in order to recall her memory of the day before (the 27th Jan) and the day before that (the 26th Jan).


    My brief explanation is as follows:


    If Ms Neill-Fraser was stressed on the 28th to the extent that she wouldn’t be able to recall what she did on the Australia Day then it is equally valid to state that she would have been sufficiently stressed to also fail to accurately recall what she saw on the yacht the day before her written Stat Dec.


    On the contrary, according to the trial transcript, her memory for the fine detail of what she noticed on the yacht was astonishingly accurate to very minute detail. This isn’t what a trained and experienced Clinical Psychologist/Neuropsychologist would expect from someone who is supposed to be stressed to the extent of not being able to freely and via associations recall her movements of two days earlier.

     

    * I also find it very surprising that on the afternoon of the 27th Jan (when she would have been too emotional about Mr Chappell’s disappearance) that she was able to attend to and notice some very fine visual details on the yacht, such as strands of the rope fibres wedged on some woodwork. Even the police officers were a bit surprised by how she was able to spot that. My view on this is that her attention to such detail was as a result of her knowing what to expect to find and where.

     

    * Furthermore, the very action of her boarding the yacht with the police on the afternoon of the 27th would have (via associations) triggered her recollections of the day before thus consolidating that memory further so that it available for use the next day during the taking of her Stat Dec. Dr Lozo was also talking about memory recall via association. I am in agreement with his analysis.

     

    * For your benefit, Ms Neill-Fraser’s complete Stat Dec of the  28th January starts at page 850 of the trial transcript.


    Hope it is now a bit clearer for you.


    This is the end of my involvement here. I must go as I have a lot to do. 


    Jane

    Posted by Jane  on  11/10/15  at  05:50 PM
  225. Still waiting for Ellis to describe the winching process, whether it was during daylight hours or at night? Were the lights on or off? and just how long would it have taken? How did Sue attach the winch to a body?

    Mr Ellis your response please

    I do not for one minute believe Sue winched Bob’s body about the boat.

    The prosecution have not proven their case.

    So just what really did happen?

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  11/10/15  at  07:33 PM
  226. A few more final words for abs:

    I was informed that Prof R.A. Byrant is the Australia’s leading expert in “psychological response to trauma”.  I read some of his articles over the weekend.  He also cites some of the same authors as you do!

    I don’t think that if the mentioned Professor familiarised himself with the details of this case via studying the transcript of the trial that he would disagree with my opinion on this case.

    I believe that the said Prof  met the author of the previously mentioned chapter on confabulation at the following workshop:

    Delusions & Confabulations Workshop Macquarie University Sydney, 13th - 14th July 2007

    I am sure that you and Prof RAB can continue on in my absence. The game has ended for me.

    Jane

    Posted by Jane  on  11/10/15  at  09:46 PM
  227. #226 Jane. You don’t seem to get it — one cannot fully familiarise oneself “with the details of this case via studying the transcript of the trial” because certain relevant evidence was not made available at trial.

    To suggest any “leading expert” form an opinion based only on what was available to the jury is silly and, unfair to all involved. It is duping, in my view in order to achieve a desired result, and that happened.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  12/10/15  at  07:58 AM
  228. #226 ‘the game’ just about sums it up. Like pawns in a game of chess only it is with a real person’s life. And so many assumptions that Sue’s behaviour should conform to a formula. The point you highlighted re the detail description on the yacht is very telling in understanding Sue. You say she knew where to look, but you must step back, Why would she so painstakingly describe such detail and volunteer so much information? Many are viewing this as a realistic situation and not a subject in an experiment. I feel it is remiss to speak in certainties when there are only possibilities. Humans are individuals and many factors contribute to behaviours and has been rightly pointed out #214 not everyone fits the formula.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  12/10/15  at  09:27 AM
  229. While there’s more than a few straws being grasped at here (especially the ignorance of the ability of even a child to roll a body off a boat), I’ll agree that a lack of follow up on the DNA evidence and other unknown potential suspects is remiss, especially in light of the largely circumstantial nature of the case. And given the DNA’s droplet form it is unlikely but not impossible that it was planted. It is also possible that MV, and possibly her companions, had leave to be there on another occasion as she was a friend of the family, and may have received a minor cut in the course of sailing as is not uncommon, but we can’t exactly ask Bob Chappell about that now. Still. It should have been followed up. And lying is not uncommon for someone who is afraid they will be locked up for merely being placed at the scene, a point which goes to both SNF and MV, and especially when a time of death or of DNA placement can’t be established.

    Anyway, I’m sure this level of scrutiny wouldn’t take place for the myriad of those from a lower socio-economic class who are regularly locked up or even shot by police on scanty evidence and without the funds for top quality legal representation. An example is the many who were exonerated years after being convicted when the advent of DNA evidence led to broadscale evidence revision. It is not unlikely that future advances in forensic technology could see a similar revolution. If the tables were turned and MV was the one now behind bars on the even smaller amount of evidence it is claimed could potentially incriminate her, would she be receiving this kind of broadscale support?

    Posted by Ben Cannon  on  12/10/15  at  10:53 AM
  230. I’ve read the appeal transcript, and there’s a couple of things I need to correct from my previous comment:

    I misread the attribution of friend of the family and realised this was referring to a witness for the defence, not MV.

    The saliva based DNA of MV was not even on the boat proper, but only on one part of the gangplank, which any passer by could easily access without it being obvious. If MV had been on the boat we would have expected to find her DNA or prints in other locations. The boat wasn’t fully scrubbed. Suggesting the perpetrator was either careless, or knew their DNA could be shown to be due to them being on the boat on a regular basis prior to Australia day.

    The fact that evidence was left unguarded for days for anyone to tamper with it is itself a failing of police protocol. Upon being towed from the crime scene it should have been transferred immediately to a secure location with cctv to make evidence tampering impossible. Further to this I find it easy to believe that a homeless teenager has poor recollection of dates or locations. And it is not impossible that SNF’s supposed recollection of homeless people on the beach couldn’t have been in conjunction with DNA harvested from a stray beer bottle found on the beach. Similar stories about drug smugglers could have been used to muddy the waters.

    Posted by Ben Cannon  on  12/10/15  at  12:59 PM
  231. Well said Ben @ #229

    Both SNF and MV have been accused of lying by various people. I went back over the earlier comments on this thread (and a few of other threads) and noticed an unfair application of natural fairness. The supporters of SNF keep on misrepresenting the number of lies told by SNF (and their significance) and are providing all sorts of excuses for SNF’s lies but are putting the spotlight on MV.


    I went to read abs’s earlier comments referred to by Jane at #221. Abs commented this in August last year:


    “Mark, 

    and what of the person who suffers a mental disorder where pathological lying is part of their clinical condition, i do not assume to know SNF’s mental state nor guilt, however i do think i understand what Dr Moles is stating: the presence of a lie, or multiple lies is not proof, on its own, of guilt.

    people can compulsively lie to, in essence, regulate anxiety”

     

    It is clear to me that abs (with a claimed PhD in Clinical Psychology) is also biased in favour of supporting SNF. I couldn’t find any comments by abs where the same opinion is applied to MV’s lie as to where she spent the evening of the Australia Day.

     

    Whilst reading over the earlier comments I noticed that Dr Lozo (at #56, #58 and #60) was also of an opinion that further investigation of MV’s DNA ought to have been pursued.

    At #58 he goes on to say:


    “My suggestion is for Barbara Etter (via her associations in the Forensic Science community) to seek out a university professor of Forensic Science who might be interested in an experimental study on the secondary transfer of DNA with a view of submitting an application to the Australian Research Council (ARC). I consider this topic to be suitable for a ARC funded PhD research project. For the benefit of those who may not have read the summary of my hypothesis, “The Chewing Gum Hypothesis” I refer you to my posts of several months ago ( see #159, #161, #177 and #205 http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/comments/34482/). -


    If you read Dr Lozo’s  #159, #161, #177 and #205 on the above link you will find a novel proposal of a secondary transfer mechanism (MV’s  saliva in a chewing gum stuck to someone’s shoe). He also explains why there was only one location with MV’s DNA.

    I think that you and Dr Lozo are converging onto the same or a similar view.

    Posted by David Palmer  on  12/10/15  at  03:24 PM
  232. #230, Ben Cannon. Interestingly, Detective Inspector Peter Powell commented on the documentary,‘Shadow of Doubt’ that he believed MV had been on the yacht when at the secured site at Goodwood. He commented that, although it was a secure location, it was not secured from the river side. I have asked the question before, “How would she have got in to clamber over the ‘Four Winds’ - did she swim in, or did she own/borrow/steal a dinghy?
    And as for #229, speaking for myself, as a probation and parole officer, I have constantly advocated for those from “a lower socio-economic background”. Dozens of pre-sentence reports I wrote would testify to this - people I have persuaded a magistrate to keep out of gaol on a community corrections order. If I knew MV and thought she was imprisoned on an unsafe verdict, I’d do exactly the same for her.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  12/10/15  at  03:44 PM
  233. #230 - Ben

    Yes,  SNF definitely “muddied the waters” for the police by introducing the homeless people and the drug smugglers into the picture. If SNF genuinely saw homeless people around a fire that night when she returned to the waterfront (apparently walking all alone very late at night, backwards and forwards for an hour or more until she had the right keys for her car!!)  then surely it would have been of utmost urgency to report what she saw to the police at the earliest possible opportunity the very next morning whilst the trail was still warm.  SNF lied about not going down to the waterfront that night. Her position on this started changing 6-8 weeks later when new evidence emerged.


    About the only constant factor in SNF’s behaviour throughout the first few months after Bob’s disappearance was that her goal post kept changing each time the police confronted her with new evidence. Obviously, SNF and her loyal supporters have offered various rationalisations for Sue’s lies, confusion and memory problems. Definitely a socio-economic basis for the support she is receiving.


     If only SNF’s supporters can speak the whole truth about the case and not muddy the waters any further by fanciful inventions of a “breakin gone wrong” theory


    http://m.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/new-breakin-gone-wrong-theory-emerges-in-bob-chappell-murder/story-fnj4f7k1-1227035644285

    Posted by David Palmer  on  12/10/15  at  05:12 PM
  234. Sue’s guilt cannot and should not be built around bad memory. It is not illegal to have a bad memory. To focus on memory is to clutch at straws.

    Rather than say Sue cracked Bob on the head with a wrench the prosecution could just have easily said Bob tripped or slipped and cracked his own head on a winch and subsequently rolled off the boat and drowned.

    Is the prosecution confused with wrench and winch.

    The case against Sue has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Fact.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  12/10/15  at  05:52 PM
  235. I am a new commentator on this thread although I have kept up to date on the comments.


     Why do I now have a need to say something?


     I was a keen supporter of Sue for nearly three years. I was a supporter because I was led to believe by various people  (Barbara Etter,  Andrew Wilkie, Bill Rowlings, Bob Moles, etc) that there is doubt about Sue’s conviction. I didn’t read the trial transcript  but assumed that those with high profile names who are advocating for Sue would have read the trial transcript and spoken the complete truth about the case.


    After reading this thread I realised how much I was misinformed. It just dawned on me that I was blinded because I wanted to believe in Sue’s innocence. 


    Why was I so blind to the truth? There is something to be said about a group mentality. Having a few high profile people at the front of the pack one assumes that they know the details of the case and are correctly representing those details to the public.


    What started to change my mind? Thank goodness I read this thread. Peter L., Jane C.S. and Ben C. convinced me that Sue willingly deceived the police (and her family, friends and supporters) and did murder Bob. I don’t need Lynn, Rosemary and Geraldine on my back.  I hope that they too start looking at it from a different perspective. Some of us are a bit too old and our cognitive skills aren’t as sharp as they used to be. It would be a waste of my last few years of life to support a liar and a murderer. Some of us are too old and have been Sue’s supporters for a number of years so it will be hard to let it all go. I am letting it go. Hope the other misguided souls also come to their senses and pursue a more noble cause.

    Posted by Linda  on  12/10/15  at  07:14 PM
  236. Brian #234

    When you say that

    “The case against Sue has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Fact.”

    which jury are you referring to?

    SNF was found guilty by the 12 people whose job in 2010 was to assess the evidence. Since they arrived at the guilty verdict then surely it was proven to them beyond reasonable doubt.

    We have had the pleasure of some aspects of this case being reviewed by two or three scientists or clinical psychologists. One of them (Dr Lozo) went to considerable depth of detail about a number of previously misunderstood issues. I had no idea until he pointed it out that a number of witnesses at the trial stated that they saw the Four Winds dingy as being pale grey or grey in colour. This is a significant revelation and appears to have been ignored by Sue’s supporters. It means that it could have been the Four Winds dingy at the yacht the whole afternoon. If this case was to go back to trial then this new understanding will be against Sue.

    It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt of how the murder was carried out nor how the body was winched and disposed off. The circumstantial evidence was of sufficient strength for the trial jury to arrive at the verdict that Sue murdered Bob.

    Posted by David Palmer  on  12/10/15  at  11:20 PM
  237. one huge part of all this is the Why? Even though certain things were proposed during the trial, they are all very weak in my opinion

    Posted by Rosemary  on  12/10/15  at  11:46 PM
  238. #236 David Palmer, Sue’s supporters have not ignored the fact that there are various descriptions of the dinghy and few witnesses described it as ‘white with blue trim’. I could list 10 different descriptions. No one doubts that most people were looking at the Quicksilver dinghy and that Dr Lozo makes a valid point about perception of colour under different light. But his explanation of why at 3.55 pm a very different dinghy was seen tied up at the yacht - a dinghy described in detail, “battleship grey”, shabby, with a lee cloth, not the sort of dinghy you expect to see with a pleasure craft” etc - was weak. He said a shadow on the dinghy looked like a lee cloth. Four witnesses saw a different dinghy late in the afternoon. We need to know more about that dinghy and who was on it. Probably too late now, but should have been investigated at the time.

    And David, the jury can only be as good as the information fed to them. How can the court ignore Mrs Zochling’s evidence that “the lady in the box” was not the lady she saw arguing on the beach with Bob Chappell? What is your comment when the jury are told that Sue put on a latex glove to clean up as best she could, when it was Tim Chappell’s DNA in the glove and the prosecutor admits his mistake at the appeal (too late for the jury to hear it then). Much was made of a red jacket left on a fence with Sue’s DNA, but Tim Chappell’s DNA was also in it along with others - it was a shared jacket. These are the reasons Sue has supporters. Some believe she is innocent, many simply say “Unsafe Verdict”,. “Too much doubt”, “Miscarriage of Justice”. Some of us find it scary and think what happened to Sue could happen to anyone of us or our children and that is why we say, “Justice for Sue is Justice for Tasmania”, and “Inquiry Please”.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  13/10/15  at  06:42 AM
  239. #238

    If you read Dr Lozo’s #114 or the relevant pages of the transcript you will find that three people at 3:55 pm were looking at the Four Winds from the same vantage point but gave different descriptions of what they remember seeing:


    - Mr Conde described seeing a large battleship grey dinghy with a lee-cloth.


    - Mr Clarke described a small grey dinghy


    - Mrs Clarke didn’t say anything about seeing a dinghy.


    If you showed the above 3 statements as part of a survey to a group of people would they conclude that each of the 3 statements refer to the same scene or the same dinghy?

    You have been told on many occasions that eyewitness testimony isn’t accurate and can’t be relied upon but you don’t seem to be getting the point.


    It suits your strongly held belief that Sue is innocent and hence why you want to believe that it was a different dinghy. It is apparent that you have invested a lot of yourself to this campaign over the past 6 or so years and can’t see clearly. Your faith in Sue is blinding you from being able to see the truth.

    Posted by David Palmer  on  13/10/15  at  12:10 PM
  240. Isn’t the 3:55 pm sighting of the Four Winds a perfect example of the fallibility of perception and memory? 

    How can you have 3 people looking at the same scene at the same time from the same boat provide 3 mismatching descriptions of what was in the scene they were looking at?

    One person didn’t recall seeing a dinghy. Another person recalled seeing a small grey dinghy. The third person recalled seeing a large dinghy of battleship grey colour (or dark grey colour) with a grey lee-cloth. 

    This is Mr Clarke’s statement (at page 949)

    “I noticed that the boat had a small grey coloured tender tied to the side of the boat. I think the tender was probably an inflatable dinghy but cannot be sure.”

    Posted by David Palmer  on  13/10/15  at  01:39 PM
  241. #239 David, I am surprised that Conde’s description didn’t jump out at you. It certainly jumped out at the prosecutor who sent a detective to question him again, but he didn’t alter his claims. He stuck to his story and spoke confidently as one would hope of an employee of the Australian Taxation Office. He described a dark grey rubber dinghy, ‘battleship grey’, different from the one in the photo of the ‘Quicksilver’ dinghy - larger, wider (he used the term ‘beamy’ meaning too big for the storage racks at the yacht club), and with a lee cloth across the front, a bow that is more pointed, not stub-nosed, shabbier - older, worn, faded and scuffed - more of a ‘commercial look’ about it than the usual dinghy belonging to a ‘leisure yacht’. He even drew a diagram of it; but the prosecutor tried to dismiss it with, “But how stupid would they be to rely on the description of a single witness, however Cocky and confident he was”. (‘they’ presumably meaning the jury).

    Then what about #P36? Through the defence counsel’s submission, we learn that this un-named woman stated, “Attached to the stern at the port side about four or five feet of rope but floating a short distance from it was a grey inflatable dinghy. The dinghy was tightly inflated and it was a large mid-grey dinghy and I did not notice an outboard motor on it.” Were Conde and the anonymous woman looking at the same dinghy? Was it there from 3.55 until at least 5.00 pm?

    I certainly get the point. I sat through the trial and any number of things jumped out at me at the time. My study of the transcript only confirmed what I thought I heard at the time and could hardly believe my ears. Hence I say, unsafe verdict, too much doubt, inquiry please. I want to restore my faith in the justice system, one that I was part of and believed in for 2 decades.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  13/10/15  at  01:52 PM
  242. #239 David, you are spot on.

    The evidence shows that most exonerations are for those cases where a person was wrongly convicted on the basis of eyewitness statements.

    It is now in the general awareness on this thread that not only are there inconsistent eyewitness statements about the colour of the Four Winds dingy (white-pale grey, grey, etc) but there are also inconsistent eyewitness statements about the size and the colour of the unknown dingy that  was seen at 3:55 by Conde and the Clarkes.

    The 5 pm sighting was of a mid-grey dingy.

    The 7:45 - 8:30 pm sighting was of a light grey dingy with one person on-board motoring away from the location of the Four Winds.

    If Sue wasn’t at Bunnings and has not been able to provide an alternate valid alibi that could have been checked out then is very likely that it was her on the yacht the whole afternoon and the early evening

    At #75 Dr Lozo poses this ‘time sequenced’ question:


    “Since it has not been established that it was not the Four Winds dingy at the yacht after 4 pm

    and

    because there is evidence that the Four Winds dingy can be perceived to be grey when on water

    and

    because Susan Neill-Fraser was in her dingy at around 2:00 - 2:30 pm on the way to the yacht

    and

    because Susan Neill-Fraser has not been able to provide an alibi for her whereabouts between 4 pm - 9 pm (a block of 5 hours)

    and

    because she did not dispute that it was not her nor her dingy at the yacht at 3:55pm

    then

    is there any reasonable doubt that Susan Neill-Fraser was on the yacht until 7:45 - 8:30 pm given that a motorised light grey dingy with one person on-board was seen leaving the area of the yacht and heading in the general direction of the yacht club?

    If you think that there is reasonable doubt then please identify the doubt and provide a reasonable justification for it. Keep in mind that the various sightings were from significant distances (50 metres - 150 metres or more) and some were not provide immediately but after a passage of some time (from 12 hours to several months).”


    No-one has yet been able to provide a challenge to the above or was able to provide an alternate explanation that ties up all the dingy sightings into one common understanding.

    Posted by John T.P.  on  13/10/15  at  05:05 PM
  243. Thanks John #242

    It wasn’t until I read Dr Lozo’s comments on visual perception that I was aware that the Four Winds dinghy was described to be grey in colour by some eyewitnesses. This is a very significant point and is something that was never mentioned by anyone from the SNF camp prior to Dr Lozo’s involvement.

    I didn’t see Eve Ash’s Shadow of Doubt documentary but did recently view the following video clip where Eve Ash and Barbara Etter dissect Mr Conde’s statement about the dinghy he saw. It is evident from the video clip that Eve and Barbara didn’t dissect the trial transcript to discover that several people described the Four Winds dinghy to be grey in colour as well (Mr Balding for example).

    The Grey Dinghy video clip: https://vimeo.com/69824645

    It was interesting to find that Eve and Barbara didn’t notice the difference between Conde’s recollection (large grey or dark grey dinghy) and Clarke’s recollection (small grey dinghy).

    It is evident from SNF’s online petition 
    https://www.change.org/p/vanessa-goodwin-mlc-investigate-sue-neill-fraser-s-conviction-with-commission-of-inquiry?utm_campaign=petition_created&utm_medium=email&utm_source=guides

    that the ‘mysterious’ grey dinghy is still an unresolved matter with the SNF camp.

    Part of the petition letter addressed to Attorney General Vanessa Goodwin MLC and to Premier Will Hodgman has the following sentence:

    “There was a VERY different dinghy to Sue’s at the crime scene, seen by 4 different people, never followed up.”

    Clearly the description  of the dinghy sighted by Conde is considered by the SNF campaigners to be one of the key issues in the case and it has been taken for granted by the SNF camp that the dinghy that Conde saw at 3:55 pm was definitely not the Four Winds dinghy despite sufficient evidence (and scientific argument by Dr Lozo) to suggest that it was most probably the Four Winds dinghy, and despite a lot of evidence that perception and memory are fallible.

    Posted by David Palmer  on  13/10/15  at  08:38 PM
  244. #245, John T.P. Sue had always said that she hadn’t stayed on the yacht very long because she was under Bob’s feet. The police said to her that a witness had come forward who stated he saw a dinghy tied up at 3.55 pm. Sue said, “I must have stayed longer than I thought”. What do you think her answer might have been had the police said to Sue, “A witness has come forward and has described seeing a dinghy at 3.55 pm that does not sound remotely like the Quicksilver,- bigger, wider, scruffy, with a lee cloth and battleship grey - whom do you think might have visited Bob later in the afternoon?”

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  13/10/15  at  08:51 PM
  245. #241 Lynn,

    What jumped at me were the differences in Conde’s and Clarke’s statements. To me that is of more significance than Conde’s detailed description provided at the second interview. You (and perhaps other supporters of Sue) have focused on Conde’s description at the expense of not noticing the significant discrepancies between Conde’s and Clarke’s eyewitness statements and yet they were both on the same boat. There is a strong lesson here!

    Posted by David Palmer  on  13/10/15  at  09:20 PM
  246. #243 David

    Thanks for the link to the grey dinghy youtube video clip. I just saw the clip.


    Definitely an example of tunnel vision ...


    The very people that use the term ‘tunnel vision’ have been selective in their analysis and understanding.


    They failed to notice that:


    1. The Four Winds dinghy was also described by some eyewitnesses to be grey in colour.

    2. There was a significant difference in the statements of Mr Conde and Mr Clarke.

     

    Need I say anything more about the SNF supporters?

     


    “A hallmark of an effective, efficient and impartial investigation is the prompt following up of legitimate leads. A failure to do so could well lead to allegations of “tunnel vision” in a case.”


    from “Failure to follow up leads in the Sue Neill-Fraser case” by Barbara Etter.


    http://www.citv.com.au/crime-articles/7/failure-to-follow-up-leads-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case

     


    Was Mrs Etter’s research into the details of the evidence in SNF’s case “effective, efficient and impartial”?

    Posted by John T.P.  on  13/10/15  at  11:50 PM
  247. #244 Lynn

    I wasn’t addressing you at #242 but was communicating with David.  You have a communication link with David but not me! I am not interested in your view on any matter concerning this case!

    Posted by John T.P.  on  13/10/15  at  11:59 PM
  248. dinghies, dinghies and more dinghies. Its Australia day, beautiful sunny weather and there are only 2 dinghies on the river Derwent? the Quicksilver in all is various colourings and forms, and a battle grey commercial looking dinghy? Come on pull the other leg!  So Mr Conde on his boat describes the dinghy differently to another witness on board with him? Well that is understandable people do have different recall etc. The Four Winds is 300 m from shore, yet someone sees ‘a dinghy’ could be any dinghy from all the different descriptions, with ‘someone’ in it (could be anybody, did they see the person board the dinghy from the four winds? No!) Yet not one single sighting by a witness of Sue Neill-Fraser herself in this ( except for the person helping her with the stuck motor at the beach around 1.30pm). Just lots of jumping to conclusions. This thread is about ‘reasonable doubt’ and an ‘unsafe verdict’, There are enough various dinghy descriptions to be any amount of different dinghies. Just because it is tied up to Four Winds, you are all just guessing that Sue is there. So with all these witnesses not one actually saw Sue. So it is quite a stretch to convict a person for 26 years on guesses and suggestions. That is the basis of this miscarriage of justice:- No evidence!

    Posted by Rosemary  on  14/10/15  at  09:09 AM
  249. #238

    Lynn, now I am writing specifically to you. In #238 you wrote:

    “He said a shadow on the dinghy looked like a lee cloth.”

    I read Dr Lozo’s comments going back to late March - early April. Many of his comments are in response to your earlier articles (particularly your “Unscientific Reading of the case” article).

    I couldn’t find anywhere where he said that “a shadow on the dingy looked like a lee-cloth”!

    You are misrepresenting what an expert in visual perception said. Perhaps you aren’t as cognitively sharp as you need to be in order to follow the analysis of a scientist.

    It has been a typical practise amongst the SNF camp to either misinterpret or misrepresent the true and the complete statements made on various threads including this one. The same applies to the transcript of the trial.

    Posted by John T.P.  on  14/10/15  at  03:03 PM
  250. 1. If your lover of 18 years disappears under suspicious circumstances that infer a murder, such as in this case, and if you absolutely had nothing to do with it then would you not want to tell the police ASAP about the homeless people you saw very late at night when you went out to the waterfront?

    2. Sue had no real and innocent reason for not immediately revealing her whereabouts between 10:30 pm - 3:08 am and reporting to the police about the “alleged” homeless people.

    3. Why accept Sue’s explanation as to why she kept quiet about returning to the waterfront at that time. Sue’s loyal supporters rather believe Sue than police detectives who narrowed in on her deceit!

    Posted by David Palmer  on  14/10/15  at  05:38 PM
  251. #249 John T.P. I was referring to Dr Lozo’s comment in #64 where he said, “It is also worthwhile to note that shadows can influence what is perceived. Thus, I wouldn’t rely too much on Mr Conde’s interpretation of what he saw (lee cloth; scuffed and faded dinghy etc) from 50 metres or so.”

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  14/10/15  at  10:25 PM
  252. How long did it take for a coronial inquiry into the disappearance of Lucille Butterworth ( gone missing in 1969) to take place? Police methods don’t seem to have changed, ‘fixate on one suspect and ignore other lines of inquiry’. At least in an inquest a broad array of evidence and testimony can come forth unlike the restrictions in a trial. (yet even in the Lucille Butterworth the police today are closing the door on evidence that people have brought forth to the inquiry and still get ignored in the same manner). An incredible opportunity to delve into so many areas of Bob’s disappearance, through an inquest was denied Bob Chappell. Many questions raised in this forum could have been addressed in detail. Hundreds of cases of miscarriage of justice show to what lengths will be taken to keep trial mistakes under wraps. Those mistakes are often perpetuated up the chain through the appeal process because of the restrictions even though many mistakenly think that an appeal looks anew at the evidence in trial and confirm the verdict but they don’t. It often takes many attempts at appeals and even Royal Commissions to get all the information out. I wonder why anyone is opposed to Sue Neill-Fraser having her case reheard so that trial errors can be reassessed.

    New hypotheses could be tested, even those proposed by so called experts can be tested and scrutinized under ‘expert’ provisions in a court of law not just waved around the Tas Times readers. They are still only opinions and everyone has a right to a difference of opinion and that should be respected. Differences can be respectfully argued without being personally insulting.

    Comments such as #250 show great naivety when dealing with the judiciary, ignoring the incredible complexity at the scene of Bob’s disappearance, to isolate what in hindsight seems important much later. I am astounded by the level personal attacks on TT posts when it just boils down to a difference of opinion. (and as a public forum not personal messages on FB anyone is entitled to comment on any comment). I feel #1 comment sums things up very well. The discussion is really about Sue not receiving a fair trial.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  15/10/15  at  04:13 AM
  253. A Story About a Woman Yearning for Galápagos Islands


    - Sue Neill-Fraser was the last known person to see Bob Chappell alive on their yacht on the Australia Day afternoon.


    - Sue Neill-Fraser was also the only known person to have stated seeing homeless people around a fire on the waterfront on the very night of Bob’s disappearance but she kept this vital information secret from the Chappell family for over 6 weeks and from the police for longer than that.


     What led Sue to change her mind and eventually reveal to her fellow citizens that this fine standing, well spoken and respected middle aged owner of the Four Winds yacht lied to the police about staying home the whole night?

    ....


    ...

    (In my view ...)


    - Sue Neill-Fraser is the Australian Queen of Betrayal, Lies and Deceit.


     - Sue Neill-Fraser almost got away with the perfect murder.


    - Sue Neill-Fraser’s loyal supporters want her case to be reviewed with the hope that she will be released to sail away on another beautiful yacht eastwards into the sunset of the vast  Pacific Ocean on the way to Galápagos Islands to discover a new species of .... 

    (anonymous comment edited)

    Posted by L.C.M.  on  15/10/15  at  05:36 AM
  254. I’m sure Lynn will answer John T.P. (#249) for herself; however I’d like to give Lynn credit for what she wrote.  John has taken exception to part of Lynn’s (#238). where she wrote

    ...Dr Lozo makes a valid point about perception of colour under different light. But his explanation of why at 3.55 pm a very different dinghy was seen tied up at the yacht - a dinghy described in detail, “battleship grey”, shabby, with a lee cloth, not the sort of dinghy you expect to see with a pleasure craft” etc - was weak. He said a shadow on the dinghy looked like a lee cloth. Four witnesses saw a different dinghy late in the afternoon. We need to know more…

    I thought Lynn’s rendering was very perceptive, for, from Peter Lozo’s point of view (#114), there was a shadow across the dinghy which Mr Conde mistook for a lee cloth.  The absence of quotation marks should have alerted John to the fact that Lynn was not directly quoting Peter Lozo, but rather was telling us (à la ‘reported speech’) that in Peter’s view, a shadow had been mistaken for a lee cloth.  In my view, Peter was not justified in making such an assertion (see his #218 in Lynn’s ‘An Unscientific Reading of the Case’ - [Here]) and I gave reasons for my view in my #112 above.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  15/10/15  at  06:50 AM
  255. #241 Lynn,

    And where in that little extract did he say that the “shadow on the dinghy looked like a lee cloth.”?

    Or was that your misunderstanding of what the scientist said?

    I think that you can conclude that he was offering a scientific explanation for Mr Conde’s visual perception and was cautious to qualify his conclusion by the use of the word ‘may’.

    Is it not more correct to say that Dr Lozo was inferring that what Mr Conde stated he saw is not necessary exactly what was physically there because Mr Conde’s perception would have been influenced by the distance from the dinghy and the location of the sun; and that if the sun was shining between the clouds that therefore the rear mast could have caused a shadow onto the dinghy? Dr Lozo didn’t state for certain that it was a shadow!

    Posted by John T.P.  on  15/10/15  at  07:08 AM
  256. David Palmer in #231 - “It is clear to me that abs (with a claimed PhD in Clinical Psychology) is also biased in favour of supporting SNF. I couldn’t find any comments by abs where the same opinion is applied to MV’s lie as to where she spent the evening of the Australia Day.”

    David, i don’t have bias, as i don’t support SNF. i have stated numerous times (which you seem to be unaware of), that i hold no position on SNF guilt or innocence, only that specific statements and positions that Peter put forward are not consistent with the scientific evidence. you have the opportunity to retract what you have stated.

    Jane in #221 - the Schwabe et al review clearly demonstrates that there are many variables to consider. i do not claim to know what did, or did not occur in SNF’s mind during the period (as i have clearly stated on numerous occasion).

    it is yourself and Peter who are ruling out other hypotheses and claiming expertise (ie of relevant scientific information) as justification for doing so. this is a repeated misunderstanding on your behalf. to rule out hypotheses of misremembering information, encoded prior to stress, during an ongoing period of stress is not supported by the evidence, i don’t not rule out misremembering and i do not state that the evidence base provides a firm basis for confirming misremembering. you have failed to have a scientific debate on this point, and seem to have failed to understand this point, like others.

    Jane in #226 - nothing that you have posted in this comment gives support to what you have previously stated.

    Posted by abs  on  15/10/15  at  07:56 AM
  257. #245 & #246 A number of people made statements about dinghies on Australia Day 2009. But are they all looking at the “white with blue trim” Quicksilver dinghy belonging to the Four Winds?

    1. Mr Timothy Farmer noticed a “small inflatable dinghy” on the rocks on a spit; he secured it to the rocks. He noticed an outboard motor in the raised position and a painter inside the dinghy; he didn’t describe its colour.

    2. Mr Rodney Howard saw “a white tender” with a normal blunt nose. He didn’t notice a motor. At least he got the colour right and his sighting at 11.15 am coincides with Sue being on board with Bob before lunch.

    3. Mr Christopher Liaubon noticed a “white light grey small inflatable Zodiac” and he was “pretty sure” it had a black outboard motor. He didn’t notice Quicksilver written on it. He helped Sue lift the outboard motor out of the sand, so was up close and personal with it, yet described it “white light grey”.

    4. Mr Daryl Balding agreed that Mr Farmer had pointed out to him an inflatable dinghy with an outboard motor secured to rocks. He described the dinghy as “grey with dark blue trim”. If he were looking at the same dinghy as Mr Farmer, he saw the Four Winds’ dinghy.

    5. Jane Powell, with her husband and two daughters, noticed a lady in a white wet weather jacket heading out in a “light grey inflatable dinghy with a black outboard motor” about 2.00 pm. She couldn’t definitely say that it wasn’t white, but she formed the impression it was light grey.

    6. Constable Shane Etherington, who spoke with Sue on the beach, described the dinghy as “a grey and blue dinghy, like a small skip”. When put to him later, he agreed the dinghy was blue and white. If he were with Sue, he was looking at her dinghy.

    7. Constable Todd Plunkett described “a small grey tender” and also corrected this description under cross-examination when shown a photograph of the dinghy.

    8. Mr Peter Lorraine, standing on the Derwent Lane jetty around 5.00 pm, described an elderly man who “just looked like an old seafarer”. He noticed “a very small dinghy” (like cockle dinghies in the UK) tied to the back of the boat. It was “somewhat dark in colour and very small”. The wind was strong, the sea choppy, so he couldn’t make out whether it was an inflatable dinghy or tender, an aluminium or wooden boat. It is unlikely he was looking at Bob Chappell on the Four Winds, moored 300 metres away; the dinghy description fits neither the Quicksilver nor Mr Conde’s larger dinghy.

    9.  Anne and Thomas Clarke did not give evidence in court. The defence counsel alluded to a dinghy in his closing address, “in any event it was only Mr Clarke who described ‘a grey dinghy’ and not Mrs Clarke”.

    ....

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  15/10/15  at  10:20 AM
  258. Posed at # 75 and reiterated at # 242 were some statements and a question - “is there any reasonable doubt that Susan Neill-Fraser was on the yacht until 7:45 - 8:30 pm given that a motorised light grey dingy with one person on-board was seen leaving the area of the yacht and heading in the general direction of the yacht club?”  No such sighting at that time was raised at trial; and reasonable doubt does remain.

    Posted by justice supporter  on  15/10/15  at  10:22 AM
  259. (continued)

    So where does this leave us with the dinghies?

    We can be fairly certain Farmer, Howard, Liaubon and Balding all saw the Quicksilver dinghy from the Four Winds. Several witnesses saw a grey dinghy, both light and dark shades of grey, even Liaubon, “white light grey” who handled it himself. Surely Balding was also looking at Sue’s dinghy,“grey with blue trim”. Constables Etherington and Plunkett saw “grey” dinghies until they corrected that to “white” when looking at a photograph in court, away from the sunlight. This is where Dr Peter Lozo’s science confirms what we had worked out for ourselves in less scientific terms - that light can distort colour.
    Hence we could accept discrepancies. We also thought most people would be wearing sunglasses for starters! But one description jumps out at us:

    10. Mr Paul Conde’s confident description stands out as different. He describes a dark grey rubber dinghy, ‘battleship grey’, different from the one in the photograph of the Quicksilver - larger and with a lee cloth, a bow that is pointed, not blunt, (as others were seeing), and a ‘commercial look’ about it. It was older, worn, faded and scuffed. He drew a diagram of the vessel and said in plain words, “the Quicksilver dinghy in the photograph is not the dinghy I saw at five to four on Australia Day last year”. He also commented the dinghy did not look like the sort of dinghy that would belong to a pleasure boat. And his contradictory evidence troubled the prosecution sufficiently to ask a detective to interview him again.

    11. #P36 relates to another sighting by a woman who remained anonymous and came forward after Sue’s arrest. She described a “large mid-grey dinghy” and did not notice an outboard motor on it. This was at 5.00 pm. Was she looking at the same dinghy as Paul Conde? Is ‘mid-grey’ compatible with ‘battleship grey’?

    It is surely not far-fetched to ask, “Who visited Bob between 3.55 and 5.00 pm? And we can answer that question according to our personal biases and opinions!

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  15/10/15  at  10:46 AM
  260. #249 John T.P. I think Dr Peter Lozo made an inference that a shadow could explain what was perceived to be a lee cloth. I accept I could have been more careful, (because I pride myself I am careful), and I should have said, “Dr Lozo inferred a shadow could have been a lee cloth.” Or words to that effect.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  15/10/15  at  11:03 AM
  261. Irrespective to the series of claims about a small watercraft of whatever colour, I return to the skills and integrity of both Dr Robert Moles, then that of Mr Robert Richter QC that injected their learned professional opinions into the conduct of this trial in itself, as to it was not conducted in the most practiced and acceptable form of a bona fide Supreme Court conducted trial.

    That during this case the former DPP relying on the circumstantial conjectures of his own manufacture, (alluding to the bulk of these particular circumstantial evidences as were to be presented) “were insufficient to qualify as anything more than circumstantial,” which in true and proper applications of justice do not support that there was a sufficiency of solid evidential facts, to expect a reasoned ruling of guilty, (based upon these same circumstantial evidences) that were issued forth toward the appointed jury.

    Furthermore could a forum attendee fully familiar with this case, provide the manner of the established intent, then of the possible motive if this was also proven or even offered by the prosecutor?

    The prosecutor’s assumed satisfaction that he armed himself with these circumstantial’s then set forward to convince all and sundry within the court, seems then to have become a ‘gut feeling’ by the prosecutor rather than any a reliance upon whatever compelling yet factual proven evidences.

    There will be precedents of cases conducted here in Australia to validate the claims I have made in this comment.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  15/10/15  at  02:50 PM
  262. John’s (#255) statement that “Dr Lozo didn’t state for certain that it was a shadow! is correct, yet clearly Peter Lozo’s thrust has been to build a ‘shadow hypothesis’ and then use it as if it were a fact.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  15/10/15  at  05:29 PM
  263. #262 

    Garry, I am a PhD qualified scientist (another physicist!! but I specialise in a different field to that of Dr Lozo). I read all his comments going back to late March/early April. Whilst I agree with you that Dr Lozo did propose a hypothesis (the “shadow hypothesis” to use your words) I don’t agree that he therefore used it as a fact. A scientific hypothesis can be tested. Dr Lozo did indicate that his hypothesis can be tested. See for example his #173 and #195 at 


    http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/an-unscientific-reading-of-the-case


    At #195 he says this to Barbara Etter:


    “Grey dingy issue: get three independent professors with expertise in the psychophysics of visual perception to provide you with their opinion (which needs to be based on experimentation).”


    Thus, clearly he suggests that his hypothesis can be and ought to be tested via real life experiments on water. Although he didn’t say anything about a shadow in that comment I would suggest that he implied a series of experiments under similar environmental conditions and viewing distances as experienced by Mr Conde and others.


    If Dr Lozo appears to you to be overconfident with his opinion(s) then it is most likely due to his scientific knowledge and expertise in the relevant fields. I read his humorous post at #90 and do agree with the physics.

    #260 Lynn

    Lots of interesting and varied descriptions.
    I am pressed for time but will definitely get back to you on #257 - #259 before the end of the weekend.

    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  15/10/15  at  07:59 PM
  264. David #236. If this was a fair trial and a safe verdict we would not be having this discussion.

    You say it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Wrong. Beyond reasonable doubt is a cornerstone of our justice system.

    Circumstantial evidence is not evidence and nor can it be of sufficient strength. Evidence either is or is not. No grey areas. No doubt.

    The prosecution should not have been talking about Sue striking Bob with a wrench, stabbing him with a screwdriver or winching his body about the boat. These comments are not circumstantial evidence. they are fiction, in my view.

    We do not know Bob was murdered nor that he died as the result of an accident.

    The jury without evidence convinced themselves Sue was guilty.

    The problem is the police nominated Sue, Became fixated and built the case around her. The prosecution joined in.

    There are hundreds of innocent people in Australia, New Zealand and around the world that have been gaoled as a result of the nominative approach. The nominative approach has to stop.

    Bob may have slipped, cracked his head, fallen overboard and drowned.

    The sabotage could have been an act separate to Bob’s disappearance.

    We just do not know and nor do the prosecution.

    The police did not investigate other dinghies? Why complicate a Sue did it case.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  15/10/15  at  09:48 PM
  265. Rosemary #252.

    You refer to errors being made.
    Sue is guilty?
    You say new hypothesis could be tested. Why?
    Sue is guilty?

    You have to view this case from the police and prosecution perspective.

    Sue is guilty. She is where she belongs.

    This is how the system works.

    The police use the nominative approach and become fixated. The police figured it was Sue and built the case around her.

    If Sue is set free the prosecution could still say they had the right person. If the police believe they have the right person then they will view the Sue supporters as a waste of their time and resources.

    The system did not change after Lindy Chamberlain and it will not be changed after this case. If Sue is innocent then where did her lawyer go wrong? Many would say Sue had a fair trial. If Sue had an unfair trial is the judge at fault?

    Detective Inspector Peter Powell said he is certain of Sue’s guilt. Certain is not enough. Others could be equally certain of Sue’s innocence.

    This case is not about errors. It is about a method and the system. Someone was gaoled therefore the system works.

    The nominative approach builds the case around whoever and drops all evidence which does not suit.

    To gaol Sue, only one dinghy was required.

    As I have said previously, the nominative approach has to go.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  15/10/15  at  10:14 PM
  266. Aaaah, tricks and magical illusions of smoke & mirrors intermittently and regularly appear in Acts 1-5 of this play, A Tale of Woe. 

    Act 1: The investigation — Tasmanian Police,
    Act 2: The prosecution — ODPP,
    Act 3: The trial —  Supreme Court,
    Act 4: The appeal — CCA,
    Act 5: The Aftermath.

    I look forward to the announcement of award nominees.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  16/10/15  at  07:34 AM
  267. #257 points 6 & 7. well, well, the police change their story in the face of information presented to them! ... So why are Sue’s statements inflamed and blown out of proportion? you interpret things how you want to see them. No matter how fanciful or imaginative as in #253. Only a proper legal inquiry into this case will clear up many misconceptions that are the basis of wrongful conclusions and errors that fill these threads.

    (edited)

    Posted by Rosemary  on  16/10/15  at  08:09 AM
  268. Brian — Unwittingly, your posts #264/265 in part detail content/scenes for Acts 1- 5, to which I referred in my #266.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  16/10/15  at  09:00 AM
  269. #258 Thank you for your comment, justice supporter. When I first read it in #75, I thought Dr Lozo was mistaken or perhaps confused with Mr Hughes’ evidence.

    When I read it again(#242), I thought, “From where is this coming? I don’t remember a light grey dinghy being mentioned between 7.45-8.30 at the trial”.

    I remember an allusion to a dinghy in a photograph seen tied up to the yacht later than 5.00 pm but I gathered it must have been so small it was anyone’s guess if a dinghy was there or not. Sitting in the trial, we do not get to see the photographs. I wished they had been put up on a screen for all to see. Are you interested to fill me in further about it?

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  16/10/15  at  10:36 AM
  270. #269 Lynn,

    I can help you. Please see the following analysis on Barabara Etter’s website:


    “The “Weatherbeaten Man” in the Sue Neill-Fraser Case”

    http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/the-weatherbeaten-man-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case/

     

    At comment #11 (in response to your own article) “Spot the Similarities”

    http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz.au/index.php/article/spot-the-similarities


    Dr Lozo says this:

     

    “I happened to have studied everything that Eve Ash and Barbara Etter wrote on this case and submitted online. I saw all their joint video clips. I even studied their presentations of Nov 2014 at the Flinders University. “

     

    It is thus clear to me from this (and Dr Lozo’s numerous comments) that he has gone well beyond the trial transcript and has integrated it all into his analysis to provide a more complete and new understanding of this case, particularly about perception and memory.

    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  16/10/15  at  12:01 PM
  271. #270 John, somehow I missed Barbara’s blog which adds to the mystery and uncertainty. I would have read Dr Lozo’s #11 at the time but wasn’t sure what he was driving at as it wasn’t mentioned in the trial or transcript. You have given me more to ponder now. Thanks, John; much appreciated.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  16/10/15  at  12:54 PM
  272. #256 abs


    I will retract my earlier comment about you after I see your objectivity as a Clinical Psychologist. That is, I expect to first see you write an on-line comment right here on this thread that the field of Clinical Psychology offers the same services (and understanding) to MV as it does to SN-F.


    When I see you on-line acceptance of the following four points then I will wholeheartedly retract my earlier comment about you:

     

    1. That stress of being a young homeless child combined with the underdeveloped executive function of the frontal lobe in a 15 year old child (not to mention the likelihood that as 15 year old girl, MV might have been part way through her menstrual cycle and as a result might have also experienced mood swings and forgetfulness at the time she left the Mara house at 3:50 pm on the Australia Day in 2009) played a huge role in MV’s life back then. This is totally ignored by those in the SNF camp who keep putting a spotlight on her.

     

    2. That as a homeless 15 yo child without a caring and an understanding adult protector, MV would most probably have been very afraid of the police, the court and any suggestions that she might be in some way implicated in Bob’s murder (or manslaughter) on the basis of a single inexplicable DNA sample, and hence would have been uncooperative with the police. This is also totally ignored by those in the SNF camp.


    3. That her memory at the time of the trial of SNF couldn’t have been expected to be reliable as to her recollections of her whereabouts 18 months earlier (on the 26th Jan 2009). This was also totally ignored by the SNF camp.


    4. That the trial judge (and the Appeals Court justices) made the correct decision not to approve the recall of MV, and have thus protected her from unnecessary further harassment which might have been detrimental to her mental and physical health (and stable development into an adult).

     

    When you provide an on-line acknowledgement of the above then I will be happy to engage in a discussion on the frontal lobe function, working memory, emotion and stress, grief, confabulation, retrograde and anterograde amnesia, concussion and its effect on memory encoding, etc.


    I like to remind you of Dr Lozo’s comment (in #8  http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz.au/index.php/article/spot-the-similarities) where he says:


    “Sue has told some very serious lies to the investigating police officers about what she did in the afternoon and in the late evening of the 26th and yet some people want to downplay the significance of those lies but are up-playing the significance MV’s behaviour!”

     


    To give you an example of such a bias against MV, I refer you to a comment made by one of SN-F’s key supporters (see


     http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/suggestions-from-tasmania-police-about-the-vass-dna/)


    I have blanked out MV’s name in the extract below:


    “Having watched XXXXXXXXXXX give evidence in court and be cross-examined, I found some of her statements ambiguous. She told the court she refused to be interviewed about anything to do with this case. When asked if she felt intimidated by the police, she said “Yes, I’ve never dealt with something this large before…” Of course, it was because she offended in the first place that the forensic scientists found their ‘match’ for the unidentified female DNA on the boat, a match we now know was a primary match and not one walked onto the yacht on someone else’s shoe. She agreed a second time that she had refused to be interviewed and that she had said she would tell them nothing. While agreeing that it would have been easy to say to the police, “I’ve never been on board that yacht” instead she took the view, “I’m not saying a word to you police officers”. I am not accusing XXXXXXXXXX of murdering Bob Chappell, in any case it would probably be a manslaughter charge. But having worked as a probation officer for many years, the body language of Ms XXXXXXXX left me thinking, I believe she could have told the police more, quite a bit more. As I understand it, I believe there are other unidentified DNAs on the boat.”

     

    There are many more examples I can refer you to.

     

    David P. (MD; retired GP, NSW)

    Posted by David P.  on  16/10/15  at  04:27 PM
  273. The S-NF investigation, prosecution, trial and conviction is not the first example of unfairness and injustice. Commentators in this and other article discussions have nominated previous high-profile examples.

    Here is a New Zealand one that to me, has some frightening, recognisable modus operandi practices/processes that tap into attaining a specific outcome.

    Like my #266 suggested ‘Tale of Woe’, Trial by Trickery “… uncovers, step by step, the mechanisms that led first to the annihilation of a transparently innocent man’s reputation, and then inexorably to his wrongful prosecution and conviction. It identifies and tracks constant misinformation first fed to the public during the police inquiry, then to the jury during the trial and then to the public again in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It exposes the manipulations of advocacy in the adversarial system of law and turns the tables on all of Scott Watson’s accusers, from the police to the Court of Appeal, to make them the accused. It asks if the outcome of the actions of the police, the prosecutors and even the judges, were intended or the result of utter incompetence. ...”

    http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/?page=trial-by-trickery

    Hmmmmn — “were intended or the result of utter incompetence”?

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  16/10/15  at  06:33 PM
  274. David P #272.

    I am not in the SNF camp!!! your logic of having me acknowledge your 4 points prior to you retracting your claim that i am biased is faulty, yet consistent with your accusation of me being biased. this is the reason i ask you to retract ;)

    i am not doing what Dr Peter and others are doing here, i am not making claims about the case per se. i simple reviewed (in the scientific sense) claims Peter made about how amygdala activation effects memory. if he had of acknowledged the point i started with, that the literature does not support his claims, then my contribution here would have been brief. he chose to dig his heels in and thus, a specific debate ensured.

    having briefly read you four points, the first three contain information that I can easily accept (i cannot not comment on point 4, that is well beyond me). broadly, as i have repeatedly stated,, there are many variables, and mechanisms, for a person under stressful environments to have impaired memory.

    it would be unscientific to claim, without detailing a literature backed rationale, that they do not apply to a 15 yr old homeless girl.

    the debate that Peter and I were having was not about MV, or even about SNF to the degree that you attempt to paint it as.
    it was about how Dr Peter was backing his position incorrectly with scientific knowledge. do you get that tiger? that is how science progresses, slowly and methodically.
    next time, ask before you accuse.

    i am not overly interested in being a detective and answering the question as to whether SNF or MV are lying, or guilty. my contribution here supports this.

    i am a scientist and discovered Dr Peter Lozo making claims about the nature of stress on memory which are contrary to what the scientific research demonstrates. I also noticed he was stating, in an ongoing fashion, he has scientific credentials to make these statement. i challenged him with research and he failed to back his statements/position on the impact of stress on memory. that is what we have debated, ....well i have. others are more inclined to play detective, rather than scientist

    BTW, to infer that I am accountable in some way for other’s peoples biased statements is absurd. i would ask you to retract that but am not confident it would achieve much ;)

    Posted by abs  on  17/10/15  at  08:30 AM
  275. #274 abs

    Looks like to me that you supported Dr Moles’ statement via you comment of last year to Mark (Mark seems to have been on the opposite camp to that of the SNF supporters). You second comment of last year was also directed to someone who appears to have been on the opposite camp to that of the SNF supporters. Your comments on this thread follow the same trend you started off with last year. The evidence thus suggests that you are biased towards supporting the view of SNF’s supporters (including Dr Moles).

    You come across as a lawyer who has some rudimentary knowledge about human memory. Are you in any way affiliated with Dr Moles’ Networked Knowledge? 

    You aren’t presenting your material in a coherent manner that elucidates the relationship between the various psychophysiological variables you listed and the particulars of this case (as was recognised by Peter and Jane).

    I don’t think that your writing style and arguments are presented in the style of a trained scientist. Jane and I reached the same conclusion (we worked together on this case for several weeks when she came over; she is my sister).

    David

    Posted by David P.  on  17/10/15  at  10:22 AM
  276. #275. David, since you ask abs, “Are you in any way affiliated with Dr Moles’ Networked Knowledge?”, I politely ask you to declare your/Jane’s affiliations with any/all persons of interest in this matter?

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  17/10/15  at  11:08 AM
  277. #276

    An emotional reaction?

    If Dr Palmer, Dr Jane CS and Dr Lozo disagree with abs and they all notice something odd about that person’s writing style and the superficial understanding of the relevant science and its application to this case then why do you feel tempted to interfere? Your long standing dissatisfaction with the ODPP is all over the internet and is duly noted. But why do you then challenge the integrity of a medical doctor or scientists whose opinion disagrees with that of Sue’s supporters?

    Posted by Linda  on  17/10/15  at  03:53 PM
  278. #277 — Linda your post is bewildering insofar as my #276 is absolutely not an emotional reaction. Quite the reverse, it is fair & reasonable, given the question posed in, #275.

    For completeness, I have no idea of the identity of abs, nor have I ever had any ‘off-the-record’ communication with that person. My post is simply attempting to restore even-handedness to the discussion.

    To restore your credence, please provide reference to my challenging “the integrity of a medical doctor or scientists whose opinion disagrees with that of Sue’s supporters?”

    Additionally, I always put my full name to my posts. Why don’t you and then I can look you up on the ‘internet’?

    Digressing briefly from the subject matter of this discussion, yet relevant to the interests of my credibility, any “long standing dissatisfaction with the ODPP” has been and remains, justified and able to be supported with direct evidence.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  17/10/15  at  05:49 PM
  279. #276

    I will answer you Geraldine.

    If it were not for my wife’s acquired taste  for magazines such as the Australian Women’s Weekly I most probably wouldn’t have read the article “Tasmanian grandmother jailed for a brutal murder, but did she do it”. 

    I then asked Jane (who stayed with us for a while) for an opinion after which she  got online, downloaded the trial transcript, whilst I started reading this thread and then some earlier threads. Jane won’t be commenting further. I am also terminating my further participation with this comment.

    Regards,
    David

    Posted by David  on  17/10/15  at  06:17 PM
  280. #279 — David I appreciate your courteous answer. Thanks for that. It is reassuring to know that certain participants can maturely participate in discussion, in spite of holding an alternative view to some.

    Although you didn’t specifically say so, I take it that other than as you wrote, you do not have any affiliations with any other “persons of interest in this matter”.

    BTW — From time to time, AWW magazine does contain some interesting articles, as undoubtedly your wife has found. Great recipes too!

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  17/10/15  at  08:13 PM
  281. David #275
    “You come across as a lawyer who has some rudimentary knowledge about human memory. Are you in any way affiliated with Dr Moles’ Networked Knowledge? “

    No!
    i have absolutely no connection. i have no communication (face to face, email, connection through mutual associate, telephone, morse code, courier pigeon ,….) with any member of this thread or anyone associated with the case . i have never written about this on any other web site, or in any other document. i have never worked, professional or non-professionally, on any aspect of, or associated with, this case. i am simply a scientist in human behaviour that trigged to how someone was presenting information incorrectly.

    it is simply incorrect to state that i come across as a lawyer with rudimentary knowledge of human memory. i have rudimentary knowledge of law and expert knowledge of human memory. my contribution above demonstrate this.

    if you would take the time to read my contributions (putting aside some cheeky digs) here, you would not, from an informed position, consider my contribution to not be scientific in process. science does not work like a court room drama. i don’t think you, or some others have appreciated that I have only engaged here to debunk a very specific aspect, Peter’s incorrect use of the science of memory to support his hypothesis. i am not arguing with his broad assessment of the case, only in his assertions/hypotheses, that mis-remembering/confabulation can be dismissed based on his basic and factually wrong use of science.

    remember, he has made claims about amygdala activation and memory. i am not stating that SNF misremember/confabulated, or that this is a more likely hypothesis, or that Peter’s hypothesis on this specific issue is less likely.

    only that specific claims of Peter’s, made with language of certainty and (supposedly) supported by scientific information on memory and stress, where he dismisses the possibility of misremember/confabulation, are not supported by scientific evidence.

    i solve no case, only function, truly, like a scientist.

    i have now stated about 5 or 6 times on this thread that i hold no position of SNFs innocence or guilt. I have repeatedly stated that Dr Peter Lozo’s claim that SNF deliberately lied in her statement about her where-a-bouts in the 12 or so hours leading to hearing about Bob’s disappearance appears plausible in reference to the literature (that you ignore this is telling)

    to be cont.

    Posted by abs  on  20/10/15  at  03:09 PM
  282. cont.

    my contribution here is consistent with the scientific method. Peter’s (on the specific point we debated) was not. he was presented with information, in the form of scientific research (with proper citations,  quotes, page numbers etc). It was detailed to him why the research is relevant, and he has avoided even engaging with specific relevant aspects of the research.

    again i specify, that his original claim i engaged with in #124,

    “The brain’s are wired such that the emotional part of the brain (amygdala) enhances the memory of emotional events such as the day one’s loved one is injured badly or disappears. These types of memories stay around for a long time. Without amygdala, our lives and memories of events would be markedly different. Unless Sue had a neurological disorder, her memory of the afternoon and the evening of the Australia day would have been stored very vividly in her brain. Each time she went back to the Marieville Esplanade (such as after 10:30 pm on 26th Jan; and then next morning of 27th) would have via association re-activated her memory of the time she spent with Bob on the yacht and where she went after that. Therefore it was not possible for her to have confused her memory of what she did and where she was on 26th Jan with some other day. Her first written statement to the police on 28th Jan was thus a conscious lie about going to the Bunnings.”

    and in #136 , Peter continued with -

    - “Thus, amygdala in Susan Neill-Fraser’s brain would have ensured that her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive would be deeply engrained in her memory and that the memory of that day doesn’t get confused with less emotionally significant memories of the day before Bob’s disappearance “

    i have argued that the scientific research is not behind Peter’s statements. specifically, him stating - “Therefore it was not possible for her to have confused her memory of what she did and where she was on 26th Jan with some other day” (#124), and all of #136.

    I have detailed how and why. I refer you to #184 above. where i cite information demonstrating the potential for stress induced impairment of memory recall and the susceptibility of ‘working memory’ to stress based impairments. where as i have followed the scientific method of making statements and citing relevant evidence, Peter has told us personal experiences, reverted to telling us of his credentials (again!), and when he did attempt to cite research in #181, he only undermined his own earlier statements (as i demonstrated in #183-184, which is summarised by Garry in #193 -194.

    furthermore in #182 (possible because he realised his mistake of citing, in #181, an experimental research paper where stress was presented during encoding, not recall or heavily involving working memory), Peter makes this statement - “Memory enhancement due to increased (emotionally induced) cortical arousal can occur days (even weeks) after the memory is first encoded”, yet contrary to the accepted scientific method, offers no supporting research evidence, Furthermore, in #184, i offer scientific evidence which is contrary to this, citing the Norepinephrine, pre-frontal cortical based working memory evidence (which is the neurological mechanism, susceptible to impairment from stress, that somehow ceases to exist according to Peter).

    you (and it seems Linda in #277) seem to have simply picked up (what i perceive to be) Peter and Jane playing the man instead of the ball. they both have specifically avoided some of the science i have both provided, and have related to the case.  like them you do not back your accusation, inferring i present as an imposter, with evidence.

    did you ever consider that there is a agenda behind dismissing a person’s contribution as, for example “strange”? avoiding the science, perhaps??

    i have on numerous occasions clearly detailed the research, and neurological mechanism (working memory) that would have been utilised by SNF to recall ‘representational information” (ie memories) that were encoded without stress (ie without enhancement) and integrate them into ongoing cognitive processing (including ongoing memory establishment) during a ongoing stressful experience.

    to be cont.

    Posted by abs  on  20/10/15  at  03:11 PM
  283. cont.

    as for my comment from 12 mths ago, which now seems to be of great interest (hmmn, man…ball…)

    the first was directly about a person’s misunderstanding about the nature of lying, the second was about me being personally attacked because i came into the thread after it was well established. paint them how you wish, but it’s certainly a stretch….

    something for you to consider, why have Jane and Peter ignored commenting on the prefrontal based working memory system? this is what would have played a large part in how a person recalls and integrates retrospective information if they were required to. This system is negatively impacted by stress. The story Peter tried to paint a 100 comments or so ago is undermined by this evidence yet he never directly engages with it except for one comment made in his #182 that has no supporting evidence accompanying it. just take his word because of his ‘expertise’, hey?

    Posted by abs  on  20/10/15  at  03:11 PM
  284. #281-283

    1.  Why don’t you capitalise the beginnings of your sentences?


    2. Why don’t you address the specifics of this case, i.e. SNF’s Stat Dec of 28th Jan and explain to us simple folk how the literature you cited is related to the SNF case and in particular how, why and to what extent her memory would have been impaired at the time she wrote her Stat Dec on the 28th Jan.

    3. Is there evidence that SNF’s was stressed on the 28th Jan to the extent that she wasn’t able to mentally function effectively and thus correctly recall the major events in her life that preceded the Stat Dec by for 48 hours? 

     

    4. Jane (and Peter) stated that there was no evidence that SNF experienced any significant stress on the 28th when she wrote her Stat Dec that would impair her recall of 26th and 27th. They also stated that there was no evidence that she was stressed on the 26th before 10pm. They have therefore dismissed your citations of the ‘stress literature’ as being irrelevant to SNF’s statement that she spent a whole lot of time at Bunnings on the afternoon of the 26th. Why do you think it relevant?


    5. You do not come across as a scientist to me either. Please structure your arguments in a clear and directed fashion.

     

    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  20/10/15  at  06:16 PM
  285. #284

    Well said John!!

    I found it very difficult to follow the writings and the logic of abs.


    Peter, Jane and David wrote very clearly and to the point. I was able to follow and understand their arguments. Peter and Jane appear to have studied the trial transcript to great depth and have related their scientific knowledge directly to what they saw as being the critical portion of SNF’s Stat Dec in order to present a sufficiently convincing argument (in my view) that Sue consciously lied to the Police about going to Bunnings after leaving the yacht in the afternoon of the Australia Day.

    ...

    At #92, Peter says this:

    “Bob Moles (improper use of a forensic report on 60 mins; incorrect and inappropriate statement in his review of Shadow on Doubt regarding whether a white dinghy can be seen to be grey.”

    then at #109 he says:

    “I am also satisfied BRD that the fellow named Moles from Adelaide (the non-scientist who featured on the 60 minutes program) was absolutely incorrect in his interpretation of the VPFSD report.”

    ...

    (edited)

    Posted by Linda  on  20/10/15  at  07:47 PM
  286. #284

    John T.P., your points, 1 to 5 addressed below

    1 . it is an informal writing style I use on blog sites. It is consistent with how others here write with informal styles. I will try to capitalize from now if it serves to assist the reader (but won’t guarantee anything. Ed: see Code: http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits)

    2.I don’t address the specifics of the case in a comprehensive fashion because, unlike others, I do not profess to know what happened. Nor do I profess to be in a position (fully informed which, in relation to the debate I have had, would include having conducted a comprehensive clinical interview with SNF) to know what happened. Frequently, I have detailed the scope of my contribution here. Most recently in #282. I have simply reviewed (in a scientific sense) Peter’s claims about emotional arousal/stress upon memory encoding and retrieval, and found them seriously wanting.

    You want simple? The onus of proof via evidence is on Peter (and Jane). He is the one stating that something (mis-remembering/confabulation) is not possible. Like it or not, this is the scientific method. I am not saying something did or did not happen. I am only critiquing a number of claims made under a stated scientific authority. 

    3. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I am not going to begin playing detective. What some consider evidence may not what constitutes evidence of a scientific nature. I deal with inferential statistics when assessing evidence. I am not qualified as a Forensic Psychologist or investigator.

    4. a) the “stress literature” is actually the literature on ‘emotional events’, ‘stressful events’, ‘traumatic events’, ‘stress-hormone evoking events’, ‘stress hormone inducing substance consumption’, ‘amygdala activation’, etc research. Whether we describe it as emotional, traumatic, distressing, or stressful is, for constructive purposes here, a semantic issue.

    Both Peter and I have used different expressions at various times. I have used ‘stress’ because it represents an appropriate umbrella term.

      b) If you want to ask anyone why the literature is relevant, start with Peter. His original statement in this debate introduced amygdala activation due to emotional reaction.

    in #124 Peter stated this - “Exactly my point Lynn! The brain’s are wired such that the emotional part of the brain (amygdala) enhances the memory of emotional events such as the day one’s loved one is injured badly or disappears.”

    His comment in #124 was in response to Lynn (#122) speaking about being traumatised for two days after she found her husband unconscious with blood (nose bleed) over him.

    It is Peter in #124 and again in #136 ( and in other follow-up posts) who introduces stress/trauma/emotional states and asserts that this would enhance memory.

    c) BTW, they ‘dismissed’ (see avoided) the literature because it debunks/undermines statements they have made ;) Don’t worry, you’re not the only one falling for it.

    d) You state - “Jane (and Peter) stated that there was no evidence that SNF experienced any significant stress on the 28th when she wrote her Stat Dec that would impair her recall of 26th and 27th”.

    What evidence did they supply? The idea (according to a hypothesis of innocence) that two days after finding out that your partner has disappeared (potentially dead/murdered), one would be free of stress/trauma symptoms/emotional distress, is certainly an interesting one.

    5 . I am a scientist. Maybe it is your ability to follow clear and directed scientific information. Just a thought

    Posted by abs  on  20/10/15  at  09:16 PM
  287. Some additional comments to abs:


    1. Peter and Jane seem to have gone to great length to analyse SNF’s Stat Dec of 28th Jan (as well as SNF’s responses at the trial).


    Below I copy a section of Jane’s #224:


    “The detailed contents  of her Stat Dec of the 28th Jan are sufficient for me to conclude that she didn’t exhibit any external sign  of  significant stress to impair her memory (working memory)  in order to recall her memory of the day before (the 27th Jan) and the day before that (the 26th Jan).”


    Then Jane gives the following explanation for the above:


    “My brief explanation is as follows: If Ms Neill-Fraser was stressed on the 28th to the extent that she wouldn’t be able to recall what she did on the Australia Day then it is equally valid to state that she would have been sufficiently stressed to also fail to accurately recall what she saw on the yacht the day before her written Stat Dec. On the contrary, according to the trial transcript, her memory for the fine detail of what she noticed on the yacht was astonishingly accurate to very minute detail. This isn’t what a trained and experienced Clinical Psychologist/Neuropsychologist would expect from someone who is supposed to be stressed to the extent of not being able to freely and via associations recall her movements of two days earlier.”

    3. It is clear that Jane didn’t think that the stress literature you cited is relevant to SNF’s mental functioning on the 28th Jan during the mental process of recalling (and writing) about her activities and experiences of the 26th and the 27th. Jane also gave a reasonable explanation for her opinion on this.


    4. You on the other hand did not appear to understand the relevant circumstances of this case (the 26th - 28th January period; as written  in the trial transcript) as implied  by your question in #137

    “i am interested in why Susan was stressed

    the last time she saw Bob?”


    Then at #143 you say:


    “Peter, admittedly i need to catch up on the specifics of this case to address #140..”


    then at # 153 you ask:

     

    “Peter, #151
    sorry i’ll rephrase - was Sue distressed the last time she saw Bob??.”

     

    4. Thus, by your own admissions, you seem not have known the details of this case nor did you know whether there was evidence about Sue’s level of distress/stress on the 26th or on 28th (the day of her Stat Dec where she mentions Bunnings for the first time; she didn’t mention anything about Bunnings in her statement to the Police on 27th) and yet you entered the debate by citing several articles from literature on stress and memory! That was a very unscientific way to challenge a scientist or two!!

     

    5….scientists study the relevant data from the particular criminal trial on which they wish to challenge the opinion of other scientists. It is a big no-no not to follow this scientific approach of data gathering and understanding before offering an opinion. It is your failure in this regard which led me to conclude that you do not come across as a scientist. I assume that Peter and Jane (and David) noticed this as well.


    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  20/10/15  at  09:24 PM
  288. Oops. The second half of my post #285 was part of a longer argument to support David’s and my inference that abs is probably affiliated in some way with Dr Moles but the editor cut the relevant portion of my full comment thus leaving it unclear as to why I referred to Peter’s comment about Dr Moles.

    #287 John,

    Thank you for being observant and objective. I see that you made an attempt to understand the differences in the approach being undertaken by Peter, Jane and abs. You have clarified for me that abs didn’t approach the debate in a scientific way and that this person also didn’t address the central issue in SNF’s Stat Dec (the Bunnings story) head on like Peter and Jane did. This Stat Dec was taken less than 48 hours after Sue last saw Bob alive on their jointly owned yacht. Sue thus had almost two days to think about her movements on the afternoon and the evening of the Australia day in order to help police establish a timeline in their investigation.

    Like Jane said, confabulators do not readily give up their belief in their apparently false memory even when confronted with conflicting evidence. But Sue kept changing her mind several times about the extent of time she spent in Bunnings, eventually agreeing that she wasn’t at Bunnings (but didn’t state where she was between 4 pm and 9pm) - each change was led by new evidence presented to her by the police.

    I am led to believe that therefore there is a sufficiently strong argument put forward by Peter and then Jane to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Sue intentionally lied about going to Bunnings after leaving the yacht.

    Posted by Linda  on  21/10/15  at  10:52 AM
  289. #287

    John.

    1. Yes, Peter and Jane have gone to great lengths, John. But this does not necessarily mean that what they are saying is backed by evidence. They are the ones stating things with certainty. Much of what they state is opinion, as has been pointed out by others above.

    Again, I will state. Jane and Peter, have made claims using language of certainty. They support this mostly without specifically engaging with scientific literature. They repeatedly engage in unscientific method of opinion without reference to evidence. Referring to what may, or many not, have happened in Sue’s mind, or referring to what was said or written and interpreting that is not necessarily evidence. Usually interpretations is supported by evidence: not interpretation = evidence.

    Example of this are seen in what you quote from Jane. She puts forth the proposition that the only possibility is that a distressed person will either remember all occurrences with fine detail, or misremember all occurrences equally. That it is not possible to have clear detailed of some occurrences and to have vagueness/misremembering happening for other experiences.

    What evidence does she supply for this, well she states, - “This isn’t what a trained and experienced Clinical Psychologist/Neuropsychologist would expect from someone….... “.

    a tautological, ‘my opinion should be accepted because it is my opinion that no other neuropsychologist/psychologists would have a different opinion to mine’ 

    I don’t know what how you practice science, but that ain’t it.

    2. no ‘2’ so onto ‘3’.

    3. Jane did not give a reasonable explanation. She did make conclusions without having conducted the proper clinical assessment procedure. She accuses me of providing evidence about memory encoding detriment from stress/distress/emotional states that is not relevant, yet as I (again) demonstrate below, it was Peter who stated talking about amygdala activation ensuring experiences would have been “encoded” well.

    (BTW amygdala activation “modulates”, it does not “ensure”. Psychology is not Physics, there is greater variability/error.)
    TBC

    Posted by abs  on  21/10/15  at  01:05 PM
  290. cont.

    4. I suggest you re-read that exchange. I was trying to decipher Peter’s blending of many differential, potential effects on memory from trauma/emotional responses/stress. He made two statement speaking about the ‘encoding’ of the events of the 26th due to emotional distress.

    these are in #136 (my emphasis with <  >, i don’t know how to do italics…) -

    Peter - “I am very familiar with amygdala’s role of increasing the cortical arousal during emotional and traumatic experiences. I am aware that increased cortical arousal (which is propagated to the neocortex via Layer I apical tufts of pyramidal neurons in Layer 2/3 and Layer 5) will boost the firing frequency of the pyramidal neurons in these layers and that this will lead to much stronger < memory encoding > of the visual, auditory, olfactory and somatosensory neural patterns of activation, that in some cases can lead to PTSD.”

    Peter - “Thus, amygdala in Susan Neill-Fraser’s brain would have ensured that her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive would be deeply engrained in her memory and that the memory of that day doesn’t get confused with less emotionally significant memories of the day before Bob’s disappearance”.

    I asked why does he infer that the last time Sue saw Bob (according to a hypothesis of innocence) she would have had an active amygdala if she had no idea, at that stage, it would be the last time she saw him? He seemed to be inferring that the last time she saw Bob would have been deeply engrained due to activation of the amygdala from trauma when no trauma was present at that stage.

    In #140 Peter again makes this position inferring that Sue was emotionally distressed on the 26th, the last times she saw Bob. Note the context in the first few sentences then the clear statement of his last sentence.

    Peter #140 - “I gather that what you might be trying to infer is that Sue was stressed during the period 26-28th Jan and that because stress has a negative effect on the accuracy of memory encoding and recall (as supported by various experimental psychological studies) that therefore it is valid to state that Sue wouldn’t have been able to accurately recall on the 27th & 28th Jan her EPISODIC memory of the afternoon-evening of the Australia day (how long she was on the yacht; what she did in the period 4:00 - 9:00 pm; whether or not she took a significant detour to Bunnings before going home; whether or not she left her car at the Esplanade or drove directly home or drove to Bunnings then home, etc, ).  ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! (on the grounds of the emotionally significant relevance of that afternoon-evening to Neill-Fraser’s personal episodic memory which would have been encoded very strongly).

    again, he is stating that the events would have been “encoded very strongly”, yet why would Sue have had increased amygdala activation on the last time she saw Bob (according to a hypothesis of innocence) if she was unaware that it would be the last time she saw Bob? This is Peter’s muddle I am trying to decipher.

    I have been very specific about this, consistent with the scientific method. Note how Peter reacted in #154. He was not able to answer the sloppiness/contradiction in his use of the science, and made a demand that i not address him (again, i highlight how my contributions here are labelled as strange ;)

    The neurological mechanism that would have been heavily depended in the ‘Sue misremembered hypothesis’ is the Norepinephrine prefrontal cortical ‘working memory’ system. When Sue found out about Bob, this would likely have produced a strong emotional/distress/stress/traumatic experience with endless potential manifestations. Peter is stating that this strong emotional state would have enhanced the events preceding it, i.e. on the 26th (encoded without emotional arousal/distress). This is not consistent with what is know, scientifically, about how a distressed/stressed/emotional/trauma state effects ‘working memory’.

    I have explained that numerous times now.
    TBC

    Posted by abs  on  21/10/15  at  01:06 PM
  291. cont.

    Do you see the bigger point that I have been making all along, he has tried to play a very complex scientific field in a simplistic fashion and stated that there is only one account that the science confirms. When presented with science, and had it explained to him, he essentially demanded I stop. Not the accepted scientific method he champions.

    4. I refer you to 3. It is Peter’s contradiction/sloppiness that I am addressing, not necessarily the case that other’s here are trying to solve. If you had ever written a peer reviewed scientific article, or reviewed one, you would understand that it is not necessarily the reviewers role to provide the explanation, if they identify inaccuracy in the authors attempted use of scientific evidence. Highlighting the author’s inaccurate use of results/evidence/theory etc will suffice, it fact it is the dominant role of the reviewer to assess the authors work, not do their work for them.

    Your last statement on this point is demonstrably wrong. It is absolutely scientific to use scientific literature to highlight incorrect and vague/sloppy usages of scientifically acquired information. It is wrong to claim that because I do not attempt to then explain the data (ie solve the case) with the same degree of (misguided) certainty, that I am being unscientific.

    5. Scientists do not make opinion beyond the data, I agree. The relevant data in relation to judgements about Sue’s mental state during the time discussed would include presence at a clinical/forensic interview, or preferably conducting that interview (they exists the potential for subtle differences in data acquisition between interviewer and passive observer, even). To read text and make statements with certainty about a person’s mental state, which may involve distress, and/or dissociation (which includes potential for emotional numbness, memory distortion, and the absence of an observable emotional response - see DSM-5 trauma based diagnoses) is to be unscientific. I have never made a statement of certainty, others have. When confronted with evidence that undermines/refutes claims they have made, they largely speak about their ‘expertise’ and offer more unsupported ‘opinion’

    You again misrepresent, or simple misunderstand, my contribution here.

    Posted by abs  on  21/10/15  at  01:06 PM
  292. abs,

    I understood that Peter implied (and has even given a few simple examples; and has even stated very clearly on at least two occasions) that cortical arousal due to emotional arousal signals from amygdala can enhance memories that were encoded days prior even when there was no emotional arousal or stress at the time of initially encoding of those memories!!!!! This is something that you (and Garry Stannus) did not and probably still do not understand! Jane didn’t disagree with Peter on this but provided some further supporting comments on his opinion.


    Please re-read all his comments starting at #124!


    It seems to me that from your very first comment on this thread you assumed that Peter believed that Sue was stressed on the Australia Day before 10 pm. He even stated that there was no evidence of any significant stress in Sue’s life on that day!


    So you don’t appear to have understand that cortical arousal 12 or so hours later can enhance Sue’s encoded (and recalled) memories of the Australia Day. What is the problem in your understanding what Peter implied and then elucidated clearly.


    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  21/10/15  at  05:28 PM
  293. -

    This is my understanding expressed in the smallest number of words:


    Dr Lozo implied (and gave simple examples off) that the memories you encode today under emotionally neutral and stress free conditions can be enhanced tomorrow to last for a long time if you experience emotional trauma tomorrow that leads you to think about what you did today! 


    A delayed memory enhancement!! Very simple science that even a physicist like me can understand.


    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  21/10/15  at  05:58 PM
  294. #290 re “I do not know how to do italics”:

    enclose an i with the following symbols: < > to begin with (at the start of the text that you want italicised) and similarly at the end of the text to be italicised enclose /i with the same < > symbols to finish:

    italicise text   -  use an i and /i
    make text bold   -  use b and /b

    sets a quotation in from the margin and also italicises it

      - use the word blockquote and /blockquote

    Don’t forget the < and the > outside each command! (i.e. before and after: i, b & blockquote)

    The formatting marks will be hidden, test whether it’s worked correctly by using the preview facility.  If you have the two boxes below the comments box ticked, you should receive all of my comment in your email inbox.  Have a look at this comment in your email (rather than opening up Tas Times - I think you will see the formatting marks as I’ve typed them before the TT machine hides them.

    The following can link directly to an external web address.  I found it a bit tricky till I got the hang of it.  If you go back again to my comment where it appears in your email in box, you will see the formatting marks that I used to get the following result:

    [Another SN-F article? Click Here!]

    Good luck!

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  22/10/15  at  01:04 AM
  295. #292
    #293

    John,
    yes I think that is what Peter was trying to say.

    However, that is not what he wrote, thus he has expressed incorrectly and/or sloppily. Stating that something is “encoded very strongly” means exactly that.

    You state - “So you don’t appear to have understand that cortical arousal 12 or so hours later can enhance Sue’s encoded (and recalled) memories of the Australia Day. What is the problem in your understanding what Peter implied and then elucidated clearly.”

    Wrong!

    What the evidence demonstrates can happen, is very different to what the evidence demonstrates will happen. The scientific evidence demonstrates that excessive alcohol consumption over decades can lead to early death from bowel cancer, but it is wrong to state that the evidence demonstrates ti will.

    I was very aware that Peter could have been trying to express this, John. That was why I provided evidence demonstrating detriment to working memory functions from a distressed state. the evidence I have provided does not support his proposition, in fact the evidence refutes the proposition he is putting forth. Peter is not proposing that it ‘can’ enhance, he is stating it did enhance and that other propositions are ABSOLUTE NONSENSE (Peter’s yelling).

    I have provided scientific evidence, and detailed the neurological mechanisms, that demonstrate Peter to be wrong.

    Regardless of how Peter promotes himself, he is not professionally and/or clinically trained in Clinical or Forensic Psychology. Peter has given opinion without backing it with scientific evidence. Peter, when challenged with evidence, reverted to unscientific methods of telling stories of personal experience, repeatedly directed us to his ‘credentials’, telling me to stop addressing him, citing his contribution on another blog site, and finally leaving the debate. It don’t get more unscientific than that. 

    Personally I don’t think Peter had his head around the complexities of emotional distress affects on memory when he tried to dismiss the hypotheses associated with a confused/dissociative/misremembering/confabulating mental state from emotionally distressing events.

    Why would he try to support his original claim by referring to a four word snippet (“relevant to the stressor” in #181) when the whole quote (which he also supplied in #181) was-

    “Information encoded into memory during stressful experiences is generally well remembered (Kim and Diamond, 2002), especially if this information is relevant to the stressor (Joëls et al., 2006; Sandi and Pinelo-Nava, 2007; Smeets et al., 2009).”

    Thats right, John. Peter, himself was trying to support his own claim by referring to one experimental report on stress during encoding. The only time Peter, the scientist, actually tried to support his ‘opinion’ with science he fluffs it, undermines the point he is trying to make, and leads to the confusion as to what he actually means.

    Furthermore, when I alerted him to the actual neurological mechanism (not encoding but working memory with ‘representational information’, i.e. information previously encoded) via referring the scientific literature he chose to exit the debate. Not a good look for a scientist, hey?

    You state - “A delayed memory enhancement!! Very simple science that even a physicist like me can understand”.

    A delayed memory enhancement is a possibility, Peter spoke of the scientific knowledge base determining it to be the actual. This is patently wrong and he failed terribly in backing his assertions using the scientific method.

    #294 Garry, thank you. i am keen to work out to do that :)

    Posted by abs  on  23/10/15  at  02:59 PM
  296. #295

    Even I know that each time a particular memory is recalled it will be made stronger. Peter’s point is that the amount by which the recalled memory is strengthened upon each re-activation is also subject to modulation by cortical arousal. This is what I understood to be his main argument.

     I don’t understand your motivation in pursuing what I perceive to be a personal attack.

     I lost my son several years ago. He lived overseas when he died. Upon hearing of his death I recalled the day I last saw him (3 months before his death). I recall a lot about that day. Now I have a scientific understanding of why my memory of the last day I spent time with my son is still vividly with me.


    I won’t be commenting on this thread any further.


    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  24/10/15  at  08:31 AM
  297. #295

    I don’t think Peter used the paper he cited to support his view but to show you that there is literature which contradicts the literature you cited.  You misunderstood this and are making an issue out of something that to me doesn’t appear to be relevant at all. I seriously doubt your expertise in science.

    I am exiting too because of (what I believe is) your unscientific approach.

    John T.P.

    Posted by John T.P.  on  24/10/15  at  08:55 AM
  298. #295

    Abs,


    Your credibility was questioned by several scientists and an MD. 


    At  #209 you say:

     

     “i am a Clinical Psychologist, (Ph.D in Clinical Psychology).” 

     

    At #213 you say:

    “BTW peter my Ph.D was on encoding, retrieval and EPRs” 


    Note that you typed “EPRs” instead of ‘ERPs’.  Someone who has had the habit of typing ERPs as part of their PhD work (and since) would have had an automatic habit of getting it typed correctly. I doubt you claim about your PhD.


    At #286 you say:

      “I am a scientist. Maybe it is your ability to follow clear and directed scientific information.”  


    I found it difficult to follow your writing as well. It isn’t clear and focussed like that of other scientists who contributed here (Peter, Jane, John).


    At #281 (to David) you say:

      “i am simply a scientist in human behaviour”  


    You keep defending yourself instead of sticking to the application of science to the critical issues in this case that was the subject of intense scrutiny (Sue’s Stat Dec of 28th Jan and in particular the Bunnings lie). I am not a scientist but find it odd that a scientist would keep defending one’s position in such a way rather than arguing a scientific point. It is easy to hide behind a pet name and go on internet and bring here some literature on stress and memory like you did but it isn’t easy to link it to the specifics of this case unless one is a scientist with the relevant knowledge/expertise in the field. Others have pointed a number of times that you have failed to explicitly state how the literature you cited links to the specifics of this case or how it debunks what others opined. You appear to me to discuss in general terms. This suggests to me that you do not have scientific expertise in human memory.


    As far as I can tell, you missed the whole point of what Peter was saying until John’s comments in #293 & 294. 


    Cont…

    Posted by Linda  on  24/10/15  at  10:56 AM
  299. Here is what Peter said back at #158:

    “Has Sue Neill-Fraser grieved? Her amygdala would have kicked in on high gear from the moment she received a phone call from the police early the following morning on 27th. Her mind would have raced all over the memories of the afternoon-evening of the day before (images of Bob, images of the yacht, sound of Bob’s voice, how long wash she with him on that day, did they make love or was there tension, etc, etc). These memories would have flooded her consciousness further solidifying their strength. Her ability to memorise  what was going on around her from midday of the 27th would have been significantly impaired due to very high cortical arousal (as abs would recognise).    The above would be a natural limbic reaction of an innocent brain to the realisation that its long term emotional attachment to another person (a long term lover) may have ended abruptly and that the lover most probably met with foul play.”

     

    Thus is what he said at #166:

     

     “There was no evidence of any significant stress in Neill-Fraser’s life on the Australia day that would impair acquisition of information related to that time (hippocampus learns very quickly; its memory stays up to few days; is consolidated by recall, upon which it starts getting encoded into long term memory elsewhere in the brain, etc). There is no known neurobiological mechanism that can erase that memory 12 or more hours later. If there was a traumatic experience in her life that afternoon-evening then it would have been brought about by her murdering Bob, in which case she would be dissociating from those memories.” 

     

    If the above two statements weren’t clear to you then one wonders about your intentions are here.


     It may look like that I am defending  the opinions made by Peter, David and Jane. I am actually saying that each of them (as well as John) gave clear cut statements or opinions that were directed at the specifics of this case and I was able to follow and understand what they were saying or implying. I understood that Peter didn’t think that stress was relevant to Sue’s experience of the 26th (Australia Day) and that he reason he cited one paper was to indicate that some literature supports the view that stress can enhance memory as opposed  to your own view held at that time when you cited the Morgan articles which  concluded the opposite.. I read some articles since and found that there are  contradicting conclusions. The important point that Peter and Jane were emphasising is that Sue’s emotional arousal on the morning of 27th would have led her to think about Bob and the day she spent Australia day. This would have enhanced her memory of that afternoon/evening and thus would have ‘ensured’ that her memory of the last day she saw Bob alive doesn’t get forgotten or confused with another emotionally less significant experience that preceded the Australia Day.


    Linda

    Posted by Linda  on  24/10/15  at  11:03 AM
  300. In #281 abs says that she/he has

    “expert knowledge of human memory”

     

    but totally failed to recognise the relevance here of the  retrograde memory enhancement effect in a emotionally aroused brain that ruminates over the memories of their missing/murdered lover! There is something amiss here.

     

    There must an evolutionary advantage for having an amygdala to modulate how strongly various life’s experiences will be stored in distributed memory of the brain. Here is a great academic description of amygdala.


    click here for AMYGDALA


    Cont…..

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  24/10/15  at  12:50 PM
  301. Since we witnessed here differences of opinion between a Physicist (Peter, John) and someone who is hiding their identity behind a pet name but claims to be a Clinical Psychologist (or a “scientist in human behaviour”) I asked my granddaughter (an undergraduate science student) to find me something that would be relevant. This is a link to a 2 minute youtube video segment that summarises it in a rather amusing and relevant way. I am told that Physicists in general tend to look deeper than other scientists and can readily take on any field of science that is beyond their formal education and qualification


    click here for A PHYSICIST  versus THE REST

    Roger Morgan (Linda’s husband)

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  24/10/15  at  12:53 PM
  302. If this thread is an example of science then I am very disappointed, the outcome merely represents a difference of opinion. If it has proved or disproved Sue Neill-Fraser lied in her stat dec. either way it has certainly not proved murder

    Posted by Rosemary  on  24/10/15  at  01:58 PM
  303. #302


    1. At least we have learned something about why some memories stay around for a long time whilst most are forgotten; why a white dingy can be perceived to be grey; how scientists think and analyse.


    2. I don’t think the point of the excercise was to prove whether or not Sue was guilty but to provide us with an understanding that isn’t in the trial transcript and to make us think more broadly than what is offered by Sue’s mainstream supporters.


    3. My understanding (after reading this and earlier  threads) is that at least one of the scientists has submitted (or will be submitting) a report to the ODPP and to the AG (Dr Goodwin). It is then up to Dr Goodwin to seek expert opinion from those who are appropriately qualified to as to balance the submission from Sue’s legal team.


    Linda

    Posted by Linda  on  24/10/15  at  06:12 PM
  304. I do not think this site was set up for nor do I think it should be used by scientists and other qualified people to have a go at each other about memory. I do not want the above comment to be interpreted as disrespectful towards those involved. I accept that some of the memory comments are valid.

    This whole case is about. Did Sue get a fair trial? The answer. No.

    Justice Blow stated. Comments have been abbreviated.
    1. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. He then goes on to say the evidence establishes Sue dumped the body in the river.
    2. It is appropriate that I make findings as to how, when and why the crime of murder was committed.
    3. The DPP suggested that Sue killed Bob by hitting him on the head with a heavy wrench from behind. It is quite likely that that is what happened.
    4. I am satisfied BRD that Sue attacked Bob on the boat.
    Folks, this is nonsense. Nothing has been proven.
    5. Because Sue had not pleaded guilty, shown any remorse or assisted in finding the body her action warrants a heavier sentence than most murders. How can she assist if she is innocent?

    The coroner Glenn Hay said Sue acted alone. How would he know?

    I do not know whether Sue is guilty or not. I do know or believe this case is a disgrace.

    Nothing has been proven. the whole case is circumstantial. It is worse than that. The whole case is fiction based upon a vivid imagination.

    I am appalled the DPP can promote the wrench theory without evidence.

    I have lost faith in juries.

    As I have said before. Bob may have simply slipped on the deck, fallen overboard and drowned.

    Someone may have murdered Bob. Who?

    The damage to the boat could be a separate crime.

    Sue has gone to gaol as a result of a case based upon anything but evidence.

    I cannot accept the wrench theory. I need facts.

    (edited to remove caps, which amounts to shouting ...)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  25/10/15  at  03:04 AM
  305. #304

    Brian,


    Was the Women’s Weekly article titled

    “Tasmanian grandmother jailed for a brutal murder, but did she get a fair trial?”

    or was it titled

    “Tasmanian grandmother jailed for a brutal murder, but did she do it?”


    I too don’t accept that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that a wrench was used. But I understand that the law didn’t require the prosecution to prove to the jury of exactly how Bob was murdered but that he was murdered and that Sue carried out the murder. 


    You don’t seem to be getting the following point Mr Ellis made in his article:

     

    “From the opening I told the jury the Crown did not set out to prove exactly how or with what Mr Chappell was killed, but that he was killed by Ms Neill-Fraser. It was no part of the jury’s function to make a finding that a wrench or any other particular weapon was used.”

    Posted by Linda  on  25/10/15  at  07:51 AM
  306. in reply to Linda #...303..Dr Goodwin (has introduced/ and passed legislation to put it back into the legal domain out of the political) so won’t be deciding on ‘expert’ opinion, that will defined by the court. However in the trial of Sue Neill-Fraser an important interpretation of ‘expert’ by the trial judge is very questionable and should be reviewed by legal peers regarding a crown forensic witness deemed an expert through overhearing the conversation of experts at her workplace

    a few thoughts on Expert shared by Dr. Moles about the trial errors.

    “The forensic scientist was asked to explain what the significance of 1 in 100 million meant. She said that she was not an expert in this area. The judge and counsel persisted in asking her what she knew about it. She said that she had heard others who knew about these things discussing them in the laboratory. The judge then determined that on the basis of her experience of having heard others discussing it, that qualified her, by that experience as a person with sufficient expertise on the matter to give expert evidence to the court. This was clearly unacceptable. When the law says that an expert must have knowledge, skills, training or experience, this has never been understood to mean the mere experience of overhearing someone else.”

    From #26 on TT Dr Moles:-

    ” It is worth pointing out that the DPP guidelines state that a DPP must act as a minister for justice and act with fairness and not unreasonably pursue a guilty verdict.” -

    in addition:-

    An expert can only give expert opinion evidence where the jury requires such knowledge to help them interpret the evidence which they have heard. An expert is not allowed to give an opinion where the jury would already know such things from their own experience.
    An expert is only allowed to give an opinion where it assists the jury to interpret evidence which has been or will be put before them in the course of the trial. There must be a factual basis in the evidence which relates to the opinion which is being given. In this case, there was none. There was no evidence of any body with injuries and no evidence that anyone had been hit with a wrench. Therefore, the opinion amounted to “speculation” which recent Court of Appeal judgments have stated to be clearly inadmissible.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  25/10/15  at  07:53 AM
  307. Also Linda re:- your point 2 in #303.” I don’t think the point of the excercise was to prove whether or not Sue was guilty “

    I offer some quotes from comments of Dr Lozo ‘s opinion of Sue’s guilt

    #80 “that it was Sue Neill-Fraser on-board committing the crime.” 
    #109 “The BRD (“beyond reasonable doubt”) test is a SUBJECTIVE test.    1. I am satisfied BRD that in this case: (i) the circumstantial evidence that was presented by the prosecutor (Mr Ellis) was sufficient for the jury to arrive at the GUILTY verdict; (ii) the jury made the correct decision.
    #140 “What seasoned major crime detective would believe the non-sense told by Sue? “
    #158 ” However, TasPol’s major crimes detectives aren’t fooled and win in the end! Justice served. “
    #166 “If there was a traumatic experience in her life that afternoon-evening then it would have been brought about by her murdering Bob, in which case she would be dissociating from those memories. - “
    I think that is enough examples to show Dr Lozo’s bias toward guilt therefore making him unsuitable to be called into court as an expert witness as (in my view) he lacks independence and impartiality in relation to the case therefore making his words prejudicial. (see my earlier definition of role of expert in trials)
    Sorry Linda, in following the thread, although plenty of science tossed around this quote actually sums up Dr Lozo’s agenda and (in my view) it is personal
    #178 ” Dr Lozo was vindicated; Dr Moles got it wrong!”
    #83 “Would it not be big news in Tasmania if two PhD qualified people from Adelaide (one a lawyer the other a scientist)  were to have a face-off on River Derwent to see who can prove what about white dinghies!! -”
    seeking some notoriety perhaps? and perhaps too much commenting has over fed this desire

    (edited)

    Posted by Rosemary  on  25/10/15  at  07:55 AM
  308. #305 In a long and detailed trial, with the jury going late into Friday night where you might imagine a bit of pressure ‘to get it over with’ and go home. what logically would remain in the jurers minds (putting yourself in their shoes) some words of ‘fine print’ as you have posted and things like a one line amongst the myriad of forensic evidence that mentions Tim Chappell DNA in the rubber glove,  or 27 mentions of the mythical wrench, and the graphic details that would embed in a jurers mind, the description of sue aparently putting on the rubber glove to clean up as best she could the murder scene ( without proof of an actual murder) all these descriptions would stay in a persons mind over a technicality. How so many people still think that there is cctv evidence of sue’s car, when the crown did not tender it as evidence because it wasn’t. so many instances of facts overplayed by fictional descriptions. the wording intended to sway minds ( the ‘disappearing denis o’day) just thrown in to implicate Sue in other deaths but technically the wording does not actually say that. so much theatrics over runniing facts. In the real world in the pressure of the court compared to the hindsight of carefully studied wording over time tends to distort things. This TT is testament to the conclusion of lie =murder. perhaps because liar, barefaced liar or similar was heard over and over, like the wrench to stick in the jurers minds. It would have to have had an influence. That is why I wonder when someone says they have read the transcript and made a judgement of guilt so easily. when it takes quite a bit of study for a person who did not attend the trial to grasp all the inuendos and decipher the code. it is a complex document of a complex trial and warrants much thought. And we know the information in the transcript does not tell the complete story by a long shot. See what has come to light through study of the police log and things discovered since only 2012 through RTI. The mystery of Bob’s disappearance may never be discovered.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  25/10/15  at  11:12 AM
  309. #308 Rosemary you write, “How so many people still think that there is cctv evidence of sue’s car, when the crown did not tender it as evidence because it wasn’t”, I am interested to know more, if that is possible, particularly relating to your statement —  “it wasn’t Sue’s car”.

    How do we know that? Has somebody viewed the mentioned yet not-exhibited photo?

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  25/10/15  at  11:57 AM
  310. Linda #305. Last paragraph. From the opening the Crown did not set out to prove exactly how or with what Mr Chappell was killed, but that he was killed by SNF.

    This is my point Linda

    They can’t prove Bob was murdered
    They can’t prove how he was murdered
    And they certainly have not proved Sue committed the murder.

    The prosecution should not be saying Sue killed Bob

    The Judge said the case was circumstantial.

    Nothing has been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

    What was Sue’s lawyer thinking?

    What were the jury thinking?

    The jury were duped (in my view).

    The trial was a farce (in my view)
    The prosecution presented fiction as fact (in my view)
    Sue was set up and took the wrap (in my view)

    The police and prosecution have been behaving like this for at least 100 years.

    Many innocents have been gaoled or hanged

    The system does not work, it is broken.

    (in my view added)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  25/10/15  at  11:58 AM
  311. That further evidence has come to light since the Supreme Court trial including from “the police log” and, “through RTI”, ought be of serious concern to every Tasmanian citizen.

    Does that translate into the jury being duped into believing it heard all available and relevant evidence though the witness box before it arrived at a decision? If so, why?

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  25/10/15  at  04:27 PM
  312. IMO star ten hash was the final turn of the key for this murderer. Sue had time to come up with an answer. She couldn’t. Any SNF supporter got an idea?

    I not only feel for MV and the Chappells, but also for Sue’s daughters.
    Every day they have to live with this guilty verdict of their mother, not to mention the loss of Bob. Accepting this of your mother is unimaginable.

    #308 I would think my fellow Tasmanians (jury) would take it more seriously than you have suggested.

    For folk close to Sue I can understand the clasping for every straw, new evidence would be better. And do question yourself and your bias.

    Posted by mark  on  25/10/15  at  06:21 PM
  313. Brian, 

    In my opinion you haven’t given your comment much thought. 

    You say this:

    “And they certainly have not proved Sue committed the murder.”

    But you have been asked before: to whom was it not proven that Sue committed the murder?

    You have also been told before that it was proven to those whose job it was in 2010 to make that decision but you aren’t getting the point!

    #308 & #309

    At #253 I asked:  

    “What led Sue to change her mind and eventually reveal to her fellow citizens that this fine standing, well spoken and respected middle aged owner of the Four Winds yacht lied to the police about staying home the whole night?”  

    I now provide the answer:

    The catalyst that caused Sue to change her mind was the ATM photo!

    Does it really matter either way whether or not it was Sue driving in that car past the CBA at 12:25 am??

    What matters is that it can be inferred BRD that it was that ATM photo (which was shown by the police to Sue’s daughters in early March 2009)  that  several days later led Sue to open up  and inform  Bob’s sister (and then a radio reporter) instead of the police! that she did return to the  foreshore late at night. But the police were bugging Sue’s phone and were onto her.

    It is my very strong view that the ATM photo was the crucial catalyst in the case that caused a dramatic change in the course of the police investigation, which culminated is Sue’s lengthy interrogation in May  of 2009, thus sealing her fate. The evidence of Mr Hughes and the 3:08 am call were just the icing on the cake.

    Posted by L.C.M.  on  25/10/15  at  07:34 PM
  314. #310 Brian Johnson, #311 Geraldine Allan, that which each of you have stated in your comments is the very cause for the fulsome conjecture and the rebuttals thereto throughout the entire SNF case matter.

    With respect to Roger Morgan, the scientific facts that relate to fact the amygdala,, frontal lobes, and anterior singulate caudate nucleus’s, then the various cortex’s, the numerous ventricals, also Amygdalofugal what nots and references and so on, before any and all of this scientific based data and its references can come into the case, effectively ‘there was no sufficiency of proven evidence that could entitle this matter to come before and be tried by the Tasmanian Supreme Court.

    Furthermore a great many persons have overlooked or may have decided otherwise, despite the fact that the eminent and most impeccable qualified Dr Robert Moles, is indeed correct in that which he has or had so clearly stated.

    I will go so far as to state here and now that there was wholly insufficient proof, and or in plain fact, no whatsoever ‘actual’ proof that could or should have allowed this trial to commence.
    I will admit to studying up on the how and the why of a person in that they can truly be convicted of a crime, let me state that “no person can be found guilty by way of Court-room conjecture’s, hearsay claims and statements, imputations, theoretical likelihood’s and or on the basis of probabilities, nil or none of these guess-timations can be the cause or basis for declaring a person guilty.”
    This may be a bold sweeping statement by myself, however I challenge each and all in this State’s Judiciary to prove otherwise in this specific matter.
    I would recommend that the judiciary persons that may be in doubt and may seek to become a challenger to my contention, that first those persons should have a careful peep amongst the pages of the Australian Constitution.
    Then a read through the Criminal Code Act 1924.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  25/10/15  at  08:40 PM
  315. L.C.M.#313 Sue’s guilt was not proven to the jury. The jury accepted the prosecution case. There is a difference. The jury were duped, in my view.

    Circumstantial evidence is not evidence.

    Under the guise of circumstantial evidence the prosecution can make up all sorts of stories and they did.

    We do not know that Sue whacked Bob across the head with a wrench.

    We do not know that Sue winched Bob’s body around the boat and lowered it into a dinghy.

    We do not know that Sue tossed Bob’s body into the river as the judge accepts.

    And nor do the jury. Fact.

    The above does not even represent circumstantial evidence. It is fiction.

    The police nominated Sue and built the case around her. A tactic that has been used for at least a hundred years.

    This case is a mess built on fantasy, in my view.

    There are hundreds of cases like this and there will be hundreds more if we do not demand changes.

    I am reluctant to mention other cases by name. I consider this site to be dedicated to Sue and not to be used for general discussion concerning other cases.

    For the record I have difficulty believing Sue knocked off Bob and if she did then certainly not in the manner presented to the jury.

    Something else has happened.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  25/10/15  at  09:30 PM
  316. #309 Geraldine the cctv footage can be viewed in the documentary Shadow of Doubt. Just a fuzzy blur that showed vaguely a station wagon. Suggestions would work bette inthis situation. It also doesn’t fit very well in the timeliine at 12.24am.
    #312 I query Mark how you explain what is my bias? there is n other reason for my view other than my observations and readings.
    #313 “icing on the cake”? “what matters is that it can be inferred ....” I observe a case built on fiction, guesses,inferences, speculation and jumping to conclusions with no evidence in my view. If wanting to see hard evidence is my bias, then that is the only bias that I have

    Posted by Rosemary  on  25/10/15  at  11:11 PM
  317. #314

    “eminent and most impeccable qualified Dr Robert Moles, is indeed correct in that which he has or had so clearly stated.” Really? He sure misinterpreted a forensic scientist and advanced what a practising lawyer called the “luminol shibboleth”  (see “Sue Neill-Fraser and Dr Bob Moles” by clicking HERE ).

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  26/10/15  at  08:09 AM
  318. #316 Rosemary, I wrote ‘Those folk close to Sue..’
    If you feel I was addressing you then you are close to Sue and IMO it would be normal then for you to
    have a bias.

    Posted by Mark  on  26/10/15  at  08:39 AM
  319. Correction - #318 I wrote ‘For folk close to Sue…’

    Posted by mark  on  26/10/15  at  11:05 AM
  320. #317 Roger

    1. I was inspired by your comment so am adding further  relevant points from my own experience here and the knowledge I gained.

    2. The Neill-Fraser supporters not only support Sue but they have a tendency to support one another’s comment regardless of the naivety of their comments. Most do not appear to have studied in detail the trial transcript and the RTI information that Sue’s solicitor (Barbara Etter) posted on her website and are then left dumbfounded when a scientist (Dr Lozo) refers to a 7:45-8:30 pm sighting of a light grey dinghy leaving the location of the Four Winds yacht.

    3. Some of Sue’s supporters also quickly supported a newcomer (abs) just because that person was offering opposition to the other scientists (Peter and Jane) although it became apparent very quickly that abs demonstrated a rudimentary understanding of the relevant science and bugger all knowledge about the specifics of this case.

    4. Most of Sue’s supporters appear to have been influenced in their view of this case by the  Shadow of Doubt documentary and the 60 minutes program, both of which are biased or poorly researched.

    5. Neill-Fraser’s supporters also seem to be blinded by their faith in some prominent people, such as Dr Moles even though Dr Moles clearly made a number of significant errors in his interpretation of the forensic science related to this case.


    Continued…..

    Posted by John T.P.  on  26/10/15  at  04:00 PM
  321. 6. Dr Moles’ statement (see below) on the 60 minutes program is, in my opinion, the prime example of his erroneous interpretation of a forensic science report. It really makes  me wonder why Sue’s supporters are ignoring this and are promoting Dr Moles as an expert in miscarriages of justice. Do experts make such errors when commenting on a national TV program without correcting themselves? 

    This is from comment #8 at HERE

    “Dr Bob Moles claimed on 60 Minutes that the Victoria Police Forensic Services report said the homeless girl was definitely on the yacht, when the report actually said nothing of the sort? 

    VOICE-OVER:  The homeless girl [name redacted] was definitely on this boat?

    BOB MOLES:  That’s what the report says, yes.”

     

    Continued…..

    Posted by John T.P.  on  26/10/15  at  04:08 PM
  322. Click on Here for 60 minutes Justice Overboard - Extended Interview with Bob Moles


    7. It has been more than a year since that portion of the 60 minutes program went to air but Dr Moles hasn’t yet publicly acknowledged his incorrect interpretation of what the VPFSD report said! Can you imagine the impact his statement may have  had on the general public, including MV as well as Sue and her supporters? 

     


    John T.P

    Posted by John T.P.  on  26/10/15  at  04:11 PM
  323. John T. P — In balance, although you used the words “some” and “most” when referring to SNF supporters, likewise I reuse them as they also apply to those who: -
    (i) can and have read all available evidence,
    (ii) can think for themselves,
    (iii) don’t resort to group-think methods in decision-making,
    (iv) can communicate in courteous and fair dialogue, and
    (v) aren’t influenced by the prominence or otherwise, of a name/personality attached to a fact-of-the-matter.

    Admittedly, numerous “supporters” as you call those who object to certain unfair and/or improper processes and practices within Tasmania Police, ODPP & Supreme Court, do have a group-think attitude stemming from a justifiable need to see justice happen in Tasmania.

    My position is — It didn’t, but must asap.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  26/10/15  at  05:54 PM
  324. #320 point 2… I will just give one short example as I feel this thread is getting verbose and repetitive.

    Re: Dr Lozo and the 7.45-8.30 pm sighting (perhaps the perception experiments can extend to witness descriptions of male and female). In the case of the police Log with the transcribed notes, compared to the handwritten source notes of the police officers. ( RTI sourced by Barbara Etter and published on her blog referred to in an earlier post here on TasTimes)

    Witness reports a sighting of a male person in dinghy heading away from Four winds towards the casino. Investigating officer proceeds to interpret it as Sue Neill-Fraser. Hence an example of much of the difficulty of the case is around lack of correct source information. Things like this leave me dumbfounded about this investigation. I find it very disturbing

    # 312 In the real world a jury is made up of people not cloned robots and are susceptible to influences. Just one example in this research into jurors.:-

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-06/jury-study-finds-defendant-positioning-can-play-on-prejudices/5872710

    My word, my bias is towards getting to the truth of Bob Chappell’s disappearance because all the ‘convenience’ fictional stuff thrown around so far does not cut it in my view.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  27/10/15  at  08:55 AM
  325. #324 Yeah, whatever Rosemary. As I said earlier, I feel for Sue’s daughters. I lost my mum earlier this year, she lived a good and long life. To try and think her capable of murder, well, it doesn’t compute. But then, there was never a whisper of her plotting murder. Crazy world Rosemary. Crazy happens every day. Accept it.

    Posted by mark  on  27/10/15  at  05:12 PM
  326. #317. Roger Morgan, with all due respect toward yourself also whatever your occupation and interests may be, no amount of shibboleth’s will alter the fact that based on the depth and scope of the evidences presented, there was insufficient basis for this case to go to trial.

    I do not mind that any number of persons may adhere to a differing point of view, in time one will find that this case will become an eternally notorious case of insufficiency in its case presentation, and of the stark inadequacy of the evidences presented thereto.

    Persons that have alternative impressions and opinions is one of the most common traits of all people that make up our societies across Tasmania.

    Then to the fact that a certain number of persons or people will be correct in their analysis.

    (I will note that the luminol shibboleth occupied an extended amount of time during the course of this trial.) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089158499390044U

    An interesting turn of events is most obvious found in the judicial process itself, being that the initial judgement may have grounds or a basis for an appeal to be granted.

    Then that this may overturn the original judgement, can often become the result of that appeal.

    Then that a further appeal, (for example lodged by the prosecution) may result in that same decision handed down in the first appeal.

    There is no perfect case that will ever present itself in that it will defy any sort of an objection that may be lodged at some later date.

    This is the realm or the arena of justice that has since created the stature and prominence of Dr Robert Moles.

    Thank you.

    William.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  27/10/15  at  05:50 PM
  327. #324 Rosemary

    1. I very much doubt that a person can from a distance of around 300 metres (with an aid of what most likely would have been a simple telescope) decide whether Sue’s facial features are that of a man or a woman. Sue was sailing the day earlier and shows a bit of a suntan in the photo taken on 26th and as well as on the media video footage taken the next morning. Suntan can hide finer facial details and possibly make it difficult from distance,  with the aid of a telescope, to accurately recognise finer facial features such as wrinkles or even shadows, makeup, etc). With this in mind and the fact that the said witness couple of days later saw a man whom she believed to be the “weatherbeaten man” even though that person did not fit the description, we can confidently assume that we cannot rely on that person’s accuracy in facial feature recognition under the conditions she faced. We don’t even know how good her vision was for fine detail.

     2. I don’t know to what extent Dr Lozo went and what further information he used to conclude that it was Sue. I read his earlier comment (#8 and #11 

    click HERE ). I get the gist of it can and can see that he went to some detail and was confident about his conclusion.

    3. I did my own analysis on this. Here is a summary of the information I wrote in my notes and used to support my conclusion that it was Sue (this goes well beyond what Dr Lozo and Mrs Etter wrote online):

    (i) Colour of Sue’s hair (dark; fits the eyewitness statement)

    (ii) length of Sue’s hair (almost shoulder length and wavy; fits the description), age 40 - early 50s (close enough given the difficulty listed in 1);

    (iii) Sue’s body shape  (slightly on the stocky side, wide shoulders for a woman; compare her shoulders with that of her daughter in Sarah’s wedding photo; almost same shoulder width as Bob in another photo: photos are available online if you google image search for Susan Neill-Fraser);

    (iv) Sue’s statement that she usually wears loose man’s shirts when out on the yacht (Pg 1142: 
    “Cargo pant and a loose shirt, usually a loose man’s shirt.”).  When a person of Sue’s body shape is seated and is wearing a loose fitting man’s shirt it is not difficult to imagine that she may appear to be stocky;

    (v) the dinghy was motorised; described as being light grey (fits Four Winds dinghy);

    (vi) Sue stated on two occasions that she got home about the time it was getting dark (the sunset was at 8:40 pm; see point 1 in the TT article  “Exceptional circumstances in the Sue Neill-Fraser case”  Click HERE) ; her arrival home coincides well with her leaving the yacht 40-60 minutes earlier; 

    (vii) the dinghy was travelling towards the yacht club (this is where Sue claimed to have left her dinghy after leaving the yacht).

    4. When I take all of the above into consideration (together with the absence of any direct sightings of Sue between say 3 pm and 7:30 am next day, and no valid alibi provided by Sue) I have no doubt in my mind that it was Sue in her dinghy leaving the yacht around 8pm.

    5. You don’t seem to appreciate what scientists have offered here via their opinions. At least you ought to appreciate that they (and I) are offering more detailed and complete analysis than anyone else.

    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  27/10/15  at  07:55 PM
  328. I am not sure about the geography. Can someone join the dots.

    Someone is seen, maybe a male, leaving the Four Winds in a grey dinghy at about 8.00pm heading towards the Casino.

    Is this the trip that Sue made with Bob’s body and heading to the river as believed by the Judge.

    Identifying grey at 8.00pm at night?

    Something is not right.

    If the police and prosecution hadn’t invented and promoted such fanciful scenarios we may have a better understanding of this case.

    Cracking Bob over the head with a wrench. Unbelievable.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  27/10/15  at  10:26 PM
  329. John T. P. in #296, you stated - “Even I know that each time a particular memory is recalled it will be made stronger. Peter’s point is that the amount by which the recalled memory is strengthened upon each re-activation is also subject to modulation by cortical arousal. This is what I understood to be his main argument”.

    This is not what our scientific knowledge base supports, again I state that what Peter proposes is possible, his position is that stress and emotional reaction WILL strengthen previously encoded, related ‘representational information’. I have cited evidence, in the form of experimental and review scientific articles, which undermine/refute his position. I refer you to my #184 to demonstrate.

    You’re perception of my contribution here as a personal attack is strange. I not sure what would motivate you to arrive at that perception. If anything the ongoing drivel about my approach being ‘unscientific’ (even though I am the only one willing, or perhaps capable, to refer to the scientific literature) constitute a personal, rather that substance based, approach.

    I am sorry to hear of your Son. I am a father and understand that experience represents my own greatest fear in life. The scientific understanding you have now, of why your last day with him is remembered well, is a scientific understanding of an experience. It is not a rule to apply in all experiences of trauma or strong emotional responses and memory. Personal experience cannot replace evidence. Whilst I genuinely empathises with losing a child, I wonder if it has influenced your reading of the discourse here.

    Exiting will not back your position

    In #297 John T.P. you make an assumption about Peter’s intention re; citing the article. I don’t think this is accurate. He was seeming to try and counter the point I was making about the science not supporting his proposition that amygdala activation would ensure good memory. Even though my initial entry into this debate was mis-directed, the reality is that the science of emotionality/stress on memory is much more complex, and filled with error/contrasting finding than what Peter is trying to portray with his hypothesis. Furthermore, this was his only reference to any science. Surely if a hypothesis is being built upon scientific knowledge, the referring to the scientific (via citations and explanations, not one’s unreferenced opinion) should be a mere formality.

    #320 John T. P., your accusation of me having a ”rudimentary understanding of the relevant science” is baseless. What specifically is the ‘relevant science’, and what evidence can you specify to support your claim? simply repeating a claim doesn’t make it anymore real.

    To continue to make accusations about me being unscientific, when I am the only one here attempting to discuss the science (not opinion) is absurd. You seem unaware or unconcerned that Peter made comments about scientific understanding, was presented with scientific literature undermining/refuting his statement, and was unable to debate with reference to the scientific literature. I am not sure what constitutes ‘scientific method’ in physics, but this is not how behavioural/cognitive/neurological etc scientific method proceeds. If you interpret data with reference to acquired knowledge from published research, and someone presents you with research evidence demonstrating that the scientific literature fails to support your position, well.. it ain’t a good look. Likely the reason Peter retreated out of the debate, as you state you will.

    Posted by abs  on  28/10/15  at  06:05 AM
  330. Roger #300 you state that I.. “totally failed to recognise the relevance here of the retrograde memory enhancement effect in a emotionally aroused brain that ruminates over the memories of their missing/murdered lover! There is something amiss here.”

    Roger, this is false.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out that Peter’s hypothesis (retrograde memory enhancement) is plausible. Therefore, I have repeatedly acknowledged the possibility of this potential enhancement. However, he is making statements that all other possibilities are to be dismissed due to our scientific understanding of emotional/stress effects on memory. He failed to back his position in the usually scientific manner and I have shown that is not supported by the science.

    I refer you to my #184, where I demonstrate other possibilities cannot be easily dismissed. Particularly when Peter has repeatedly failed to back his opinion with science.

    #184 -

    The important memory system relevant to the impact of stress upon one’s ability to recall and accurately utilise ‘relevant’ information encoded prior to an elicited stressful state, is the Norepinephrine (NE), prefrontal cortical based, attention neural networks. This memory system is commonly known as ‘working memory’.

    It is ‘working memory’ that would have played a dominant role in a persons capacity to recall, and integrate (into their current experience) ‘representational information”, i.e. information no longer in their environment: the information as to what S N-F did in the “12 or more hours”  prior to becoming stressed is processed dominantly dependent upon prefrontal cortical ‘working memory’ capacity.

    the research literature demonstrates that high stress impacts negatively upon this system. see below for the abstract and introductory paragraph from the article that is used to support the quote “relevant to the stressor”.

    Ramos BP, Arnsten AF (2007) Adrenergic pharmacology and cognition: focus on the prefrontal cortex. Pharmacol Ther 113:523–536.

    <abstract>

    Norepinephrine (NE) has widespread projections throughout brain, and thus is ideally positioned to orchestrate neural functions based on arousal state. For example, NE can increase “signal/noise” ratio in the processing of sensory stimuli, and can enhance long-term memory consolidation in the amygdala and hippocampus through actions at α-1 and β adrenoceptors. Over the last 20 years, NE has also been shown to play a powerful role in regulating the working memory and attention functions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Moderate levels of NE released under control conditions strengthen prefrontal cortical functions via actions at post-synaptic α-2A adrenoceptors with high affinity for NE, while high levels of NE release during stress impair PFC cortical functions via α-1 and possibly β-1 receptors with lower affinity for NE. Thus, levels of NE determine whether prefrontal cortical or posterior cortical systems control our behavior and thought. Understanding these receptor mechanisms has led to new, intelligent treatments for neuropsychiatric disorders associated with PFC dysfunction.

    to be cont.

    Posted by abs  on  28/10/15  at  06:07 AM
  331. cont

    <from article introduction - paragraph 1>

      “The cognitive functions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) are arguably the most advanced in our cognitive repertoire, and likely the most vulnerable to disruption. PFC circuits have the unique ability to represent information that is no longer in the environment- even in the face of distraction and to use this “representational knowledge” to guide behavior, thought and affect. This process is often referred to as “working memory”. Working memory is thought to arise from networks of PFC pyramidal cells with shared properties engaged in recurrent excitation. These networks are thought maintain task relevant information during the delay period when stimuli are no longer present in the environment (Goldman-Rakic, 1995; see Figure 1). During this period that follows cue presentation, prefrontal neurons show increased firing rate in association with a specific location in the visual field where the cue was presented (i.e. 90° vs 45 °; Figure 1). The ability of PFC neuronal networks to keep task-relevant information ‘online’ in the form of delay-related firing is thought to represent the physiological basis of working memory. These firing patterns are tuned by GABAergic inputs, and by proper catecholamine modulation (Rao et al., 2000; Constantinidis et al., 2002). Optimal PFC network firing allows the regulation of attentional focus, the inhibition of inappropriate motor responses, and planning for the future.”

    <from paragraph 2>

      “ Even in young, so-called “normal” individuals, PFC cognitive abilities fluctuate, eroding when we are fatigued or when we are exposed to uncontrollable stress. Even mild uncontrollable stressors have been shown to impair PFC working memory functions in both humans and animals (reviewed in Arnsten, 2000a).”

    p.s. I am a he, I stated this above ;)

    In #301 Roger cites a youtube video (which is amusing) provided by his grand-daughter, an science undergraduate. I guess, now with this hard-hitting information, we should, as a society, dispense with all Forensic, Neuro-, Clinical Psychologists and Psychiatrists and enlist Physicists to do their work….seems to be what Roger is promoting ;). A heads-up for you Grand-daughter, Roger, make sure she doesn’t start referring to youtube in her formal work at Uni, it won’t be received favourably

    BTW Roger, “John T.P.”, when googled provides little more in the way of identifying information than what googling ‘abs’ provides. So, why am I “hiding”  and “claiming” (sic), and John is a “Physicist”. Further, FYI, I am a ‘scientist in human behavior’ because of my PhD, and a Clinical Psychologist because of my ‘clinical masters’ training, and my endorsed registration with the regulatory body. In case you were curious

    Posted by abs  on  28/10/15  at  06:09 AM
  332. Linda #  in #298 and 299, um…there is a bit there, and i am not sure why you are not directing some of these questions/accusations at other claimed scientists here. What you find ‘odd’ is not as relevant as what you may think ;)

    Only Peter, to his credit, posts here without the cloak of anonymity. Why you accept Jane and John T.P. as scientists (Jane as a scientist in human behaviour) and not me, suggests bias. They are as anonymous here as me.

    A typo is a typo, if you want to read into that, i would think that is scraping the barrel. But hey, in your mind it means i must not be a scientist…so i don’t think there is much i can do about that if that is the logic your happy with.

    Peter presents one possibility as a certainty and failed miserably to back that with evidence.  He uses language of certainty (‘would have’, ‘ensured’) when discussing the psychological/neurophysiological events. This is not consistent with Psychological discourse where ‘likelihoods’ and ‘probabilities’ are what the science allows.

    In #299 you repeat the central issue, that the amygdala would have “ensured”…….Wrong! it is possible what Peter proposes, yet not certain.

    Furthermore in #299, you sat that I did not understand, when in fact I presented evidence that undermines/refutes Peter’s account. The evidence demonstrates that recalling information previously encoded (Sue’s last days with Bob) (referred in the some scientific literature as ‘representational information’), during a later stressful event (finding out about Bob’s state) is subject to detriment. You understanding Peter’s hypothesis, yet seem to confuse this with his hypothesis being confirmed.

    Peter tells a good story that is consistent with what the science would allow one to hypothesis. However, he presents it as a confirmed hypothesis. If he was to take this down a proper scientific pathway, say as an expert witness in a court of law, or as a published, peer-reviewed paper (not a likely scenario) he would be required to back his hypothesis with real evidence. He would need to demonstrate, with reference to the scientific knowledge base, why his hypothesis is to be accepted and why other hypotheses are to be dismissed. I find it hard to comprehend why his supporters here ignore that he has totally failed to do this here.

    Linda, In #303 you state - ““I don’t think the point of the excercise (sic.) was to prove whether or not Sue was guilty but to provide us with an understanding that isn’t in the trial transcript and to make us think more broadly than what is offered by Sue’s mainstream supporters”.

    A welcome comment, Linda. However, Peter has tried to ‘prove’ guilt (as evidenced by his contributions and summarised, in part, by Rosemary). That is the glaring point that many here fail to grasp (or even acknowledge as having been promoted by myself). He has stated that he knows what went on in Sue’s brain. I have not. I have stated that Peter has failed to back his confident statement with evidence. This has been the locus of my contribution.

    Rosemary #302 - absolutely correct. most of what is presented above is not consistent with the scientific method. There has been a thick serve of ‘look at my credentials’ on top of a main of ‘my opinion should be accepted because of my credentials’. I tried to anchor some of the statements made (without evidence backing) by Peter to evidence/scientific knowledge. He announced his goodbye (s) when this occurred.

    Posted by abs  on  28/10/15  at  06:10 AM
  333. #327 You have given it some thought John and you may be happy with your opinion but with all due respect it is just not good enough factually in my view to have any credibility in your conclusion.

    #325 Mark, I believe with a fair bit of certainty that it is the ‘whispers’ that belong in the ‘fiction box’. In this hindsight position the absence of defence witnesses screams out at us for lack of more detail that could help many people in their opinions. It would be interesting to have the information of the living target of the whispered plots. However their appearance in court in support of the accused says alot on that.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  28/10/15  at  07:09 AM
  334. Abs

    Where has Peter stated that “he knows what went on in Sue’s brain”. I read all his comments and can’t recall reading that bit?

    If you were a scientist (who teaches research methods according to your comment elsewhere; http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/comments/28164) you would correctly stated what another scientist wrote.

    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  28/10/15  at  07:10 AM
  335. Rosemary,

    Have you offered an analysis that fits better with the available data? If not how can you blatantly state “it is just not good enough factually in my view to have any credibility in your conclusion.”

    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  28/10/15  at  08:13 AM
  336. #332

    Based on my readings of earlier threads, it is very clear to me that Dr Lozo stayed neutral during his analysis of the case for the first month or so. This was recognised  by Lynn Giddings in her comment which I copy here:

     

    “Of the male contributors, 3 support the jury’s decision of ‘guilty’; 9 disagree and feel the verdict was unsafe; 1 scientist is neutral. Of the female contributors, 7 feel the verdict is unsafe and 1 doesn’t. Seemingly, all up 16 people feel the verdict is unsafe, 4 believe the jury got it right and the scientist says he is on neither side.”

     

    See Lynn’s comment #179 at the following link:

     

      click HERE


    It is thus fair to say that Dr Lozo spent a lot of time analysing this case during  April before concluding on Sue’s guilt.


    My husband (Roger) tells me that working memory that you are talking about is a limited  storage that is maintained in active memory circuits of the prefrontal cortex and is very limited to 7 plus or minus two items. It is used when we hold something in our active thoughts. The example is holding in your thoughts someone’s phone number whilst you are dialling it. It is true that this working memory is very susceptible to interference that can be brought about by stress or even over-excitement. But it does not significantly adversely affect one’s ability  to recall a memory that is well encoded in the short term hippocampal memory or the long term cortical memory. 


     Therefore, your argument is not very relevant to Sue’s case on the day she wrote her Stat Dec on 28th. If you think it is relevant then please write in your own words (i.e. without copying and pasting from literature) and in simple enough terms, what mechanism would need to be at work in Sue’s brain for her not be be able to recall where she was and what she did for a continuous period of 5 hours (4 pm - 9 pm) two days prior.

     

    Linda

    Posted by Linda  on  28/10/15  at  09:30 AM
  337. Linda #336

    That is a great question!

     I too would be very interested in hearing what mechanism would need to be activated  in an otherwise apparently normal functioning and healthy brain and how that mechanism can totally disrupt one’s ability to recall a significant portion of ones daily experience (5 hours!) 24-48 hours after that experience and yet leave that person mentally fully functioning during the writing  of the Stat Dec where a lot of accurate details were written of the observations  that were made on the yacht on the very afternoon when it was ascertained that Bob was missing.

    If such a machanism existed then surely there would be a whole lot of healthy brains seeing a shrink for confabulation, lost time, memory blanks, etc. Surely then pharmaceutical companies would have also been able to discover and mass produce a “Memory Cleansing Drug’ (MCD) that can knock out one’s memory of the day before.

    Say you have a very bad day at work as a result of being told off badly by your boss who threatened to give you a bad review which could lead to the termination of your employment. Well, no problem. You wake up the next morning and take the magic MCD pill. The wonder pill got rid of your memory of the day before. You can’t remember that your boss told you off. You get to work all happy and greet your boss with a smile and a hello. Your boss then starts thinking that you have gone bananas! Didn’t I tell you off badly yesterday? Didn’t you get my point? You say, I don’t know what you are talking about. I can’t remember talking to you yesterday. Your boss concludes that you need to see a shrink.  You go home and take another pill to forget that unpleasant encounter as well. And so on.

    Posted by Glenda  on  28/10/15  at  02:57 PM
  338. It should be considered that there was a more complex real world (rather than laboratory) context which may have impacted on SNF’s memory and recall, not limited to just the effect of stress.  For example, it has been pointed out in past commentary that going to Bunnings was such a regular and unremarkable activity for her that it’s feasible that in trying while under stress to recall/reconstruct her movements she genuinely thought she’d gone there on the afternoon in question. Her contrasting clarity of recall and detailed descriptions about the state of objects on board the yacht are surely not all that surprising given it was about a small contained environment in which she had been spending significant recent time working and even living while sailing in it.

    Posted by justice supporter  on  29/10/15  at  09:50 AM
  339. #338, justice supporter, your contribution is a good one.

    As no other person can accurately foresee into the mind of another.

    Bear in mind I am not denigrating the excellent commentary provided by the scientific minds that have entered into this SNF case article, for that specialist-field delivery of scientific basis has been very interesting in itself.

    (Unless we speak of America’s NSA with their metadata profiling whizzbangery, even taking that matter into account, the NSA cannot penetrate into the mind of a human being and read it as if it were a personal case file.)

    The Justice Department itself seems not to have had any of their biased personnel playing the part of interfering sleuths which could provide some sort of defraying oppositional propaganda, this says to me that they in that department would be happy to have this entire matter disappear into the stratosphere.

    The enormity of the quality of the comments contributed to this article with its wide range of compelling opinions suggests that this case will soon get its essential 2nd appeal.

    That is to say if minister for justice Vanessa Goodwin makes good on her claims about the current objective of herself and her department toward the loosening up Tasmania’s appeals process, (which seemingly goes way back to the former convict-era.)

    Posted by William Boeder  on  29/10/15  at  11:28 AM
  340. John (#334), you asked abs:

    Where has Peter stated that “he knows what went on in Sue’s brain”. I read all his comments and can’t recall reading that bit?

    Peter’s #125 is a good example to begin with.  He wrote:

    I have the benefit of being well read about human (and animal) memory structures and their role and about the role of amygdala in the processing of emotional episodic memory so am confident about my claim that Sue CONSCIOUSLY LIED in her 28th Jan 2009 statement about going to Bunnings, etc.

    .

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  30/10/15  at  07:52 AM
  341. #338 Justice  Supporter 

    Part 1

    1. It doesn’t take more than couple of minutes to write that statement but it takes an experienced analyst numerous hours of reading and digesting the relevant data embedded in: (i) the trial transcript; (ii) the numerous comments on this case spread over  a dozen or so threads;  and (iii) the various bits of information that Sue’s solicitor (Mrs Etter) posted on her own website; and then analysing the data before reaching a reasonable conclusion. I sumrise from your rare comments about this case that you read the trial transcript but haven’t offered any written analytical work for us to scrutinise. I am thus surprised by the lack of detailed online analysis submitted by you and yet you state the following:

    “For example, it has been pointed out in past commentary that going to Bunnings was such a regular and unremarkable activity for her that it’s feasible that in trying while under stress to recall/reconstruct her movements she genuinely thought she’d gone there on the afternoon in question.”

     2. Here is one very relevant comment I pulled out from Barbara’s website:

    “Sue had been a regular visitor to Bunnings - in fact she visited there almost daily and it was conveniently located on the route between the West Hobart home and the farm at Bagdad.”


    The above is from Barbara’s post titled “The Burning Issue in the Sue Neill-Fraser Case - Why did she Lie?”

    see HERE

    3. However, the above established routine by Sue is very different to the  detour that Sue would have had to have taken on the Australia Day (a public holiday) from the Marieville Esplanade to the Bunnings store (on Brooker) and then to have driven home to Allison St in West Hobart (it is almost a 20 Km loop compared to the 75 km loop). This would have been a rare trip (given that by that time they had the yacht in Hobart for only 4 weeks) and it would also have been a significant detour which would have stood out as a rare and distinct trip from her usual travel to Bunnings and would thus have been remembered well 12-48 hours later  considering that she initially stated spending a long time in the store. The additional and crucial factor is that therefore her car would have been parked at home rather than at the waterfront and therefore there wouldn’t have been a need for Sue to walk to the riverbank late that night to pick up her car from the riverbank if the car was home! Several months later (in May) she told the police that she went back to the riverbank late at night walking to pick up her car and to check on the yacht! This was a huge contradiction with her written Stat Dec of 28th Jan where she clearly stated that she went home from the Bunnings:

    “Given the wind, I decided not to take the tender to Marieville Esplanade, I decided to take it to the Royal Yacht Club where it would be easily managed. From tying it up I went to Bunnings Hardware on the Brooker then came home. Anne was not home by then, as it was getting late. Anne had gone to Bruny Island for the night. She was being picked up after 4 pm I am sure when I got home it was starting to get dark. I stayed out at Bunnings for a long time. I did not buy anything but browsed. I drove our Ford Falcon Station wagon – For, Falcon wagon. I stayed alone at home that night.”

     

    However, it wasn’t until the trial that Sue stated where on the Esplanade her car was parked (prior to that she stated she couldn’t remember where at the riverbank her car was parked).

    If her car was parked on the riverbank then she would have known that she didn’t drive to Bunnings and then home!!


    Continued ......

    Posted by John T.P.  on  30/10/15  at  08:13 AM
  342. Part 2

    Also see Dr Lozo’s analysis on this in his comments #8 and #11 from May on an earlier thread:


    click HERE

    4. This is what the DPP said in his opening statement about Sue’s Stat Dec of the 28th Jan (see trial transcript: pg 59)

    “So here we are, statutory declaration, back on the boat about 1, back away about 2, to Bunnings, stayed there, it was getting dark, this is January so that would be pretty late that she stayed at Bunnings. So that’s the 28th – the 28th of January 2009, the statutory declaration of Ms Neill-Fraser’s recollections. Her partner of eighteen years being missing, the yacht being found sinking, signs – clear signs of sabotage on it, a serious matter, and they are her recollections on oath.

     

    5. I too find it very odd (given the circumstances) that Sue’s effort in trying to recall and retrace her movements and activities appear to have been so very dismal. It is as if she wasn’t all that concerned at helping the police with their investigation.

     

    6.. Below I add some further relevant points regarding Sue’s memory.


    7. I understand from the trial transcript that Sue had at least 6 opportunuties between the time she left the yacht on the Australia Day and the time of her Stat Dec on 28th to be reminded of some parts of how she spent her Australia Day afternoon-evening.

     

    Opportunity 1: during the phone conversation later that evening with Mr King. The conversation was about Bob, his daughter and the yacht.

     

    Opportunity 2: after the above mentioned conversation when she returned to the waterfront and looked at the yacht.


    Opportunity 3: when she made a call to her mobile phone the following morning at 7 am  (her mob phone was on the yacht).

     

    Opportunity 4: when she arrivied at the watefront at 7:30 am to meet the police and when she saw that the yacht was partly submerged.

     

    Opportunity 5: when giving her first statement to the police at her home around midday on the 27th, particularly when a policeman asked her about the bandaid and the cut on her finger (Sue couldn’t remember how she cut her finger but replied that her fingerprints may be on a torch which was on the yacht).

     

     

    Opportunity 6: when she boarded the yacht later in the afternoon of the 27th with the police to inspect the damage. I think that being on-board the yacht would have triggered a lot of memories from the day before.

     

    8. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad that none of the above listed opportunities would have triggered some memories of Australia Day thus consolidating the recalled memories?

     


    9. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad that she couldn’t even remember how she cut her finger between 12 noon on Australia Day and 12 noon the following day, and where did it happen (on the yacht or at home)? This  would have to have been a very spectacular failure of Sue’s memory given what we have been told about emotional events (such as getting injured)  being remembered well and lasting for a long time.


    10. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad that she couldn’t recognise the red jacket which belonged to her and Bob?


    11. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad that she couldn’t remember where she  parked her car?


    12. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad as listed above and yet by some miracle event in her brain she was able to describe (from memory) in her Stat Dec on the 28th Jan in great detail and with great accuracy what she remembered seeing from her observations of the yacht on the afternoon of the 27th even though she would have been in shock and medicated with a Valium tablet at the time she inspected the yacht?

    Posted by John T.P.  on  30/10/15  at  08:18 AM
  343. Linda (#336):  rather than staying neutral for the first month or so, I think Peter’s very first comment on Tas Times showed that he wasn’t sitting on the fence, first up.  He wrote (#131- in ‘An unscientific reading of the case’):

    Finding the remains of Dr Chapman’s body may provide forensic evidence that could help all those concerned.  Perhaps those vocal supporters of Ms Neill-Fraser ought to think about raising funds towards this cause rather than offering their speculative opinions on various matters related to this case!

    By the way, that ‘Dr Chapman’ error was an unfortunate beginning to Peter’s comments on TT.  You might also recall that Peter originally had the yacht facing south west (see #214 of ‘An unscientific reading of the case…’)  From this false SW direction, Peter concluded that Mr Conde was travelling in a westerly direction, that he was looking towards the direction of the sun (i.e. that the sun was to the west) and thence “the dingy would thus be seen somewhat in a shade [sic] of the Four Winds yacht’.  I suggest that this being in the shadow of the Four Winds’ encouraged Peter to later claim Mr Conde’s ‘dark grey’ ‘battleship grey’ dinghy was actually the white Quicksilver belonging to the Four Winds and that the lee cloth was only a shadow.

    But Peter’s ‘SW direction’/alignment of the Four Winds at anchor was incorrect.  You might recall that Mr Conde’s evidence was that the Four Winds was actually lying in a south easterly direction.  This I confirmed in that other thread with corroborating links to that day’s weather (e.g. wind* direction)
    [Here] and sun position [Here]
    Having realised his error, Peter corrected it with his #215 on that thread.  However, despite his 90 degree correction to the yacht’s alignment, Peter’s ongoing comments (re perception of dinghy colour and perceived lee cloth) remained ucorrected.  Having corrected the alignment on which his ‘lee cloth is a shadow’ had depended, he failed to withdraw his claim of a shadow from the Four Winds falling onto the Quicksilver which was tethered to its side.

    *[Incidentally, the link that gives the weather details for 26Jan2009, also shows wind speeds at mostly half hourly intervals for the day.]  We can see how the wind picked up during the day, peaking at 3:30pm and then gradually abating.  It tends to confirm SN-F’s evidence (P59L6):

    I was of the opinion Bob could have come off the boat due to the weather.  Bob had checked the charts and said the wind would drop out and said he had decided to stay on the boat.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  30/10/15  at  09:41 AM
  344. Garry #340

    Did Peter use the words “I know”   in connection to his statement? If not then both you and abs are misinterpreting a simple enough statement! To state “I am confident” does not mean “I know”!! This is not the first time I had to correct you on what a scientist wrote on this thread…

    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  30/10/15  at  10:00 AM
  345. The most recent of Peter’s errors can be found in one of his comments on the lee cloth (above, at #114).  And – again - it concerns the direction that the Four Winds (at anchor) was facing when observed by Mr Conde, at c. 3:55pm, 26Jan09.  Peter wrote:

    - now, the SE direction that the yacht was facing at could have been anywhere between SSE and SSW;

    This is quite simply, wrong.  SE does not lie within the SSE-SSW points of the compass as Peter would have us believe.  A useful reference diagram of the ‘compass rose’ can be viewed [Here].  Peter’s ‘it was a shadow, not a lee cloth’ has no basis in fact, in my opinion.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  30/10/15  at  10:07 AM
  346. Garry,

    I sketched it correctly on my whiteboard when I did my geometrical analysis back in April but made a small error in transposing my visual thoughts into words and then the written form (I am a very visual person). You also correctly noticed my correction when I typed “anterograde”“rather than “retrograde.” On most occasions I corrected myself if I noticed such transposition errors.

    Anyway, it  ought to have been clear from what I wrote that I meant up to 30 degrees or so on either side of SE.

    Good on you for noticing the error. At least it shows that you are putting in a lot of effort in analysing what is submitted on various threads.

    John,

    Some 5 pm eyewitness stated that the yacht was sitting low in water at the bow. Perhaps you can provide a physical explanation by considering the various forces acting on a moored yacht on a windy and choppy day where the tidal water current is forcing the yacht from its mooring - the vertical (downwards) component of the tension force in the restraining chain/rope coupled with the water current is forcing the bow to dip (the dip being counterbalanced by the weight of the rear part of the yacht)..

    Cheers,

    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  30/10/15  at  12:38 PM
  347. John #341 & #342

    Perfect analysis!

    I consider the last sentence in your #341 (which I also wrote about in my comment #8 you referred to) to be the key indicator to me that Sue would have been aware on 28th that she lied about the Bunnings trip.

    It is rather unfortunate that no-one in Sue’s support base took time to analyse the case to this depth to discover the huge importance of this simple observation about Sue’s contradictory statements 8-12 weeks apart. I like to repeat your sentence so that it registers with Garry, Eve, Lynn, Barbara, Rosemary, Bob Moles, abs, Justice Supporter, Geraldine, John Biggs, and others who support her cause:

    “If her car was parked on the riverbank then she would have known that she didn’t drive to Bunnings and then home!!”

    Cheers,
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  30/10/15  at  03:00 PM
  348. Case closed.

    Posted by Mark  on  01/11/15  at  06:11 AM
  349. #335 Thank you John, for what I perceive is a genuine request to ask of my analysis on this case and reasoning. And if by available data that you analysed too do you mean post trial info received via RTI by Barbara Etter eg #270 reference to information rejected by the crown to use in the trial (witness of the 7.45-8.30 man in dinghy)then by all means locate all that was left out so we can see the whole picture. A coroner’s inquest or even a Royal Commission would flush all this out.

    No. 1:-The Manner.  Seriously , one has got to ask oneself why such a convoluted, difficult, time consuming exercise when an easier outcome would be an accident at sea. Some rough waves, a blunt injury could be explained by a hit with the boom to flick Bob off the boat, a drowning, so simple an explanation, body found, death by accident. Case over, death by misadventure, few questions asked.

    No 2 :- Motive. The crown brings up the knowledge of the case of the disappearing Denis O’Day. How long does it take to finalize a missing person case to gain access to their vast wealth.(years?) The greed motive. ( it is said that Mr Chappell was worth 1.3 million dollars (seems a lot to the average person), take away the mortgage, the money willed to his 3 children and what is left?  Has that been compared to what could be claimed through a property settlement? Where is the evidence of Sue researching that? Wouldn’t any half intelligent person look into that rather than exotic holidays in the vicinity of her friend of many years Bob’s sister Anne. (one of Sue’s supporters)

    Sue has been portrayed as the rich, society murderer. You would think that many millions of dollars would be involved. They did not live in a Sandy Bay mansion but a modest weatherboard house in West Hobart and owned an old model Ford Falcon, (they didn’t even have the norm of two cars but shared one as they walked a lot) hardly the look of a ‘rich’ person. The Four Winds may seem a luxury yacht (played up in the trial) in comparison to any of the smaller craft on the Derwent but it is hardly in the top ratings of the yachts there either. A very middle of the road situation that has been blown out to appear more than it is. (especially in the papers)

    It was not said to be a crime done in the anger of the moment but a carefully planned exercise. (yet evidence is given to the jury of an argument on the beach in the morning), and even said again in the summing up to the jury even after the provider of that evidence said in evidence it was the wrong person having seen Sue in court.

    Evidence given of an argument on the yacht ‘snapping like a crocodile’ so Sue leaves Bob to it. Hardly something to worry about really as I see it.

    A person who the crown has claimed planned this death for 12 years. A body wrapped in chicken wire plot, weighed down with heavy object would surely look like foul play what a ridiculous choice. A nonsensical proposal for any half intelligent person to do as the crown claimed.

    The violence they say that was involved, the hate, etc. from a usually passive person, caring of animals her whole life, as the judge said led a previously blameless life does such a thing so out of character?

    No 3:- Proof. So much information on Sue’s lack of memory, weird walking around in the night to check on her step daughter, perception of dinghies etc, proves what? They are not even definite sightings of Sue at all.

    Lies, red herrings, confusions prove what? Sue did not foresee the long haul and the consequences of what might be said in the moment. No it is not a good look but does in prove murder?
    (con’d)

    Posted by Rosemary  on  03/11/15  at  03:20 AM
  350. No 4:- Trial oddities. Weird conclusions by the judge, in my opinion, such as the body could not be found by police divers therefore Sue took it further out to the deep channel of the Derwent and dumped it( what with 384ml of fuel for all these ‘trips’ in the dinghy?) IF there was a body it would have marks consistent with a bash over the head with a wrench ( a very graphic suggestion)

    Plenty more examples but that would just be repetitive.

    Another real possibility could be the lack of skill of police divers ( 3 months later the vic police divers are called in). A bit late, why not an extensive search on 27th January? Another possibility is that Bob’s body is not in fact in the Derwent at all? If the police were to similarly interview other possible suspects for 8 hours each, could not some deficiencies in their information bring up interesting things to debate over?

    Much could be said about the police methods, i.e. first officers trampling of the crime scene, instructing people to put on ( items from the crime scene i.e. rubber gloves????) When much was said that Sue was instructed not to touch the crime scene items?

    A person accused of being unhelpful to police would not be speaking at such lengths with police (8 hrs of interview with no legal advice present or even a support person), an unhelpful person would not be speaking at all to them. Ask about any case where the police have not got very far and it is lack of information and Sue provided plenty or this thread would not be so long.

    In the end all that is proven by all this scientific blustering ( with opinion conclusions) is opportunity and Sue did some strange things. However, the main thing that has been proven by the scientists in my view is that witness evidence is not accurate or strong enough to be trusted. So here we have dozens of bits information coming to the police and it gets sorted into A) what we can use against Sue ( with a bit of massaging) and B) what contradicts our hypothesis so it must be dismissed and discarded.

    Reading the court transcript shows a determined character assassination in the place of hard evidence against Sue. Nothing to prove murder.

    Now it would be a different story if the witness observing a person on a dinghy 7.45-8.30pm (initially said to be a male but morphed into a female in the PIL) could have rushed down to the foreshore and made a positive identification, had a conversation, offer to help etc. so that there might be some hard facts for all to digest instead of this conjecture, inferring and surmising.

    So John I just want to highlight just a few deficiencies as I see it, so much has already been said that I do not need to repeat.

    But the crown case as I have studied it for a very long time just does not add up in the way the court has decided it. The basis of the claims just don’t add up. The conclusions of all the armchair sleuths on this thread just don’t add up either, beyond proving ‘opportunity’. With better investigation there could be other people exposed to have this same opportunity.

    (cont’d)

    Posted by Rosemary  on  03/11/15  at  03:21 AM
  351. To be in line with the rules of circumstantial evidence it has to have been the ‘only’ conclusion one could reach. To dismiss ‘going missing’ because Bob had not used his bank accounts or Medicare card is simply too convenient a dismissal because that is actually the definition of a missing person.(they are missing) Plenty have been found turning up years later. That may be unlikely for Bob but it cannot be ruled out. Murder could be one possibility, but there could be others and that were again too easily dismissed in the trial and in my view by dismissing these possibilities effectively was a directive to the jury to think of the wrench murder, “a theory to consider”.

    If sinking the boat was the goal along with hiding evidence, just leave Bob on board to sink with the yacht as it was in deep enough water to maybe not be retrieved, or with great difficulty and do it properly with a quick and easier method known to experienced boat users? Why an amateurish, ineffective attempt showing ignorance? (along with the winches with the ropes all the wrong way, the mark of an ignorant of boats person)

    Let the scientist explain all that. I do not apologize for not being a scientist, and I take offense that by not being a scientist that therefore I cannot use common sense in analysing this court case. Plus what court cases have the scientists actually participated in on any level that gives them firsthand experience in the workings of the judicial system? Whenever anyone speaks with experience of this on this thread they are immediately slapped with the ‘bias’ tag.

    All I have said all along John is ‘show me the hard evidence’. I don’t discount your thoughtful analysis of the words of the transcript including stat decs. videos, statements etc. off handedly and I have read them with interest. I acknowledge your insight into your analysis however the conclusions you draw simply cannot prove guilt.

    Like one learned opinion on here said, Beyond reasonable doubt is subjective. I simply have the bar raised higher on that one. The jury in the Chamberlain case were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt because Lindy Chamberlain did not show emotion in court. That proved to be a faulty subjective opinion. (plus faulty forensics)

    In all I have read on here by the guilty proponents, the slant is Sue having to prove her innocence. I can understand that as it seemed the way of the trial, but I am coming from the point of view that the crown must prove Sue guilty and in my opinion that has not occurred. Her defence counsel whatever people may think of him took that same road in the choice not to call defence witnesses. Now in hindsight we could all have benefited from hearing more from the other side.

    In all the recent solving of cold case murder investigations it has emerged it has been through the coming forth of information by persons who know what happened. This is the only way I can see a proper outcome in the case of the disappearing Bob Chappell.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  03/11/15  at  03:22 AM
  352. Rosemary,

    No 1 - The manner: I suggest you first read about what happens when a body decomposes in water and why the body would re-surface if it isn’t weighted down as the volume of the body is increased due to the build up of gases! Thus science rules out a fall (the body would have re-surfaced within a few days).

    Thus your “death by accident”, “death by misadventure” is a poorly thought out guess by you.

    Posted by John T.P.  on  03/11/15  at  09:01 AM
  353. #352 Sorry John, You have missed my point on that one. A floating body would be the objective. not a guess but alternative sensible way if Sue’s object really was to kill Bob..

    2ndly Bob not in the Derwent at all but taken away to land. or even by a passing vessel to some other shore. They are valid options as much as murder/manslaugther or whatever.

    There is also another angle on the whole situation which would explain a lot but saving that to another time and place. Hope that clears up my meaning in No. 1.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  03/11/15  at  10:18 AM
  354. I am sorry Rosemary but nothing in your comments adds anything of substance than I consider worthy of serious consideration given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence (and a number of post trial scientific analyses by several scientists) that:

    (i) Bob was murdered and that his body was disposed off;

    (ii) that the yacht was sabotaged as part of the murder scenario (most probably by someone who had enough knowledge of the yacht’s plumbing - Sue was given some instructions about the yacht’s plumbing on the trip from Queensland to Tasmania);

    (iii) that Sue willingly lied about driving to Bunnings and then home; that she also lied without a really justified and innocent reason about not going back to the waterfront and that she also lied about how she got there;

    (iv) that Sue killed Bob, sabotaged the yacht and disposed off the body.

    It is my learned opinion that as a result of the combined scientific analysis conducted this year (by Peter, Jane, and myself) that the case against Sue is even stronger than it was during the trial.

    I am satisfied that the scientists can rest their case.


    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  03/11/15  at  12:43 PM
  355. #346 Peter

    The scenario you described is a plausible. Since you more or less explained it there is no need for me to go into much more detail. The horizontal component of the tension force will restrain the yacht whilst the vertical component will pull the bow downwards thus causing the yacht to slant forwards.

    I think that rather than considering the forces acting on the Four Winds yacht on the day, Eve Ash and Barbara Etter assumed that the yacht may have been sabotaged and sinking by 5pm (at least that is what I understood from Eve’s video clip about the grey dinghy).


    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  03/11/15  at  01:13 PM
  356. #352. John T.P. You are correct about the body becoming expanded by gases within the corpse when the internal organs begin their decay, then that after a given time the body rises to the surface. (Unless some later activity has caused this usual situation to be different after the body had become submerged.)

    I had attended the scene of a number of different drowning incidents after the corpse had risen to the surface, (usually via accidental event, meaning not caused by others) in both the Murray River and the Darling River way back in the early 1970’s during my time working as an Undertaker’s assistant for an extended period.

    Your comment at 354 does not carry any substantive fact, just more of the subjective and or circumstantial evidence, that thinking becomes insufficient on its own reckoning, therefore non-acceptable evidence to bring a case to trial.

    There will ever be persons with differing opinions, as in this SNF case, however guessing, assuming, opining or whatever, do not provide actual or visible substance, these theorising’s do not warrant any further action of their own as each is based on the presumptive, rising from each uninvolved mere external suggestion.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  03/11/15  at  07:34 PM
  357. #350 Rosemary. In my view you are quite right with respect to the points you raised.

    Bearing in mind the police following a hunch use the nominative approach. In this case they zeroed in and nominated Sue. A fixation then sets in. Most cases follow a similar pattern. At this point the police right or wrong have made up their mind. Sue is it.

    Then as you say the police sift through the information and A)what can we use against Sue and B)what contradicts our hypothesis. This is how the case was built around Sue.

    I wonder how much information should have been made available to the defence. Answer. The lot.

    What people fail to confront is that the prosecution have not proven Sue is a murderer. There is no evidence nor is there circumstantial evidence.

    This whole case in my view is based on conjecture, an idea, fiction.

    Folks. Cracking Bob on the head with a wrench, winching him to the dinghy and dumping his body in the channel is an unsubstantiated and fabricated story. In my opinion the judge should have disallowed it.

    If the yacht was sinking at 5.00pm and with water pouring in, how was it still afloat at 7.00am. Or put another way. Measuring the water flow and working back from 7.00am we should be able to calculate at what time the yacht was sabotaged.

    Still waiting for Ellis to describe step by step how the winching process was carried out.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  03/11/15  at  11:16 PM
  358. It seems to me that even when people who are supporting Sue are pointed to some information it takes them a long time to accept that information. I can think of two obvious examples.

    1. Even though it was pointed out by one scientist that the Four Winds dinghy can be perceived to be grey it took some people, particularly Garry Stannus, a long time to recognise and accept that. Garry hasn’t yet acknowledged his resistance even after someone else (Lynn) produced a list of eyewitness descriptions of the Four Winds dinghy where the word ‘grey’ was used more often than the word ‘white’.

    2. Even though Sue stated that she drove to Bunnimgs and then home, none of Sue’s supporters picked on her contradiction when she stated that later that evening she walked back to the Marieville Esplanade to pick up her car from there.

    If the above two simple examples are indicative of  the failure of Sue’s supporters to notice and recognise the obvious how can we then expect them to notice and accept something that is less obvious and that which requires them to integrate several pieces of circumstantial evidence together to arrive at a conclusion about the crucial matters such as about Sue’s guilt or innocence.

    Brian, it is clear to me from your comment that you aren’t familiar with the effort the police went through to collect the evidence. They even had a maritime expert estimate how long the yacht was taking on water but you don’t know that!

    I will rephrase what was stated earlier as I consider this to be the most powerful single sentence that summarises how Sue intentionally lied to the police and tripped herself in the process:

    If Sue left her car on the Marieville Esplande after leaving the Four Winds yacht on the afternoon of Australia Day 2009 to walk home in West Hobart then she would have known the next morning and the day after that that she did not and could not have driven to Bunnings and then home on the same afternoon of the Australia Day!

    Posted by Glenda  on  04/11/15  at  09:25 AM
  359. William #356 and Brian #357,

    This is from paragraph 37 from the decision by the SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL); see this link http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/tas/TASCCA/2012/2.html:

     

    “The operation of the plumbing aboard the Four Winds, including the location of the cut pipe and the seacock, had been explained to the appellant by a plumber, Mr Klaas Ruiter, when working on the yacht in Queensland. The yacht had a book that explained its electrical and general engineering. The book contained a diagram “of the plumbing and sullage tanks, black and grey water from the toilet and various other parts of the boat”. Mr Casson gave evidence that on the way down from Queensland, he and Mr Stevenson explained to the appellant and the deceased how the systems worked and the appellant “seemed to be reasonably familiar with the plumbing side of things”. A photograph in evidence showed her with the book open at the plumbing diagram. Evidence from Mr Nathan Krokowiak, a mechanical fitter who worked on the yacht on or about 15 January 2009, was that he explained to her about “gate valves, seacocks and things like that which are open to the outside of the vessel” whilst working on the area containing the seacock which was found on 27 January to have been opened.”

    It ought to be sufficiently evident to all that the evidence that was presented at the trial strongly indicates that Sue had sufficient knowledge about the yacht’s plumbing to know how to very quickly and with the minimum amount of effort sabotage the yacht so that it takes on water. Knowing the location of the seacock (it was hidden under a carpet) and its function is a strong indicator that whoever sabotaged it had more than a basic understanding of the Four Winds yacht.

    Who other than someone who had an intimate knowledge of the Four Winds yacht would  be so efficient to know their way around the yacht so as to rearrange the ropes, use the winch to manoeuvre the body out off the yacht and into the dinghy? It does require familiarity with the yacht, its ropes, its winching mechanism as well as how to get off the yacht and into the dinghy. Who would take on such a complex task that was most probably done under the cover of darkness unless the person had sufficient familiarity, confidence and experience with the Four Winds yacht, particularly about its ropes and the mechanical capability of the yacht’s winching mechanism? 

    Evidence was also presented at the trial that Sue had the financial motive to kill Bob (would have been better off with Bob dead than alive and going through property settlement). Evidence was presented that Sue had the technical  know-how required to quickly sabotage the boat. Sue had an intimate knowledge of the yacht (having slept on it for a number of nights during the yacht’s delivery to Hobart) to carry out most of the necessary activities under the cover of darkness, probably assisted with a small torch she mentioned in connection with her injured thumb. Sue lied about not going back to the waterfront very late that night. It can also be concluded that she was out for several hours (from about 11:30 pm until about 3 am, i.e. at least 3.5 hours), which would have been sufficient amount of time for her to sabotage the yacht, remove the body and dump the body into the river some distance away from the yacht.

    I agree with Dr Lozo’s suggestion of more than 6 months ago that finding Bob’s body (with the help of a small underwater robotic vehicle equipped with the appropriate sensors, such a sonar, visual and infra-red cameras, metal detector, etc) would be the most useful exercise that could provide wealth of forensic evidence on how Bob was killed; how his body was weighed down; whether the body was wrapped in chicken wire and/or canvass together with the missing (and bloodied) sections of the carpet squares; if there is any forensic evidence (such a blood or hair) linking Sue (or someone else) to Bob’s murder. I consider this more important than an independent review of the case.

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  04/11/15  at  12:17 PM
  360. Thank you Roger for your points of view, your opinions, then your quoting from the austlii web-site.
    I will hereunder provide you with an example of something in the realm of a similar event, albeit a hypothetical conclusion of events.

    Furthermore I say this in all seriousness and respectfully there toward as follows: I have a shotgun, I know how this shotgun functions, its do’s and don’ts, other people know I possess this shotgun, I have a book at home all about shotguns.
    At some period in time a neighbour is shot at and killed with a shotgun blast.
    Does the aforesaid information give rise to me being the 1st subject on the Police suspect list, and do you believe this to be valid.

    Let me say it carries the same validity as: my walking across your lounge-room expensively carpeted floor carrying a toilet roll, does this suggest that I am going to or have already had a crap on your lounge-room carpet?

    Conjectures and various hypothesis are ever to be an insufficiency of evidence to go to trial.

    This may have been sufficient as was often portrayed in the TV series of Perry Mason all those years ago, but in reality in Australia, with the full and proper processes of law brought into the conduct of a trial of this kind, would not be sufficient to then pass on the various theories to the jury in which they then must deliver a verdict.
    Were there any other suspects pursued by the Police with the same amount of vigour?
    Only unless there is a substantiating visible amount of material evidence, otherwise then there is no reliable basis for conducting a trial.

    Thank you with respect, William.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  04/11/15  at  04:40 PM
  361. William,

    Please stick to the Susan Neill-Fraser case and the evidence that was presented to the jury!

    Brian,

    Please read the trial transcript so that you can make an informed comment!

    Garry,

    Please acknowledge your errors and unjustified resistance in accepting that the Four Winds dinghy can be perceived to be grey! It was obvious that you didn’t check through the trial transcript by searching for the word ‘grey’ before your rapid opposition to a scientist!

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  04/11/15  at  05:48 PM
  362. John and Roger,


    Thanks for supporting what I consider to be ‘intellectual honesty’.


     I don’t find it necessary for anyone to stick up for me. Having said that I think it only appropriate for Garry Stannus to look back over the past 7 months at the approach he took with respect to a number of my scientific points.  I am dumbfounded as to why a person would be so motivated to seek to find errors (insignificant errors in my view) in my various comments but doesn’t acknowledge his own errors  even when they are pointed out to him: errors in his interpretation of what I wrote; incompleteness in his understanding of the contents of the trial transcript concerning the eyewitness statements about their memory of the perceived colour of the Four Winds dinghy; lack of knowledge about the RTI information discovered by Barbara Etter or the data embedded in Eve Ash’s various video clips or errors in his understanding of the relevant science. 


    How was it possible for anyone to misinterpret my simple statement “I am confident” to mean that ‘I know’ is beyond me.


    Cheers,

    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  04/11/15  at  07:02 PM
  363. #361 Roger. There was no ‘evidence’ presented to the jury to support the wrench theory, winching of or dumping of the body in the channel. Just prefabricated mumbo jumbo. Think about it. The invented theory. Bob whacked on the head with a wrench. From behind. Don’t leave out the from behind bit, it embellishes the story. Not pushed down the steps. It gets worse. Maybe stabbed with a screwdriver. Bizarre. A novel in the making. And the judge allowed it. Bizarre again (in my opinion).

    Where was Sue’s lawyer while these yarns were being spun.

    I do not know whether Sue is guilty or innocent. I do believe that the prosecution have not proven their case. I do believe that whatever happened is entirely different to what the prosecution have presented. If there was a crime then I suspect a guy crime.

    For the record I strongly believe Bradley Murdoch is innocent. Same method. Same nominative approach.

    As I understand it the interviews between police and suspects are not available to the public. They should be and maybe ‘if’ certain embarrassing points redacted. We do not know how the police have treated Sue in the interview process. Having been there, I have found the police to be very difficult to deal with and that is without them trying to nail me.

    So how would it go for Sue if they were trying to build the case around her. Trickery?

    As for Sue forgetting where she left her car. Thousands of people everyday lose there cars in car parks. May not be a big deal.

    I want the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts.

    The prosecution do not know, assuming Bob is dead, whether Bob was murdered or died as the result of an accident. They do not know and nor do we.

    As for the new legislation, I doubt it will help Sue. The existing system/method is entrenched.

    (in my opinion added).

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  04/11/15  at  09:45 PM
  364. Brian,

    Don’t you get it that the so called “wrench theory” is irrelevant to what the prosecution intended to prove? Please read the DPP’s opening statement. All that was required to be proven beyond the reasonable doubt to the jury was that Sue killed Bob.

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  05/11/15  at  07:17 AM
  365. #363 Brian

    This is what Mr Ellis wrote in his TT article:

    “it was never the Crown case and it was not and is not essential to the valid conviction of Ms Neill-Fraser that the prosecution produce a murder weapon or prove a manner of death.”


    I suggest that you study the trial transcript carefully and do not skip over the evidence just because it doesn’t meet your definition of “facts”.

    It is my opinion that you are making ill-informed statements that are based on the propaganda pushed by some of Sue’s supporters.

    Posted by Glenda  on  05/11/15  at  08:00 AM
  366. #364 Roger, you note that “All that was required to be proven beyond the reasonable doubt to the jury was that Sue killed Bob.

    It seems I have missed much — please briefly tell where is the BRD evidence that “Sue killed Bob”. It is unnecessary to regurgitate the details already stated and repeatedly written.

    Can you simplify how it is that you are & the jury were, convinced BRD that “Sue killed Bob”?

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  05/11/15  at  09:22 AM
  367. #363 

    Brian,

    It is one thing to park your car somewhere and then forget where you parked it; it is another thing to park your car somewhere and then walk back to it very late at night, find the car and then drive home. It is the latter case that is relevant to this case. I don’t think you understood this issue concerning Sue’s statements about where her car was even though it is in the trial transcript and was written about on this thread (and some earlier threads). Surely once Sue found her car then she would have been able to remember that location for at least the next 48 hours given the effort she claims to have put in walking to it at a very late hour.

    Also, as soon as Sue stepped out of her house to go back to the Esplanade she would have noticed that if the car wasn’t parked at home then she couldn’t have driven it to Bunnings and then home earlier in the day! This simple logic escaped Barbara Etter as well when she provided an odd explanation for Sue’s bad memory about going to Bunnings.

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  05/11/15  at  09:41 AM
  368. Geraldine,

    Lots of people, including you, seem to have a need for that one piece of evidence that proves to them beyond reasonable doubt that Sue killed Bob.

    I am sorry but that one piece of evidence does not exist nor is it necessary when one examines the totality of the circumstantial evidence which can be used to infer BRD that no-one else but Sue killed Bob; no-one else had a motive, the opportunity and the technical know-how of the yacht’s plumbing and the familiarity and the confidence to carry out the deed in darkness, etc. It is pretty obvious to me that many people are struggling with this one issue, the notion that there needs to be one definite proof instead of a lot of circumstantial evidence that points directly at Sue.

    As for the repetition of earlier statements: they are meant for those who failed to understand the case details and what the prosecution intended to prove to the jury.

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  05/11/15  at  10:12 AM
  369. #367, I recall an instance when my mother, who was in her 50’s at the time, drove to work and parked her car in a nearby street, as intermittently she did. After work she forgot she had taken her car that day and caught a bus home. She was surprised and somewhat concerned when she walked into the driveway and her car was missing.

    At first instance, Mum thought the car had been stolen. It took some time and thought before she recalled where it was and why it was missing. BTW, my mother was reknowned for her remarkably good memory.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  05/11/15  at  10:53 AM
  370. Geraldine #367


    Perhaps you ought to turn your attention for a while towards the SNF supporters, in particular Lynn Giddings and ask her why she took such a strong position against the homeless girl but took a strong position in believing and supporting Sue’s innocence. That will be the day when someone within the SNF support group turns their attention to Lynn and her unjustified public attempt to discredit the homeless girl’s integrity in order to divert attention away from Sue who lied on a number of occasions, including about the status of her relationship with Bob, and tried to deceive the police about her movements on the day of Bob’s disappearance. A number of people have been highly critical of Lynn in this regard but none of that criticism came from you or any of Sue’s supporters who are actively involved in commenting online about this case. It is a real shame that our society allows (this) from an older person who was a good friend of Sue’s late mother and who is also a high profile person as a result of her daughter’s political career.

    Posted by Glenda  on  05/11/15  at  12:02 PM
  371. Yes but in Sue’s case she went back to the car, found it and then drove home! The very act of finding the car would have helped her remember where she found it so that by the time she wrote her Stat Dec 48 hours later she wouldn’t have had a dramatic loss of memory for that event which would have taken a lot of walking at night to get to her car and drive it home!

    How is your mother’s case similar to Sue’s case of walking late at night and finding the car? How does your logic see it as being the same thing?

    I too forgot a number of times where I parked my car but after I found it that memory stayed with me for quite a while (the effort I went through to find the car and where it was finally located).

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  05/11/15  at  01:50 PM
  372. Beyond reasonable doubt v Insufficient evidence
    “…
    Our study elicited responses that also revealed a wide range of interpretations.

    In addition, several respondents mentioned that they or a fellow juror determined that anything less than ‘100 per cent’ proof of guilt meant that the Crown had not discharged its burden of proof. Interestingly, while several jurors plainly identified the ‘strong circumstantial’ evidence that influenced them to reach a conclusion in line with the rest of the jury, they spoke of lingering doubts about their verdict since the trial ended. As one of these jurors commented: ‘It was never proved to me 100 per cent and I still think about it.’

    Based on their juries’ difficulties in determining whether the evidence satisfied the standard of proof, two respondents suggested that a solution might be to adopt the Scottish criminal law verdict of ‘insufficient evidence’ rather than leaving a jury with only the options of conviction or outright acquittal”.

    http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/report/prejudicialpublicity/323DB0E1932C4F3FCA257060007D141D.html

    I’ve said it before, yet having regard to the subject matter I feel it necessary to repeat here. Having been a member of an empanelled jury on more than one occasion, I can assure readers that what happens behind closed doors (where it must stay or I can be gaoled) is less than acceptable, and at times frightening. The jury system as it is is flawed. In the interests of justice it needs review and fixing.

    What I am prepared to affirm is that in one instance behaviour within the jury room was so terrible that I felt compelled to make a formal objection. That fell on deaf ears. At that time I made a lengthy affidavit which I still have. Hopefully, one day I can discuss it more fully.

    Astonishingly and unacceptably, it was swept under the archaic floorboards of the Supreme Court justice system. A severely distressing experience, but at least I did what I could towards remedy. Moral to the story — don’t ruffle our comfort zone.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  05/11/15  at  01:59 PM
  373. #371. I am not under XXN and am entitled to a viewpoint as are you Roger.

    Human beings are fallible and can forget matters of importance, including if they drove their car on a specific trip or not. For the record, my mother did not forget where she parked her car.

    #370, Glenda. your gratuitous advice as to where I might turn my attention is unwarranted. I can think for myself. I repeat — I am entitled to a particular position as are you.

    Being well aware of the ‘trial by trickery’ approach, I will continue to advocate for fairness and justice in any criminal process and trial. If you are dissatisfied with my input, don’t read my comments. Simple.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  05/11/15  at  02:12 PM
  374. #370 Geraldine. You may be a bit tough on Lynn.

    The DNA of the homeless girl was on the boat.

    It is possible that Sue is innocent.

    Maybe a burglary was carried out on the yacht. Maybe the homeless girl was a part of the burglary. Maybe the burglary went wrong. Maybe the homeless girl witnessed something, maybe a murder or a manslaughter or an accident.

    The problem is we do not know and nor does the prosecution.

    Police questioning should go somewhere to eliminating doubt. In this case there is to much doubt.

    Something happened. We do not know what.

    Sue’s knowledge of the plumbing does not make her the murderer.

    Was there other DNA on the yacht.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  05/11/15  at  02:41 PM
  375. Brian #370 is not my post. It is Glenda. I am full of respect for Lynn, a gutsy woman.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  05/11/15  at  04:02 PM
  376. Afterthought to Brian #374, your observations are worthy.

    Understandably, you confused the name of #370 poster (Glenda) with me, since it commences, “Geraldine …”

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  05/11/15  at  04:10 PM
  377. My apologies to Geraldine and thank you Glenda.

    I seem to recollect there was other DNA on the boat.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  05/11/15  at  04:46 PM
  378. #374 Brian,

    It was not up to Lynn to take it upon herself to attack MV’s integrity. It is my opinion that what Lynn did was very similar to what the public did to Lindy Chamberlain.

    MV’s DNA was most probably a secondary transfer. Plus the timing of MV’s departure from where she stayed would have made it impossible for her to get to the yacht in time to be there by 4pm (the time at which Lynn claims there was a different dinghy at the yacht). It was also too choppy and rough for dingies to go to and from the yacht during the afternoon. The only person that would have had a need to travel on a dinghy in such rough weather was Sue. No other dinghies were sighted motoring around between 2:30 pm and 7:30 pm.

    Even the DNA experts from the Victoria Police Forensic Services Department did not conclude in their report of last year that it was definitely a primary transfer. But Lynn Giddings and Dr Bob Moles interpreted the report to mean that MV was definitely on the yacht and then they took it upon themselves to spread false information via the internet and/or the TV media. So much for justice in Australia!

    Posted by Glenda  on  05/11/15  at  04:54 PM
  379. #372 Geraldine

    You seem to be referring to another case of which I know nothing about. I am in Victoria and only read about this Tasmanian case in recent history because it featured prominently on TV (60 minutes)  and in the Women’s Weekly article. I made a significant attempt since the Women’s weekly article to understand this case before offering an opinion. I am confident in my conclusion that Sue killed Bob. I also think that most objective people who are well informed about the details of this case and the extent of the circumstantial evidence would conclude that Sue is guilty.

    My brief experience on this site showed me that those who support Sue fall into three groups:

    (i) the core group who are either socially close to Sue (either directly or via her late mother or via other relationships) or have a legal interest;

    (ii) the next outer layer of people who have been influenced directly by the core group or have a personal gripe about the Tasmania’s judicial system;

    (iii) the outer and the larger layer of people who have been influenced by the Shadow of Doubt documentary and/or by the various media including TV (60 mins), facebook, etc.

    My educated guess is that the majority of Sue’s supporters (those who signed the petition) haven’t invested the time to independently research the case via reading and digesting the contents of the trial transcript. Most are therefore pretty naive. Some commentators on this site have also demonstrated to be pretty naive about the details of the case and the evidence (or some simple enough science)  but are still offering opinions (and have naively challenged the scientists who made a great effort to carefully analyse this case) on behalf of Sue’s innocence or the lack of evidence or the lack of facts, etc. I find that approach to be naive and to be motivated by nothing else other than to be heard or to confuse the real issues of the case or to use this forum to complain about Mr Ellis, the ODPP, the police or the evidence that was presented by the forensic scientists. 

    I was most interested to read what the PhD qualified scientists had to say on this case. I am not sure I can contribute anything beyond what they have addressed quite extensively and in a very informative way.

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  05/11/15  at  08:20 PM
  380. ‘Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, “Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.”? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?’
    - Sam Harris

    Posted by Mark  on  06/11/15  at  12:23 AM
  381. #380. Sam Harris (whoever he is) seems to have participated in then commented upon, certain jury room modus operandi, amongst other observations.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  06/11/15  at  06:21 AM
  382. #379 Roger. You refer to the extent of circumstantial evidence proving Sue’s guilt.

    Circumstantial evidence is not evidence.

    There is no proof:
    Bob was murdered
    Sue is the murderer
    Sue winched Bob’s body about the yacht
    Sue disposed of Bob’s body
    Sue sabotaged the yacht
    No proof whatsoever

    There are those who believe Sue is innocent and those who believe she is guilty.

    Then there are those like myself who are appalled at the process in this case, the Bradley Murdoch case and many others. Lets name several.
    New Zealand
    Scott Watson. There were 2 boats and 2 men
    Mark Lundy. There was DNA under Amber’s fingernails.
    Ewen MacDonald. Police did not look for the grey sedan.

    We do not know what happened on the yacht.

    Roger, you can be satisfied of Sue’s guilt. I for one am not satisfied.

    I am not happy about the process nor the lack of diligence. In my opinion the case is a sham. If Sue is to stay in gaol I would certainly appreciate the knowledge of knowing she is guilty.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  06/11/15  at  02:29 PM
  383. #382, Brian in a broader scenario you are calling for a fair, proper & accountable justice system, most especially when a possibly innocent person has been imprisoned,  If that makes your call unpopular, great news.

    “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something in your life”. (Winston Churchill)

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  07/11/15  at  08:30 AM
  384. Brian, Please refrain from addressing your comments to me unless you have a logical comment to present that is based on the transcript of the trial in the Neill-Fraser case and which offers an informed and rational point of view that challenges my own interpretation of the evidence and the conclusion I reached.

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  07/11/15  at  10:02 AM
  385. Roger, not only does this guilt verdict rely entirely upon circumstantial evidence, there is also the ‘power of suggestion evidence’ as was presented ...
    The link provided by Barbara Mitchell in comment number 1 on this article is quite revealing.
    (Thank you Barbara.)
    Upon the complete reading of the content therein, the theme in this link discusses the various tendencies whether or not to rely upon this evidence as sufficient, is indeed compelling.

    A significant factor in the debate over this particular trial as it has been displayed in this subjective article matter, (SNF case) is that the many who claim the accused as guilty, are predominately the persons that are attached or associated to the Tasmanian government and or its judiciary and those others employed under the banner of this State government.
    (Thus there are four groups if you desire to group the debating persons in this matter.)

    Roger, I note that you are not a legal professional, nor a member of Tasmania’s judiciary, therefore your comments are no more valid than the comments submitted by the individuals that now comprise of a suggested 4 groups.
    I have previously cited the appeals system that could well overturn a prior conviction, (though this reference may not stack up when restricted to the laws and system of justice that are ostensibly relied upon and that reign in Tasmania.)

    ...
    I note that in many instances where there has effectively been the agreed intent; ‘to abide by the State authority capture’ rather than the intent to apply the full and complete lexicon of the true proper and correct administration justice.
    There is a limit and as such, a dividing line, between that which is the preferred outcome, as opposed to those seeking proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

    I don’t believe there had been any other intent other than that of this State’s all encompassing government authority united in this case matter, to seek a pre-conceived charge of guilty.

    I now refer to another eminent authority that had commented on the conduct of this case, (in the form of Robert Richter QC) who firmly denied that the process and or the carriage of the Tasmanian Justice System by its judiciary, was sufficiently correct to arrive at the charge of murder.

    Bearing in mind that the only reliance for having arrived to the decision by the judge instructed jury, and accordingly delivered by the jury, was achieved on the basis of presumptive and circumstantial, then also based upon a theoretical scenario, thus to produce a pre-conceived judicial opinion.

    Another consideration that had obviously been discarded, was that with such a limiting scope of evidence, (as became the totality of all the then tabled evidence) that a lesser charge of manslaughter ought to have been in some way considered far more the most appropriate, alas no, not in Tasmania.

    ...


    Often a lesser charge is agreed upon by the Judiciary officials here in Tasmania, well before a charge is laid in the first instance, which can and will inevitably favour support of such an accused.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  07/11/15  at  01:06 PM
  386. No amount of advanced logical reasoning can convince those who aren’t capable of logical reasoning!

    No amount of indirect proof can convince those who only value the direct proof!

    Posted by Beverly  on  07/11/15  at  01:50 PM
  387. #382

    Circumstantial versus Direct Evidence

    “Evidence comes in many forms, such as eyewitnesses, participants, prior statements by the defendant, documents, physical evidence, and scientific evidence, like fingerprints or DNA.  No matter the form, there are two basic kinds of evidence that may be admitted in court – direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.  

    Direct evidence does not require any reasoning or inference to arrive at the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.  Circumstantial evidence, also called indirect evidence, requires that an inference be made between the evidence and the conclusion to be drawn from it.

    A common example used to illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is the determination of whether it rained.  On the one hand, if a person testified that he or she looked outside a window and saw rain falling, that is direct evidence that it rained.  If, on the other hand, a witness testified that he or she heard distant pitter patter, and later walked outside and saw that the ground was wet, smelled freshness in the air and felt that the air was moist, those sensations would be circumstantial evidence that it had rained.

    Circumstantial evidence is often discussed as if it carries less weight than direct evidence.  Under the law - and in life - that is not necessarily true.  The example above demonstrates that both direct and circumstantial evidence may be equally reliable.  In both scenarios, there would be strong proof of rain.  Any piece of evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, must be evaluated in terms of whether the source of the evidence is reliable.

    An eyewitness to an event is direct evidence, but eyewitnesses are often unreliable for many reasons.  People may lie, or, more often, they may not see things as clearly as they believe, especially if an event occurs quickly or at a time of high stress.  Moreover, people tend to see things in a way that matches their expectations.  Memory can change over time, and people tend to fill in gaps in their memory without realizing it.  People are often susceptible to suggestion, whether by police or others. 

    While there are certainly differences between direct and circumstantial evidence, reliability is not necessarily one of them.”

    “Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.”

    “Circumstantial evidence is used to support a theory of a sequence of events. The sum total of multiple pieces of corroborating evidence, each piece being circumstantial alone, build an argument to support how a particular event happened.”

    Posted by Glenda  on  07/11/15  at  09:39 PM
  388. #382 (Brian’s list of things not proven) v #387 (Glenda’s well explained argument)

    However taking the example of Rain, eye witnesses seeing the rain could qualify it differently ie it was heavy or light etc but still it is an account of rain.( if that specifically was the thing needed to be proven comparable as in this case;  murder) Much discussion here has been was it a grey or white dinghy?  Yet there is no agreement that the sightings were of the same dinghy. (I await the controlled experiment with the one dinghy, the quick silver, done under the different hypotheses of the varying lighting conditions to show the colour deductions that have been proposed).

    But getting back to proving/inferring it rained. We have evidence of wetness. Caused by rain is one possibility but there are other possibilities eg it could have snowed and melted, hail, frost, dew etc.

    Was it required to be proven specifically that it rained? (In this case murder)

    The legal requirement of circumstantial evidence is that there can be no other possibility of something other than rain. (murder). This was not achieved in the trial in my opinion and is the pivotal point   in all of this.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  08/11/15  at  08:00 AM
  389. On my final contribution to this mystery immoderately concluded matter I submit the following.
    First one must consider the time, the place, the instrument causing death, then the fact that one killed another.

    I have read many accounts where the instrument causing death was a motor vehicle being handled in a careless life threatening manner, the result one dead person.
    The charges laid were compatible to that of driving in a careless and indeed dangerous manner.

    Now comes the trial, the guilt has by way of the prosecuting counsel proving a substantial sufficiency of forensic evidence that proves the established resultant death. Guilty is the cry.

    We now await the penalty or the sentence handed down, quite often it is not 26 years in prison, it may be a driving suspension, or indeed a financial penalty and a suspended prison sentence.

    Remember each of the illustrated examples of a murder crime has been judged as to be a committed crime, yes that it was by the agency of an apparent reckless and abhorrent nature.

    I now leave this case in the minds of those who have been critical of the SNF circumstantial’s.

    Then to compare that of the other example case, proven through and by the best qualified forensic techniques, as was visibly shown in this instance, to have consisted of unarguable fact and identified though and by its thorough analytical investigation.

    2 deaths, 2 entirely different outcomes.
    Now tell me of the honourable conduct and process of Justice in Tasmania.
    Which of these 2 independent events would have been provided with the most extensive mitigation and had created the least amount of furore?

    Posted by William Boeder  on  08/11/15  at  08:25 AM
  390. What I posted in my #387 is what I got directly from two or three internet sites that define circumstantial evidence.

    The purpose of my post was to help Brian, and others who are struggling,  with the concept of circumstantial evidence.  This type of evidence is a real and valid form of evidence, and can be used in a criminal trial. The other purpose of my post was to indicate to Brian that in general there are several corroborative components in a circumstantial case that need to be reasoned through before arriving at a conclusion. Hence why these types of cases are generally more complex and thus generate more controversy. It is my opinion that therefore anyone who hasn’t bothered to invest time in digesting the evidence of this trial is likely to make naive statements.


    #388


    I consider it naive of you to have to have a need for a controlled experiment with the Four Winds dinghy given that there is already sufficient evidence in the trial transcript that the Four Winds dinghy was described from memory by more eyewitnesses to be grey than white (even though those witnesses were looking at that dinghy from a significantly shorter distance than Conde, Clarke, P36 when they looked at the dinghy that was tied to the Four Winds yacht). It seems to me that you (and many others who support Sue) are desperate to find one bit of evidence to prove to yourself that she didn’t kill Bob. If Sue didn’t do it then it ought to have been very easy to find one simple piece of evidence to support that claim. So far, there is nothing that raises a reasonable doubt about her being innocent. Whether Sue had a fair trial is another matter altogether. I am not qualified to make a comment on such matters.

    Posted by Glenda  on  08/11/15  at  01:07 PM
  391. Right at this very moment Eve Ash and Barbara Etter are busy spruiking (what I see as) the discredited Doco - ‘Shadow of Doubt’

    Tickets for sale 12 - 15 bucks. Unbelievable! I have no doubt they again will drag MV into their cruel nonsense. Can they be legally stopped? I will endeavor to find out. I have spoken to Tas Police with my concerns some time ago. I will now put something in writing. It is wrong. Enough is enough!

    ‘By: Lorne Film 2015 Nov 12-15
    Event Description
    Shadow of Doubt

    Set in Hobart, this documentary follows one of the most intriguing and alarming legal cases in recent Australian history. Bob Chappell, radiation physicist, aged 65, was last seen alive on Australia Day, 26 January 2009. In October 2010, his partner of 18 years, Sue Neill-Fraser, was convicted of murder and jailed for 26 years, later reduced to 23 years. This is the first time someone has been jailed in Tasmania for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence and without a body.

    Screening at Cumberland Sunday 15th November at 2.30pm followed by a Q&A with the documentary makers.’

    (added)

    Posted by mark  on  13/11/15  at  06:28 AM
  392. Mark #391, I suspect your words, “It is wrong. Enough is enough” may well be similar to those often uttered by Susan Neill-Fraser & her family.

    With respect, each to their own beliefs.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  13/11/15  at  08:25 AM
  393. #392 To be truthful, I don’t give a toss what SNF might be uttering, unless it were a confession. I’ve said before I feel for her daughters. Rosemary (in my view) keeps grasping at straws. Must be near impossible for those close to SNF to accept the verdict. Who will have the strength to keep up the cause after SNF has served her time. Or will it then be forgotten. But that can’t happen, the real murderer must be found…..

    (added)

    Posted by mark  on  13/11/15  at  10:18 AM
  394. All of this reminds me of then old nursery rhyme about going round the mulberry bush. The facts are pushed to the back of the garden. My advice: reread the transcript of the case. Read the story of deceit by the accused, her past comments to wish him dead. A jury found that a man has died at the hands of his wife. Someone he probably trusted and that as a result of all these further red herrings, someone who could escape the judgement she deserves.

    Posted by Annie  on  13/11/15  at  01:45 PM
  395. Well done to Dr Bob Moles et-all, in their search for justice to be seen to be done, and miscarriages of justice undone, as far as that is possible in the circumstances.

    At long last - Keogh murder charge to be dropped:
    http://netk.net.au/Keogh/Keogh21.pdf

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  13/11/15  at  02:26 PM
  396. The Jury.
    Advancing previous comments insofar as they refer to the role of the jury.  Courts have not allowed much research about jurors’ behaviour, but what exists is potent.

    Referring to (then) Hon. Mr Justice Christopher WRIGHT’s 7th March 2000 farewell address upon retirement from the Tasmanian bench, some extracts read: -

    Many jurors are not involved in the discussion of complex issues in their daily lives and they are ill-equipped to consider such matters rationally or to discuss them with 11 complete strangers. A dominant individual can, and I believe, often does, have a disproportionate influence on his or her fellow jurors.

    P5/7 par 3;
    …I am fully convinced that juries return a wrong verdict in about 25 per cent of all cases. By “wrong verdict”, I mean a verdict which flies in the face of the evidence of palpably honest witnesses or unimpeachable documentary material

    P6/7 par 6;
    …I am sure that juries sometimes make compromises in order to bring a trial to a conclusion or for some other inappropriate reason, particularly in cases of serious sexual assault….

    P6/7 par 9;
    …I believe, however, that the question of criminal trials by jury should not have the “sacred cow” status it has developed over the years and should be opened up for further debate..

    The following link provides a transcript of interview with Justice Wright, for ABC PM. It is worth a read.
    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s108479.htm

    “…
    MARK COLVIN: A retiring Supreme Court judge from Tasmania has come out and criticised one of the basic tenets of our legal system, the jury.

    Justice Christopher Wright says the system no longer works and needs to be replaced by one in which a judge or judges would determine verdicts. Justice Wright says he’s convinced that juries return wrong verdicts in around 25 per cent of all cases. He defines wrong verdict as a verdict that flies in the face of presented evidence.
    …”

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  13/11/15  at  04:58 PM
  397. #390 Glenda. I assure you I do not need help.

    I shall go one step further SNF was not convicted on circumstantial evidence nor direct evidence. Sue was convicted on no evidence.

    Circumstantial evidence could be a fingerprint. Which raises questions as
    a)Was the person there when the crime was committed.
    b)Did the person have reasonable and legal reasons to be there.

    Circumstantial evidence could go as follows.

    You see someone enter a neighbours house.
    You hear a scream.
    You see the same person leave the house, The person may be carrying a knife.
    We could say the knife could have blood on it.
    What you did not see was someone else enter the house commit the murder and leave without you noticing.
    Circumstantial evidence could gaol the person carrying the knife and you as a witness of sorts could assist even though you never witnessed the murder.

    There is no evidence, circumstantial or direct linking Sue to the murder.

    Sue’s conviction was built around a hypothetical and invented scenario (in my view). A hypothesis.

    (added)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  15/11/15  at  11:51 PM
  398. There has been much mention of the belief in scientists and experts.

    In the Gordon Wood case a professor Cross from a Sydney university invented the spear throw which assisted in the conviction of Wood. Wood has been released and apparently sued the university and settled an undisclosed sum out of court.

    So much for experts.

    What was going through Cross’s head when he invented the spear throw?

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  16/11/15  at  12:00 AM
  399. #398

    Prof Cross was thinking about parabolic motion and what take-off speed would have been required for a person to land so far out from the edge of the cliff. He wasn’t proven wrong! The deceased could not have reached the sufficient take-off speed with the available run-up distance she had. But if she was thrown in a spear-like fashion then her body would have reached the position it landed in head first as if she flew through the air like a spear. Very simple science for a physicist. How can you expect non-scientists (judges) to determine whether a PhD qualified physicist (Prof Cross) was correct?

    John

    Posted by John T.P.  on  16/11/15  at  02:56 PM
  400. #399 John T P

    I understand that when Caroline Bryne’s body was found the police did not mark the spot on the rocks (or the marks washed away) where the body was found.

    When the trial took place the position of the body was further away. I am not saying the police screwed up. For whatever reason the position changed.

    Prof. Cross came up with the spear throw to get the body into the new position.

    The overall result to my mind became a screw-up.

    As I said. So much for experts.

    And when we get into some of the other cases you will be dumb found.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  17/11/15  at  12:00 AM
  401. #400. Brian Johnson, there are a couple or more words here that can be ‘attributable to’ also can be ‘applicable to’, while there can also be room for some level of ‘prefabrication to’ or further, ‘to embellish’ upon evidences presented within a courtroom setting.
    Then there is more likelihood that this will occur in Tasmania, in a higher proportion than any other State of Australia.

    I am able to express my opinions about the above matters having probed deep into and among the intestines of the Tasmanian Judicial System, then into the integrity of those who hold the high appointments there within as well as my intensive study into a number of past case conduct histories that may have been carefully hidden from a proper forensic dissemination of the sum total of all of its body parts.

    Yet the fetid odour of injudicious process can rise like a misty vapour from a number of former Supreme Court cases held in this State.

    Again I am able to make my claims with a degree of impunity from those that may serve as the functionaries at the sharpest end of this State’s Justice System, simply because those who think otherwise can be become a target for ex-tempore
    intervention.

    http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/ex-tempore-judgments

    One of the most appropriate analogies one can tender as almost a carbon copy of events, that even today this State’s Supreme court-house judgement delivery system, is that the law is an ass.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  17/11/15  at  08:52 AM
  402. For readers following miscarriages of justice, this article is informative.

    Dr Bob Moles briefly refers to the Susan Neill-Fraser case on page 4.

    http://netk.net.au/SA/AIJA2015.pdf

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  19/11/15  at  03:07 PM
  403. #402. Geraldine what a fine thing you have done in your submitting the Dr Robert Moles link to Tasmanian Times.

    ...

    So many cases, so many cruel and critical failures in that distant yonder State of South Australia.

    Thank you Dr Moles for your sound reasoning and also your reasons for pursuing the vital and ostensibly the most serious absence in this State’s judiciary.

    I refer here to the allowing of inadequately and unqualified circumstantial evidence to stand in place of proven forensic fact.

    ...

    Is it any wonder that I hold with the same opinion as Dr Moles has opined, in which he has clearly stated the defects extant at that very time of this still highly controversial SNF trial process and its mysterious powers that had somehow enabled a conviction to be valid, yet without a shred of fact (in my view) having been submitted.

    (Indeed there were no fact evidences presented nor were they more reasonably sought, so essential to enable a Supreme Court judge to deliver his closing case determined words correctly to the expectant jury persons.)

    It is clear evident that there could not be a case presentation to the jury persons, as the whole case had lacked any component of fact, so we must here understand now that it was a cacophony of pompous legal flim-flammery that then became the final arbiter to announce the fate of the now resultant unjustifiably (in my view)  imprisoned Sue Neill-Fraser.

    To make this matter even more redolent of iniquitous vain-in-glory and further suspicious, is in the finding of the Hobart Coroner who has since claimed, despite any knowledgeable fact, that the convicted person was said to have likely worked alone.

    Just how many units of ‘likely’ or ‘figment likely’ would be adequate to reign supreme by its guessing questing cruelling superior status to so deliver.

    It is time for Tasmania’s aging judiciary and its incumbent subordinate subalterns to have this State be quit of, so absolutely necessary to allow the entry of new and untainted, higher trained and qualified, new ordained judicial superiors.

    (edited)

    Posted by William Boeder  on  20/11/15  at  12:22 AM
  404. Dr Moles need to apologise to M.Vass for stating on 60 mins that she was on-board the yacht. How can he have any credibility with such a blunder?

    Posted by Glenda  on  20/11/15  at  02:26 PM
  405. Just finished the trial transcript

    What a circus. This case was built around Sue.

    I cannot see how a jury can decide beyond all reasonable doubt

    There was no circumstantial evidence to join a few dots.

    This case was no evidence

    The only evidence was MV’s DNA and that went sideways.

    There were two dinghies

    I would consider Triffett’s statement either lies or unacceptable. The judge called it evidence. What! It was an unsubstantiated story and a bad one at that.

    And unbelievably the jury asks a question what is the difference between murder and manslaughter. How did the jury get past BARD.

    Sue summed the case up in her own language. “This is madness”.

    Sue should be released from gaol immediately.

    The police should be compelled to find the other damn dinghy.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  20/11/15  at  03:57 PM
  406. #404 Glenda, An apology in my view would only be required when MV can prove that she was not on the yacht when one of the few bits of evidence (that being her DNA) links her presence on the Four Winds. That plus DNA of unknown others on the yacht may well hold the key to this mystery.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  20/11/15  at  05:35 PM
  407. Well done, Brian.  It’s a hard slog but you made it!  I found insight in the parts when the jury were sent out and Mssrs Gunson and Ellis argued their points before the judge.  Despite the labelling that occurs on the SN-F matter, despite the fact that various of the ‘she’s guilty’ view call us all her ‘supporters’, my stake in this case is as a supporter of justice.  Just as others have made the point, some of us have no opinion as to-SN-F’s innocence or guilt, but do have an opinion about the conduct of the trial.  In my case, I deplore the trial judge’s decision not to permit MV to be recalled.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  20/11/15  at  05:38 PM
  408. MV doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone just like Sue didn’t have to prove her innocence!

    MV could not have made it onto the yacht by 3:55 pm, the time at which all SNF supporters claim there was a different dinghy at the yacht. Did you ignore that Rosemary and Garry or do I need to refer you to the relevant page in the trial transcript?

    Where was Sue at 3:55 pm? She agreed it was her on the yacht at 3:55 pm!! Get a reality check Rosemary and Garry!

    Anyone who can go on national TV and stretch the true statement of a forensic science report like Bob Moles did ought to acknowledge their mistake and apologise to MV as well as to the relevant forensic scientists in VPFSD.

    Posted by Glenda  on  20/11/15  at  08:31 PM
  409. This was recently posted by a retired forensic scientist from Brisbane (see the whole comment #231 Sue Neill-Fraser: Two views of her guilt):

    “No forensic lab on earth can say how DNA ended up on a surface, just from
    looking at the DNA information - it’s simply impossible. You can look at a
    DNA profile as long as you like, it will not tell you if primary or
    secondary transfer occurred. Similarly knowing the amount of DNA collected -
    that won’t tell you either. Even the Victorian’s know that. The 60 Minutes
    claims in this regard were laughable.”

    I agree with Glenda that Dr Moles overstepped into an area that he doesn’t know much about and has made an incorrect interpretation of the forensic science report thus spreading false information via a TV program. He now needs to step up and apologise. From my online research, he doesn’t seem to me to have much credibility in the legal and the academic community. If he wasn’t self-employed but an employee whose performance is reviewed annually, I believe that he would have been reprimanded for his statement on 60 Minutes.

    The VPFSD report did not say that Vass DNA was a primary transfer! The VPFSD did not say that Vass was on-board the yacht! Dr Moles made a false statement and needs to apologise!!

    John T.P

    Posted by John T.P.  on  20/11/15  at  10:40 PM
  410. #404 Glenda

    Does Bob Moles need to apologise to M Vass?

    No. She was asked to appear in court to give ‘evidence’. She refused.

    It is like this.

    M Vass’s DNA was found on the yacht in one place and in a ‘substantial’ quantity (Carl Grosser). How. She possibly spat.

    The alternative is.

    M Vass left some DNA somewhere, expectorate? The DNA was then picked up by footwear.

    Problem.

    If M Vass’s DNA was traipsed onto the yacht then the sample would weaken the further the carrier is from source of contact and by the time it is deposited onto the yacht deck could cease to be substantial.

    In addition.

    If the DNA was traipsed onto the yacht there would be a series of deposits matching a persons strides.

    It is most reasonable to suggest that M Vass was on the yacht at some point in time and directly deposited her DNA in one place.

    The police handling of MV DNA is a sham. Reason. The case was built around Sue.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  21/11/15  at  01:15 AM
  411. #408 3.55pm I am certainly NOT saying and never have said it was MV at 3.55pm Sue did not definitely say it was her at that time. paraphrasing ‘perhaps I did stay longer than I thought’, All these points raised in this forum should have an opportunity to be tested in a further appeal. It would be great to have all these hypotheses tested by a scientific test by then as well or it will continue to be a gathering of opinions. IN a rigorous scientific method where results can be replicated by any oher similarly qualified scientist. I guess that is why forensics is an evolving science as it should be. Then perhaps we can all be on the same page.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  21/11/15  at  07:44 AM
  412. ...

    The giveaway is that it is highly unlikely that Sue would use a gangsters term. ‘Wrap him in chicken wire’.

    Bizarre.

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  25/11/15  at  11:03 PM
  413. Now that the new Further Right to Appeal legislation has passed both Houses of the State Parliament and been signed by the Governor, how will it be put into practice?

    Will Sue Neill-Fraser get:
    1) A re-trial
    2) A further Appeal
    3) A Review

    and will the Justice System import a judge from the mainland to have a truly independent person to preside over 1), 2) or 3)?

    I look forward to seeing how a terrible miscarriage of justice will be righted.
    Jennie Herrera, Newtown

    Posted by Jennie Herrera  on  09/12/15  at  04:52 PM
  414. #423 Jennie
    Will Sue get a retrial, an appeal or review?

    Most likely none of the above

    Lets just for a moment stand in the shoes of the police and/or the prosecution. Sue is guilty. Why would the ‘system’ help get Sue out.

    ...

    How to get Sue out

    1)Prove the trial was a sham
    2)Maybe prove the appeal reinforced a sham trial
    3)Prove that evidence was wrong
    4)Compelling new evidence
    5)Prove the police were derelict
    6)Prove the judge failed in his duty
    7)Prove the DPP presented a false scenario
    8)Prove the existing evidence was not conclusive

    Sue will not get out on a technicality.

    A huge problem in this case is Triffett’s statement which I believe to be unsubstantiated ... The judge bizarrely called Triffett’s statement evidence.

    The second huge problem is that I believe one single substantial dollop of (the homeless girl’s) DNA could only be put there by herself.

    The third huge problem. There were two dinghies. the second was larger and grey. If only the police had found it. Were the police looking for it?

    I believe on the available evidence the Sue should not be in gaol

    I will go further. I believe Sue is innocent

    I further believe a talented new Defence could rescue Sue. Here’s hoping.

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  10/12/15  at  12:00 PM
  415. Quaker quote for SNF;

    “A good end cannot sanctify evil means; nor must we ever do evil that good may come of it.”
    ― William Penn

    A Quaker Motto Calendar may be nice for SNF to brighten her cell and for her to cross off the days.

    Posted by mark  on  20/12/15  at  09:11 PM
  416. If I was the judge in a new trial the first thing I would ask is why Sue dialed *10# once. It just happened to be when she arrived home in the ver early hours after murdering poor Mr Chappel.

    Posted by john wiseman  on  16/02/16  at  08:28 PM
  417. Maybe Sue could use a (new) lawyer, given her (team) does not appear to know the difference between admissible evidence and heresay ...

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-22/neil-fraser-given-three-months-to-produce-new-evidence/7351220

    No doubt the legal team will get side-tracked again with a federal election looming.

    But what better way to raise one’s public profile than by latching onto an innocence project.

    There must be a book deal in this somewhere.

    60 Minutes, where are you we when we need you!

    (edited)

    Posted by Frank Conseil  on  25/04/16  at  07:59 AM
  418. #417. Frank, it seems you don’t know the difference between heresay and hearsay.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  25/04/16  at  10:03 AM
  419. Barbara Etter has followed the Adelaide case (the case on which Bob Moles worked for many years) and in my view has a pretty good understanding of how to prepare an appeal. Unfortunately, she is faced with a case in which, in my opinion, there is no “fresh and compelling” evidence. There might be some fresh evidence but does it meet the criteria of it being compelling? This is the main issue that has occupied these pages.

    I don’t know how to prepare an appeal in these matters but I certainly wouldn’t rest my hopes on the forensic report by VPFSD nor on how some people have interpreted the contents of that report nor would I rest my hopes on the work Eve Ash did towards this case via her documentary. My biggest surprise when I researched this case last year was the discovery that virtually every commentator wasn’t aware that: (i) the Four Winds dinghy was perceived to be grey in colour by a few people who saw it next to the rowing sheds on the morning of the 27th; (ii) that MV could not have made it onto the Four Winds yacht by 4pm because she left the house where was staying at 3:50 pm. So much for the Shadow of Doubt documentary.

    If the defence team feels that the forensic report by the VPFSD is fresh and compelling then surely the appeal ought to be centred around this rather than messing up the appeal process by including non-relevant issues such as a DVD (presumably Eve Ash’s documentary) and email(s) that featured on the Tasmanian Times.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/04/16  at  07:43 PM
  420. Speaking of Sue’s defence team? Have you ever tried phoning Barbara Etter or Eve Ash. They do not want to know anyone else. They and they alone will solve this case. I at this stage worry for Sue. However I believe there may be a good QC involved. If so then he and he alone will solve this case.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  27/04/16  at  08:31 AM
  421. Shocking journalism from the ABC. Edith Bevin reported in reference to Sue. ‘She attacked him and threw his body in the river Derwent’ Bevin should have said. She was convicted of attacking him….

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  27/04/16  at  01:39 PM
  422. If only the police had found the grey dingy. I believe Eve Ash interviewed someone who knew about it. That dingy has to be found.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  28/04/16  at  08:46 PM
  423. $422 Barbara Etter is well ahead of you with respect to the dinghy you are referring to. I suggest you research her website thoroughly before making outdated and irrelevant comments. As a clue, read the last sentence of my #82 concerning some German tourists. Why do you think you have something useful to add to Barbara’s demonstrated great research and analytical skills??

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  29/04/16  at  06:50 AM
  424. .....

    “The fundamental weakness of the VPFSD report was the implicit assumption made by its author(s) that if a person stepped through the entrance gate onto the deck of the Four Winds yacht that the person would have walked further along the deck, thus depositing DNA in other locations.”


    See more at my comment #246 at:

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt#sthash.KuIMQPUG.dpuf

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  06/05/16  at  11:58 PM
  425. the fundamental weakness of those critical of the VPFSD, is that they seek to redefine ‘secondary transfer” to their own terms.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  07/05/16  at  08:00 AM
  426. This is from Barbara Etter’s website:

    “The same detective also told the court that when he originally spoke to Ms Vass that she indicated she believed that she may have been hanging around the Goodwood area at the time of Mr Chappell’s disappearance (CT p.824).”

     

    Also this:

     

    “In addition to this, on 23 March 2012 a typed statement was actually taken by Tasmania Police from the homeless girl, after Sue Neill-Fraser’s lawyer wrote to the Commissioner of Police in February 2012 requesting that statements be taken from Ms Vass and the two homeless men spoken to by police on the Marieville Esplanade foreshore on 27 January 2009 from whom statements had never been taken. These interviews led to another man being pulled in by police for interview.

    In her 2012 statement, only provided to the legal team in 2014, after several requests for access, Ms Vass stated:”

     

    . She had never been to Sandy Bay;

    . She had never been on any yacht in her life;

    . She never went onto the Four Winds;

    . She had no idea how her DNA came to be on the boat;

    . She did not recall having any property stolen or removed that may have had contact with the boat;

    . She had not been at the waterfront at any time that she could remember.

     


    This is the link to the relevant section of Barbara Etter’s website http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/suggestions-from-tasmania-police-about-the-vass-dna/)

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  07/05/16  at  04:31 PM
  427. Pg 636:  10
    And it would be fair to say that you’ve never been to the
    industrial premises, that were described a moment ago, called
    CleanLIFT Marine at Negara Crescent at Goodwood?……Yes.

    That’s more than clear.  Furthermore, there’s no evidence of bubble gum or any other agent of transference, for that matter.  MV said she’d never been to the Goodwood slip-yard (where the Four Winds was stored after Bob Chappel’s disappearance). 

    The relevance of MV going/not ever going to Goodwood is that the secondary transfer suggestion appears to hang on this to a great degree. 
    -If she wasn’t at the slip-yard, then she didn’t drop chewing gum there. 
    -If she didn’t drop chewing gum there, then chewing gum containing her DNA did not get picked up on the shoe of some else who was about to board the boat. 

    Given MV’s evidence that she was never at the Goodwood slip-yard, it is reasonable, in my opinion, to prefer the ‘primary deposit’ scenario over the implausible ‘transferred by chewy on a boot’ as proposed by Peter.

    Furthermore, given the discrepancy as to MV’s whereabouts on ‘the night’ it was more than reasonable to have her recalled to respond to these issues, and in my opinion, it was less than reasonable for the judge to prevent her recall.  That was the essence of the MoJ, in my opinion.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  08/05/16  at  08:46 AM
  428. There is more to Goodwood than the slip-yard.

    Why not interview all those that are known to have boarded the Four Winds yacht in Goodwood as to how they got there and then take MV along all those routes in Goodwood to see if her own route crossed any of the other paths? Then we are likely to discover the owner of the shoe that carried MV’s DNA.

    My money is on the secondary transfer hypothesis!

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  08/05/16  at  05:11 PM
  429. Extension to my #428:

    I agree with Dr Lozo’s opinion that VPFSD forensics people assumed that there is only one possible explanation. 

    It is perfectly feasible that the person whose shoe carried MV’s DNA momentarily stepped onto the deck without taking any further steps along the deck of the yacht and then retreated back through the entrance gate and never returning - at least not with the same shoes. As was pointed out, the location of the spot on the deck where the DNA came from is right next to the gate.  

    On the assumption that it was a chewing gum as proposed by Dr Lozo: the pressure exerted onto the chewing gum when the foot first hit the deck would have caused some amount of saliva to be squeezed out of the gum and onto the deck. Thus there is no need for any parts of the chewing gum to have ended being stuck to the deck in order for the transference of the DNA to have occurred via the expelled saliva.

    Definitely a plausible secondary transfer mechanism via a saliva in a chewing gum stuck to a shoe.

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  08/05/16  at  06:55 PM
  430. A Brief Critique on the VPFSD Forensic Report


    The following sentence from the Victoria Police Forensic Services Department (VPFSD) report on their analysis of MV’s DNA, in consideration of the location from where the swab was taken, is in my opinion the critical sentence of the report. I say critical because this sentence includes two valid assumptions that did not necessarily have to have been satisfied nor are they the only valid assumptions that the forensic scientist(s) could have made in order to explain the data.

    “If the tread of a shoe retaining a moist biological substance was to be acknowledged as the likely means of the transference, I believe it is reasonable to anticipate that at least one other similar stain resulting in the same DNA profile (or part thereof) would have been expected to have been deposited on the deck of ‘Four Winds’ as the person moved about the yacht.”


    The above sentence clearly shows that the forensic scientist(s) made a significant assumption that “the person moved about the yacht”. But this did not necessarily have to have occurred. The person could have momentarily stepped onto the deck of the yacht next to the entrance gate and then retreated back trough the gate.


    The second assumption was that the person wore exactly the same footwear as when initially stepping onto the yacht next to the entrance gate. But this did not have to have occurred. The person could have changed shoes or realised that one shoe was sticking and removed it before walking further on the deck beyond the entrance gate, etc. 


    One does not need to be an expert in the relevant area of forensic science in order to analyse the reasoning process and the assumptions that were made by the forensic scientist(s) in the mentioned report. Whether or not VPFSD is a respected NATA accredited laboratory is irrelevant to the reasoning processes and the imagination of the forensic scientist(s) who analysed MV’s DNA and wrote the report.


    It is my conclusion that the forensic report from VPFSD on Meaghan Vass DNA does not provide a compelling scientific evidence/opinion to support the claim that the DNA sample was most likely as result of a primary transfer.


    I also conclude that my own Chewing Gum Hypothesis of the Secondary Transfer Mechanism does not provide a compelling scientific evidence/opinion to support the claim that a secondary transfer did definitely occur. However, it is a valid and a physically plausible alternative to that proposed by the VPFSD forensic scientist(s).


    Why did I choose saliva over blood? It was a hot day in Goodwood! I refer you to my recent comment #261 at http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt.


    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Applied Physicist/Perceptual Scientist
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/05/16  at  04:23 PM
  431. The Grey Dinghy in the Neill-Fraser Case: a visual perceptual misconception by Neill-Fraser supporters

    A number of leading supporters of Sue Neill-Fraser (Lynn Giddings, Eve Ash, Garry Stannus, Bob Moles, Barbara Etter, etc) have demonstrated ignorance about the effect of viewing conditions on the appearance of an object such as that of a dinghy on water on an overcast day when viewed in the general direction of the sun. They have also ignored the eyewitness statements which showed that the Four Winds dinghy was perceived to be grey rather than white under a real-world outdoor condition. But, most of the above mentioned people made a big deal of the battleship grey/mid-range grey/dark grey dinghy that was seen tethered to the Four Winds on the afternoon of the Australia Day. This is a great example of ignorance led by tunnel vision. Had they paid attention to the statement of Mr Balding (the rowing coach), and a few police officers, they would have realised that it could have been the Four Winds dinghy next to its yacht at 3:55 pm and at 5 pm on the Australia day. Had they paid careful attention to the weather conditions and the viewing perspective from which Paul Conde was looking they would have potentially realised that:


    (i) Conde would have had a great difficulty in accurately perceiving the shape of the dinghy’s bow given that it was very choppy (3 foot waves) and the dinghy would have been rocking around a lot, as well as being splashed by water. The perspective (sideways rather than from above) from which Conde saw the dinghy would would have skewed his perception of the dinghy’s shape;


     (ii) Conde couldn’t have perceived  a dark grey lee-cloth on a dark grey dinghy. There needed to be a contrast difference between the lee-cloth and the dinghy for the lee-cloth to have been seen, in which case they wouldn’t have been of the same shade of grey. The splashing water (and the glare) would have further made it difficult to properly perceive the dinghy.

     

    Here are three quotes worth mentioning just to refresh our minds as to how pervasive the misconception was amongst the Neill-Fraser supporters:

     

    1. Eve Ash (a psychologist)


    http://shadowofdoubt.tv/breaking-the-rules-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case/

    There were four recorded sightings of a grey dinghy tied up to Four Winds on the afternoon of Australia Day, very different to the Four Winds, which is a white dinghy with blue markings. This dinghy was a vital clue to someone else being at the crime scene between 4 and 5.30pm on Australia Day – not Sue Neill-Fraser. In fact the police were asked to go and re-interview Paul Conde, one of the witnesses because the grey dinghy had not been properly investigated. He said it was charcoal grey, with a dark lee cloth, wide, commercial looking, scuffed, not new, and definitely NOT the Quicksilver dinghy belonging to the Four Winds”.

     


    2. Andrew Urban (movie critic/journalist)


    http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz.au/index.php/article/justice-system-would-be-a-laughing-stock#sthash.Jm31SgyC.dpuf

    There now appears to be evidence, even more than you’ll see on the film, that the dinghy near the yacht was not the dinghy of the yacht, and was not the dinghy associated with the accused. There is after all a considerable difference between a grey dinghy and a white dinghy. And there’s a lot of evidence about a grey dinghy. More than in this film.”


    3. Bob Moles (former Associate Professor of Law; researcher of Miscarriages of Justice)


    In his review of Eve Ash’s Shadow of Doubt, Bob wrote:

    “The old joke is about how a biased person can make black look like white. In this case the investigator actually said that a white boat might look like grey on the water – without any evidential basis for such a remarkable claim”


    Given the nature of Bob Mole’s statement I thought it suitable for me to end this post with the following portion of the Bee Gees song “I started a joke”:

     

    “I started a joke which started the whole world crying
    But I didn’t see that the joke was on me oh no
    I started to cry which started the whole world laughing
    Oh If I’d only seen that the joke was on me

    I looked at the skies running my hands over my eyes
    And I fell out of bed hurting my head from things that I said”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  01/06/16  at  09:53 PM
  432. Peter #431
    It is not helpful to accuse Sue’s supporters of ignorance and tunnel vision.
    The police used the nominative approach. Sue was nominated and ‘boxed’ in (in my view).
    To everyone.Where is the grey dingy? Hard to prove it didn’t exist. It would certainly help if it could be found.
    I still maintain M Vass knows something. Secondary transfer of DNA is less credible than Vass depositing her own DNA. This area needs to be tidied up.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  02/06/16  at  09:05 AM
  433. #432. Thank you Brian Johnson, I have held the same view. Contradictory stories relating to the young girl have been ignored by the police and justice department, they relying on secondary written evidence, rather than the primary.

    Has anybody considered how else the DNA of this person could far more logically have been transferred to the zone where the DNA was located.
    I would not be right for me to provide my picture of events ‘that other factors had not been submitted’ but kept aloof from the available evidence permitted in this case.
    I have just read the transcript of a case that has shown extreme bias in a decision handed down at the conclusion of a recent Tasmanian Supreme Court case.
    Furthermore I am able to provide further case examples of same.
    This State government condones doing business with an internationally known corrupt timber company, one can surely expect these same abhorrent and smug ugly principles will be interwoven into every facet of State government influence throughout this State.
    I kid you not.
    Court case transcripts provide detectable disconformities simply in the fact that they remain a paper trail of recorded event.
    Consequently if the Heads of this State are blind to their numerous prejudgments and poor decisions, this same stand will be evident in same way within this State’s Justice Department.

    One only has to recall the lack of incentive by this State’s Justice department to have John Gay face the full impact of his lies and deceptions during that former period of sinister events.
    One must also evaluate the State’s mass media reluctance to deliver the full impact of various woeful government advices and conducts, whereby individual facts are omitted or are heavily diluted, or are completely missing from the resulting news reports.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  02/06/16  at  12:04 PM
  434. 1. On perceptual misconceptions about visual perception by Neill-Fraser supporters

    The key take home lesson for the leading and influential supporters of Neill-Fraser is:

    The perceptual reality in someone’s head about how an object looks like in colour, shape or size doesn’t always exactly correspond to the physical reality and is subject to distortions caused by the intensity and colour of the illumination on the object,the reflectance of the object, the perspective from which the object is viewed, any shadows on the object, and the location of the illuminant with respect to the observer and the observed object,as well as to what the observer is paying attention to and for how long.

    Thus, had the dinghy that was observed by Conde been truly dark grey in the physical reality then in the perceptual reality of the observer the dinghy would have appeared to be black under the viewing conditions and the geometry that faced Conde and the other eyewitnesses at 3:55 pm and at 5 pm! 

    On the other hand, if the Four Winds yacht not been in the direct path between the sun and the dinghy and had the observer looked at that dinghy from Napoleon St or the Marieville Esplanade at 3:55 pm then that dinghy would have appeared to that observer to be light grey rather than dark grey.

    Therefore the mysterious grey dinghy in the Neill-Fraser case is in physical reality a light coloured dinghy whose pigment in the  dye of the material out of which the dinghy is made causes it not to have a very high reflectance, certainly not as high as the reflectance of the Four Winds yacht. End of mystery!

    2. Could Secondary DNA Transfer Falsely Place Someone at the Scene of a Crime?

    “If your DNA is found on a weapon or at a crime scene, does that make you guilty?”

    “A judge or jury might think so, but a new study from the University of Indianapolis shows that secondary transfer of human DNA through intermediary contact is far more common than previously thought, a finding that could have serious repercussions for medical science and the criminal justice system.”

    Reference:

    Cynthia M. Cale, Madison E. Earll, Krista E. Latham, Gay L. Bush. Could Secondary DNA Transfer Falsely Place Someone at the Scene of a Crime?,. Journal of Forensic Sciences

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/06/16  at  01:36 PM
  435. I think it is reasonable to suggest
    1)That M Vass deposited her own DNA
    2)That therefore M Vass may know something about what happened
    3)If she knows nothing then she may have made a separate trip to the yacht

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  03/06/16  at  02:28 PM
  436. #435 Brian

    It is so damn easy for you to write “That M Vass deposited her own DNA” but can you now please justify your statement as to why and how did you come to believe it to be a fact?

    Is there any corroborative evidence you can flush out for us readers to convince as that you didn’t just express your statement because you wish it to be true?

    Do you understand that Ms Vass can sue you for your unsubstantiated on-line claim that she deposited her DNA directly by being on the yacht and that she may therefore know what happened to Bob?

    I suggest that you leave the subject alone and leave it to scientists and lawyers.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/06/16  at  04:20 PM
  437. #435. Thank you Brian, every witness statement ‘must be re-considered’ from the perspective of opportunity, then and only then can a better address be given to the then submitted evidence or even the lack thereof.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  03/06/16  at  08:41 PM
  438. As for Dr Peter Lozo I do believe his power of suggestion and theoretical engagement must by now have run out of steam.
    If not then his steam must be switched off.
    This situation has not been aided by Dr Peter Lozo acting the part of the Devil’s Advocate, which some say can add to a debate or even detract from a debate.

    Traveling back to the Lindy Chamberlain case there was so much bias and innuendo by so many then published by the media during that period that, I firmly believe outweighed whatever facts were finally presented were found to be unproven.

    Many say the Chamberlaincase was a trial by media, some say the incomplete forensic evidence contributed to the case that became the catalyst that had placed Lindy Chamberlain behind bars.
    Popular public opinion must never contribute an iota of substance in place of hard facts.

    Having said the above my comments are generally toward the conduct of the case in Court, in which I believe was based on the substance that somebody theoretically had done something.
    From thereon in it was a cause of creating the submitted scenarios and making a decision to hone in on the best assumed modus operandi even when unsubstantiated evidence was incorporated into the summing up by the Judge to the jury.
    Was the Judge acting in his position as the arbiter of the scant presented facts that needed some form of reliance upon an element of assumption, if so this alone cannot stand in place of beyond all reasonable doubt.
    When a renowned Queens Counsel has proffered his qualified opinion relating to the events and conduct of the case, that is what has led me to conclude the same as that of QC Robert Richter.

    Criminal law is the forte of this QC, not to say that he had been consulted in this matter, however such a perspective of inconclusive fact certainly carries its relevant and legal perspective.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  04/06/16  at  12:56 PM
  439. Thankyou William for your support
    Reply to Peter #436

    I have not accused Vass of anything
    I merely raised a suggestion

    There is quite a bit in the Trial Transcript about the DNA Refer to Dr Carl Grosser who says it is more likely the DNA was a direct transfer and I agree

    The police do not appear to have done a good job of questioning Vass. Vass was not cross examined?

    Thus and I repeat. It is reasonable to suggest Vass may have been there on the yacht that night, deposited her own DNA and in the process saw or became aware of what happened. Vass could be afraid.

    If the case was investigated more methodically rather than on the presumption that Sue was a murderer we would have a better idea. We would know more.

    Ellis says Sue cracked Sue over the head while he was working. That is while the lights were on. Did Sue turn the lights out and fumble about in the dark to winch Bob or did she do it with the lights on for all to see. Neither. Sue would not have been able to do all that winching in the dark. Sue did nothing.

    As for the dinghy or dinghies.
    There was a white one and a grey one. A small one and a large one. one was being motored and one being rowed. One had the occupant sitting low. The other had the occupant sitting on the pontoon.
    There were two dinghies.

    Triffett’s statement was not evidence. It was an unsubstantiated invented story.

    Having read the Trial Transcript I consider the proclivities of the prosecution and defence to be quite churlish and immature. I am shocked.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  04/06/16  at  02:03 PM
  440. I think he is writing a book on Perceptual Misconceptions in Forensic Science.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  04/06/16  at  07:18 PM
  441. #439

    Mr Carl Grosser did not say it is more likely the DNA was a direct transfer!!

    Read again Brian! I don’t think that your supporter would have picked this error in your understanding of the case.

    Best that you get over it and drop the subject because it is too complex for a non-scientist.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  04/06/16  at  07:25 PM
  442. #438, #439

    Ask yourselves whether you are doing Barbara Etter and her client any favours with your naive comments. If I was Neill-Fraser’s solicitor I would find your comments embarrassing to Neill-Fraser’s campaign and would ask you to refrain from further comments.

    #439 Re dinghies

    I refer you to #320 at http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  04/06/16  at  07:35 PM
  443. #435

    You can think what you like but if you can’t justify your reason for thinking that way then why bother posting your thoughts?  If one ignores the rest of the evidence as you did then one might agree with you. But if one includes the whole circumstantial evidence into account then one can find a reasonable explanation for thinking that the DNA deposit is most likely secondary and that Sue knows what happened to Bob. 

    DNA transfer is too complex for lay people to understand how easy it is for secondary transfer to occur. I agree  that  it is best to stay away from this subject unless one is well qualified to understand that DNA can be transferred via all sorts of means. 


    #439

    It was Sue Neill-Fraser’s defence attorney (not Mr  Grosser the forensic scientist) who insisted that Vass DNA was most likely primary transfer.

    Mr Grosser has masters degrees but not a PhD, so his title isn’t Dr.

    Posted by Roger Morgan  on  04/06/16  at  10:22 PM
  444. And if—despite the recent fervent attacks on memory’s reliability—if I recall correctly…

    ...it was Mr Grosser who told the court that in the course of his working life, he had himself not ever (c.f. ‘never’) come across an instance of secondary transfer.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  05/06/16  at  10:01 AM
  445. Saliva based DNA in a chewing gum: two real cases


    I have previously (in April 2015 on a related TT thread) proposed a Chewing Gum Hypothesis of Secondary Transfer of DNA as a physically plausible mechanism of how Ms Vass’ DNA could have been brought onto the deck of the Four Winds yacht via saliva in a chewing gum attached to the bottom of someone’s footwear. I intend to write more on this in the near future. In particular I will offer a comparative analysis of the forensic opinion on Vass DNA by the Tasmanian forensic scientist during the trial (Mr Grosser) and the forensic scientist who wrote the VPFSD report - as far as it is reasonably possible based on the very limited publicly available extracts from the VPFSD report. In the meantime I think it useful for the readers of this case to read about the following two cases in which DNA in a saliva from a chewing gum featured prominently. I hope that this helps with a better appreciation of my chewing gum hypothesis.


    1. Fake ‘Gum Survey’ DNA Solves Case


    “A DNA sample from a phony “chewing gum survey” led to the arrest of a man who has been charged with killing a 70-year-old woman in 1976, making this the oldest cold case to ever be cracked in Maine.”


    http://abcnews.go.com/US/dna-phony-chewing-gum-survey-solves-1976-cold/story?id=17499665


    2. DNA from a saliva in a chewing gum transferred onto a shell casing


    “Under that specific scenario that you’re looking at…would you agree with me, Ms. Biagiotti, that there is a high likelihood that the DNA contained in the saliva on the chewed blue chewing gum would be transferred to that shell casing?”

     

    “Yes, I would agree with that,” Biagiotti replied.


    [Diane Biagiotti is a forensic DNA analyst]

     

    http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-aaron-hernandez-murder-trial-day-22-20150306-story.html

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  05/06/16  at  04:02 PM
  446. On MV’s  DNA:  relevant information


    I provide the following list (not necessarily complete) that will be used and referenced by me in my future analysis:


     1. The police haven’t found any (personal) link between MV and Bob Chappell.


    2. No motive was found to implicate MV.


    3. MV’s  fingerprints  weren’t found on the Four Winds yacht nor on its dinghy.


    4. MV’s belongings weren’t found on the Four Winds yacht nor its dinghy.


    5. MV’s DNA wasn’t found on the Four Winds dinghy.


    6. MV’s hair based DNA wasn’t found on the Four Winds yacht nor on its dinghy.


    7. MV stated that she was never on the Four Winds yacht.


    8. MV’s DNA wasn’t found on Neill-Fraser’s red jacket.


    9. MV’s DNA wasn’t wasn’t found on the personal radio beacon that belonged to Four Winds yacht (same for her fingerprints).


    10. The records at the Mara House showed that MV left that day (26th Jan) at 3:50 pm. At about this time (at 3:55 pm) Paul Conde and his cousins went past the Four Winds yacht and saw a grey/battleship grey/dark grey dinghy tethered to the yacht on its portside. It was very choppy.


    Note: I am assuming that once the police were informed about  MV’s DNA on the deck of Four Winds that they took an active interest in seeking more information from the forensic experts whether her fingerprints, hair, etc were found on the yacht, the dinghy, etc., in order to determine if there was any other evidence to corroborate with the single DNA sample from the deck.


    On the basis of the above, we can conclude that besides the DNA from location 11 on the Four Winds yacht there is no other known evidence that links MV to the Four Winds yacht (or any other property that belonged to Neill-Fraser and Bob Chappell).

    It is also worthwhile here to include an email from Mr Grosser (the DNA analyst) to a detective concerning MV’s DNA on the deck (pages 769-770):

     

    “There was an area, the black outline in the photos, of positive luminol which suggests the presence of blood. However, our testing of the swab taken from the area was negative for the blood screening test, suggesting that we cannot confirm the presence of blood. Given the strong DNA profile that we obtained from this swab, I’d suggest that this is indicative of the presence of a relatively large amount of DNA which is more likely to come from bodily fluids, blood, saliva, than a simple contact touching event. So basically we cannot say of any certainty where the DNA may have come from. The positive luminol result suggests that the source have been blood, and the fact that this was an external surface means there may have been washing or weathering events that have prevented us from being able to definitively identify the presence of blood. More complex scenarios such the luminol result, coming from an older event, e.g. an old stain which has been overlaid by more recent events, which is where the DNA came from, e.g. spitting on the deck cannot also be ruled out. I hope this makes sense.”

     

    It is clear from the above that Mr Gosser believed, on the basis of a strong DNA profile, that the DNA was most likely from a liquid source. The VPFSD report also stated that the DNA was likely to be from a liquid source.


    It remains for me to analyse the potential time periods that MV could have had to board the yacht on the afternoon 26th - early morning 27th without being spotted. I will do this for the sake of completeness of my analysis and will provide the summary of the analysis in the near future.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  06/06/16  at  12:00 AM
  447. #442 Peter
    Correction Carl Grosser is not a Doctor. Mistake. It was Ellis who thought he was a Doctor
    Peter you obviously buy Sue’s guilt. Stick to the subject.
    ...
    The one blob of DNA which was substantial. It was not traipsed about the boat. A person walked onto the boat, took one step and walked away. Not likely.
    Does anyone know where the DNA is in relation to the gangway.
    My comments are not naïve. The understanding of DNA transfer is basic. I have not compromised the case. I happen to believe that Sue is innocent.

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  06/06/16  at  02:52 PM
  448. Yes, Brian.  You asked:  “Does anyone know where the DNA is in relation to the gangway[?]”

    I know the answer. 

    There are two ‘gangways’ on that boat.  One is midships on the port side, and the other is midships on the starboard side.  The Four Winds at Goodwood, was moored to its portside.  The DNA deposit was on the starboard side, forward of the ‘gangway’.  The DNA was not deposited by transference on the footwear of one of those who boarded the Four Winds when it was in the water at Goodwood.

    Brian, I support you ...

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  06/06/16  at  06:33 PM
  449. #448 Thank you Garry
    This is very important and should open up the debate. The argument of DNA transfer is now much more complicated.
    Lets not forget folks the DNA in question was substantial and I believe a blob rather than say a wipe

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  08/06/16  at  11:22 AM
  450. A police boat tethered on the starboard side of the Four Winds yacht


    If one pauses the following video clip at exactly 04:17 one will see a boat (most probably a police boat) tethered on the starboard side of the Four Winds yacht at about the location of the starboard entrance gate. 


    Justice Overboard Part 1: August 24 2014


    http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2014/august/justice-overboard/


    It is thus a real physical possibility that some people (police officers) from that boat boarded the Four Winds yacht via the starboard entrance gate and brought on-board MV’s DNA.


    Perhaps the locals can identify the physical locality on the Derwent River so that we can pinpoint the date (is it Sandy Bay or off Goodwood?)

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  08/06/16  at  03:36 PM
  451. Further to my last post:


    I have identified the two houses shown at the top left of the scene to be 68 and 66 Napoleon St.


    Therefore the Four Winds is at its mooring in Sandy Bay.

    I also believe that the boat tethered to the starboard side of the Four Winds yacht is a Marine Police boat. The forensics people and several police officers boarded the yacht. Any one of them could have stepped onto the Four Winds yacht via its starboard entrance gate and brought MV’s DNA onto the deck.


    For more details see my latest post at 

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/06/16  at  10:29 AM
  452. Cont..

    The Marine Police boat shown at 04:18 is much larger than the boat seen at 04:17. The boat at 04:17 is thus most probably Mr Balding’s boat.  We do not know from which side of the yacht the marine police officers and the forensics people boarded the yacht.


    It can be concluded that at least two people (and perhaps  more) would have boarded the Four Winds yacht via its starboard entrance gate directly from another boat on the morning of 27th January in Sandy Bay, any of whom could have inadvertently brought MV’s DNA on-board the yacht.

    We now thus have video proof (and Mr Balding’s statement) that there was a boat tethered on the starboard side of the Four Winds a number of hours after Bob’s disappearance. Any one of those individual could have at some earlier stage been in contact with a substance containing MV’s DNA.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/06/16  at  01:28 PM
  453. #451 Peter. Any one of them could have brought MV’s DNA onto the boat.
    We are expected to believe someone has been walking around with (the homeless girl’s) chuddy stuck to their shoe squeezing out (her) DNA all over the place and all the while disregarding the fact that the dollop was substantial.
    Interestingly Charles Wooley on 60 Minutes stated that Sue is innocent and identified and named the suspect. Wow

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  09/06/16  at  06:34 PM
  454. Was post #453 written by a PhD qualified scientist who has had 35+ years of research experience in analysing thousands of scientific and engineering reports/articles and solving hundreds of scientific and engineering problems?


    As to what  we are supposed to believe: may I suggest to Brian to read (and remember) the great analysis by a scientist (Dr John T.P., who chose not to give his full name here) at posts #341 and #342. Below I copy a portion of his analysis written in #342 (with which I fully agree):

     

    “8. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad that none of the above listed opportunities would have triggered some memories of Australia Day thus consolidating the recalled memories?


     9. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad that she couldn’t even remember how she cut her finger between 12 noon on Australia Day and 12 noon the following day, and where did it happen (on the yacht or at home)? This  would have to have been a very spectacular failure of Sue’s memory given what we have been told about emotional events (such as getting injured)  being remembered well and lasting for a long time. 


    10. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad that she couldn’t recognise the red jacket which belonged to her and Bob? 


    11. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad that she couldn’t remember where she  parked her car?


     12. Are we supposed to believe and accept that Sue’s memory was so bad as listed above and yet by some miracle event in her brain she was able to describe (from memory) in her Stat Dec on the 28th Jan in great detail and with great accuracy what she remembered seeing from her observations of the yacht on the afternoon of the 27th even though she would have been in shock and medicated with a Valium tablet at the time she inspected the yacht?”


    As for Charles Woolly (a journalist but not a scientist); Bob Moles (former Associate Professor of Law; researcher and an expert in Miscarriage of Justice; but not a scientist ); Barbara Etter (former assistant police commissioner, a lawyer; but does not appear to work on this case as an objective scientist despite her science degree in biochemistry); Eve Ash (a psychologist, documentary maker; but not a scientist ); Andrew Urban (journalist/documentary maker; but not a scientist ):


    it is my scientific opinion that they all stuffed up with respect to MV’s DNA because the forensic scientist who wrote the VPFSD report didn’t conduct a proper and full scientific analysis of the possible scenarios but assumed that because there were no other locations with MV’s DNA on the deck that therefore it was unlikely that her DNA was brought on-board the deck by someone’s footwear and thus concluded that there was no innocent explanation for the presence of MV’s DNA on the deck of the Four Winds yacht.


    As I wrote earlier a number of times, there is a simple and a perfectly feasible innocent explanation for the presence of MV’s DNA at only one location on the deck of Four Winds, that location being right next to the starboard entrance gate.


    What you and the rest of Neill-Fraser supporters (including the people named above) do not appear to appreciate is that forensic scientists who are attached to public service (the police  departments) are employed only to process and analyse the data from crime scenes they are asked to attend to. They are not research scientists who conduct scientific research for the sake of discovering new knowledge or methods. Typically, they do not posses a PhD and are thus not as scientifically advanced as PhD qualified scientists in their approach to data analysis and interpretation. Further, they in general do not know the rest of the evidence in the case on which they give their expert opinion on. Most of them are biological scientists.


    When I read how a biological forensic scientist recorded the location of area 11 (the location from which MV’s DNA was taken) I ended in laughter. Would it not have been scientifically more useful to measure the distance between location 11 and the nearest edge of the entrance gate so that we know how many steps it would have taken to get to that location once the first foot lands on the deck? One needs to get an architectural plan of the yacht to work out exactly where location 11 is with respect to the entrance gate based on the distance they measured from the bow! How silly! A physicist ( or an engineer) would have measured the distance from the entrance gate because that is a physically more meaningful measure than the distance from the bow.

     

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Applied Physicist/Perceptual Scientist
    Adelaide, SA

     

     

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/06/16  at  10:35 PM
  455. #453 Regarding your last sentence: 


    “Interestingly Charles Wooley on 60 Minutes stated that Sue is innocent and identified and named the suspect. Wow”


    Here is the Tasmania Police response to that statement:


    “The itinerant man who has been recorded under various spellings of the surname Roe (Wroe, Roe and Rowe.) became known to police but was never a suspect. After the conviction, he was identified as someone who may have been in the area on that night.  He was interviewed and volunteered his DNA.  His DNA and fingerprints were checked against any outstanding forensic exhibits from the ‘Four Winds’ – with no match.  This man informed police that he was leaving the state.”


    The above is from


    Tasmania Police statement 2 – Susan Neill-Fraser Case


    http://www.police.tas.gov.au/news-events/media-releases/tasmania-police-statement-2-susan-neill-fraser-case/


    Thus, Charles Wooley was fed nonsense by the Neill-Fraser supporters.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/06/16  at  06:22 AM
  456. #454 Peter. #453 was written by Brian Johnston, that’s me, who fully understands how the police use the nominative approach and constantly get it wrong and have been doing so for a hundred years. Longer. refer ‘Gun Alley Murder’ Melbourne, 1920’s. The wrong guy was hanged.

    In reply to #454
    No.8 Sue suffered trauma. Worked for Joanne Lees
    No.9 That’s right Sue could not remember her injury. Workers in construction gash themselves all the time and don’t know till showering that night.
    No.10 Off course Sue did not think it was her jacket. Hers was at home or on the boat. I understand the police would not allow Sue near it or to touch it. Trickery?
    No.11 We forget where we park our cars all the time. Personal experience on this one. Enough said.
    No.12 Obviously Sue could remember her Stat Dec.

    Nothing unusual here.

    Peter I am sure you are qualified and very good at your job. But. A lot of qualified people have played a part in putting innocent people in gaol. It is possible Peter that you could be wrong in this case

    Sue’s dinghy was white
    ‘Mystery’ dinghy with lee cloth was larger and grey.
    Let’s not pretend Sue’s dinghy looks grey
    Let’s stick to the facts
    There were 2 dinghies

    (The prosecution), rather than inventing and saying Sue struck Bob over the head could have ... said.
    No dinghy attached to yacht
    A target for burglars
    A burglary occurs
    Bob wakes up
    A struggle takes place
    Bob killed
    Bob’s body removed by burglar
    In a grey dinghy

    To difficult? Use nominative approach. Pin it on Sue

    Police said ‘Rowe’ never a suspect.
    Police should have said ‘Rowe’ was a suspect but eliminated. Question. How was ‘Rowe’ eliminated

    Peter, I think it is unfair to say Charles Wooley was fed nonsense by Sue’s supporters. Many of Sue’s supporters are good people who are with good reason very unhappy with this case. And so am I

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  10/06/16  at  05:58 PM
  457. Barbara Etter and Eve Ash have ignored you so you are now trying to latch onto me! Drop the non-sense and find another hobby because this is way beyond you Brian.

    P.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/06/16  at  10:53 PM
  458. #457 Peter you omitted to put Bob Moles on your list who sounds disinclined to take on the System. Eve Ash did a Doco, I have not seen it so no further comment. I think you have pretty much said Barbara Etter is wasting her time.

    And Peter why the personal attack? I do not know you. Do not wish to nor to meet you. Why the Barb?

    You have had your fun, your laugh. Remember. He who laughs last, laughs loudest and longer.

    In my humble opinion I believe Sue to be innocent

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  11/06/16  at  01:02 PM
  459. Brian #458

    The police got it right on this case.

    The jury got it right too!

    Bob Moles is on the list at #454!

    It would have given me much more pleasure as an independent research scientist investigating a potential MoJ (on an ad hoc basis over the past 4 and a half years) to have uncovered evidence of an innocent person being wrongly convicted. Unfortunately, I haven’t found anything in this case to help Neill-Fraser. I have analysed the VPFSD report and concluded that is is scientifically incomplete and therefore worthless.

    ps:

    1.you misunderstood John’s point 12.

    2. you do not seem to appreciate that Sue’s white dinghy can appear to be grey under some viewing conditions (and that is what some eyewitnesses described it as).

    3. I also read your comment in Oct last year concerning the death of Ms Anna-Jane Cheney. You have a very naive understanding of that case (as well as this case).

    4. I apologise if my previous post was hurtful to you. Why you keep debating a PhD qualified research scientist with several decades of professional work experience is beyond me given (in my view) the silly and naive nature of your view on this case. It seems to me to be wishful thinking rather than an intellectual and rational analysis of the known evidence in the case

    5. I hope that you take my point 4 in good faith and take time to reflect on my significant effort on this case spread over about 4-5 threads since early April last year. You are probably a very nice gentleman. However I don’t think that this is your cup of tea.

    Signing off.

    Cheers
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/06/16  at  08:33 AM
  460. #459 Hang on there Dr Lozo. During the trial of Susan Neill-Fraser, the judge said to the members of the jury:

    “Now when you’re considering the evidence you should use your commonsense and your general knowledge and your experience of life and your experience of people: that’s why we have juries. Your - you’ve been chosen as twelve people chosen from the community so that you can use your experience and your understanding about life and people in determining the factual questions that arise in this case about other people.”

    Those were the qualifications for the members of the jury. The Supporters of Susan Neill-Fraser, including Brian, meet those qualifications - commonsense, general knowledge, experience of life and experience of people. Are you saying Dr Lozo, that members of the jury should all have a Ph.D in science or at least a science degree,to be able to reach a correct verdict?

    Posted by Rick Giddings  on  12/06/16  at  12:18 PM
  461. #460. Thanks Rick for posting what numerous persons are thinking & feeling.

    In times gone by I have posted in a limited sense, of my astounding and unacceptable experiences within the jury room. I would prefer, in the public interest, to be more open. But, I can go to jail if I dare be more specific.

    Golly gumdrops!  I know some persons with a doctorate that I would not want anywhere near a jury room when a decision about my guilt or otherwise is made. Unselfishly speaking, I broaden that to, “I would not want anywhere near a jury room”.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  12/06/16  at  02:58 PM
  462. Mr Giddings,

    1.Regardless of the education level, members of the jury are supposed to base their decision on the evidence presented during the trial rather than on the basis of wishful thinking or on the basis of a scenario of their own invention which hasn’t been presented to them during the trial proceedings.

    2. A post-conviction analysis of this case by Dr Bob Moles (PhD in law) provided a legal expert review of the case.  I read his review but didn’t make a comment on it because I am not qualified to assess its validity.

    3. A post-conviction analysis of this case by Mrs Barbara Etter provided another high level analysis of this case. I did review her analysis and have commented on this.

    4. A post-conviction analysis of this case by me fills the gap by providing a high level independent scientific analysis of the case. Three main areas I focused on were: (i) visual perception; (ii) memory; (iii) secondary transfer of DNA. Enjoy reading it.

    Best wishes,
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/06/16  at  12:28 PM
  463. #462.
    In my experience, any reliability of a fair jury decision is strongly questionable.

    The comment reads: -
    “1.Regardless of the education level, members of the jury are supposed to base their decision on the evidence presented […]”

    I note and place emphasis on the words “supposed to”.

    FACT — in my personal experience (3 juries), at times, what is “supposed to” occur does not always happen.

    It happens that some jury members lack the capacity to comprehend and/or hold, evidence that is presented through the witness box. This is a further hurdle that disadvantages the accused.

    This is what I also know (not believe)  without holding a doctorate — contrary to judicial warnings and what citizens might prefer to believe, increasingly since the availability of the internet,  jury members seek info relevant to the accused or the trial, through Dr Google.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  13/06/16  at  01:33 PM
  464. #463 Geraldine

    In my experience, any reliability of a fair jury decision is strongly questionable.

    I agree! No-one blames the jury in this case but what SNF’s supporters question is the evidence presented and how it was presented. I think we can agree on this as well.


    I am busy but will get back after the next direction’s hearing.


    Best wishes,
    P.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/06/16  at  05:59 PM
  465. #459 Peter. I drink coffee. I do not recall making a comment on Anna-Jane Cheney nor am I naïve on that case. Bob Moles did pull Keogh out of gaol though I am unsure whether it is for reasons of a bad trial or he got lucky. I have read both sides and for the time being I have a reserved opinion.

    SNF. Jury did not make a decision based on evidence. They couldn’t, there was no evidence. The whole case is conjecture, hypothesis, fiction.
    The jury were in my opinion conned that is duped.
    The jury have a lot to answer for. Where was the defence?

    You may be correct, Sue’s white dinghy could look grey in certain lights and conditions, but only a pale pastel grey. The other dinghy was larger, a distinctly darker grey (battleship grey) and with a lee cloth.

    Remember a witness saw someone sitting low in a dinghy. To operate Sue’s one needs to sit on the pontoon. There could be at least three dinghies.

    The clues, evidence and sightings are all moulded to suit a guilty Sue.

    As I have said previously. The nominative approach as practised by the police has to stop

    Another classic case is Bradley Murdoch. And when I mention others Peter you will really freak out.

    An interesting one is the Mickleberg brothers of WA who were gaoled for a gold heist.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  14/06/16  at  08:58 AM
  466. #464
    It seems like yet another assumption to me Peter when you write, “-No-one blames the jury in this case”.  How do/could you know that?

    I will feel more comfortable if you take more care with your suppositions, which you record as fact, most especially when your guesswork refers to/involves me.

    Unequivocally, I know numerous persons who, all things considered, determine the jury responsible for defective decision-making resulting in an unjust outcome, particularly considering the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ crucial standard required in a Supreme Court criminal trial.

    You further expose a limited thinking when you write, “but what SNF’s supporters question is the evidence presented and how it was presented. I think we can agree on this as well”.

    No agreement from me on your blinkered appraisal. Certainly, grave questions continue to hold a life of their own re evidence and presentation. Even so, the list of valid doubts is more extensive than you attempt to suggest.

    A number of those who continue to grill the jury decision hold a heavy-duty conviction towards fairness and seeing justice done. These include but are not limited to your, “SNF’s supporters” category.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  14/06/16  at  02:53 PM
  467. Geraldine,

    If that is how you feel about it Geraldine then why didn’t you respond in that manner to Eve Ash when she wrote #3 at http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt


    It was not the fault of the jury in this case! They were misled by inadmissible evidence, mistakes by the DPP and judge, and now we have NEW DNA EVIDENCE - - ..

    I don’t think that Barbara Etter (and Dr Moles) disagree with Eve Ash. You seem to given that I agree with Eve that the jury cannot be blamed in this case.

     

    Rick


    Since you chose to get involved recently,

    can I ask you to read Paul Conde’s statements about the grey dinghy he saw at the Four Winds and his statement about the length of the Four Winds dinghy he saw in a photo, and then help Brian have a correct understanding on this. Lots of people have skimmed over the trial transcript (like Brian) and have misunderstood the evidence that was presented. Had Brian been on the jury then his misunderstandings would have been corrected by the other jury members. 

     

     

    I am too  busy to deal with your responses for the next 2 months but will get back in early August!


    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/16  at  04:29 PM
  468. Paul Conde estimated the length of the dinghy he saw next to the yacht to be about 12 feet!


    Paul Conde estimated the length of the dinghy he saw in a photo (the Four Winds dinghy) to he between 8 and 9 feet!

    The actual length of the Four Winds dinghy is very close to 12 feet!


    Do you get the significance of the above Brian?


    Paul’s cousin (Mr Clark) was looking at the same dinghy at the same time from the same boat at 3:55pm but he said the dinghy was “grey” in colour and that it was “small”! How does this compare to Paul Conde’s sighting of a “large” dinghy of “dark grey” colour?

    What does this tell you Brian??

    You seem to have a perceptual bias based on your view of how police do their work and you do not seem to have respect for the evidence that was presented so how can any anyone expect you to have a correct and unbiased understanding of the evidence in this case?? And yet are challenging my understanding and my science based opinions!

    Rick,

    Do you now understand my point of view when I wrote that this isn’t Brian’s cup of tea! It is my opinion that Brian has a great difficulty understanding and correctly interpreting the evidence in this case but his fellow Tasmanian’s (including you) aren’t making an effort to correct him. It is do damn frustrating to deal with someone who hasn’t made an effort to check his/her understanding of the evidence in the trial transcript!

    I will return in early August.

    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/16  at  05:06 PM
  469. #459 Rick. Thankyou for your support

    #468 Peter. You have moved from the colour of the dinghy to it’s length.

    First the colour. There have been varying shades of grey mentioned and then there is the lee cloth. I think it would be safe to say there were at least two dinghies maybe three.

    Now the length. There have been varying lengths mentioned as well. I will come back to you on this one.

    Then there is the varying descriptions of people in dinghies, their position in the dinghy and a conflict as to whether the dinghy was rowed or motored.

    You see Peter, Sue was nominated therefore I believe the police were only interested in information that would box her in and maybe by extension if Sue cannot get herself out then the police case appears ‘sound’

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  14/06/16  at  06:57 PM
  470. How on earth can the human visual system discern a “dark grey lee-cloth” on a “dark grey dinghy” from such a distance and the viewing condition at 3:55 pm on 26th January 2009?????

    Pay attention to detail!

    Pay attention an expert on visual perception or leave this case alone!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/16  at  07:18 PM
  471. Why do not Neill-Fraser supporters correct and challenge one another on-line about their individual misconceptions about the evidence presented at the trial but they (including Mr Giddings) challenge me?

    Does Mr Giddings (a former Magistrate) care about understanding the evidence that was presented and then correcting Brian rather than challenging me?

    Why do not Neill-Fraser supporters question the plausibility and reliability of Paul Conde’s detailed statement? Do they really think it possible for a human to discern a dark grey lee-cloth on a dark grey dinghy under the viewing conditions faced by Conde? Haven’t they realised that Mr Conde’s estimate of the length of the dinghy he saw next to the yacht fits the length of the Four Winds dinghy almost perfectly? Haven’t they realised that had that dinghy been viewed away from the yacht and from a different vantage point such that the diffuse sunlight passing through the light cloud cover wasn’t in the observer’s eyes than that dinghy would have appeared much lighter in colour? Haven’t they realised that had that dinghy been dark grey in physical reality then it would have appeared to be black to Conde from where he was looking?


    Why did it take Neill-Fraser supporters over a year to accept my claim that the Four Winds dinghy can be perceived to be grey even though there is plenty of evidence for my claim in the trial transcript?


    My conclusion is that the Neill-Fraser supporters haven’t paid much attention to the data in the trial transcript and have thus missed out on having a good understanding of some critical evidence. What did they pay attention to? Eve Ash’s Shadow of Doubt documentary, and to Dr Moles! Blind leading the blind!!!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/16  at  08:25 PM
  472. #470 Peter, first off it would pay not to ask me but rather ask the person that saw the lee cloth. However you did ask me.
    1) The lee cloth would give the appearance of not being able to look into the boat.
    2) Viewing from the rear there would be the dark/black appearance of a cavity which a lee cloth would provide
    3) The lee cloth would provide an even surface.

    You see Peter I do pay attention to detail.

    Peter, no one knows Bob was cracked over the head with a wrench or stabbed with a screw driver. There is not a shred of evidence proving Sue winched Bob’s body about the boat. This is pure fantasy stuff. Invented fiction and should never have been part of the trial. The trial was not supported by evidence. The judge goofed. The police set Sue up and painted her as a liar and the jury bought it. The police did not goof they are culpable. The case was not proven to the jury. The jury satisfied themselves of her guilt. The jury goofed. Not good enough. This case is a classic reason why the jury system has to be reconsidered. The whole system is hopelessly broken.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  14/06/16  at  09:03 PM
  473. The science of visual perception when applied to the individual and then the combined statements of Conde and the Clarks; the 5 pm eyewitness statement; the 7:45 -8:30 pm eyewitness statement; taken with the absence of any evidence that Neill-Fraser was anywhere else on land from 2:30 pm to 9pm can be used to infer beyond reasonable doubt that Sue boarded the yacht sometime around 2:30 pm and left it about 7:45 - 8:30, arriving home around 9pm and then made couple of phone calls soon after..

    The trial should have had an expert in visual perception to help Mr Ellis, Mr Gunson, the judge and the jury understand the perception of a dinghy’s colour, shape and length under different viewing conditions and geometrical perspectives. Then Eve Ash wouldn’t have wasted her time searching for a ghost - a dark grey dinghy (with a dark grey lee cloth).

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/16  at  09:17 PM
  474. Responding to #467,

    Delete the word “if”. It is how I feel.

    I am not under XXN Peter. The moderator runs the TT show, not you.

    You wrote, “why didn’t you respond in that manner to Eve Ash when she wrote #3 […]”. If and when you remove the blinkers, you might learn that:
    i)  In August 2014, Eve Ash did not refer to or involve me, in her comment;
    ii)  It is unnecessary to respond to any/all TT comment with which I disagree;
    iii)  TT commentators, PHD or not, are entitled to hold an individual opposing view.

    For this record, in the context you quote Eve Ash writing, “It was not the fault of the jury in this case! They were misled by inadmissible evidence, mistakes by the DPP and judge, and now we have NEW DNA EVIDENCE”, I believe she is correct. That is not saying ultimately the jury got it right.

    Because of your doctorate, you appear to nominate yourself as the “expert”, which then translates to you must be correct. That doesn’t work with me. I am familiar with numerous self-nominated experts who are in my view, little more than hired guns, handsomely paid for so doing.  A criterion relevant to self-appointed title of ‘expert’ is far too subjective. Until there exists specified relevant criteria in the majority of lines of work as to what makes an expert suitable for court analysis and evidence, I hold little respect for a list of letters after a name = suitability.

    Expert witness for court trial is an entirely different topic, not for discussion in this thread. Start a separate discussion if you so wish. I will end my discussion on it by saying that in 2000, I heard psychiatrist Dr Jean Lennanne present, “Battered Plaintiffs - injuries from hired guns and compliant courts”. A copy of her presentation is available at https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/Lennane_battered.html

    Under one header: “Compliant courts” she said —
    “The over-riding problems with our courts are the adversarial system, which seems designed to hide rather than search for the truth; and presiding judges and magistrates who might as well not be there, for all the good most do in keeping proceedings and participants on the rails. I will not be making suggestions for overall reform of the court system, since Evan Whitton will no doubt be covering that. I will just outline some of the problems. An enormous problem with the whole legal system is the lack of ethics of most legal practitioners, as shown by countless examples of corruption in the system, and the almost complete absence of lawyers prepared to blow the whistle on it. Other people can and do - police for example, often at enormous personal risk - but lawyers almost never. […]”

    That was 2000. What has changed? Very little from where I look.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  15/06/16  at  10:49 AM
  475. #474 Geraldine. You, I, we, concerned cops cannot change the ‘System’. As it was pointed out to me by a QC who has spent a large part of his legal career trying to bring about change. ‘Change can only be brought about by politicians’. There is the underlying problem. The Lindy Chamberlain case did not bring about change and nor will the Sue case. Speaking with people in the Northern Territory they even know which dingo. Somehow the system has to change.

    I suggest people read Presumed Guilty by Bret Christian and especially the antics of John Doyle and Owen Leitch and in particular their antics referred to on page 267. Read the book first.

    Peter you may find the book illuminating.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  15/06/16  at  02:38 PM
  476. #475. Yes, I’ve read Bret Christian’s book, Brian.

    I agree, the elephant in the room is that elected representative can but won’t bring about the required legislative changes. Meanwhile, we peasants who, once upon a time in our naïveté believed in justice, wait in fear for what next, and hope that it won’t be ‘me’.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  15/06/16  at  05:04 PM
  477. Yet another wrongful conviction. An atrocity is too gentle a word.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11657075

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  15/06/16  at  06:00 PM
  478. #471, Dr Lozo, I sat through the trial of Susan Neill-Fraser and care very much about the evidence that was presented at the trial. That was why I volunteered to be the Public Officer for the Neill-Fraser Support Group Inc. There is simply too much doubt about this case when the verdict had to be ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’, meaning no other explanation was sustainable. But there are other possibilities. This was a circumstantial case with no body, no eye witness and no weapon and Sue did not have to prove her innocence.

    I do not question Paul Conde’s statement because I saw and heard him in the Supreme Court and he was a credible witness - that is an area where I have some expertise having sat on the bench for some years.

    It did not take over a year for the Support Group to work out that many witnesses described a white dinghy as grey. Within a few weeks of the conclusion of the trial, my wife wrote a paper, ‘The Trouble with the Dinghies: Who Saw What’ and circulated it among the then small group of supporters. Without describing it in scientific terms, she came to the same conclusion as you, that light was playing games with the colour - except for Paul Conde’s description; this is the dinghy that stood out as different. Conde stood in court with a photo in his hand and said, “the Quicksilver dinghy in the photograph is not the dinghy I saw at five to four on Australia Day last year”.

    Posted by Rick Giddings  on  15/06/16  at  09:05 PM
  479. Mr Giddings,


    I don’t have time to engage in dialogue but will be available in August.


    Please read the following with respect to Mr Conde’s perception and memory.


    Cheers,
    Peter


    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt


    #286 -#289

    #297 - #299

    #304

    #308 - #309

    #319

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  16/06/16  at  06:40 AM
  480. Unfortunately Rick (#478) you weren’t then able to anticipate the rank idiocy of those who would step up to the ‘she’s guilty’ plate.  Our most recent ‘expert’ resident on TT will be long remembered – well after SN-F is released – for what I see as the inanity of his self-professed scientific rigor.  This expert began his very first comment on this forum by advising us

    131.  I would have thought that the $30K reward that was offered for information that can shed further light on this case ought to have been offered towards a fund raising foundation to help raise funds towards hiring a private company to conduct an underwater search for Dr Chapman’s body with remotely controlled underwater robotic vehicles equipped with appropriate sensors and a manipulating arm!
    Finding the remains of Dr Chapman’s body may provide forensic evidence that could help all those concerned.
    Perhaps those vocal supporters of Ms Neill-Fraser ought to think about raising funds towards this cause rather than offering their speculative opinions on various matters related to this case!
    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Adelaide
    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  31/03/15  at  06:05 PM [‘An Unscientific Reading of the case /Lynn Giddings: Here #131]

    As if some six years later the Derwent (in that area wider than 4 km and quite longer in its flow before it reaches open waters) could then have been productively searched, at a cost, as Peter recommended, to be raised by those whom he labelled as SN-F’s “vocal supporters”...

    This very first comment of Peter’s seemed to me then to be little more than a gratuitous slap in the face for that ill-defined group … the SN-F supporters.  It was manifestly not the comment of impartial science, it seemed to be the comment of a person who was determined to make a splash…  Well, make a splash it did.  Yet there was no Dr Chapman.  Actually the missing man was Bob Chappel, and he did not have a Doctorate.  Splasho!

    I must say that my attitude towards this expert was set for all time, when he so rudely directed the following comment to Lynn #136, in her ‘An Unscientific Reading of the Case’ [<i>Here] </i>:  “Dear Ms Giddings, I am not interested in hearing about hopes, personal feelings (or speculations) about this case which, because of their very nature, are very subjective and won’t lead to anything useful.”  I asked myself at the time why on earth Peter was choosing to make a song and dance about Lynn’s unscientific approach when the whole point of that article of hers was to step away from the science and simply to give her own subjective view of SN-F.  Lynn had written in her article:

    I’m not sure how much the arguments have influenced people’s opinion from either side: each side believing their argument to be compelling, neither side giving ground. I do not want to comment on the legal or forensic issues this time, simply speak from the heart as a spectator who sat through the trial and occasionally visits Sue in prison; this is more about feelings, than facts.

    Why on earth had Peter not chosen a more appropriate thread?

    Then he had the nerve to tell us how it was only a few women “the same few ladies” who were the “most vocal” (in support of Bob C.)  There you go, is this Science at its best?  I was shaking my head at the apparent misogny within that #176 (An Unscientific Reading of the Case) of his.  Splasho!

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  18/06/16  at  12:58 PM
  481. Recently I had posted a comment that hinted at the South Australia incident featuring the gross ineptitude of the then South Australian head of pathological services, he who was frequently called upon to provide his evidence from the perspective of a person trained in the field that he engaged himself therein.

    (This gentleman) reigned for some 30 years as the former head of that State’s forensic pathology services.

    His appointment as the head of the State government’s forensic pathology services was fraught with something not unlike ‘the cronyism alive and head-kicking in this State of Tasmania.’

    Furthermore there was one highly significant shortcoming involved in this ... he being awarded that State appointment, for this person did not hold any whatsoever qualifications to permit this man to attain such a high appointment.

    The link below must be read in its entirety in order to gain a complete understanding of the deficiencies of South Australia’s Justice System, only then can one fully understand the fact that this (person) over a period of some 30 years had been requested to provide forensic evidence and advice for some 10,000 cases prior to his retirement in 1995.

    One will also read of the fierce determination and exuberance that was directed upon each case that came before the then DPP during the period of years he held the appointment as the South Australian State’s Director of Public Prosecutions, yet none more-so the ferocious energies he injected into the case of Henry Keogh.

    It is here apparent that this comment bears direct relevance to the SN-F Supreme Court Trial and of its discriminatory outcomes.

    http://www.cla.asn.au/News/keogh-trial-ends-major-inquiry-needed/

    I would like to thank Dr Robert Moles for the work he had engaged in to seek and to achieve justice for Mr Henry Keogh, while he battled among and amid such a wrangle of discordant State government legal appointees.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  18/06/16  at  07:00 PM
  482. See Code of Conduct: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits

    Posted by Team Lozo  on  02/07/16  at  11:27 AM
  483. See Code of Conduct: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits

    Posted by Team Lozo  on  02/07/16  at  11:50 AM
  484. #453 ‘Interestingly Charles Wooley on 60 Minutes stated that Sue is innocent and identified and named the suspect. Wow’

    Please Brian ‘..named the suspect.’

    Are you referring to MV?

    Posted by mark h  on  03/07/16  at  01:27 PM
  485. #484 Mark. I am sure I remember correctly. 60 Minutes showed photo and named a person causing the viewer to conclude that maybe he’s the one

    Folks I have finally watched ‘Shadow of Doubt’. Maybe it’s just me but I was expecting something more riveting. However interesting all the same.

    1) Definitely 2 dinghies. There is no way a near new white and blue Quicksilver could be confused with and old dark grey shabby dinghy. Why comments are suggesting that white can appear dark grey in certain lights is biased and reckless, in my opinion.

    2) Sarah and another person seemed concerned that certain matters were not investigated properly.

    ...

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  03/07/16  at  10:17 PM
  486. Some little while ago, I posted onto my Facebook page some photos of Quicksilver inflatable dinghies, a lee-cloth on a dinghy and a grey inflatable dinghy.  I think they speak for themselves, however I’ve now posted two more pix of a grey ute with a grey tarp partially across its tray.  One is a close-up, the other is from 50m - at which distance I could read the number plate!  In my opinion, Mr Conde’s evidence had all the hallmarks of reliability.  His evidence has not been successfully contradicted, in my opinion.  Check out the latest 2 pix on my facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/garry.stannus

    I agree with Brian, we should accept that the evidence indicates that another dinghy was at the Four Winds at 5 minutes to 4, on that afternoon.  And with regard to Brian’s #485, yes, (from memory) the TV programme named two persons as suspects.  Their male suspect, was on a yacht which from memory was moored some short distance from the Four Winds, its occupant had a history of violence and - a point which I don’t believe had been remarked on before, it’s dinghy (stored on deck) was grey.  This grey dinghy can be viewed in an image of the ‘suspect’ mentioned by Brian, who is in a white dinghy beside his own yacht with the grey dinghy secured on the deck. That image can be seen in the 60 Minutes program. 

    I can supply it to anyone that would like to view it, if they contact me via hotmail: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  04/07/16  at  08:26 PM
  487. #485 Cheers for reply Brian.

    Posted by mark h  on  07/07/16  at  08:27 AM
  488. #486 #487 Thanks guys

    My last comment was edited. I respect the editor and his right to diligence. He does not wish to be sued nor have this site closed. Nor do I.

    I went further than previous comments. If only we could discuss the core problems concerning this case and others. The real issues. Our personal thoughts and concerns.

    (The way some) have behaved does not sit easy with me. Imagine if it was someone in our families or even ourselves.

    The course to correct an injustice is fraught with so many difficulties and only politicians can bring about change. We have to apply the pressure.

    The whole justice system has to be rebuilt.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  07/07/16  at  01:22 PM
  489. #485 Brian,

    Regarding your sentence:

    “Why comments are suggesting that white can appear dark grey in certain lights is biased and reckless, in my opinion.”

    I am the scientist (with a quarter of a century of expertise in the field of visual perception) who has by now for over a year on a few related TT threads claimed that the Four Winds dinghy can under some viewing conditions, particularly the conditions of the afternoon of the 26th Jan 2009, be perceived to be somewhere between mid-range grey to dark grey.

    If you have a problem with my scientific opinion on this then my first suggestion to you is to look at the time frame  18 -20 second period of the video segment mentioned below. The video segment doesn’t show the dinghy but it shows the Four Winds yacht. We know that the hull of the yacht is white. My suggestion to you is this: do research on why the hull of the white yacht in this instance looks to be dark grey rather than white.


    Your opinion that my opinion on this subject is biased and  reckless is noted. However, my scientific reply to you is that your opinion is based on scientific naivety in the field of visual perception. Further, there is no sign in your comment (or comments of any other opponent to my opinion) that you (or anyone else) made any attempt to do an on-line research on whether a white looking object under one viewing condition can be perceived to be white and yet be perceived to be dark grey under a different viewing conditions. Please think carefully about this subject.

    You appear to me to be very limited in your reading and the understanding of this case. Your stated position indicates to me that you are considering this case from Sue’s position or the position of her relatives. How about trying a neutral and an objective position? Have you tried to put yourself in the shoe of Bob’s sister Anne who was the first to hear from Sue that Sue lied to the Police about not returning to the Marieville Esplanade? Did you try to put yourself in the position of Bob’s son Tim?

    I have been commenting on this case on various related TT threads since early April last year but you seem to be aware of a very small fraction of my numerous comments! Here is the beginning of my #320 at


    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt#sthash.6KTS3VAp.dpuf

     

    “The photograph of the partially submerged Four Winds yacht”

     

    I refer the readers to the following photograph of the partially submerged Four Winds yacht taken shortly after it was boarded by the police on early morning of the 27th January 2009 - the still photograph appears in the 18 -20 second time period of the following video clip from Eve Ash:


     http://7dimensions.com.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=ses.Shadow_of_Doubt_Streaming 


    The sunrise on 27th Jan 2009 was at around 6:06 am. It can be seen in the photograph that the sun is shining on the water but is on the opposite side of the yacht that is facing the camera. Thus even though it is clearly a daybreak with the sun shining, the side of the yacht (the portside) that is facing the camera appears to be very dark (black) even though (in the physical reality) the yacht is white and has a high reflectance.”

     
    Cheers,
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/07/16  at  02:35 AM
  490. Cheers Dr Peter Lozo, you are sounding more and more like the judge and jury of this SN-F case.
    I am to the point of suffering from nausea because of all of your repetitive claims.
    Would you please latch onto another case in another part of the World to speak of your expertise in Dinghy colour changes at different times of the day.

    Were I one of this State’s Legal Bulldogs I would have you served with an injunction just to have you stop brow-beating the people of Tasmania with your repetitious contradictions..

    Posted by William Boeder  on  09/07/16  at  10:28 AM
  491. #490

    My ambition is to educate your fellow Neill-Fraser supporters, from Dr Moles to Brian J, that the science of visual perception cannot exclude the Four Winds dinghy from being at its yacht at 3:55pm and at 5pm on 26th Jan 2009. I will pursue this until my opinion is no longer challenged.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/07/16  at  12:57 PM
  492. #491 The science of visual perception (Should that be capitals) may not exclude the Four Winds dinghy from being at the yacht nor does it say the Four Winds dinghy was at the yacht. When Conde says he saw a grey dinghy that was not the Four Winds dinghy we have to accept that he knows what he saw. He saw The second dinghy.

    Peter I have an understanding of this case and other cases and the police Modus Operandi. I am appalled at what goes on

    The Scott Watson case in New Zealand, the police made a 46’ ketch disappear. Here they are only making a dinghy disappear.

    I am in a neutral position. I do not know Sue. I just want these cases investigated properly.

    Peter maybe you could put yourself in the position of Sarah and Mark

    The Courts treated Triffett’s statement as evidence. It was not evidence. It was one man’s story. ...

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  09/07/16  at  04:30 PM
  493. #492

    Why not say there was a third dinghy?? Afterall, there is a significant difference between the evidence given by Paul Conde and his cousin Thomas Clarke even though the two were looking at the same dinghy at the same time and from the same platform!!!

    In fact there is a greater similarity between the evidence provided by by Paul Conde (the 3:55 pm sighting) and the 5 pm sighting by another witness then between the two sightings at 3:55 pm by Paul Conde and Thomas Clarke!!

    You, and the test of Neill-Fraser supporters including Eve Ash and Barbara Etter, are ignoring this!

    My explanation (almost a year old) is that it was the Four Winds dinghy at its yacht from about 2:00-2:30 pm to about 7:45 - 8:30. The science of visual perception cannot definitely state that it was the Four Winds dinghy based on the available information but it cannot exclude it either. This is where other evidence needs to be taken into account - actually the absence of any evidence from the public or Neill-Fraser or security cameras to suggest that she was anywhere on land between 2:30 pm and 8:30 pm.

    I have put myself in the position of a scientific investigator who was trying to understand what went on and why various people hold the views that they do. I can understand Mark’s position and the position of Sue’s daughters. The only thing I have a difficulty with is the very strong and biased position that Mrs Giddings took against MV. I can understand the ignorance displayed by Dr Moles in forensic science (this case and the Keogh case in Adelaide).


    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/07/16  at  01:00 PM
  494. #492 Regarding Triffett’s evidence: I would be interested to hear what Patrick has to say about Triffett’s evidence! I would be interested in knowing why Patrick isn’t publicly supporting his sister like her ex-husband is.

    I didn’t take Triffet’s evidence into my own analysis and conclusion. What is my own view on his evidence? After reading what the male witnesses from Queensland stated (about what Sue said to them) I have very little doubt about the truthfulness of Triffett’s evidence.

    P.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/07/16  at  01:52 AM
  495. #493 Third dinghy? If we take the night time sightings into account there does appear to be two different descriptions
    Sitting high, sitting low
    Rowed, motored
    Female outline, male outline?
    In this direction or that direction
    To broaden across the case and as I have suggested previously there were more than likely at least three dinghies.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  11/07/16  at  01:36 PM
  496. I am not a boat owner nor have I ever been on-board a motorised inflatable dinghy but I do know something about the motion of motorised boats and dingies that causes their stern to sit low in water whilst the bow is lifted up, depending on how the motor is trimmed (how the propellor sits in the water). The 7:45 -8:30 pm sighting of a motorised light coloured dinghy leaving the location of the Four Winds with one person on-board fits the description of the Four Winds dinghy whilst the person fits the description of Sue. 


    You missed noticing that it was the rear of the dinghy that was sitting low in the water rather than the whole dinghy!


    Here is the relevant quote from Barbara Etter’s website:


    It had an outboard motor propelling it and the rear of it was sitting well into the water.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/07/16  at  05:09 PM
  497. #496 Peter. When I said sitting high, sitting low I was referring to the occupant in the respective sittings.

    To operate a motorised inflatable one sits at the rear on the pontoon

    To row a dinghy one sits in the middle in a lower position on a seat

    From memory the person who gave the later description was approached by the police and asked if the dinghy was being rowed or motored. Then the doubt crept in. I shall go back and read the trial papers.

    ...

    Folks I do not know whether Sue is a murderer or not. I was not there. What I can say is, I am not convinced Sue murdered Bob which raises questions.

    1) Was Bob murdered earlier or later
    2) The prosecution said sorry suggested Sue stuck Bob from behind while he was working. Now that is a huge call. Which means either in daylight hours or with the light on
    3) Did Sue winch Bob’s body in the dark or with the lights on
    4) Women do not generally carry out such a physical murder they deploy other methods.
    5) For Sue to winch Bob’s body on her own would have been very difficult. Noise would have been generated. Noise carries across water. Her puffing and panting would have been heard.
    6) Somebody would have heard something
    7) I do not know what happened
    8) I certainly do not believe ... the official explanation.
    9) For the prosecution to say Sue struck Bob on the back of the head with a wrench (or stabbed him with a screwdriver) and then winched him onto the deck etc. etc. is totally without foundation, in my view.

    Peter you can believe all you like that Sue is guilty. Your call. ... With respect you are allowed to be wrong. But, where is the evidence.

    The evidence is not a white dinghy under certain conditions can appear dark grey

    I am looking for real evidence. Not Triffett’s ... statement. Real evidence.

    Maybe Sue’s family should place an advertisement in the paper calling for evidence. Any evidence. Maybe a reward could be offered. Someone must know something.

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  12/07/16  at  01:09 PM
  498. Yes Brian please do read the trial transcript carefully as well as all that Barbara Etter wrote because it is a waste of my time to interact with you about the matters that you haven’t yet fully read and understood. Let us for the time being forget whether or not Sue is guilty. Your aim, if you wish to challenge me in the future, is to make sure that you understand the case far better than you do now. You also - to me - have a tendency to jump to quick conclusions on many issues without first checking whether your understanding is sufficiently complete. You also have a tendency to list too many issues in one post rather than focussing on one issue at the time until you understand it well enough to move on the next issue. I have spent almost 4 decades developing my analytical skills in complex problems so it isn’t easy for you to appreciate the depth and the significance of my analysis and the approach I took on this case.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/07/16  at  04:44 PM
  499. Brian,

    $40K was on offer (upgraded from the original $30K of 2014) for evidence - perhaps I read more than you do!

    I don’t know whether it was paid for the “hearsay” that was referred to in April at the first Directions hearing by Justice T.

    If Sue is innocent then it ought to be so easy for her: provide a statement (a true statement) of her whereabouts between 4pm and 9 pm on the Australia Day!! “I do not remember because I have a memory problem” does not wash with me but it is accepted by her supporters who do not have any scientific understanding off or research experience in the human memory.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/07/16  at  05:09 PM
  500. #497 Should have read respective sightings

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  12/07/16  at  08:08 PM
  501. #500 Brian,

    Understood! We all fail, from time to time, to notice something in what we read or in how we interpret some things or in how we transpose our thoughts into written words, or in our grammar, or in our memory, or in how we copy other people’s quotes,  etc, etc. We are not meant to be perfect but are meant to be capable of reason. I respect those who acknowledge their errors when they are pointed out to them.

    For example about my first error on this case (and there were a few since then):  I was challenged, correctly, by Eve Ash in April of last year about thinking that Bob Chappell had a PhD in physics. I saw couple of references to Dr Chappell and thus jumped to my conclusion. Even Mr Gunson referred to Bob as Dr Chappell. But almost immediately after I posted my comment I had some doubts so did a quick internet search about Bob and couldn’t find any reference to a PhD so I wrote an email to Barbara Etter for some information on this because I realised that I might have made an error. Between the time I sent my email to Barbara and the time I got her reply to confirm that Bob didn’t have a PhD, Eve posted her comment. I acknowledged my error and thanked Eve for pointing it out. That was the only thing that Eve chose to comment on in relation to my numerous comments since then. My guess is that Eve (and Barvara Etter) accepted, to some extent, my explanation about the ‘grey dinghy issue’ and my explanation about memory, its fallibility and malleability.


    It is to be noted that there is no mention this year (at least not in the publicly released information from the Supreme Court of this year) of there being a different dinghy at the Four Winds yacht.


    Cheers,
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/07/16  at  01:01 PM
  502. Hi All,

    For my response to the  ‘“Sunday Night” program featuring Dr Bob Moles, Mr Graham Archer (from Ch 7 Adelaide) and Mr Henry Keogh, see:


    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1248222425188669&id=198416696835919


    If you haven’t seen the program or wish to see it again on youtube (in 4 parts) then see it at:


    https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/32025359/henry-keogh-wrongly-imprisoned-for-20-years-part-1/#page1

    Cheers,

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/07/16  at  01:21 PM
  503. Further to my #502

    If you can’t see my comment then there might be a problem on my side of things. I can see it from my telstra mobile phone internet (from which I submitted that facebook comment) but have been informed by friends that they can’t see my comment. I can’t see it either from another IP address. So there is something odd about my mob phone internet service! Will re-post in couple of days from my lap-top if it doesn’t appear by then.

    P.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/07/16  at  02:28 PM
  504. Dr Peter Lozo, yes I may have an outspoken countenance, often it is provoked by the outrage of others, or that I detect something awry or of disadvantage to individuals and or any volume of others.
    The usual culprits are the persons appointed to serve the interests of the prevailing political party governments and their departments, including the justice department.
    There had been plenty of time available to the State’s legal bulldogs and the State’s judiciary to cobble up a general theme, except that the entire of this case rested upon a conjecture of circumstantial evidence.

    The providing of theories, probabilities, likelihoods, assumptions, power of suggestion et al by the prosecutorial bench, should not be condoned or even allowed by the presiding judge to become instilled opinions directed into the minds of jurors.

    My understanding is that SN-F was pronounced guilty on the supposition of doubt, not on any evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’

    Furthermore I have read the opinions of both the eminent law professionals, Dr Robert Moles and the highly regarded Mr Robert Richter QC, both these gentleman can be assessed as possessed of a higher more qualified regard toward a legal opinion.

    Also it is important that this case should not become clogged up with further imponderables that continue to dwell on the wholly circumstantial basket of evidences, but rather to judge on the the pure basis of whatever proven facts are available.
    If there are no provable facts then there is no alternative other than to discharge the case.

    Anything other is akin to a speculation as could be aligned to the spin of a coin decision.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  13/07/16  at  03:29 PM
  505. #594 And where is your apology in all that William in relation to your comment #78 on the fox thread - your attack on my character? Was it appropriate to use that particular word to describe my character?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/07/16  at  06:02 PM
  506. Further to my #502 & #503

    Finally, after 3 hours of testing and fiddling with the facebook with the assistance of someone who knows what they are doing, my two comments about the Sunday Night program is available for your reading.

    Thanks Geraldine, we saw your like to my test!

    Cheers,
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/07/16  at  10:01 PM
  507. To all:

    See the TT article  “SMH pulls Neill-Fraser article, apologises to Tim Ellis”

    by Ben Lohberger at:

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/SMH-pulls-Neill-Fraser-article-apologises-to-Tim-Ellis/#sthash.Ew9mXVMz.dpuf


    Can one trust media to be unbiased and truthful? Can one trust their source in providing the correct facts? Do media people verify the correctness of the information provided to them by their source?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/07/16  at  09:39 AM
  508. #506 re your, “Thanks Geraldine, we saw your like to my test!”.

    Being interstate, I was accessing/reading all notifications from iPhone, and have no knowledge of ‘liking’ or otherwise, whatever test to which you refer. In saying that, I do not deny that it happened.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  14/07/16  at  03:29 PM
  509. # 507
    Can we trust the media? In my opinion. No
    Do the media verify facts? In my opinion. No

    For example.
    The media promote fluoride
    The media promote the human induced climate change
    The media in my opinion sold out Lindy Chamberlain, Martin Bryant and Bradley Murdoch and many others.

    The media are owned by the establishment and in my opinion the media have sold out Sue. Fancy apologizing to Ellis. Why can’t they apologize to Sue. I have had experience with the media, they have to be watched but in the end they run the stories whatever way they like.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  14/07/16  at  05:29 PM
  510. #508

    No problem. We worked out the problem last night and have deleted all the facebook test messages I posted from various IP addresses. The problem is with my mob phone settings. We saw your name and your photo come up and hence why I mentioned it on my earlier post in #506. No big issue here Mrs Allan! Have a good week. P.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/07/16  at  05:33 PM
  511. #509

    Your last paragraph is in my opinion silly, childish and borders on an insult to Mr Ellis.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/07/16  at  05:50 PM
  512. #511. Comment challenged and deleted

    Posted by William Boeder  on  14/07/16  at  08:23 PM
  513. #509. Brian, my feeling is that you not overly concern yourself with any comment deemed by others as insulting to Mr Ellis. In balance, he can dish them out too, and is more than capable of speaking for himself.

    More importantly, you are not the first to express disillusionment with ‘the meja’.

    Statement by Mr John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of The New York Times in an address to the New York Press Club in 1953
    “There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it .

    There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions and, if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am   paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions, would be out on the streets looking for another job.

    If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty four hours my occupation would be gone.

    The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon; and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what a folly is this toasting an independent press!

    We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are their jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other m en.

    We are intellectual prostitutes”.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  14/07/16  at  08:32 PM
  514. #512 William, I am asking you to no longer address me or my comments. You have recently put yourself in a position of having to apologise to me ...

    (edited)

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  15/07/16  at  05:54 AM
  515. #513 Geraldine. Did I not make myself clear. I was not siding with Ellis.

    ...

    I do not trust politicians, in my opinion they lie.
    I do not trust journalists, in my opinion they do not tell the truth

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  15/07/16  at  12:02 PM
  516. #515. Oh Brian, I apologise that my #513 may have inadvertently misled you to believe that I disagree with you — I don’t.

    My earlier post/reply perhaps is clumsily worded. It was intended to support your comment re (i) apologising to the ex-DPP, and (ii) the media.

    It matters not for this response that your (#515) comment is edited. Indeed, you made yourself clear.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  15/07/16  at  02:37 PM
  517. Further to my #502,#503, #506 & #507


    It appears that Ch 7 facebook page is censoring a lot of comments. See my facebook page for the two main comments I haven’t had success in posting onto Ch 7’s facebook page such that it becomes visible to everyone. Most of my shorter replies do not survive more than an hour, some less than a few seconds!!

    What I like to say here is that I have had the trial transcripts on the Keogh case in my possession since eslarly 2012. The reporting on “Sunday Night” program was incorrect in many areas and suppressed a lot of evidence (such as the fact that Keogh forged signatures on bank cheques that were used to pay for the five insurance policies which also had forged signatures, etc, etc). There are many people who are now making silly comments on the Keogh case because they believed that the whole case was presented accurately.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  15/07/16  at  08:38 PM
  518. #517 Peter I do not wish to discuss Keogh case on this site. Would you please provide a link.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  16/07/16  at  05:01 PM
  519. #518 Brian

    Nope!

    Please refrain from communicating with me or addressing my comments. Thanks.

    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/07/16  at  06:30 AM
  520. Brian #518:  here’s one blog “Club Troppo” that has an article on the Manock-Cheney-Keogh case: http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/12/13/taking-a-bath-can-be-dangerous/

    Civil Liberties Australia has an article, here:  http://www.cla.asn.au/News/keogh-free-royal-commission-needed/
    Good luck!  Those matters are beyond my scope ... maybe when they invent a 48 hour day… (smile!)

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  17/07/16  at  08:37 AM
  521. Brian, re #519: On my read, “Tasmanian Times is a forum of discussion and dissent …”.  Thus,  citizens are free to choose to comment on any post,  providing their contribution complies with the rules.

    It is the moderator who runs this show, editing & ‘legalling’ where applicable.

    The answer is simple for any contributor who does not wish their comment(s) to attract “discussion and dissent” — abstain from participation.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  17/07/16  at  10:30 AM
  522. Brian #518 —  a more recent interview with Dr Bob Moles:
    http://netk.net.au/Media/ABC5.pdf

    Dr Moles’s homepage provides an abundance of links to reliable information on the SA matters :
    http://netk.net.au/VideosHome.asp

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  17/07/16  at  11:19 AM
  523. #519 Peter! A bit harsh don’t you think?

    For as long as you make comments on this site you can expect responses from me.

    I have always endeavoured to be open, frank and polite. I tell the story like it is (as I see it). Where my comments have been edited it has generally been because my comments have been head on, no compromise type statements against the establishment, justice, police system.

    I happen to believe Sue is innocent.

    I have not studied in depth therefore am undecided on Keogh. I am not automatically following Bob Moles

    The Australian justice system in my opinion requires a complete overhaul. 

    It is exactly the same in New Zealand.
    NZ has it’s own high profile case like Lindy Chamberlain, Arthur Allan Thomas who was released and paid a million dollars and another case involving a boat not there, Scott Watson who still languishes in prison just like Sue

    If anyone is interested there are two very interesting books written by the same author, Keith Hunter, on the above mentioned cases.
    The Missing Blood Stains
    Trial By Trickery

    Thank you to those who provided links

    I read an interview with Bob Moles. Why can’t he just come out and say all 400 cases may need to be reviewed. The interview kept going back and forth and taking to long to go nowhere. Problem.
    I haven’t said this before but here goes. Bob Moles is not taking on the system and demanding major changes. He is simply selectively helping one person at a time saying only 1% of the convictions are unsafe. The 1% statistic does not exist. The police have not made mistakes in the Keogh and Sue case. The cases have simply not been investigated correctly. Whacking Bob over the head, no evidence. The shabby grey dinghy not followed up on, not good enough. In my opinion none of the many cases are investigated correctly. The police Modus Operandi is deficient.

    For those that are interested I have an interesting book on Australian crime, (along with many others) printed 1965
    The Charge Is Murder by Vince Kelly

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  17/07/16  at  03:26 PM
  524. #523. Hear, hear. “The Australian justice system in my opinion requires a complete overhaul. …”

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  17/07/16  at  04:34 PM
  525. Looks like we’re in unison about our ‘justice’ system’ needing a complete overhaul, Geraldine (#524).  Great minds must think alike - smile!  Brian(#523), I’m not sure if you would have seen it, but there’s a bloke, an ex journo (?) called Evan Whitton ...

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/category-article/72

    ... who wrote a history of the development of the English/British legal system, and Lindsay published it, chapter by chapter, week by week, for an eternity, but I stuck with it and at the very end, he concluded we should move across to (the European (French?) inquisitorial system.  One which is dedicated to finding the truth, and not simply choosing the most guilty looking candidate and then securing a conviction. Evan Whitton convinced me that we must let Rumpole go, let slip the golden thread - the presumption of innocence - that pretends to lead us all to justice; and rather, let us adopt a system that is dedicated to finding the truth.  Manifestly, our adversarial system with the judge playing Pontius Pilate, needs more than a bit of a grease and oil change.  We need justice and truth together.

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  17/07/16  at  08:49 PM
  526. #525 Garry. Thanks I shall follow up. I have a few bits of the French Justice System floating about in the back of my mind. If I am right one aspect and maybe only in serious cases is, no jury, rather a panel of 5 Judges.
    Some of our cases are to complicated for our jury system,
    a) A jury cannot cross examine and can only ask so many questions
    b) No matter how much a jury may disagree with a trial they are expected to make a decision based upon evidence (or lack thereof) provided at that trial. Hence the reason some juries stay out for so long.

    ...

    The NZ case Arthur Allan Thomas. The police came up with an invented scenario and manipulated it to work. Thomas was framed. He was Pardoned.

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  18/07/16  at  08:36 AM
  527. Evan Whitton was guest speaker at a conference that I attended in April 2000.
    Previous to that I had read his book, The Cartel — Lawyers and Their Nine Magic Tricks.  That book now holds a memento and everlasting reminder to me, which Evan penned after brief discussion: -

    “Geraldine Allan who it is clear is the very greatest soldier for truth.
    Warmest regards
    Evan Whitton
    16.4.00”

    For readers’ information, the following link provides a speedy and easy reference to a great deal of Evan Whitton’s work. The Evan and Noela Whitton Homepage: -
    http://netk.net.au/WhittonHome.asp

    5 Walkley awards for journalism = Wow! And, was journalist of the year in 1983 for his coverage of the Street Royal Commission into judicial corruption. And there’s more ...

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  18/07/16  at  11:26 AM
  528. There seem to be many in number of people about that have reinforced many of my comments in this SN-F case and to other matters, but have not done so in the blunt manner in which I tend to submit.
    Many of these article comment submitters are often more polished and more mild in terminology and so be it, I commend them for their finer skills, however a shovel remains a shovel in whichever form it is presented.

    I thank each of these persons for their views that still manage to cut to the core of a number of our State’s problems, however I now refer to the judiciary here in Tasmania.

    Legislator’s being but one of this State’s often guilty quarry, then it becomes important to reflect on the aloof almost pompous air of this State’s bench appointed judicial persons, even some of its paltry legal practitioners flutter about like Emperor Penguins.

    Often the judge has been given a prior nudge as to the direction the case must proceed, ‘no this is not a scarce incident.’
    (I refer to the TCC case featuring one Bryan ‘the giggler’ Green, then the case proceedings specific to the John Gay court appearances) both of these cases will illustrate how each case was conducted or was uniquely swerved or swayed in the favour of the applicable defendant’s. Fact.

    Currently in great dispute in America is that there exists a 2 layer justice system, (this specifically refers to the Hillary Clinton allegations of racketeering) the same can be said regarding Tasmania’s Justice System with its 2 layer justice system.
    Quite a lot of the people in this State are inclined to believe their legal matter is kept in the strictest confidence between the legal practitioner and Client.
    Wrong.
    For example my investigations over these past 20 months or so have confirmed how there is sub stratum hotline or similar communicado that has any particular case discussed as though it is an entertainment piece, or even a source of interesting legal gossip but accessible only to this so-called professional line of practitioners.

    My reading up on the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania website has numerous recorded incidents which provide ample proof and report of non-professional conduct, or even elements of client abuse.
    (I have attached this pdf link below to qualify my statement)
    http://www.lpbt.com.au/assets/lpbt_disciplinary_register_060416.pdf

    The same applies to a register of all court cases conducted in our State (except for the peculiar or special cases that are purposely not submitted to the this website by the court’s registrar)

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html

    The Justice Systems in Australia and more particularly in Tasmania, are not unlike a lump of Gold bullion, both are quite malleable and capable of being shaped to suit any design but generally are subject to the manipulative skills of the practitioner.
    Thank you to each all.

    William.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  18/07/16  at  05:41 PM
  529. For those interested in the results of my 3 year ad hoc scientific investigation into the Keogh case (i.e. the 1994 death of Ms Anna-Jane Cheney -  a 29 year old Adelaide lawyer) please read my #394 at 

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt

    Cheers,
    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Applied Physicist/Perceptual Scientist
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  21/07/16  at  06:50 PM
  530. Directions Hearing: Monday 7th November

    I look forward to reading the outcome of next Monday’s appeal.

    Based on my (i) review of the case since April last year; and (ii) my understanding of the new legislation (with which I am far more familiar than most of SN-F’s supporters given that I also intensely researched SA’s first case under its new legislation),  I do not think that there is any ‘fresh and compelling’ evidence in this case to warrant a re-trial.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  05/11/16  at  02:29 PM
  531. Hardly any progress by SN-F’s legal team since April!


    “She said there had been little progress since she adjourned the case in April, for three months, in order for the defence to get their documentation in order.”


    http://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/sue-neillfrasers-appeal-bid-adjourned-for-fortnight/news-story/332cfb800d239da10224be7efb6e757f

     

    What is the problem?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  07/11/16  at  08:08 PM
  532. #528 William
    I am the most blunt tell the story like it is contributor on this thread. I am also the most edited. I accept the editor has to take the cautious road.

    #531 Peter asks
    “What is the problem”.
    Simple. The problem must surely be with the state and prosecution. They don’t want a retrial. They may even secretly believe their case is weak. The Sue case is really not even circumstantial. The wrench over the head is hypothesised ...

    Peter you may be right on the Keogh case. You may be right on many cases, that doesn’t make you right on the SN-F case. And there are a huge number of cases where the innocent have gone to gaol. Huge.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  08/11/16  at  06:21 AM
  533. Brian Johnston, if you know so much about this case then have you discussed it with Brett Meeker to work together and search for truth.

    Rosemary, you seem close to SNF’s family, perhaps you could assist Sarah Bowles getting to the truth.

    Posted by eddie  on  08/11/16  at  10:07 AM
  534. ...

    The (real) answer to my question of yesterday  can be found in today’s online news article (http://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/sue-neillfrasers-appeal-bid-adjourned-for-fortnight/news-story/332cfb800d239da10224be7efb6e757f)


    Here is the interesting revelation:



    “It is up to Supreme Court judge Shan Tennent to decide whether there is enough merit in the defence’s case for it to proceed to an appeal.


    But so far she has agreed with Director of Public Prosecutions, Daryl Coates, that the material presented by the defence is “largely inadmissable and irrelevant”.


    As a case in point, she yesterday said a defence affidavit by pro-Neill-Fraser documentary maker Eve Ash was “almost entirely hearsay”, labelling it “singularly unhelpful”.

    “This is not a case, with respect, of just throwing in background material,” she said.”


    My opinion is that Percy and Etter are playing around with irrelevant material hoping that some of it will pass the hurdle of acceptance because they most probably don’t have anything that is fresh and compelling . I don’t see how anything from Eve Ash fits the requirement of it being “compelling” evidence. 


     A huge deal was made by Mrs Etter (and others, including Dr Moles) in August 2014 about the Victoria Police Forensic Science Department (VPFSD) report on MV’s DNA. But what did it come to as far as the current appeal is concerned?

    For those not familiar with the meaning of ‘fresh and compelling’ evidence as it pertains to the new appeal legislation I suggest that you read about it before offering opinions that border on being ridiculous and extremist.


    For the convenience of the readers, here I copy the definition of the two words from the 2014 court decision on the Keogh case in Adelaide:

     

    (a) fresh if—

    (i) it was not adduced at the trial of the offence; and

    (ii) it could not, even with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been adduced at the trial; and

     

    (b) compelling if—

    (i) it is reliable; and

    (ii) it is substantial; and

    (iii) it is highly probative in the context of the issues in dispute at the trial of the offence.


    Note that all of the above 5 points need to be met in order for the evidence to be considered ‘fresh and compelling’! I don’t think that the Tasmanian legislation differs in its interpretation of the above definition from the definition in the South Australian legislation.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  08/11/16  at  02:59 PM
  535. #534 Peter

    The problem is and I don’t wish to sound sarcastic but any evidence would be new evidence

    Triffett’s twaddle was not evidence in my view and certainly was not corroborated.

    The wrench tale was invented ... Don’t forget the ridiculous screwdriver

    Sue should receive a new trial without new evidence because to my mind her trial was a travesty.

    If only the other dingy had been found. Was there a third dinghy?

    The only way a White dinghy could be dark grey is if it was in a dark shade and then only maybe

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  08/11/16  at  04:48 PM
  536. #535, Brian — white is white, dark grey is dark grey.

    I am hestitant to re-open some of the previous annoying, blinked debate on the colour of the dinghy. Nevertheless, even allowing for colour-blindness, generally there is no dark-grey/white confusion. For example —

    Protanopes are more likely to confuse:-
    1. Black with many shades of red
    2. Dark brown with dark green, dark orange and dark red
    2. Some blues with some reds, purples and dark pinks
    3. Mid-greens with some oranges

    Deuteranopes are more likely to confuse:-
    1. Mid-reds with mid-greens
    2. Blue-greens with grey and mid-pinks
    3. Bright greens with yellows
    4. Pale pinks with light grey
    5. Mid-reds with mid-brown
    6. Light blues with lilac

    Tritanopes — The most common colour confusions for tritanopes are light blues with greys, dark purples with black, mid-greens with blues and oranges with reds.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  08/11/16  at  05:46 PM
  537. #533 I am not close with the SNF family. Just an observer who would dearly love to find the truth. And it is certainly not found in the 2010 trial. The current appeal after years of investigation by interested people may just flush out the truth.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  08/11/16  at  06:55 PM
  538. * Correction #536 : blinked should read blinkered

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  08/11/16  at  08:11 PM
  539. Just briefly (gotta get to work) the recent amendment to the (Tasmanian) Criminal Code Act 1924, Section 402 A, does not insert the ‘fresh and compelling’ criterion into the ‘Leave to Appeal’ stage.  (See sub-section 5(a): 

    Leave to Appeal must be granted if “the convicted person has a reasonable case to present…” and if “it is in the interests of justice for the leave to be granted”

    The Appeal itself will be determined on the basis of whatever fresh and compelling evidence is presented during the appeal and if there has been “a substantial miscarriage of justice” (sub-section 6 (a) and (b).) 

    In my view, the hold up seen at the Directions Hearing is not related to the ‘fresh and compelling’ criterion – that criterion does not (in my view) operate until the actual appeal is under way.

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  09/11/16  at  07:01 AM
  540. Thankyou Geraldine @ #536. I have never bought into this colour confusion nonsense especially when we have a witness who said to the effect “I know what I saw and I saw a dark grey dinghy”. We have to listen to a person who is clear about what they saw and not the confusion which I beleive was shall I say ‘generated’.

    Time and time again the police build cases around nominated persons. It is worse than tunnel vision.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  09/11/16  at  03:33 PM
  541. Garry is quite correct in #539.

    However, in order for the case to proceed the defence team needs to state what their fresh and compelling evidence is.

    Neill-Fraser’s defence team has had about 5 months since they were instructed in April by justice Tennent at the first directions hearing to file documents which point to fresh and compelling evidence in the case.

    Clearly, based on the reported outcome of the second directions hearing, the defence team hasn’t done what was expected of them. Either they have a problem in interpreting what is required of them or they have a problem with their case so are including non-relevant material.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/11/16  at  03:42 PM
  542. #536, #541


    Visual Perception and Memory

    Is is not just the matter of the accuracy of the perceived colour of the dinghy under a given viewing condition but also about the accuracy of the recalled memory of the perceived colour.

    Otherwise Mr Conde and his cousin Mr Thomas would have offered exactly the same description of the dinghy they saw at 3:55 pm (both did not report seeing a dark grey coloured dinghy!). Does did not suggest to SN-F supporters that they cannot rely on any one eyewitness statement??

    There are examples in experimental psychological literature where test subjects were shown a brief video incidents of a car crash. The subjects did not know that later they will be asked to report the colour of the cars involved in the crash. Do you think that all the subjects reported the same colour?

    How many times does one need to stress to SN-F supporters that the human memory does not work like a video camera and that one cannot trust the evidence of an eye-witness to be accurate??? Ask Dr Moles or read the relevant psychological literature on memory.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/11/16  at  04:57 PM
  543. Error:  “in order for the case to proceed the defence team needs to state what their fresh and compelling evidence is” 

    Not so.  The reasons for the delay are more mundane than that.  DPP Daryl Coates objected to the 67 page SN-F submission not having cover sheets to provide short-lists of the witnesses to be called and of the evidence to be relied on.  Mr Percy’s reply was that it was all there in the 67 pages of the submission.

    Peter, I don’t appreciate your saying that you agree with me but then (in my view) you mangle my comment by linking it to your own misinterpretation of what transpired at the Directions Hearing.  What stopped you from buying a plane ticket?  What stopped you from turning up —as others from the mainland (SN-F supporters) did—and from hearing it for yourself?

    Instead you seem to have relied on imprecise media summaries which seem to have allowed you the freedom to suppose that Tennent J had adjourned the case for wont of fresh and compelling evidence. 

    That view (in my opinion) is both ridiculous and incorrect.

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  09/11/16  at  05:44 PM
  544. #542 Many of us are aware that people get their colours wrong or mixed. We are not talking about a mix up. Am I right, the witness was emphatic he saw a dark grey dinghy. Why is this statement treated as worthless and Triffett’s twaddle as reliable evidence. Because the police are building a case around Sue

    The police asked Sue what time she left Bob. Her reply about 3.30. The police then said a dinghy was seen at 4.55. Sue then says she may have stayed longer. Tricked? Trapped? This is the sort of questioning that goes on when the police build a case around a nominated person.

    Lesson learnt. Never answer a police question without your lawyer being present. Never.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  09/11/16  at  05:46 PM
  545. I hope to attend if time permits and only if and when experts are called to give opinion on any one of the following three areas of my scientific interest:

    (i) MV’s DNA (as it relates to the VPFSD report);

    (ii) visual perception (as it relates to the “grey dinghy” issue);

    (iii) memory (as it relates to the failure of Neill-Fraser’s memory for what I have identified to be the critical 5 hour period:  4 pm - 9 pm; or the reliability of eye witness’ memory on what they saw on the afternoon of 26th when they went past the Four Winds yacht).

    The above three points are what I have mainly commented on since April last year. Until then I will depend on what is reported in The Mercury.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/11/16  at  09:06 AM
  546. #545 That’s all very well Peter but others including myself are focusing on other aspects

    1) Triffett’s (evidence)
    2) Unwillingness of police to track down the dark grey dinghy
    3) The totally hypothetical scenario of the alleged murder
    4) How did Sue manage to kill and winch Bob without being seen. In broad daylight or at night in darkness or with the lights on. This point in particular intrigues me

    And so it goes on

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  10/11/16  at  03:04 PM
  547. ‘Lesson learnt. Never answer a police question without your lawyer being present. Never’

    Totaly agree. IMO, SNF, being clever thought ‘Who needs a lawyer if you have nothing to hide is how society thinks.’

    But Sue just wasn’t clever enough.

    Posted by eddie  on  13/11/16  at  05:05 PM
  548. Tomorrow is another big day for Susan Neill-Fraser, her lawyers and her loyal supporters.


    Recently I read an article by Charles Wooley on the Neill-Fraser’s case ( http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/tasweekend-balancing-scales-of-justice-for-sue-neillfraser/news-story/3db43de6c46a2c8401906a512471eea4 )


    Mr Wooley stated that 

    “Central to the Neill-Fraser team’s claim of “fresh and compelling evidence” is the DNA found on the deck of the yacht Four Winds after the disappearance and presumed murder of Neill-Fraser’s partner Bob Chappell.”


    I wonder whether Mr Wooley took much notice of what the VPFSD actually said versus what was stated (by Bob Moles) on the 60 Minutes program in 2014. I look forward to seeing whether the VPFSD report will be considered by Justice Tennent as meeting the criteria of “fresh and compelling evidence”. Previously I expressed an opinion that I did not consider the VPFSD report to be compelling.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  20/11/16  at  04:34 PM
  549. A convicted person has to come up with new evidence to get a new trial

    This also applies if the convicted person is innocent

    What if there is no new evidence to be found

    Simple. the innocent person stays in gaol

    Sick don’t you think. I think so

    What about beyond all reasonable doubt

    What’s that. My point exactly

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  20/11/16  at  05:33 PM
  550. “The court also heard that there was still substantial disagreement between the appellant’s legal team and the Director of Public Prosecutions on which evidence mustered for the appeal would be admissible in court.

    See
    http://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/sue-neillfrasers-legal-team-in-bid-to-have-judge-stand-aside/news-story/660c5e7b4c4565f592141b66da834c92

     

    Thus the delay in the proceedings so far isn’t just due to a mundane thing (such as what a certain individual wanted to impress upon me in #543) but is due to the persistent and serious issue concerning the admissibility of the evidence filed by the defence team.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/11/16  at  06:48 PM
  551. Mais bloody non, M’sieu!  (to Peter at #550) who opined “Thus the delay in the proceedings so far [...] is due to the persistent and serious issue concerning the admissibility of the evidence filed by the defence team.

    This is ... just ... not ... correct. 

    Why did Peter not quote from the wider section of the Mercury article, which provides—in my view—a clearer view of the reason for the delay than that which is provided by Peter:

    In a packed hearing of the Supreme Court in Hobart yesterday, Neill-Fraser’s barrister Tom Percy QC said he would apply for Justice Shan Tennent to recuse herself from hearing evidence in the application for leave to appeal. He did not elaborate on the reasons for the application.

    A hearing of that application will take place on December 12. The court also heard there was still substantial disagreement between the appellant’s legal team and the Director of Public Prosecutions on which evidence mustered for the appeal would be admissible in court.

    A hearing on those issues is not expected until after Justice Tennent rules on the application to stand aside — meaning the case will continue well into the New Year.

    At the risk of appearing repetitive, might I repeat the Mercury’s opinion (apparently overlooked by Peter):

    A hearing on those issues is not expected until after Justice Tennent rules on the application to stand aside — meaning the case will continue well into the New Year.

    And for those many who are vitally interested in this new appeal application, it should be noted that since Monday’s directions hearing, reported by the Mercury, the ‘motion for recusal’ has been brought forward to tomorrow, the 24th November.  This brought-forward-matter doesn’t not yet seem to appear in the Mercury.

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  23/11/16  at  03:55 PM
  552. ...

    It was stated in #543 by Garry: The reasons for the delay are more mundane than that. DPP Daryl Coates objected to the 67 page SN-F submission not having cover sheets to provide short-lists of the witnesses to be called and of the evidence to be relied on.  Mr Percy’s reply was that it was all there in the 67 pages of the submission.

    It was implied by me in #550 that the above statement about the delay isn’t the real issue for the delay! The real issue concerns the admissibility of the evidence. The irrelevance and the inadmissibility of the evidence was the reason the defence team was given extended time after the first directions hearing in April. The problem with the evidence persisted to the second directions hearing and hasn’t been resolved by the third directions hearing! So, I will restate my opinion:

    Thus the delay in the proceedings so far isn’t just due to a mundane thing (such as what a certain individual wanted to impress upon me in #543) but is due to the persistent and serious issue concerning the admissibility of the evidence filed by the defense team. 

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/11/16  at  05:35 PM
  553. Curious transformation, Peter:  Your #541…

    “...in order for the case to proceed the defence team needs to state what their fresh and compelling evidence is.”

    then morphed into your – in my view – equally incorrect #550:

    “...but is due to the persistent and serious issue concerning the admissibility of the evidence filed by the defence team.”

    From a supposed failure to provide ‘fresh and compelling’ evidence as the reason for the delay, you shifted, Peter, to putting it down to the admissibility of the evidence presented by the appellant.  however, The reason for the delay that occurred on Monday of this week, was related to the question of Tennent J standing down from the case.

    When Mr Percy (for SN-F) informed Shan Tennent that his client would seek to have Justice Tennent stand down from hearing DPP Coates’ objection regarding the admissibility of certain evidence , Justice Tennent replied that if she began to hear argument about the question of admissibility then she would not subsequently stand down.  In other words the applicant would need to present the argument for standing her down before they continued to the question of admissibility. 

    So a date was made, which has in the meanwhile been brought forward – for reasons unknown to me – to this afternoon.  In a nutshell, the (forshadowed) motion to stand-down the Judge was the cause of the delay.  Anyway, by the time this comment appears, I expect that a decision on the standown will have been made.  Certain considerations lead me to think that Tennent J might actually agree to recuse herself from the case.  We shall see.

    Posted by Garry Stannus  on  24/11/16  at  12:15 PM
  554. “A #Tasmanian judge has disqualified herself from hearing the latest appeal bid by murderer Susan Neill-Fraser. Details on @WINNews_Tas at 6”

     

    https://mobile.twitter.com/lucybreaden#lucybreaden

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  24/11/16  at  05:28 PM
  555. And (re my #553) ... we did see.  Justice Shan Tennent is now reported as having recused herself from the case.  I wait for detail on her reasons.  This is a strong result in the campaign for an appeal.  Of course, many have had concerns that a judge who had previously rejected SN-F’s appeal should again hear this new application.  It—at the very least, in my opinion—involved perceptions of procedural fairness ... what was needed was someone uninvolved in the first appeal to hear SN-F’s appication impartially.  I think Tennent J has made a sensible decision. 

    Furthermore, we should be aware that the Tasmanian legal fraternity must be watching this case with great interest.  They would be aware that their profession is under scrutiny, and so to are also members of the government who must be not indifferent to the outcome of this ‘test case’ of the new appeal legislation.

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  24/11/16  at  05:38 PM

  556. “Justice Tennent said the case had started with a written application in December last year and many of the key issues which needed to be settled before a final hearing could be held remained unresolved.


    The judge said despite repeated directions hearings and lengthy and detailed written submissions by Neill-Fraser’s legal team, it was still unclear which witnesses she would call, what evidence her case would rely on and whether it was admissible or not.

    She also noted an application on Monday for her to stand aside had come seven months after she had asked if there were any objections to her involvement – and years after it was known she was one of the Court of Appeal judges who had rejected Neill-Fraser’s appeal.


    She said that without making any concession on that application, she would order that the case be listed in front of another judge in the court sittings which begin on March 14.”



    For more see

    http://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/neillfraser-appeal-to-go-ahead-in-march-before-new-judge/news-story/060787b40c34ce967477f0d3285e8a01

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  24/11/16  at  08:14 PM
  557. “She ordered Neill-Fraser’s legal team to provide lists of witnesses, proof of evidence and other material to be relied on, documents to be tendered and facts they sought to admit by consent and an estimate of the time the case would take to hear.”


    http://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/neillfraser-appeal-to-go-ahead-in-march-before-new-judge/news-story/060787b40c34ce967477f0d3285e8a01

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  24/11/16  at  08:33 PM
  558. Is Neill-Fraser’s latest appeal in shambles?


    It seems to be. Her legal team hasn’t yet submitted what was expected of them despite several directions hearings this year during which they were told to get their case  documented in a way that clearly specifies the  relevant and admissible evidence on which they wish to proceed, i.e. their fresh and compelling evidence that will prove their case of a wrongful conviction of Neill-Fraser. They seem to have a long way to go to get their case sorted out. Perhaps they have nothing of significance to offer so are testing the water. 


    Why didn’t Neill-Fraser’s legal team object to the Justice Shan Tennent’s involvement way back in April or soon after? This case seems to be  a waste of valuable and expensive court time. Tax-payers money is wasted on a case that doesn’t appear to be going anywhere but a dead end. At least the lawyers are getting experience with the new appeal law. I think that Neill-Fraser’s pro-bono lawyers should start charging their client. That way their client wouldn’t be wasting tax-payers money by engaging the court with an ill-prepared and incomplete appeal documentation that seems to be riddled with hear-say and irrelevant & inadmissible evidence.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  25/11/16  at  02:33 PM
  559. #558 Dr Lozo. We mostly agree. But since we don’t know the full extent of the evidence that was submitted by Neill-Fraser’s legal team we wouldn’t at this stage be prepared to say that it is a complete waste of the court time. On the other hand, we don’t know the case as well as you appear to so we are prepared to plead ignorance, particulary in the scientific areas that you wrote about. One thing is for sure, no amount of public outcry by Neill-Fraser’s supporters will set her free. Too much talk in the media and internet social networks but no apparent credible evidence has yet emerged to support their cause. But we have a lot of respect for Mr Percy and hope that he does well in this case.

    Posted by Linda & Mark (Perth)  on  25/11/16  at  08:23 PM
  560. #558 Lots of supposition Peter

    Or to put it another way Peter. If the State had done a better job the first time. If the State had got it right. Money would not be being wasted today.

    I suppose it depends upon ones point of view

    I will say it again. Based upon the evidence or lack of I believe Sue to be innocent

    I don’t believe Sue cracked Bob on the head with a wrench and winched his body about the boat with the lights on, or is that off hmmm good point.

    Tipping Bob’s body into the channel would have been a task. It would have meant putting the only two people in the dinghy to the same side. A sure way of capsizing the dinghy.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  25/11/16  at  09:40 PM
  561. #559 Perhaps the legal mind will pull out a surprise evidence and/or a brilliant argument and win the day.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/11/16  at  09:28 AM
  562. Mechanical advantage of a winch

    Some people have expressed doubt about Sue’s physical ability to carry out some of the things, such as winching out Bob’s body.

    For those who don’t have a good mechanical understanding of why it would have been relatively easy for Sue (despite some claimed back problems) to lift a dead weight of 65 kg or so out of the yacht’s saloon and lower it into the dinghy here is a brief description of how a winch effectively acts as a force multiplier to help a human lift or pull heavier loads than they would have been able to do it directly with their own physical strength:

    “Essentially, a winch consists of a set of gears that provide the user with a mechanical advantage. In a hand-cranked winch, the crank is attached to a very small gear. This gear meshes with a larger gear inside the winch that directly or indirectly rotates the spool. Each turn of the crank equals one turn of the small gear, but only a fraction of a turn of the larger gear and spool. This means that you might turn a winch fifty times for each coil of the rope. The ratio of the gears allows them to use the effort exerted over a long period of time into the force necessary to coil rope under a heavy load”.


    See 

    http://www.thomasnet.com/about/winches-94054806.html

    Thus, this ought to be a non-issue despite some claimed problems (unless Sue’s shoulders and arms were weak). The very evidence of the winch and ropes being used is highly suggestive of a single person was involved and that that person was experienced with winches and ropes (or knew about the mechanical advantage of using the winch and the ropes) and that it took a lot of time.


    Neill-Fraser has no alibi for her whereabouts from the time she boarded the yacht at around 2pm until around 9 pm when she made her first phone call from her home landline. That is about 7 hours during which a lot of the above mentioned preparation (winch rigging) work may have been done.

    A dinghy was spotted at the yacht by two groups of people (one group at 3:55 pm, the other group at 5:30 pm). There were two witnesses (Conde and Thomas) who saw the same dinghy at 3:55 pm from the same passing boat but gave significantly different recollection of that dinghy. The only common recollection was that the dinghy was a shade of grey in colour. The 5:30 pm eyewitness recollected it to be a mid-range grey. Thus one way Neill-Fraser can prove that it wasn’t her on the yacht at either of the two tines is to submit expert affidavit (from an expert in the field of visual perception) that her own dinghy cannot be perceived to be grey under the viewing conditions faced by Mr Conde, Mr Thomas and the 5:30 pm eyewitness. Unfortunately for Sue, her own dinghy was described by a number of eyewitnesses in a number of ways, including a shade of grey by more than one person. 

    If the police got the wrong person then it ought to be much easier for Neill-Fraser’s legal team to produce evidence of her innocence than it would be if the police got the right person. Finding evidence that it wasn’t her on the yacht at between 3:55 - 5:30 pm would the strongest proof that someone else was onboard. That ought to be enough to doubt the safety of her conviction and set her free.


    Unlike Neill-Fraser, MV (whose DNA was found on the yacht’s walkway right next to the starboard entrance gate) has an alibi to prove that she wasn’t on the yacht at 3:55 pm because the documents at the Mara House have her leaving there at 3:50 pm.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  27/11/16  at  02:02 PM
  563. ‘Victorian murderers won’t get parole unless they reveal where they hid their victims’ bodies under tough new laws.’ Tasmania next?

    I’m not sure about parole and not guilty pleas in Tasmania, but I understand boxes need to be ticked to have it granted. If the prisoner maintains their innocence then no remorse (for their actions) can be shown.
    IMO Sue and her family would perhaps be able to start healing if Sue could would only have a memory recall.

    Posted by mark h  on  28/11/16  at  10:52 AM
  564. #563 And if you didn’t do it you don’t get parole

    I don’t know if this will be published but here goes.

    People just don’t seem to be able to accept that the police/prosecution (Herein referred to as the State) are not necessarily just somehow getting some cases wrong. what are the causes of the State getting a case wrong. Stupidity, naivety, deliberately, mistaken.

    It all started in the UK many years ago when the Gentry, Elite families, upper class realised that they could help themselves and their families, friends and associates by arranging for someone, anyone to go to gaol in their place. The person could be either rewarded, threatened or framed. The idea was exported to the rest of the Commonwealth. We now have a system today which is either sloppy or corrupt or in some cases both

    Two cases to look at in the USA are
    Barry Beach
    Steven Avery

    There are a stack of cases in Aus. and NZ which require reviewing.

    The situation is not helped by the likes of Bob Moles saying only 1% of the cases are wrong

    Aus. & NZ both need the American Miranda Rule

    The whole justice system has to be given a major shake up. The pressure has to be applied to the politicians.

    The pressure has to be applied to all politicians in Tasmania

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  28/11/16  at  04:15 PM
  565. ...

    “Tipping Bob’s body into the channel would have been a task. It would have meant putting the only two people in the dinghy to the same side. A sure way of capsizing the dinghy”

    The author of the above comment at #560 assumed that the perpetrator of the crime lowered the body onto the floor of the dinghy and later had to lift the body over the side at the risk of falling into the water or tipping the dinghy over.


    Read my opinion #4, #5, #15 (and a few more) at
    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/comments/45611/#sthash.Pvlfwsho.dpuf

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  01/12/16  at  05:44 PM
  566. #565 Peter you a trying to make the story fit. You suggest that Sue thought ahead and loaded the body onto the dinghy in just the right place to be able to roll it off later

    Lowering a body on ones own into a moving dinghy and just managing to lay it perfectly across the bow would take an enormous amount of good luck.
    The dinghy would be parallel to the yacht. the body would go down parallel to the yacht. How to spin the body 90 degrees to lay body across bow.

    You will have to do better than this Peter. As I said, you are trying to fit the story to a preconceived notion.

    Peter, did Sue do this in broad daylight or at night. Pretty risky doing all this at night with the lights on. Fairly difficult doing all this with the lights off

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  02/12/16  at  10:13 AM
  567. Open your eyes and think Brian!  

    Study the photos of the yacht and the dinghy. 

    Go and find an equivalent inflatable dinghy and study it (look at it; sit in it; enquire  about its capability and stability). 

    Have a look at sail boats that are close in size and features to the Four Winds.

    Study how winches work and how they provide mechanical advantage to its user.

    Once you have a good mental picture of the yacht, the winch and the dinghy then go though a mental re-enactment of winching the body onto the deck of the yacht; maneuvering the body across the deck; lowering the body onto the dinghy or in the water besides the dinghy; tying the body to the dinghy; disengaging the winch; motoring away and then dumping/releasing the body from the dinghy.

    (I did all of the above plus more!).

    Then you will have a better mental appreciation of the whole task, the effort required and the time taken. Then you will have a better appreciation for the physical plausibility of how the body was winched and dumped.

    Why does the body have to be in the dinghy or on the dinghy at all?

    Don’t you think that the perpetrator would have assessed the weight of the body before deciding on how to get it out of the yacht and how to dump it? 

    What is to stop the perpetrator from winching the body onto the deck in the early evening and then returning later in the evening to complete the task? It is the latter part of the task that presents the most risk of being spotted and hence why it would the better to do it late at night when no-one is likely to spot what is going on.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  02/12/16  at  12:36 PM
  568. #567 I imagined all those steps and some. As I pointed in a previous comment. Body getting snagged on hatchway, steps etc.

    Perpetrator? Peter. Singular. That’s the point. Peter I suspect there was more than one person involved or maybe a strong person on their own

    The suggestion of (Sue) murdering Bob in the evening and then, assuming the crime scene had not been discovered, returning to dispose of the body, that is, to return to the crime scene, is ridiculous.

    Think Peter why would someone murder Bob on the boat and then take the body away. More probable to leave the body and scarper.

    Was Bob taken away alive

    Did Bob visit another boat. By invitation of course. Dinghy required.

    As previously stated it is possible that two or even more scenarios played out.

    Maybe Bob simply fell overboard.

    Did Bob disturb an intruder. Did Bob go up on deck. Was there a struggle. Did Bob go overboard.
    Did Bob whack his head as he went. Did intruder chase after Bob only to find him dead

    The burglary and cut pipes could be a separate crime. Why would a burglar cut pipes. He would be more likely to steal and run.

    All probabilities should be considered. Maybe Bob in desperation sabotaged the boat and suicided himself.

    Did Bob try to swim ashore.

    Did Bobs son go to the yacht

    There are just so many possibilities

    If only the police had found the other dinghy.
    Did the police even seriously look for another dinghy.

    A really unsatisfactory investigation and trial

    And to then learn that Triffett’s ... evidence and that Sue whacked Bob over the head with wrench and winched the body about the boat is staggering. Under the circumstance, simply unbelievable (to me).

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  02/12/16  at  03:28 PM
  569. Perpetrator’s foresight


    Whoever had the foresight and the skill to rig the ropes and a sail winch on the Four Winds yacht in order to extract a body of a man from below the deck must have had enough foresight to then use that winch to lower the body and load it onto the 3.6m long inflatable dinghy in such a manner that would later minimise the effort required to release the body into the water.

    In the extreme, there is absolutely no valid physical reason why the body would have had to have been on the dinghy during the transport  to the final location in the deep river. The body could have been initially lowered to be just below the surface of the water and tied to the front handles of the dinghy. 

    Thus, there is a range of possibilities. On one extreme the body was lowered to be completely on the floor of the dinghy. This scenario requires a lot of physical effort to lift it out of the dinghy at the risk of loosing stability and falling overboard. On the other hand the body is outside of the dinghy. It can be released very easily. In between the two extremes, part of the body (upper torso) could have been placed with the aid of the winch to rest on top of the bow or the side tube, the rest of the body on the floor, and then later pushed off with legs from a laying or sitting position after loosening the ropes, etc.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  02/12/16  at  05:47 PM
  570. .....

    “And she left the yacht at about 2 o’clock that was her original story, and she’d been out to Bunnings hardware store, basically she says for hours on end. In fact she told us it was dark when she got home. Bear in mind it was daylight saving on Australia Day.


    “We reviewed all the CCTV footage from Bunnings store, and it took hours and hours going through that, and she wasn’t there.

    “I find it remarkable that your partner has gone missing, the yacht is sinking and you don’t say to the police ‘I came down last night and there wasn’t much going on’. I just don’t get that. You know, she didn’t have to mention the phone call from Claire or from Richard King. But she didn’t even say that she’d been down and she continued to avoid telling the police that she’d been down.”

    “It’s quite clear that some of the witnesses who saw dinghies and even saw the actual dinghy, Bob’s dinghy, gave all sorts of varying descriptions of what colour it was and what shape it was, what structure it was. And in fact I was only looking at a photo this morning, and photographs that were taken of the yacht out on the water, depending how overcast the sky is, I can see why people might think a dinghy that might be white is actually grey in the shadow of the yacht.


    see more of Peter Powell’s comments

    on Background Briefing: Murder on the Derwent

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2016-10-23/7949840#transcript


    Finally, someone has got it (the grey dinghy issue)!!!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/12/16  at  03:57 PM
  571. The simplest and physically least demanding disposal strategy


    Presumably the body is wrapped in some sort of material such as canvas or plastic and is tied up well, had weight attached to it and was basically towed behind the dinghy or along the side (opposite to where the driver is sitting).


    It is very simple to set up before leaving the safety of the yacht as long as the winch is used to lower the body into water. Before the wrapped body is completely lowered into the water (and whilst it is still suspended to the winch) the weighting object is strapped/tied to the wrapped body. The weighted body is then lowered into the water just below the surface. It is then tied to the dinghy before disengaging the winch.


    The motorised 3.6m dinghy, designed to carry up to  4 - 5 adults, would be quite stable and capable of towing the weight. Ofcourse one wouldn’t want to steer the dinghy at high speed. Towing the weighted and wrapped body along the deeper sections of the river will avoid snags. The body is then detached from the dinghy at the chosen location by simply releasing the rope. 

     

    I am not claiming that the perpetrator employed the above strategy. I am simply offering this example to the researches of this case to encourage them to be open to the possibility that the perpetrator of the crime could have adopted a simple strategy of disposing the body rather than having to lift it out of the dinghy and push it into water.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  04/12/16  at  06:57 PM
  572. #571 Peter you start off, “presumably” and then build on from there.

    It is this sort of ‘story telling’ with a stretched imagination that wrecks cases and often before they really get underway

    You then refer to a perpetrator and then of course the giant leap forward to Sue the perpetrator comes later.

    There is no way (in my view)  ‘Sue may have cracked Bob over the head with a wrench’ should ever have been allowed in court.

    ...

    Peter can you explain how Triffett’s uncorroborated (evidence)  could be accepted as ‘evidence’.

    If a crime was committed why not leave the body and run? Dead people can’t give evidence. Just leave the body and run. Why cut the pipes? just run.

    I wonder if the seabed directly under the yacht was searched. I expect it was.

    If the police had spent less time building the case around Sue and with an open mind more time investigating the case they may have learnt more.

    The main part of the case is just what did happen to Bob and more importantly, how did he leave the yacht and why

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  05/12/16  at  06:27 AM
  573. Neill-Fraser’s late night trip to the riverbank


    I too find it quite remarkable that Sue avoided for over 2 months to tell the police she went back to the river later that night. As Peter Powell said, Sue did not have to mention Clair or Mr King but simply tell them she went back and didn’t see anything going on.


     I also consider it very irresponsible of a person, who is well thought of by her friends, to under the very serious circumstance of her partner missing from a yacht that was sinking not to have immediately told the police that she went back and didn’t see any activity.


    I find it even more remarkable that Sue avoided for weeks to even tell anyone in  Bob’s family. It appears that even her own daughters didn’t know anything about it at least until the police showed them the 12:25 am ATM photo of a car that looked like Sue’s car.


    Whilst one might consider Sue’s explanation for omitting to tell the police of her late night trip to the riverbank as having a semi-reasonable possibility of any validity, why would she not even tell anyone in the family until after the ATM photo surfaced? I can imagine the shock and dissapointment of Bob’s son, daughters and sister.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  05/12/16  at  12:06 PM
  574. #573. ” As Peter Powell said, Sue did not have to mention Clair or Mr King but simply tell them she went back and didn’t see anything going on”

    What assistance would such a statement do to assist the Police? Nothing as I see it.

    So what is the point you are making other than to pick things to discredit Sue?  Therefore the crux of the matter is what people have decided according to their interpretation of her character then try to fit it up.

    When someone speaks up who knows her well as to her character, it is attacked. Sue did explain her reasons for her actions at the time and it was very relevant to have had the late night call of Mr King. Her concern for Clare and knowing how Bob was sensitive about it.

    Guilty until proven innocence has things in reverse here. What about all the things Sue did tell the police? 90% of which provided them their case rather than any investigation.

    It was Sue’s helpfulness that landed her where she is.

    Perception of dinghy colour and winching science do nothing to incriminate Sue. It is clutching at straws, in my view, to add to the story. The story that relies on a lie ( even though later admitted to) = guilty based on no real evidence.

    As Mr ellis said in his TT article the forensics was mainly to satisfy the need these days people expect from CSI etc. It didn’t actually prove anything as he later in the trial told the court ” I never believed there was any blood in the dinghy” But did the jury hear that or did they only have the image in their minds of the luminal photo to indicate there was blood???

    It is the absence of real evidence that has created the void that has allowed the space for all these theories and made up stories to abound.

    Why is the crown so strong on trying to restrict information coming out in the current appeal? It seems to me that the more information the better is required to get to the bottom of the disappearance of Bob Chappell.

    For those of us who really want to know what happened, trying to restrict information is very frustrating indeed.

    Posted by Rosemary  on  05/12/16  at  02:05 PM
  575.  
    Eyewitness Evidence


    In relation to a number of my earlier comments on this blog (and related blogs) about the eyewitness testimonies (particularly about their recollection about the colour, shape and size of a dinghy they briefly saw on only one occasion):


    Eyewitness Evidence: Improving Its Probative Value

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26158855

    “Many of the experiments conducted in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s resulted in articles by psychologists that contained strong warnings to the legal system that eyewitness evidence was being overvalued by the justice system in the sense that its impact on triers of fact (e.g., juries) exceeded its probative (legal-proof) value. 

    Another message of the research was that the validity of eyewitness reports depends a great deal on the procedures that are used to obtain those reports and that the legal system was not using the best procedures.”

     

    Some months ago I briefly touched on the work of Prof Elizabeth Loftus to support my opinion that Paul Conde’s memory (and the memory other witnessess) of what he (they) briefly perceived about the dinghy he (they) saw at the Four Winds yacht (or elsewhere) cannot be relied upon to be exactly what he (they) saw because freshly formed memories are very susceptible to corruption between the time they are formed and between the time they are recalled for the purpose of providing a statement to the police. Further corruption can occur between the time of that initial statement and the time the eyewitness appears in a witness box. Freshly formed memories have very weak strength in Long Term Memory (LTM) part of the brain and can be easily corrupted/modified or forgotten.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  05/12/16  at  03:22 PM
  576. # 575 Peter. Every memory except Sue’s. In Sue’s case she is lying? Right Peter. No you aren’t right. Sue suffered stress, trauma and police who boxed her in.
    # 574 Rosemary. Sue’s helpfulness landed her there. I am not sure Sue was being helpful rather innocently answering questions without the slightest hint that She was being boxed in.

    As I asked previously how and why did Bob leave the yacht. Was he dead or alive.
    Why would a felon take the body with them, Doesn’t make sense.
    Sue doing it doesn’t make sense.
    Did Sue have a secret admirer, did he do it, doesn’t make sense either.

    There certainly is a story there and the police missed it. Or did they.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  05/12/16  at  06:05 PM
  577. “Neill-Fraser’s late night trip to the riverbank

    ..........    Part II  ........


    Relevant sections [my emphasis] from the Court of Criminal Appeal decision:

     http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/tas/TASCCA/2012/2.html 

     

    “Ms Sanchez gave evidence that on either 8 or 10 March 2009, she had a telephone conversation with the appellant, in the course of which the appellant told her that on the night of 26 January she was disturbed or anxious about the content of the telephone call from Richard King and had driven down to Sandy Bay, looked across at the yacht, but it was in darkness, and then drove back. That was the first occasion upon which the appellant had admitted to returning to Marieville Esplanade that night.”


    “On 13 March 2009, she was interviewed by an ABC journalist, Ms Felicity Ogilvie. She told Ms Ogilvie that after the telephone call from Mr King she drove down to the boat to check that everything was okay, did not see anything going on at the yacht and drove home.. She added that she saw homeless people with fires while down there. Ms Ogilvie later provided that information to police. It was the first time they were aware that the appellant had returned to Marieville Esplanade on the night in question.”


    “On 23 March 2009, Ms Sanchez had another telephone conversation with the appellant in which the appellant said that although she had driven down to Marieville Esplanade that night, she left the car there and walked back home to West Hobart for the exercise. It was the first time she said she had left the car at Marieville Esplanade.”


    “Police interviewed her again on 5 May 2009…........... she said she had been on the yacht on the afternoon of 26 January until later than she had previously indicated, and after tying the dinghy at the Royal Yacht Club, she walked back to Allison Street, West Hobart, leaving the car on Marieville Esplanade or around the corner in Margaret Street, she could not remember which. She said she did not remember whether it was daylight or dark. After the telephone call from Mr King, the content of which had unnerved her, she decided to collect the car and drive it home so that it would be available to her to drive to the yacht if the deceased called her. She decided not to telephone him because having regard to the lateness of the hour, he might be asleep. So she walked to the car at or near Marieville Esplanade. However, on arriving there she found she had farm keys and not the car keys and had to walk back to Allison Street to collect them and return once again to the car. She then drove along to the rowing sheds, which was the only place from which the boat could be seen properly. She got out, walked down to the beach and saw a fire going and homeless people there. She could not see the boat because it was pitch black. She felt a lot better for having gone there. She then drove home.

     

    Conclusions

    So, after Sue decided it was time to admit to returning to the river:


    1. She chose not to inform the police but informed other people, who then informed the police (or the police listened to her 2nd conversion with Bob’s sister after which they visited her in Sydney);

    2. She kept giving different versions of how she travelled (walking or driving) to the river and how she got back home (walking or driving);

    3. Claims to have seen some people around a fire. Wouldn’t this have been the very reason why it would have been extremely important for Sue (urgent I would say) to have informed the police immediately on the morning of 27th that she returned late at night and saw some people around a fire????. Anyone of them could have either been a potential suspect or could have spotted other suspicious activity, vehicles or people!!! Very irresponsible of Sue!

    4. Now look at one of the questions posed to Mr Ellis by the Womens Weekly (about people around a fire). Read his response.


    Of course there were no people around a fire! It is my conclusion that she made it all up.

    I also very much doubt she would have walked the streets late that night. She would have been safer on her dinghy in the middle of the night on Derwent than walking the streets!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  05/12/16  at  06:47 PM
  578. Neill-Fraser’s late night trip to the riverbank

    ..........    Part III: dinghy spotted    ......

    In Part II of my comment at #577 (which, in order to be fully understood, ought to be read in conjunction with my #179, #570 & #573 ) I emphasised the fact that, when Sue started talking to various people about having gone to the riverbank late at night on the Australia Day, Sue gave several different versions of where her car was and how she got from home to the riverbank and then back home. Here I present a small portion of my analysis from April/May 2015 that enabled me to conclude beyond reasonable doubt as to why Sue gave several different versions and the real reason for lying to the police.

     

    This was the media release on 11th March (a few days after Sue spoke to Bob’s sister) [my emphasis]:


    “Police contacted again over missing yachtie

     March 11th 2009 - ABC”

     

    http://www.australianmissingpersonsregister.com/BobChappell.htm

    “Tasmanian Police say they have had another breakthrough in the disappearance of Hobart cancer specialist Bob Chappell.

    Police say they have made contact again with a witness they had been wanting to hear from.

    The man called them shortly after Bob Chappell went missing on Australia Day.

    He said he had seen a dinghy near Mr Chappell’s yacht, Four Winds, at the Marieville Esplanade marina between 11:00 pm and midnight on the night he disappeared.

    Yesterday police confirmed they had received significant information over the past two weeks that could help solve the mystery and they called on the anonymous witness to contact them again.

    He made contact yesterday and police say he has given them more valuable information about the dinghy’s movements.

     

    Now let me put the date of the above media release in a chronological time sequence of key events that occurred on either side of the above media release date, starting off with the emergence of the ATM photo (which I claim to have been the catalyst that led Sue to finally reveal that she returned to the riverbank):

     

    Sequence of events:


    1. 5th March: Sue’s daughters shown the ATM photo;


    2. 8th or 10th March: Sue has a phone conversation with Bob’s sister; said she drove down to river then drove back home;


    ****************   new evidence  emerges     *******
    3. 11th March : Police media release about a dinghy spotted late at night;
    ****************   new evidence  emerges    *******

    4. 13th March: Sue speaks to the radio reporter; says she drove down to the river then drove back home; mentions that she saw homeless people with fires while down there.


    5. 23 March : Sue has a phone conversation with Bob’s sister; said she drove down to the river, left her car there and then walked back home.


    6. 5th May: Police interview Sue; Sue said she walked to the river to pick up her car from there but on arriving there she found she had farm keys and not the car keys and had to walk back to Allison Street to collect them and return once again to the car. Sometime later she drove home.

     


    This is what I concluded in May of last year:

     

    “SNF has fabricated the Bunning’s visit to give the police the impression that she spent very little time on the yacht. She gave several versions of this lie. Not only that she also initially lied about not being able to remember where at the waterfront she parked her car before walking home and yet she found the car each time she walked back to it that evening! 


    SNF has fabricated the three walks (a total distance of around 7.5 km which would have taken her about 1 hour 15 minutes at a walking pace of 6 km/hr) in order to put herself out of the 11:30pm - 12:00 am time frame during which a witness saw a person in a dingy heading out.

     

    See my full comment #8 at

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/spot-the-similarities#sthash.zehs19bP.dpuf

     

    I hope that the readers of my numerous posts on this case have benefited in some small way from my effort since April 2014 and that, with time, they manage to get a better appreciation for the considerable research and analytical work that was involved, even though they might disagree with my final conclusion. I also hope that it now becomes more readily apparent to the readers, at least to some of them, that Sue intentionally kept changing the goal posts each time she was confronted with (or heard about) new evidence that the police were discovering. 

    It is my opinion that the above listed 6 events were the key catalysts that broke the case for the police. By that time they already found out she lied about the Bunnings trip (and gave a few version of that as well).

    I will end here with a question:

    Was Sue really protecting Clair or was Sue protecting herself from being found out by the police? 


    Peter Lozo
    Adelaide, SA

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  06/12/16  at  05:56 AM
  579. #577 (defamatory imputation deleted)

    The crazy thing is, Peter could be right. The problem is there is not one shred of evidence to support his theory/assertions. Innuendos all the way. Ifs, buts and maybes.

    What happened to Bob and why.
    Why did his ‘body’ disappear
    Did a felon take the ‘body’ away

    If only the police had handled the case differently. That is, correctly.

    Bob Moles along the way made a comment like. While there are unresolved alternative unanswered questions and theories Sue should not have gone to gaol on the basis she has.
    That simple, lets get Sue out

    Seven years. How much more time does Moles require

    If Moles can get Keogh out (Who many think is guilty) why can’t he get Sue out.

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  06/12/16  at  07:08 AM
  580. In memory of Robert (Bob) Adrian Chappell (1943–2009)


    Having reached as far as I could on this case I now like to say a few words about the man whose disappearance I researched via these pages. Bob’s obituary can be downloaded from the internet by googling Robert Adrian Chappell obituary.


    The one thing that Bob and I had in common was the love for science, particularly physics. On that note, here  I copy few sections from the obituary about Bob’s professional and private life:


    Bob “had a particular interest and ability in mathematics and science.”

    “He studied physics as a major in his Bachelor of Science Degree with Honours at Melbourne University.”

    “Bob joined the Department of Physical Sciences at Peter MacCallum Clinic, Melbourne in 1969 and in 1970 took the opportunity to accept a position as Medical Physicist to the then Peter MacCallum Clinic Tasmanian Service Hobart, which was later to become W.P. Holman Clinic. He remained there until his death in January 2009 where he was the longest serving staff member. Bob will be fondly remembered as the fabric of the clinic, having overseen the evolution of a sophisticated service from the installation of the Clinic’s first linear accelerator to its present state with two multi-mode accelerators and having taken a pivotal role in the introduction of the Clinic’s IMRT programme.”


    “Bob was a sole physicist for much of his career and developed a good working relationship with the radiation therapists. He was collegiate and his extensive knowledge was respected and valued.”


    “Bob had a dry, wry, cynical sense of humour which was appreciated by all. Bob was not just a scientist, he was extremely well read in all facets of literature, and he enjoyed cooking and was a very genial host. Bob was the original West Hobart foodie seeking quality olive oil far before the rest of us had gone past cooking in lard. When his family were young, he gained great satisfaction from taking his children fishing and exploring the islands and coves of Coles Bay. He also taught himself and his children to sail dinghies and to windsurf. In recent years he enjoyed entertaining his extended family, including one son, two daughters and six young grandchildren.”

    “He was a gentleman, in the true sense of the world, utterly straightforward in his dealings with others in professional life and dedicated to doing his job to the highest standards.”


    As I reflect back over the past 18 or so months during which I researched Bob’s disappearance I am reminded of a brief video someone posted during a rather intense debate late last year. I think that Bob would have found the story amusing. 

     

    RIP Bob Chappell.

     

    From a fellow physicist.

     

    https://youtu.be/24cxpSIiPF4


    .......

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/12/16  at  11:19 PM
  581. ‘Why would a felon take the body with them.’

    Felon! Beauty I thought. A comment by Sue’s American ex. Wrong! No offence Brian, just be interesting to hear what Brett Meeker had to share.

    Posted by Mark h  on  12/12/16  at  06:18 AM
  582. #581 Mark, I am not offended. I am as perplexed as others. I do not have the key to the puzzle. Could you please expand on your comment.

    If Sue had murdered Bob as suggested why not just take a few items, a few semi valuables and all the alcohol and make it appear to be a robbery. Makes more sense than Sue winching a body.

    The more I ponder this case the more I wonder if something is missing. There has to be.

    This case has to be different to what people are reasoning

    A felon, thief or Sue would unlikely take the body with them.

    Why would the dark grey dinghy (The other one) take Bob’s body.

    I have suggested previously, that if for whatever reason Bob fell overboard his disappearance could be a separate act to the sabotage which occurred.

    Why would a felon or thief go to the trouble of sabotaging the boat.

    Did Bob’s disappearance coincide with an out going tide? Comments please

    Did Bob suffer depression?

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  12/12/16  at  10:09 AM
  583. “60 Minutes boss lashes arch-rival Sunday Night over Sue Neill-Fraser investigation”

    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/60-minutes-boss-lashes-archrival-sunday-night-over-sue-neillfraser-investigation-20170719-gxe3vx.html

     

    I submitted a number of comments on the Sunday Night facebook. Here is a select copy of some of my comments:


    1.

    “So what do we have new in this case since mid June of this year?

    The claim that there is a “witness” emerged at about the same time Neill-Fraser’s solicitor of 5 years (BE) quits the legal team!
    If there was a serious &  reliable  witness then I very much doubt that BE would have quit Neill-Fraser’s legal team (which puts the case in a legal limbo) a few weeks before what was supposed to have been a landmark right-to-appeal hearing.
    My conclusion: a publicity seeking stunt and some hearsay but no fresh and compelling evidence.”


    2.

    “There were sightings of a “grey dinghy” on the portside of Four Winds at 3:55 pm by one group and then at around 5:00-5:30 pm by another group. I have a scientific explanation for this (see my facebook or my many online comments on the Tasmanian Times) to support my opininion  that it was most likely Sue’s white dinghy but was perceived to be grey under the viewing geometry and conditions. The witness who featured on the program was interviewed by the police. She was over 500 metres away from where the Four Winds was moored. Unaided human vision cannot differentiate between an aluminum dinghy and an inflatable dinghy from that distance. She also saw  dingy on the starboard side. Hence she could not have been looking at Four Winds but at another yacht and its dinghy that was much closer.”


    3.

    “When a person’s DNA is found in a certain place it does NOT necessarily mean that the person was definitely physically present at that location or in its immediate vicinity.”


    4.

    ” It has  NOT be proven that the DNA was of primary source! It is NOT possible to scientifically determine whether it was primary or secondary by looking at the DNA (its signature or its volume). About the only thing that the few forensic scientists agree upon is that the source is most likely a liquid rather than skin cells - based on the volume. Does anyone recall the name of the Professor who featured on the program?”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  19/07/17  at  06:42 PM
  584. Another relevant comment:

    “It is amazing how many people saw the program (it showed a woman using a winch to pull the man up the companionway onto the deck) and yet hadn’t realised the significance of the mechanical assistance provided by the winch. A winch with a power ratio of 20:1 would make a 100 kg weight seem like it was 5 kg. The actual winch on Four Winds most probably had a power ratio of at least 40:1. Therefore it would have been easy for Sue (even if she had back problems) to use the winch and lift weighted body out of the yacht and then onto the dinghy. I have written about this on online Tasmanian Times.”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  20/07/17  at  05:41 PM
  585. #584. You just want to believe Sue is guilty

    You have adopted a typical police approach of, she is guilty build the case around her

    You do not understand the complexities of a back and a problematic back at that and the importance of keeping a back in a straight line

    A back is not in a straight line when using a winch and Sue would have experienced great difficulty with a bad back.

    For the prosecution to repeat over and over without any evidence that Sue cracked Bob over the head with a wrench and winched the body is shameful. The whole story is invented.

    It is pity a greater effort was not made to locate and identify the GREY dinghy.

    The GREY dinghy is central to the case

    I did read where the government may have sold 10 or so such dinghies and the GREY one may have been one of them

    This case is a great example of why one should not answer one single question put by the police without the presence of one’s own lawyer

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  21/07/17  at  06:03 PM
  586. Peter Lozo is right about the DNA. Imagine ... spits right next to the Four Winds when it is tied up at Constitution Dock after Australia Day, and then someone treads in her saliva and gets it onto the yacht. Or   hops onto the yacht and spits directly onto the deck. Along comes a forensic scientist and finds her DNA profile from a swab of an area of deck. The forensic scientist can say (with a high degree of probability) who the DNA likely came from, but not when or how, as the when and how is not encoded in the DNA, just the who. If you are the police and prosecution, it is tempting to say it had to be the first scenario - secondary transfer (especially given the statements from ... about never being on the boat). If you are on the defence team, or a journalist yearning for a juicy miscarriage of justice story, it is tempting to say it was primary transfer and ... was on the boat (but even then, no idea when). Both are guesses based on information other than the DNA data. In fact, the science cannot conclusively distinguish between these two possibilities, though at least a couple of “forensic experts” have tried to use the amount of DNA found as some sort of indicator one way or the other, but that is not conclusive either. Sorry to Channel Seven’s expert Peter Gunn, and the Victorian experts relied upon by 60 Minutes, likely back to forensic science school for all of you. Lesson One: Do not over-interpret forensic evidence when asked for professional advice by either side (even the defence!) and just be honest about the limitations inherent in DNA evidence and avoid flights of fancy.

    (edited)

    Posted by John Cox  on  21/07/17  at  11:06 PM
  587. A few amusing posts by other people: 

    1.

    “Daughters claimed she had bulging discs in her back at the time, how in the hell do you with that, walk from hilly West Hobart to Sandy Bay, and why in the middle of the night, and also spend hours walking up and down the aisles of Bunnings, I want the meds she had, must turn you into Wonder Woman,her stories have more holes than a crumpet. I say stories because she changed it so many times. She done it.”


    2.


    “No real evidence, no body and only the words of a woman in fantasy land.
    Reminds me of the Bradley Murdoch case.”


    3.


    “GEEZUS - if there is NO Body - who is to say he is even Dead…??? 
    Just MAYBE - HE had arranged that Silver Dingy to pick him up - and he has jetted off to South America…??? 
    Would that not be “Reasonable Doubt”...???”


    4.

    She was taking Valium for her bad back . In some people valium makes people not think straight.  Hence the lies .



    5.

    Sample 20 of DNA ‘carried’ on board inadvertently by police shoes?? Ahhh come on, give us a break! We’ll land on Mars next week!
    If ONE sample was ‘carried’ on board, in this manner there would be ‘more’ samples leading up to that lone sample or did the police person just hop to ‘that’ particular spot and put their foot down and not go any further!??? Does not make sense! Thank God for Dr Bob Moles!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/07/17  at  12:11 AM
  588. #586

    Hi John,


    Thanks for the thumbs up.

    The problem is a little bit more interesting than it initially appears to be.

    Your hypothetical scenario would be quite plausible had the yacht been docked by its starboard side because location 11 (the spot where the DNA sample was obtained from) is on the walkway next to the starboard entrance gate. But it more likely that the yacht was docked the other way around.


    I don’t have time to write our the details at the moment. Can you please read the following and then we can discuss in a day or two.

     

    Comment #272 by Garry Stannus


    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-two-views-of-her-guilt


    - from this part onwards:

     

    “And finally Steve, with all Peter’s speculation, there is one vital datum which has not yet been given ... neither at the trial nor subsequently … to my knowledge.  And it is a matter with which, in my opinion, he (Peter) and Tim Ellis should have treated.  Before being moved into the dry dock at Goodwood, the Four Winds was at a Goodwood mooring and it was at this mooring that D. McHoul boarded the Four Winds and discovered MV’s DNA on the walkway ... on ‘the other side’.  The trial transcript contains a reference to another vessel being visible next to it.  My Google earth ‘investigations’ show a number of berths or bays in which two vessels could fit, with a narrow jetty”

     

    Comments

    #274, #336 (by Lozo)


    Comment #337 (by Stannus)


    Comment #339, #340, #341 (by Lozo)


    I think that once you realise what the dilemma is then you might appreciate the logic of the VPFSD forensic scientist and perhaps the reason why Prof Gunn’s stated what he did. The significance of the last post (no 4 in my earlier post #587 will also become apparent).

    Also please read my brief critique of the VPFSD report

    comment #430 

    http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz.au/index.php/article/tim-ellis-and-the-australian-womens-weekly-


    Cheers,
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/07/17  at  11:30 PM
  589. Correction to my last post:

    The reference should be to point no 5 (rather than to no 4 in my #587, i.e. this bit:

    “If ONE sample was ‘carried’ on board, in this manner there would be ‘more’ samples leading up to that lone sample or did the police person just hop to ‘that’ particular spot and put their foot down and not go any further!??? Does not make sense!


    You see, if location 11 is more than two steps away from the gate then the above comment has validity.

    I think you will get the picture.

    Cheers,
    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/07/17  at  11:43 PM
  590. On reading comments by Ellis

    He indicates the circumstantial nature of Sue’s case is similar to Bradley Murdoch

    He is right and I believe BM is another innocent in gaol

    He says “The conviction of Bradley Murdoch for the murder of Peter Falconio” should I believe read ‘alleged murder’

    There is not one shred of evidence Falconio is dead nor that Murdoch is his murderer

    Lees changed her description of ‘Pete’s killer’ to suit the description of Murdoch and the police accepted it

    Both cases are similar
    The police work in both cases is I believe shoddy.
    In both cases I believe the police decided who is guilty and build the case around that person. It is termed bricking them in.

    ...

    This circumstantial nonsense has to stop

    (edited)

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  23/07/17  at  10:37 AM
  591. A boat tethered to Four Winds yacht

                      Part II


    For those who don’t have a facebook account: below I provide a link to the two relevant photographs.

    The first photograph shows a boat tethered to the starboard side of Four Winds on the morning of 27th Jan 2009 at Sandy Bay (at the yacht’s mooring).


    The second photograph shows that at least 4 people are onboard Four Winds and that they may have boarded the yacht via its starboard entrance gate from the tethered boat (red arrows point to the people; the yellow arrow points to the visible portion of the boat).


    https://m.facebook.com/peter.lozo.1/posts/pcb.652589364944466/?photo_id=652589328277803&mds;=/photos/viewer/?photoset_token=pcb.652589364944466&photo=652589328277803&profileid=100012843401713&source=49&refid=17&_ft_=top_level_post_id.652589364944466:tl_objid.652589364944466:throwback_story_fbid.652589364944466:thid.100005802249120:306061129499414:2:0:1501570799:1385762813790149207&__tn__=EH-R&cached_data=false&ftid;=&mdf=1

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  25/07/17  at  03:38 PM
  592. A woman with a “bulging disc in her back”


    It had been claimed by Sue Neill-Fraser’s supporters that Sue had a bad back and thus wasn’t physically able to commit the murder and dispose the body in the way it was alleged by the Crown during the trial.


    For example, on the recent Sunday Night program about the case, Neill-Fraser’s daughter (Sarah) said the following:

    “I think it’s ridiculous, mum would not really, she wasn’t able to lift heavy rocks, you know, she had a bulging disc in her back, she was not physically capable of doing 
    it.”


    A former friend of Sue’s (Dr Peter McMinn, a
    medical doctor, now a professor) who knew Sue well for a few years during mid to late 1980’s wrote a letter to the Editor of Tasmania Times (see “Letter to the Editor on Sue Neill-Fraser” 

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/pr-article/letter-to-the-editor-on-sue-neill-fraser/)

    said the following:

     

    “When I knew Sue as young woman in her mid-30’s, I directly observed her physical limitations in relation to heavy work and lifting. Sue is a lightly built woman and was suffering from chronic back pain and sciatica resulting from old riding injuries. As a medical practitioner, I have been trained to observe pain in others and I observed that Sue was often in pain. She was unable to lift bales of hay weighing 15-20 kg. When we rode together, I would do all of the heavy lifting because Sue was physically incapable of doing it. She would also frequently pull out of our rides after less than 30 minutes because of pain.

    Fast forward 20-25 years and it is likely that the back injuries and pain Sue suffered as a young woman would be compounded by osteoarthritis, making it likely that her back pain and limitations on lifting were at least equal to, or worse, than when I knew her. For these reasons, I feel strongly that Sue could not have committed Bob Chappell’s murder and the disposal of his body in the way that the Crown alleged. At the very least, my observation of Sue’s back pain and lifting limitations cast reasonable doubt upon the police hypothesis that was advanced during the trial.”


    How can we check the state of Neill-Fraser’s physical agility and her strength at the time of Bob’s disappearance? This is something that wasn’t argued during the trial.


    There are several news video clips on youtube which show Neill-Fraser easily stepping down onto the Four Winds yacht from a platform that is about a foot higher than the yacht.

    See this brief video clip:


    https://youtu.be/hkn166eyA00


    Based on this video I doubt whether Sue had a serious enough back problem that would have prevented her from committing the murder and the winching of the body out of the yacht and onto the dinghy.


    I calculated that a winch of a 20:1 power ratio would have enabled Sue to winch a dead weight of up to 100 kg (Bob was only 65 kg in weight) with ease. It would be equivalent of directly pulling onto less than 5 kg in weight for at most 30 minutes (many turns of the winch drum would have been required to pull the rope by a distance of 1 metre). Whilst I don’t know the power ratio of the winch that was claimed to have been used, data sheets show that a yacht of the length of Four Winds would have winches of power ratio higher than 20:1 (range 40:1 - 70:1). 


    I conclude that Neill-Fraser’s supporters  aren’t aware of the significant mechanical assistance that is provided by a yachting winch that has a power ratio of 20:1 or higher.


     

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  28/07/17  at  07:14 PM
  593. Top barrister handed over explosive file on murder - he didn’t foresee reaction

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/death-on-the-derwent-secret-file-could-prove-yacht-killers-innocence-20170822-gy1pix.html

    Here is a big bombshell:

    “Both Colin McLaren and Eve Ash have told friends they anticipate being raided or arrested.”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  22/08/17  at  09:31 PM
  594. #587/5 Peter Lozo says we’ll be landing on Mars next.
    That will not happen. First we have to land on the moon.
    At the moment the only way we could land on the moon would be if the moon was in our atmosphere.
    Speaking of which the moon does look close, like one could almost reach out and touch it

    Back to Sue
    Apparently half the population has bulging discs
    The lower back is a human weakness and the discs cause different people different levels of pain and inactivity

    I am more concerned how Sue is supposed to have carried out all this winching. Were the boat lights on or off. Daytime easily seen. The case has been put together suggesting Sue knocked Bob off under the cover of darkness thus Sue would need the lights on
    Do you see how ridiculous things are sounding
    On top of that Sue did the job on her own huffing and puffing making all sorts of noises. Sound travels across water and more so at night time.

    Folks, it is pretty damn obvious Sue certainly did not murder Bob in the fashion presented to the Court

    Then there is the wrench…..

    I believe Sue is innocent

    Posted by Brian Johnston  on  22/08/17  at  11:38 PM
  595. #594

    Mars next? Hey, I left the universe where you live a long time ago! 

    “Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought.”

    ~Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/08/17  at  09:19 AM
  596. What went on during the critical time period 4 pm - 9 pm Australia Day 2009


    When one examines in detail the events surrounding the disappearance of Bob Chappell on the evening of Australia Day 2009 one cannot easily ignore that the very last known person who was on Four Winds with Bob (Neill-Fraser) could not provide an explanation of her own whereabouts and actions for a critical 5 hour time period of that afternoon: the period 4 pm - 9 pm. Not only that, that person had misled the police by claiming that she was in Bunnings the whole time and returned home about the time it was starting to get dark (sometime between 8:30 pm and 9 pm). If one then takes into account that a middle aged person (whose description fits Neill-Fraser but doesn’t at all fit the description of Vass) was spotted on a motorised light coloured dinghy in the vicinity of Four Winds at around 7:45 pm - 8:30 pm and that that person has not yet come forward then the question arises whether Neill-Fraser was on Four Winds from about 2 pm to 8 pm .


    I concluded that there was no reasonable possibility of anyone else being on Four Winds before 8:30 pm other Sue and Bob because there is no reasonable doubt about Sue being the mysterious middle aged person who was spotted on a motorised light coloured dinghy in the vicinity of Four Winds at around 7:45 pm - 8:30 pm on Australia Day 2009.


    See Barbara Etter’s 2014 blog about the sighting of the above mentioned mysterious middle aged person:


    http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/the-weatherbeaten-man-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-case/


    My reasoning on the above is shown at the bottom of the following recent TT blog on this case:

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/comments/54179/

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/04/18  at  10:19 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.