Comments

<Back to Article

  1. I am sure that we supporters of procedural justice, are all dismayed to learn of this intrusion into the appeal process.  We want the Appeal to be heard on its merits, yet we ... I ... feel that this alleged act of this person, might interfere with an impartial, fair review of Susan Neill-Fraser’s case, and might interfere with her rights to be heard in the light of fresh and compelling new evidence. 

    Today’s news is the last thing that supporters of justice would welcome.  Surely, all informed Australians, would ask:  ‘Let her appeal proceed, without being muddied by these separate perverse matters’.

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  10/08/17  at  07:52 PM
  2. Wow!

    I kind of thought that something like this might have happened for I did not think that Barbara Etter would have quit the legal team on the threshold of what would have been a landmark right-to-appeal hearing unless she had a big disagreement with Sue Neil-Fraser about the strategy. Looks like that Mrs Etter saved her reputation by quitting before this non-sense about the new “witness” aired on Sunday Night.

    I wonder what will Channel 7’s Sunday Night program do now given that they broke the story several weeks ago about the “new witness”.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/08/17  at  10:40 PM
  3. Ch 7 Sunday Night facebook post

    This is what Ch7 Sunday Night posted on its facebook on 18th July at 12:31 pm:

    “A new witness has come forward in the case of convicted murderer Sue Neill-Fraser - a woman whose statement will be presented at Sue’s appeal hearing.
    The statement will detail private conversations the witness had with young homeless girl Meaghan Vass about what happened on Sue’s yacht. Meaghan has previously denied ever stepping foot on the vessel.
    Sources close to the investigation believe the new information could be enough to win Sue a new trial.”

     

    This is one of my posts on their facebook (submitted at 4:23 pm on 18th July):

     

    “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.”

     

    See

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1687981377879436&id=198416696835919

     

    I would have loved for the right-to-appeal hearing to have gone ahead in late July because I was really keen to hear what forensic experts had to say about MV’s DNA.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/08/17  at  11:41 PM
  4. Dishonesty has been the theme of Sue Neill-Fraser’s defence since day one, so this latest revelation should come as no surprise to anyone.

    Posted by James  on  11/08/17  at  09:19 AM
  5. Editor, why does this Sue Neil-Fraser article appear to have been archived? Did it spend any time on the general pages, and if not why not? Cheers, Mark Hawkes

    Posted by Mark Hawkes  on  11/08/17  at  12:29 PM
  6. Ever since the shock resignation of Barbara Etter, in the light of an appeal based on ‘fresh and compelling evidence’ it has been apparent that something was up. Why would a human rights lawyer up and quit, on the eve of an apparent boost to her career?

    So now we have our answer. This is a rather desperate attempt on SNFs part. The woman charged has a highly questionable background, including a botched armed robbery. The police have admitted that Keefe is an associate of SNF, but we do not know the extent of Sarah Bowles’ involvement. If payments were promised (or made), somebody other than SNF had to have made them.

    I sincerely hope the police have absolute proof of this plan. Perhaps it will put this issue to rest, once and for all. I have always had concerns about the Chappell family’s ability to grieve under these circumstances.

    With any luck the legislation passed in Queensland that will act to refuse bail to any person who does not reveal the location of a body will also be enacted in Tasmania. Then SNF must choose whether to stick to this convoluted and ill thought out defence or to come clean. I suppose she has told so many lies, she has put herself in a position where that is exceedingly difficult now. If she is lying to her family, how can she tell the truth?

    On a side note, where are all the Nay Sayers, the truth seekers who were certain that SNF was innocent? I look forward to reading all about how the police have framed Keefe and Susan is innocent after all!

    Posted by Sel  on  11/08/17  at  12:37 PM
  7. However you’d like to dress it up, speculation is still speculation.  Tom Percy QC was informed on 20 June that Barbara had stepped aside from the case.  No reason has been given publicly. 

    ‘Sel’ writes in #6:  “The police have admitted that Keefe is an associate of SNF”.  With regard to the ‘perverting justice’ charges, Tasmania Police had this to say [Here]...

    Charges relating to Perverting Justice
    Wednesday, 9 August 2017 - 4:49 pm.
    Tasmania Police have charged a 41 year old woman from Risdon Vale with two counts of Perverting Justice, Corrupting a Witness and Unlawful Trafficking in Firearms.
    These charges are part of an ongoing investigation by Tasmania Police which began as a result of information provided to police.
    Among other allegations, it will be alleged that the woman has coerced a witness to give false evidence in a matter currently before the Supreme Court.
    The offences are alleged to have taken place between November 2016 and July 2017.
    The woman will appear in the Hobart Magistrates Court at 10am tomorrow (Thursday 10 August).
    The investigation is ongoing and may result in further charges being laid.

    It should be noted that the offences were alleged to have taken place between November 2016 and last month (July2017).  It should also be noted that the application for a second appeal (involving fresh and compelling evidence) began with the first directions hearing in April 2016.  Clearly the material being relied on by the appellant predated the alleged offences by at least 7 months. 

    What is disconcerting is how ‘Sel’ (at #6) has apparently parlayed a media report which noted that Keefe was an “understood to be an acquaintance of Neill-Fraser” into “The police have admitted that Keefe is an associate of SNF”.  … I don’t think that the police have made any such ‘admission’.  … Sel is welcome to provide a link (or an appropriate reference) so that this claim can be checked. 

    It further beggars belief that this ‘Sel’ asserts “This is a rather desperate attempt on SNFs part.” as if the alleged offences themselves are proved, and as if some link to SNF is also proved.  That this ‘Sel’ should expose Tasmanian Times to a sub judice contempt of court finding is quite simply deplorable.  ‘Sel’ seems to have a selective focus, conveniently omitting what was clearly stated from the first (ABC News online) report, lunchtime Wednesday:  “police are not alleging that Neill-Fraser knew or encouraged what Keefe was allegedly doing.” Those who would closely read that ABC report, would find one of its statements quite intriguing.  There was a suggestion that Keefe allegedly had an accomplice in the alleged offences.  I will wait to learn what I can when the matter again comes to court.
    [See ABC report: Here]

    Posted by garrystannus@hotmail.com  on  11/08/17  at  07:21 PM
  8. Its interesting a payout/bribe for a convicted armed robber would be education package for her children. Most armed hold up people want pizza. In my humble opion I would say a middle class educated person would offer that sort of deal. Specualivly it could be a very close supporter as it is a large sum of money.

    Posted by John Wiseman  on  12/08/17  at  10:47 AM
  9. Regarding comment no.6 & no.7

    I don’t recall Garry chiding SNF’s supporters for their many conspiracy theories that completely ignore the workings of the legal system.

    Apparently it’s only okay to float these theories if they benefit SNF.

    Posted by James  on  12/08/17  at  03:44 PM
  10. Gary - associate is a synonym of acquaintance. There was nothing wrong with my statement.

    In 2016, Tenant was quite impatient at the new material.  There was no witness. There was inadmissible material and a DVD. She told them to go and get something more.

    In November 2016 SNF team were given two more weeks. Still no witness mentioned. If there had been, they wouldn’t need two more weeks.

    We do see mentions of a new witness after Nov 2016 though.  I didn’t look extensively but I didn’t see one until May 2017.
    And yes, I am speculating about Keefe. No denials here. The reason I am doing this is because SNF was found guilty of murder. I read the whole transcript and the evidence was quite compelling.

    There is actually no need at all to prove that SNF was intending to pay Keefe. It is entirely sufficient to simply prove KEEFE’s statement was a lie (1) and/or prove she was coercing a potential witness. The police may not even bother to try and prove it was SNF. If it was me, I wouldn’t waste the resources. This case was proven 8 years ago.

    Posted by Sel  on  12/08/17  at  06:56 PM
  11. #6 and #10

    Sel,


    Can you provide a link to an article to back up your claim in #6 that


    “The police have admitted that Keefe is an associate of SNF…”.

    I think that you have misinterpreted  the following sentence:


    “Keefe is understood to be an acquaintance of Neill-Fraser but police are not alleging that Neill-Fraser knew or encouraged what Keefe was allegedly doing?”.

    from

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/sue-neill-fraser-case-karen-patricia-nancy-keefe-charged/8792274?pfmredir=sm

    I agree with Garry on this.


    However, I tend to be of opinion that Neill-Fraser had the ultimate decision on which evidence was to be submitted for her appeal. She also had the right to refuse her then solicitor’s (Etter’s) advice. I am also of opinion that Etter (because of her extensive experience as a former police officer who reached a very senior rank) would have assesed Keefe as not being a credible witness and would have strongly advised Neill-Fraser against using Keefe’s affidavit. Thus, Neill-Fraser must have been desperate to allow Keefe’s affidavit to be included in her appeal. Therefore I agree with your sentence “This is a rather desperate attempt on SNFs part.”. That is not to say that I claim Neill-Fraser was involved in the plan. Let us wait and see what the police investigation uncovers. But I am very confident that MV’s DNA was as a result of secondary transfer. Prof Gunn needs to go back to forensic school! See what John Cox (a retired forensic scientist) said at comment # 586 


    http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz.au/index.php/article/tim-ellis-and-the-australian-womens-weekly-


    This is an extract from Mr Cox’s post:

    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.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/08/17  at  10:06 PM
  12. Cont.


    The sentence

    “Keefe is understood to be an acquaintance of Neill-Fraser but police are not alleging that Neill-Fraser knew or encouraged what Keefe was allegedly doing?”.


    does not state that the police alleged that Keefe is Neill-Fraser’s acquaintance/associate.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/08/17  at  10:21 PM
  13. Peter. I cannot supply any links. TT does not allow it. I tried to supply 5 yesterday and the comment would not submit. It seems to me a rather silly rule, since it is just adding to misunderstandings on here. I have seen two articles about claim that KEEFE is alleged to give false evidence about SNF and MV. The wording of the abc article clearly implies the information from police. It doesn’t mention talking to anybody else, not even ‘sources’. If it is not referring to police it is terrible writing indeed.

    Posted by Sel  on  13/08/17  at  05:52 AM
  14. Sel, Post the links on my FB or via twitter. But if the links are to non-official comments (i.e. other people’s hearsay)  then I am not interested nor would I rely on it. There is just too much nonsense and bad language posted by some people who don’t seem to care what they say on FB or tweeter.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/08/17  at  07:31 AM
  15. Sel,

    TT allows maximum of 2 links per post! If you have 5 links then you will need 3 posts.

    Peter

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/08/17  at  08:12 AM
  16. #1, Ditto Garry —  “...‘Let her appeal proceed, without being muddied by these separate perverse matters’.”

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  14/08/17  at  10:13 AM
  17. #1 and #16 ...but her appeal has been postponed indefinately hasnt it?

    How self serving for SNF supporters that no-one must discuss the ‘stunning new development’ because an appeal that may never happen is in the works

    Entirely unsurprising considering the way Miss Frasers supporters have conducted themselves on forums discussing the case, which as it happens is a public matter and a matter of public interest.

    Posted by Moo  on  14/08/17  at  11:57 AM
  18. Let her appeal not proceed until these separate perverse matters are unmuddied.

    Posted by John Wade  on  14/08/17  at  12:08 PM
  19. #6 How can this appeal even go ahead? A so called witness is now in remand for coercing another so called witness. The whole appeal appears to be a sham.

    Posted by Mark Hawkes  on  14/08/17  at  12:29 PM
  20. Peter. The links were for Gary. They are a timeline of: the first directions hearing,  to when there is the first mention of a new witness. They showed that Keefe does not appear in news reports until after November 11. The fact that Garry was wrong won’t affect the outcome of the case.

    As to whether the police said Keefe was an associate of SNF or somebody else did, I don’t really care much about that either. It’s irrelevant nitpicking. Time will tell. I am happy to just await the outcome. But if any of those journalists went more than 100 metres past the front of the courts for comment about Keefe, I will eat my hat. This is Hobart.

    The legal system is not a democracy. It requires proof not public support. The police have charged a second person today. I am sure they’re evidence is strong. It makes an appeal seem unlikely. If the police have a lot of evidence, I doubt they want to add perjury to their woes.

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/second-person-charged-over-neil-fraser-murder-appeal/8803738?pfmredir=sm

    Posted by Sel  on  14/08/17  at  01:28 PM
  21. #20 Sel, Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate your input into keeping me up to date on this case.

    #1 & #16 - Garry and Geraldine,

    I agree that Neill-Fraser’s appeal should proceed (provided that her legal team is ready and that the court can find free few weeks for her case to be heard) BUT only if and when the police investigation doesn’t find anything against Sue with respect to the current issue concerning false information provided by KK and the other person charged. This investigation ought to run its course before we can support Sue’s legal right to have her right-to-appeal hearing. The fact that MV was “corrupted” as a potential witness by KK might be an interesting legal issue.

    I am prepared to put up a $10K bet against Prof Gunn’s opinion. That is, I bet that MV’s DNA on the yacht was most likely to be as a result of secondary transfer.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/08/17  at  05:21 PM
  22. The SundayNight7 show sounds even more pathetic when you read the text.
    SNF went to the foreshore late at night because she was concerned. But the next morning she wasn’t concerned claiming she thought Bob had come ashore seeking work assistance.
    Their marriage was fine ...
    The intruders would not have meant harm ...
    Sarah still thinks Sue may have gone to Bunnings ...
    And on the nonsense goes.
    http://netk.net.au/Tasmania/Neill-Fraser37.pdf

    Posted by Mark Hawkes  on  15/08/17  at  04:42 PM
  23. Police charge third person with perverting course of justice

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-16/third-person-charged-over-bob-chappell-case/8813102?pfmredir=sm&sf106335993=1&smid=abcnewsTas-Twitter_Organic&WT;.tsrc=Twitter_Organic

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  16/08/17  at  02:15 PM
  24. Sandy Bay man, 51, 
    accused of perverting 
    justice in Neill-Fraser appeal

    http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4859755/third-person-charged-with-perverting-justice-in-neill-fraser-appeal/?src=rss

    “Actions of a number of people are being investigated and … the investigation will be ongoing for some time,” police said.”

    “Anyone with information they believe could assist police in their investigation is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  16/08/17  at  02:44 PM
  25. This is the third person charged:

    “Hobart community lawyer Jeffrey Ian Thompson charged with Pervert Justice

    The ongoing Tasmania Police investigation into a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice has resulted in the charging of a third person.

    Earlier today Detectives arrested 51 year old Mr Jeffrey Ian Thompson of Sandy Bay , a lawyer according to the Law Society of Tasmania, is employed at the Tenants Union of Tasmania.

    He was charged with Perverting Justice and appeared in the Hobart Magistrates Court this afternoon.

    Police will allege the 51 year old Perverted Justice by deliberately influencing a witness to manufacture evidence.

    During an unrelated investigation in early February this year, police were provided with information alleging a possible conspiracy to pervert justice by falsifying evidence in support of the appeal of Susan Neill-Fraser which is currently before the Appeals Court.

    Police say that the actions of a number of people are being investigated and that the investigation will be ongoing for some time. ”

    Posted by Sel  on  16/08/17  at  03:52 PM
  26. 60 MINUTES and Charles Wooley, plus Sunday Night, the channel seven tv show must be feeling silly tonight. The sad thing is no one mentions the stress the Chappell family must feel every time people question the conviction of murder.
    Also the police work, the forensics, our judicial system, I thank all of them for making Tasmania a safer place. Good work

    Posted by John Wiseman  on  16/08/17  at  08:06 PM
  27. “Police allege Thompson deliberately influenced a witness and prejudiced photographic evidence in support of Neill-Fraser’s latest attempt to appeal her murder conviction.”

    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/tas/2017/08/16/third-person-charged-in-neill-fraser-case.html

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  16/08/17  at  10:49 PM
  28. Here we go again, more lies and deception. Surely SNF’s friends and supporters are not all convicted criminals, but yet again, they appear happy to be friends with a convicted murderer.

    Fantasy Island. I heard Charles Woolly being quoted as saying “for all we know the victim may be sunning himself on the beaches of Brazil!”
    Yeah right Charles. Did he steal a boat and avoid it being noticed stolen? Did he swim? Or simply slide past Dutton’s army of border protectors?
    There is so much bull…t surrounding this murder, we don’t need your contribution Charles.

    Posted by Richard Kopf  on  17/08/17  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.