<Back to Article

  1. With a “friend ” like this ...

    Poor chump thought he was helping Neill-Fraser, but he is only making it worse for her appeal. However, this should NOT prejudice her case as she didn’t ask for Gleason’s “help” - nor did Etter for that matter.

    Posted by John Biggs  on  07/06/18  at  09:28 AM
  2. I wonder if similar charges might be lodged against those providing false testimony “against the persons claiming their false positive evidence” in this same case.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  07/06/18  at  10:22 AM
  3. Who submitted the transcript of this sentencing to TT?

    Tassie justice seems to be a lot more punctilious in dealing with such as Gleason than it was with John Gay or with the insiders who made the compensation for nearly 78,000 ha of State Forest plantation disappear.

    This display of judicial vigour however, doesn’t provide any semblance of proof beyond reasonable doubt that Neill-Fraser murdered her husband, as was argued by prosecutor Tim Ellis and accepted by Judge Alan Blow.

    John Hayward

    Posted by john hayward  on  07/06/18  at  10:25 AM
  4. #3 ... Yes John, the same judicial vigour could be said to apply to a number of this state’s Supreme Court Hearings on matters of deceased estates, where it is possible to deduce that invariably this court hands down its decisions in favour of Tasmania’s Public Trustees.

    If one were a gambling man, money could be gained quite easily considering the history of the decisions handed down in relation to open estates and deceased estates.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  07/06/18  at  11:14 AM
  5. I still don’t understand how anyone can be charged with murder when there is no body, no weapon and no motive.

    The only thing that the courts went on, in my mind, was the vivid imaginations of the judge and the prosecutor that were put to the jurors in a convincing manner. WHERE IS THE PROOF BEYOND DOUBT?

    Posted by TV Resident  on  07/06/18  at  11:52 AM
  6. So #6 ... the jurors were gullible?

    Posted by TGC  on  07/06/18  at  08:03 PM
  7. So John #3, it was “argued by prosecutor Tim Ellis and accepted by Judge Alan Blow”?

    I would have thought it was accepted by a jury of her peers. The judge does not get to accept or otherwise. The Jury convicted her, and after listening to all the arguments and counters, it made its decision.

    Posted by Brian  on  07/06/18  at  10:46 PM
  8. #8 ... “The judge does not get to accept or otherwise.”

    No? Read his summing up to the jury.

    Posted by John Biggs  on  08/06/18  at  10:00 AM
  9. As one who has followed this case quite closely since the publication by Tasmanian Times of the Neill-Fraser trial transcript, I would like to make the following comments:
    - Some of Justice Marshall’s sentencing remarks are, in my opinion, poorly constructed.  For example, it seems Gleeson was shown two photoboards which each included 8 photos and on each of the two photoboards was 1 photo (amongst 8) of a boy who at some stage was 16 years old.  The context suggests that this 16 year old boy was Adam Yaxley, yet Justice Marshall follows with the remark that “You were not shown any photographs of Mr Yaxley.”.

    - On the face of it, Justice Marshall’s sentencing remarks, in my opinion, contain if not error, then perhaps some measure of legal obfuscation.  For example, the Judge states that “Your identification evidence is the only direct evidence that places the girl near the crime scene on the night of the murder.”  Yet I refer to the evidence of Brent Brocklehurst (30Oct2017, Neill-Fraser 2nd appeal application hearing) who identified the young girl seen in the company of three men.  One of these three men was Mr Brocklehurst’s then neighbour, Simon Partigeter, who told Mr Brocklehurst that he had encountered the girl and two men while walking his dog on Short Beach.  Brocklehurst’s evidence was that Pargiter had told him that the three had “come out of nowhere on a dinghy”.  Brocklehurst on two occasions (once to Barbara Etter’s lawyers and once in court) had identified and in court placed his initials next to one of the photos shown to him.  The encounter took place on the evening of 26Jan2009. The place was Short Beach, off from which was moored the Four Winds.  The group, according to Brocklehurst via Pargiter, had then walked along Marieville Esplanade, turned the corner into Margaret Street (on which corner fence the ‘red jacket’ was found the next morning), continued up to where Margaret street ‘does a leftie’ and took a short cut through the bowling club.  Brocklehurst told the court that the group then sounded like they were getting drunk, making too much noise and that his partner asked them to quieten down.  They went on to about midnight.  One of the two men ‘on a dinghy’ is now in prison for murder, the other, known as ‘Michael’ has (as far as I’m aware) never been identified.

    - In my opinion, the Neill-Fraser case warrants an Inquiry.  How to marry/reconcile accounts such as that given by Brocklehurst with others, e.g. that of Gleeson’s.  The police and the DPP have their guilty verdict and it seems that they are defending it ‘to the hilt’.  It does not seem to me that they could – or should – reinvestigate the case.  All too clearly, the matter has gone beyond that.  Who then?  Our judiciary?  Chief Justice Alan Blow who exercised his ‘discretion’ and refused to allow Meaghan Vass to be recalled to the stand when, after she gave evidence, it was revealed that the address she’d given for her 26Jan2009 ‘sleepover’ did not exist.  No, I don’t think our CJ should be the man to oversee an Inquiry/Commission.  We must look further afield.

    Posted by  on  08/06/18  at  11:01 AM
  10. .../
    - Turn back to Justice Marshall’s remarks:  Stephen Gleeson is judged to have perverted the course of justice…

    Mr Thompson placed the first photoboard in front of you. You initially did not identify any of the photographs.  You were then shown a second photoboard containing photographs from 2009.  You failed to identify anyone again.  Then, Mr Thompson pointed to the 16-year old boy’s photograph on both boards.  You then pointed to the photograph of the boy on the first photoboard and, comparing it to the photograph of the boy on the second board, you said, “This one looks more like him than that one.”  Mr Thompson asked you to sign over the photograph of the boy in the first photoboard, which you did.  You did not identify the boy in the second photoboard, but Mr Thompson pointed to that photograph and said, “That was him there anyway.” You replied, “Was it? I could recognise him for the purpose of getting her out.”  Mr Thompson declined your offer.

    - Justice Marshall remarked (possibly unfairly, in my opinion)  of Gleeson:

    You made a false identification for the purpose of seeking a retrial for Ms Neill-Fraser.  You falsely and dishonestly identified a photograph of the 16-year old boy as being a photograph of a person present near Short Beach on the night of 26 January 2009, or early in the morning of 27 January 2009.

    Compare the two blockquotes:  Where was it that Gleeson made a false and dishonest identification?  Was it in signing over the photograph of the first boy (the one of which he had said “This one looks more like him than that one” … or was it in later saying of the boy in the second photo “I could recognise him for the purpose of getting her out.” - an offer which Justice Marshall was rejected by Thompson.  So it seems that it didn’t happen.

    - Another matter that I take issue with is Justice Marshall’s statement that “You admitted that you identified the 16-year old boy and the girl because Mr Thompson had pointed to their photographs.”  I was present in the court room when under cross-examination Gleeson was asked whether he had been prepared to lie to get Neill-Fraser out.  As Matt Denholm reported [Yelling witness admits to changing story after ‘car boot threat’ Australian October 31, 2017], Gleeson conceded he had been willing to lie to help Neill-Fraser in relation to providing photo identifications to one of her lawyers.  A number of other reporters, and Justice Marshall, in my opinion, failed to distinguish between the pluperfect and perfect tenses.  They incorrectly took Gleeson’s 31Oct2017 evidence as an admission that he was prepared to lie to that 31Oct2017 court, rather than as an admission in that court that on an earlier occasion he had been prepared to lie in relation to providing photo identifications to one of her lawyers.  I was there in the court.  I took direct notes of Gleeson’s evidence.  He was asked if he was prepared to lie [to the court] to get Neill-Fraser out.  He replied ‘No’.  Later the question was re-put, and he agreed (‘Yes’) that at an earlier stage, he had been prepared to lie to get Neill-Fraser out.  When considering Gleeson’s past statements, the evidence is that he had been prepared to lie in June2017 but that he was not prepared to lie in Oct2017.

    - concerning Barbara Etter, I note, according to Justice Marshall’s sentencing remarks, that Geoffrey Thompson “was not authorised by her to work on the Neill-Fraser case.”

    - Regardless of the outcome of Sue Neill-Fraser’s application for a second appeal, I believe that an inquiry is needed.  Our appeal courts are not investigative, our police and DPP are seen to be more concerned with justifying again and again their original charge against Sue Neill-Fraser.  As such our courts and our police cannot, in my opinion, conduct an open and credible reinvestigation of the case.  It pains me to say it, but we need help from outside.  In whom can we trust?

    Posted by  on  08/06/18  at  11:04 AM
  11. #8, Brian ... It would have been Blow, CJ, who instructed the jury that there was sufficient evidence in law for a murder conviction. 

    I will defer to the public opinion of Jocelyn Scutt QC, that she had “no faith in the Tasmanian justice system”.

    John Hayward

    Posted by john hayward  on  08/06/18  at  03:06 PM
  12. #9 John ... I read the summing up by the Trial judge. I couldn’t find a sentence where the Trial judge accepted anything in his summing to the jury. Perhaps you can help the readers by pointing us to the relevant page. Perhaps you misinterpreted the following by assuming that it implies that the judge himself accepted that Neill-Fraser deliberately murdered Bob:

    “The question for each of you is, “Am I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that guilt has been proven? That on the whole of the evidence that I accept the only – the only reasonable possibility, the only rational conclusion is that Ms Neill-Fraser deliberately murdered Mr Chappell, and that there’s no other sensible explanation for the evidence that I accept – no other reasonable possibility consistent with her innocence.”

    It is clear from the way the above is worded and presented in the Trial Transcript that the Trial judge wasn’t saying that he himself accepted that Neill-Fraser murdered Bob.

    #12 ... John Hayward. It is incorrect to say that the Trial judge “instructed the jury that there was sufficient evidence in law for a murder conviction”. CJ Blow did not instruct the jury that way at all. Had he done it then it would have been appealed against at the first appeal. Where did you get the impression that you knew what you were on about? Please refer us to the relevant page in the Trial Transcript. I searched for all instances of the word ‘conviction’ in the Trial Transcript, but none of the instances match what you are saying.

    #6, TV Resident ... Where is the word ‘REASONABLE’ in your question? The law is quite clear that the jury must return a guilty verdict only if they don’t have a reasonable doubt. That means that the jury can have some doubt but they must decide whether the doubt is reasonable. The jury in this case did not have a reasonable doubt and it returned a verdict of guilty. I too, did not find a reasonable doubt in this case.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  08/06/18  at  07:03 PM
  13. #14 ... Imagine 12 regular citizens (none of whom are lawyers) listening to several days’ worth of evidence in a soap opera style trial.  Imagine them sitting transfixed as the generously proportioned, ruddy faced prosecutor regales them with his detailed theory of Mr Chappell’s demise at the hands of Ms Neill-Fraser .. the wrench, the winch, and the pernicious greed that motivated the murder.  Even though there was NO evidence to support this scenario, the jury was most likely thoroughly mesmerised by the theatre they were witnessing.

    Then, with this lurid fiction fresh in their minds, trial judge Justice Blow begins his lengthy, disconnected, mind-numbing direction during which he says (at page 1,493 of the trial transcript) -

    ‘10 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

    15 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

    20 said, “No, that didn’t 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’.

    Twice, in the space of a minute, Justice Blow tells the jury they ‘should consider’ the prosecution’s unsupported theory.  So what do you think they did, given that most of the direction probably went WAY above their heads, and it may have been one of the few things they understood?

    On another point, did anyone see this news item today:

    Amongst other things, the story says -

    ‘HELEN Munnings was just 20 years old and pregnant with her second child when she vanished from the seaside town of Burnie, Tasmania, in July 2008.

    Ms Munnings’ secret boyfriend Adam Taylor — the father of her then two-year-old son Donovan and her unborn child — was the last person to see her alive.

    A 2012 inquest into her disappearance and presumed death named Mr Taylor as a person of interest but failed to establish how she died or where her body might be.
    Now Ms Munnings’ family have been given fresh hope following an announcement that her case had been upgraded to murder after police uncovered fresh leads.

    Cold case unit Detective Inspector Rob Gunton said a “person of interest” had been identified and that a $100,000 reward remained in place for information leading to an arrest.

    “I’m investigating this as a murder,” he told reporters last week. “This is very much an active investigation and will remain an active investigation until such time that we’ve resolved the matter,” he said.

    “I have my suspicions but my suspicions and my beliefs are certainly not enough.

    “It’s not about what we believe, what we think or even what we know — it’s what we can prove.”’

    If the lead investigator in the Neill-Fraser case, former Detective Inspector Peter Powell, had adopted the same approach as Detective Inspector Gunton, we may have had an entirely different result for Ms Neill-Fraser.  Alternately, if Powell had been involved in the Munnings case, the errant boyfriend would have been banged up in Risdon quick smart.

    Posted by Invicta  on  09/06/18  at  12:14 AM
  14. Regarding Invicta’s #14 ... I would like to add that in summing-up, then Justice Blow (now Chief Justice) made references to blood (as if blood had been identified on the Four Winds - an assertion that in my opinion was not confirmed by the forensic evidence:

    Justice Blow (CT 1507-1508):

    So there’s also evidence that tends to suggest that what happened was not an accident. All the evidence that the Four Winds was sabotaged tend to suggest there was no accident. The blood in the yacht tends to suggest that there was - that there was no accident.
    There’s evidence of the blood on the steps, and Ms Neill-Fraser has said that that wasn’t from the nosebleed. There’s evidence of the blood on the torch, and…
    These – these are all matters for you.

    In contrast to the judge’s summing up, I note that the evidence of Debra McHoul (police forensics witness) was that the presence of blood on the Four Winds and on its dinghy was suggested, but not confirmed.
    Debra McHoul (CT 668-669):

    So if we’re looking at this item, 162 -…….That’s correct.

    - we can assume that no blood was found during testing?…….No – no red/brown staining was seen.

    Yes.…….I have a weak positive screening test.

    Yes.…….And I haven’t attempted to confirm the presence of blood, so I don’t know whether there was any blood present or not.

    And when we see that expression “no attempt to confirm presence of blood” in other items the same proposition applies? ... That’s correct.

    Dr Mark Reynolds gave evidence in March of this year (2018) to Justice Brett.  He had written three reports on matters relating to the Neill-Fraser case, and amongst other things had reported (regarding trace blood analysis) that no blood was found on any surface [of the Four Winds] or on the dinghy.  He confirmed that finding to the court.

    With regard to Justice Blow’s further summing-up to the jury, I invite the reader to examine the following excerpts which led up to his statement:  “It’s open to you, if you’re satisfied of the combination of facts [...] then your verdict should be guilty of murder”:
    CT 1496-1534::

    it’s open to you to draw whatever conclusions you consider appropriate, favourable or unfavourable, in relation to the various things that she said and the various topics on which she gave evidence.
    it’s open to you to treat what she said as evidence suggesting guilt, if you’re satisfied of certain things.
    it’s open to you to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt without being satisfied of particular contentions or theories as to precisely what happened or why it happened
    Those are matters for you to consider.  But the Crown contends that his evidence can be relied on and it’s open to you rely on it. 
    It’s open to you though to infer that Ms Neill-Fraser knew what was in the 2004 will or knew its general effect. 
    It’s open to you to conclude that Ms Neill-Fraser had decided that the relationship with Mr Chappell was over and that it was in her financial interests for their relationship to end in death, not separation, and that she therefore had a motive to kill the man.  It’s open to you to conclude that they disagreed about the Four Winds and the costs of repairs to it and that she therefore had a motive to kill Mr Chappell.  It’s open to you to conclude that the facts did not provide a sufficient motive for her to kill him.  It’s open to you to reject the evidence about the relationship being at an end.
    It’s open to you, if you’re satisfied of the combination of facts – if you’re satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the combination of facts that I’ve listed in 4(a) or of the combination of facts that I’ve listed in 4(b) then your verdict should be guilty of murder.

    Mr Ellis, quite understandably, chose to not further question that direction of Justice Blow.

    Posted by  on  09/06/18  at  10:32 AM
  15. #13 ... Mr Lozo, we need to consider the whole context of the case.

    I suggest you read two things, #14 for a start.

    Then the following .. which describes in part the summing up. The case started with an accusation by Phillip Triffet that SN-F had told him she was going to kill Chappell by wrapping him in chicken wire and throwing him overboard. So the case for the Prosecution rested on Triffett’s veracity.

    If Phillip Triffett wasn’t telling the truth however, the prosecution’s case depended from the outset on a malicious lie.

    The lively mind of the DPP quickly painted in the needed details: ‘She’s walking backwards and forwards and delivers blow – a blow or blows, or maybe stabs him with a screwdriver, I don’t know …’  Eventually he settles on a wrench, the screwdriver becoming a secondary option. Mr Chappell’s body was then winched onto the deck, manhandled .. or rather woman handled .. onto the yacht’s dinghy and taken away, weighted with a fire extinguisher and dropped in the unsearched deeper waters of the River Derwent. In the course of this the dinghy would be spattered with blood: a forensic test with luminol, which is sensitive to blood, but also to several substances including some paints and bleach, was positive.

    So the trial proceeded on the assumption that Neill-Fraser was guilty, as no other line of investigation was pursued, which put her in the untenable position of having to prove her innocence. The DPP’s construction of what happened, although described by the judge ‘as a theory’, was treated as fact. Thus in his summing up His Honour said: ‘The first question is .. am I satisfied of the truth or correctness of that evidence, not am I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the truth of that piece of evidence.’

    The judge had pointed out to the jury that the evidence was entirely circumstantial, there being no body to determine the cause of death, if indeed Chappell was dead; there was no weapon, wrench, screwdriver or whatever else; there was no apparent motive although she was attributed a motive of having said (by Phillip Triffett again) that she wanted to kill Chappell;  there were no witnesses to what might have happened.

    And when asked by the Foreman of the Jury about the distinction between murder and manslaughter, His Honour said that murder requires intention to kill: ‘So if an assailant hits someone on the head with a wrench, for example, and if that sort of bodily harm that’s intended, a head injury caused with a wrench, is something that could well cause death and the assailant knows that that’s the sort of bodily harm that could well cause death then that’s murder.’

    In summing up, Blow J said: ‘If you’re considering whether you accept the evidence of Phillip Triffett or not, if you are satisfied that his evidence is true then you may take that into account.  You don’t need to reach a state where you’re satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his evidence is true before you may take it into account, and that applies to every piece of evidence in this case, every piece of circumstantial evidence.’ 

    In sentencing, Blow J concluded as follows: A witness named (Phillip Triffett) gave evidence about two conversations with Ms Neill-Fraser in the mid-1990s.  That evidence was disputed at the trial.  My impression of Phillip Triffett is that he is not always honest, but, after considering his evidence very carefully, I have decided that it was truthful.  In substance, he said that Ms Neill-Fraser told him of a plan to kill her brother on board a yacht that she then owned, attach heavy objects to his body, throw the body into deep water, and scuttle the yacht. 

    Two things here:

    1.The Judge’s reliance on Triffett’s veracity, a known criminal, when he had tried to bargain with the police for motivation of his own circumstances if he told his story, for which there is no corroborating evidence.

    2. The question from the jury. By saying (for example) that it would be murder if using a wrench with intent ... a slip of the tongue, or an attempt to reinforce the DPP’s “theory”?

    Posted by John Biggs  on  09/06/18  at  10:48 AM
  16. Marshall AJ. TWO retired Tasmanian Supreme Court judges are among four top jurists who have been temporarily appointed to the the Supreme Court to help clear a backlog of cases.

    Former Supreme Court Justice Pierre Slicer Lautalatoa and David Porter QC will be joined by former Federal Court judge Shane Marshall and former Northern Territory Chief Justice, Brian Martin QC, on the Supreme Court bench.

    Former Supreme Court Justice Pierre Slicer Lautalatoa is one of four jurists appointed to help with a backlog of cases. The appointments follow the passing of the Supreme Court Amendment (Judges) Bill last year which enabled the appointment of part-time acting judges.

    The four judges were appointed immediately for two-year terms.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  09/06/18  at  11:26 AM
  17. Marshall AJ ...

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  09/06/18  at  11:28 AM
  18. The Jury -
    “Trial by jury is central to our criminal justice system. Twelve randomly selected, ordinary people are handed the responsibility of deciding if alleged criminals are guilty or not guilty. They sit through the trial then retire to the jury deliberation room to reach a verdict. We place enormous faith in the idea that this process is the best way to ensure justice is served. But no system is perfect. Occasionally there are allegations of juror misbehaviour or juror bias. Given we’re all only human, how accepting should we be of these imperfections? And how stressful can jury duty be? Inside the Jury Room provides a rare glimpse of what happens when it all goes wrong. Do we give enough support to jurors, and how well can this system ever work? ...”

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  09/06/18  at  11:56 AM
  19. #16 John, When I initially looked at the SNF case back in 2015 I did not need nor did I include Mr Triffet’s evidence to reach a beyond doubt conclusion on who went onboard Four Winds and murdered Bob (and then used the winch to move the body from the yacht onto the dinghy).

    But when I finally decided to look into Mr Triffet’s evidence I noted that his first statement was taken well before the police worked out what most probably happened and we’ll before it was made public what was found on the yacht. I noted the similarity between what he stated and what appears to have happened. I also noted the content of the conversation between Sue and the yacht broker when she called him on 8th Jan 09 and then again several weeks later. On 8th Jan she told the broker that she and Bob had separated. During the phone conversation a few weeks after Bob disappeared she mentioned to the yacht broker that Bob’s body was probably weighted down by a fire extinguisher.

    I concluded that Mr Triffet was honest but that his testimony wasn’t what led me to conclude that Sue was on the yacht from about 2:30 pm to about 8pm and intentionally lied to the police. I also concluded that Sue returned to the yacht at around midnight to dispose of the body.

    I can’t speak for the jury but I don’t see why they would not believe Triffet’s statement to have been truthful after hearing Sue’s many lies. I often wondered why did she want the yacht broker to think that she was separated from Bob. Here is a news footage from the time of the 2010 trial:

    Watch “Neill-Fraser ‘separated’ from Chappell: witness” on YouTube

    If you go through the technical details of how one would use the relevant winch and the rope to winch the body from below the deck, move it across the deck and then lower the body onto the dinghy you will note several important things. It is the conclusion that is interesting:

    - The relevant winch drum rotates only in one direction (clockwise);

    - The winch is directly aligned with the yacht’s saloon and the stern gate;

    - The winch can be used as a pulley when lowering the body onto the dinghy.This appears to have been the case because the rope was found to have been wound around the winch in the opposite to the normal way;

    - Because of the orientation of the winch with respect to the stern gate the person who is using the winch as the pulley would need to pull onto the rope with their left hand in order to withstand the pulling force of the dead body that is being lowered onto the dinghy via the stern gate. This would put quite a strain on the person’s left hand and in particular their left wrist. Sue had an apparent injury to her left wrist. She is seen in several photo’s and live video footage of 27th Jan holding her left wrist. The police noted that there was no evidence of that wrist injury before the 26th (she also had a cut on her left thumb).

    The whole process (the murder; rigging up the winch and the rope; wrapping up the body; the winching of the body from below the deck; across the deck and then lowering it into the dinghy; disposing of the body via the dinghy) would have taken a single female person who isn’t particularly strong at least 3 hours (Sue has not yet provided an explanation for her whereabouts from 4pm to 9pm of 26th). We have recently found out that the relevant winch has a power ratio of 27:1, meaning that it would require a person to exert power that is equivalent to manually lifting a weight of 2.7 kg in order to operate the winch to lift a weight of 65 kg. Therefore, it would have been relatively easy for Sue to have done it but it takes a lot of time to get the body from below the deck onto the dinghy. I worked out that the rope arrangement had to be changed for each phase of the operation (I have identified a total of 3 phases that required the use of the winch). Who had the time and the technical know-how?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/06/18  at  01:14 PM
  20. Perhaps the point that is being missed in all of this discussion is the fact that the Judge has never been specifically trained to search for the truth, but has been well trained in the art of sophistry, a technique used by lawyers to distract, confuse and conceal.

    There are numerous extracts from Evan Whitton’s excellent book on the history of English Law on TT that discuss this very issue.

    Unfortunately, until we elect a parliament, or parliaments actually, that are capable of recognising that truth and justice march hand in hand, and that properly trained judges are required to ensure that truth plays its central role in judicial proceedings, we are doomed to bear witness to endless reruns of this rather sad and sorry tale.  I cannot say that I am convinced by either side, but what I do know is that the search for the truth has left me somewhat concerned by the state of our justice system.

    As always, it is a leadership problem. We elect our leaders, so that problem is ours to fix.

    Posted by Simon Warriner  on  09/06/18  at  01:55 PM
  21. #14 Invicta and #16 John

    I don’t see how what is written in #14 above (some of it apparently meant for me) or anywhere else above or in any previous TT articles and comments can overcome what I find to be the critical list of evidence:

    - Several hours that are needed to execute the whole series of events (the murder; the rigging of the winch and the ropes; winching the body from below the deck onto the dinghy;  dumping of the body in the river some distance away from the yacht);

    - the technical know-how (the plumbing to sabotage the yacht; the winch to help in moving the body);

    - injuries to Sue’s left wrist and left thumb;

    - the last known person to have been with Bob on the yacht (Sue) lied about her whereabouts for the afternoon of 26th and lied about her whereabouts on the late evening of 26th-early morning of 27th; no explanation for her wherabouts from 4pm to 9pm;

    - Sue matches the description of the person who was spotted on a motorised inflatable dinghy at around 11:30 pm - 12:00am next to the Sandy Bay Rowing Shed heading out in the direction of Four Winds (note that the witness heard a motor). Sue lied about staying home the whole night. When Sue decided to tell people that she actually went out that night she gave 3 different vversions (she started changing her first version after the police released a statement that a person was spotted in a dinghy late at night; it appears that Sue was trying to put herself as being outside the timeframe at which the person was spotted so gave a final version where she walked from home to the waterfront and then back home to get the right keys and then walked back to the waterfront to pick up her car).

    I do not care for Triffet’s evidence nor the evidence of the ‘self proclaimed ASIO agent’ (Gleeson).

    Whether Neill-Fraser received a fair trial is something I am not qualified to comment on.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/06/18  at  02:35 PM
  22. #16, John Biggs ...

    “And when asked by the Foreman of the Jury about the distinction between murder and manslaughter, His Honour said that murder requires intention to kill: ‘So if an assailant hits someone on the head with a wrench, for example, and if that sort of bodily harm that’s intended, a head injury caused with a wrench, is something that could well cause death and the assailant knows that that’s the sort of bodily harm that could well cause death then that’s murder.’”

    The trial judge could have used any other object as an example, but you seem to think it somewhat odd that he chose to use the same object as what the prosecutor suggested as being a possible weapon.

    If you look at what the State aimed to prove to the jury it had nothing to do with the actual weapon used or how Bob was killed. The State aimed to prove that Bob was dead and that Sue murdered him. The State was perfectly entitled to suggest a possible weapon, or the way the murder had occurred, but the jury was not required to reach any conclusion on that. All they had to make a beyond reasonable doubt decision on was whether Bob was dead and whether it was Sue who murdered him intentionally.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/06/18  at  05:00 PM
  23. #23 ... The trial judge could have used any other object as an example, but you seem to think it somewhat odd that he chose to use the same object as what the prosecutor suggested as being a possible weapon. Not odd, suggestive, particularly to a jury that judge would choose the same weapon.

    All they had to make a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ decision was whether Bob was dead and whether it was Sue who murdered him intentionally, and it wasn’t beyond reasonable doubt.

    You and I are wasting each other’s time. Our exchanges pass each other like ships in the night.

    Posted by John Biggs  on  09/06/18  at  05:32 PM
  24. #23 ... Peter Lozo, this is for your interest and consideration ...

    This link touches upon how the judicial system, at the time of the case matters referred to therein, was flawed in its prosecutorial protocols. These specific matters were to set a law precedent now applicable in the USA.

    Is it permissible for the presiding judge to lead the court to directly consider the hypothetical, and or, circumstantial-only evidence?

    Posted by William Boeder  on  09/06/18  at  06:02 PM
  25. #24 ... You consider the judge’s choice of the example weapon to be a either a slip of the tongue or an intentional reinforcement of what the prosecutor stated. I consider the judge’s choice of the example weapon as neither of those you stated but simply a natural mental process of recalling the same example as what had been previously raised during the trial by the prosecutor. Why you made a point about this issue is odd to me.

    Where did the idea of the wrench come from anyway? Mr Ellis didn’t pull out the word ‘wrench’ out of the blue. I understand that Sue told the police that a wrench from the yacht was missing. Given that she told the police that Bob was working in the yacht’s engine compartment and that the wrench was missing, and given the blood spatter, it is easy to see that a wrench might have been used to strike at Bob.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/06/18  at  06:33 PM
  26. #25 William ... Here is something for your consideration:

    I have consistently stated many times over the past few years that I am not qualified to make a statement on legal matters/technicalities.

    You must have read my earlier statements where I expressed that I am not qualified to comment on legal technicalities, and yet you are wanting me look at such matters. What you are talking about is a legal matter concerning how a judge should run a trial, etc. My interest is in analysing the trial evidence and in analysing people’s interpretation of that evidence.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  09/06/18  at  06:50 PM
  27. #26 ... First, Mr Biggs drew attention to Justice Blow’s several references to a ‘wrench’ in his direction to the jury, because judges are required to deliver a thoroughly impartial direction. Arguably, the repeated mention of what was an entirely speculative murder weapon did not satisfy that requirement.

    Second, do you have a reference for Ms Neill-Fraser telling police a wrench from the yacht was missing?

    #27 ... Dr Lozo, if you are aware you have little or no knowledge of ‘legal technicalities’ why do you persist in commenting on this case, expressing nothing more than a personal opinion?

    There are certain expectations of a criminal trial, and a high standard of proof, and those who are aware of the legal requirements believe the Neill-Fraser case failed in several ways.

    If you don’t understand this, perhaps you should do some research before commenting further.

    Posted by Invicta  on  09/06/18  at  11:03 PM
  28. #28 ...

    If you don’t understand this, perhaps you should do some research before commenting further.

    That’s the spirit of robust discussion. Don’t dare admit your limitations, or disagree.

    Posted by Ian M  on  10/06/18  at  07:52 AM
  29. With regard to Invicta‘s (#28) request for a reference “for Ms Neill-Fraser telling police a wrench from the yacht was missing”:  While FW was at CleanLift, they ‘lost’ quite a lot of things, including little wrenches for small nuts [see:  CT 1197 30 (Gunson EXD) & 1297 8 Ellis XXD] When questioned by Mr Ellis, Sue Neill-Fraser could not remember if she’d told police about the missing little wrenches, though Mr Ellis pointedly suggested to her that she had not told police about them.

    I think he was trying to lay the foundation for what he later denied was his ‘wrench theory’.  I imagine that Mr Ellis was wanting to suggest that some wrenches were missing because one of them (hypothetically) was a murder weapon and further, to suggest that SN-F had not told police about them going missing because one of them (supposedly) was the murder weapon - the insinuation being that SN-F had rid herself of it, or some such thing.  Perhaps it would be best to read part of that cross-examination exchange again:

    I suggest you didn’t tell police that you’d been missing tools from out there ... I can’t remember whether I did or not.

    Including, you said, wrenches……..Yes, the set of wrenches.

    That’s right.  Big wrenches? ... No, they were the little ones for working on the, you know, they come in a plastic wrapped up thing and they’re for working on the small nuts on the motor.

    Oh really, not big wrenches, no big wrenches missing?  ... I think we – I think we had a set of Stillsons on board.

    Oh, they’re not missing? ... I don’t think so.

    No?  Wrenches have been in your mind through this trial, haven’t they?  It was a wrench, wasn’t it, or a similar sort of tool with which you struck Mr Chappell from behind and killed him ... Mr Ellis, I have never struck anybody, let alone somebody I loved dearly.

    Mr Ellis, in closing told the court that the first time SN-F had ever mentioned wrenches was not in interviews (with police)/statements (taken by police):

    Tools feature, as I said, Ms Neill-Fraser who produce, for the first time, that I can find in any statement or interview, in this Court, the first time that wrenches were missing when their yacht – or wrenches had been found to be missing when the yacht was at Goodwood.

    The so-called ‘wrench theory’ was to result in the 5th of the 10 grounds of (the first) appeal, namely:

    -“Ground 5: The learned trial judge erred:
    a) in failing to instruct the jury that they could not accept the hypotheses, raised by the prosecutor in cross-examination of the appellant and in his final address, to the effect that the appellant had used a wrench to kill Mr Chappell and that she had employed yellow rubber gloves found in the galley of the yacht; and
    b) in re-directing, in answer to the jury’s question on the difference between murder without an intention to cause death and manslaughter, by reference to the example of ‘hitting a man on the head with a wrench’
    as those hypotheses amounted to speculation because there was no evidence that Mr Chappell was struck by a wrench and the evidence showed that the DNA of Timothy Chappell, not that of the appellant, was found on the gloves.”

    I finish here by noting that an application for a second appeal, under the ‘new legislation’ is under way, and that supporting the prosecution case at the original trial is hardly germane to present proceedings, nor to this TT article.  In the recent past, I have unsuccessfully submitted in comment-threads my notes of the 2nd Appeal hearings and have similarly proposed TT articles which relate to present matters ... alas these were not published.  I suppose perhaps, that in our Editor’s opinion, I was sailing him ‘too close to the judicial winds’ (my expression, not the Ed‘s).

    Posted by  on  10/06/18  at  09:13 AM
  30. #28 ... When one talks about the wrench one should take into account the context of how the issue came up during the Trial.

    Search for the word ‘wrench’. If one reads people’s comments on various blogs one gets an impression that Mr Ellis just came up with a suggestion of a wrench being used, but no-one (not even Dr Bob Moles) talked about the context and how and why Mr Ellis suggested it.

    Since the jury members aren’t required to have a legal background, nor are they required to assess the correctness of the legal proceedings, why do you question my interest in commenting on non-legal matters of this case . given that my last sentence in #27 is “My interest is in analysing the trial evidence and in analysing people’s interpretation of that evidence.”?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/06/18  at  09:42 AM
  31. I stand corrected.

    The first time that Sue mentioned missing wrenches was during the trial (I was relying too much on my memory). Anyway, the context in which the wrench was brought up and how it was done suggests to me that it wasn’t just an invention by the prosecutor’s imagination to suggest a wrench as a possible weapon that might have been used.

    But if you listen to what Dr Bob Moles said on ‘60 minutes’ several years ago you get an impression that Mr Ellis’s imagination invented out of nowhere the wrench as the weapon. Given the context, I don’t see why some people are making this a big issue. Given that SNF’s defence team is proposing that someone else boarded the yacht and murdered Bob, I don’t see what the prosecutor suggested as being a possible weapon would go against Sue.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/06/18  at  10:22 AM
  32. I think that that’s a fair question from John (Hayward at #3):  “Who submitted the transcript of this sentencing to TT?” 

    In my opinion, whoever it was who did so might have bothered to inform us that the bold formatting was not that of Acting Justice Marshall, but rather that of this article’s unknown contributor.  In the formatting (and in the creation of extra paragraph-breaks) I believe we can discern the hand of one who has long demonstrated an anti-Neill-Fraser predisposition. 

    Were the contributor to be one of those present on this thread, I posit that, on such a pre-dispositional criterion, we could rule out John Biggs, William Boeder, John Hayward, TV Resident, Invicta, Geraldine Allan and myself.  [re #21:  I leave Simon’s quite sensible contribution as being ‘hors de combat’]  Were our contributor to be present on this thread, we then must have a very short field.  I should note that of our four apparent ‘SN-F is guilty’ threadsters, one stands out by reason of a certain digital fingerprint … a certaincy (aka ‘certitude’) suggested by said fingerprint, and also by having been exposed previously as having operated then on certain (there’s that word again) TT threads while using more than one ‘persona’ – a clear breach of the TT Code of Conduct (‘more observed in the breach than ...’)

    I hope, fellow Tasmanians, that you are having a wonderful, long weekend.  The sky is clear in the north, and I’m headed for the bush:  Liffey or bust!

    Posted by  on  10/06/18  at  10:53 AM
  33. Hmmmn.
    #30 — as usual, well researched and to the point.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  10/06/18  at  12:19 PM
  34. Hello Garry #33 ...

    I believe that the Editor has always exercised a high level of tolerance in his processing of submitted Comments.

    I assume it’s his way of generously giving everyone more than just “a fair go” in the interests of freedom of speech in a forum mainly supported by private donations and in which those Commenting pay nothing for the enormous privilege of gaining access to the public domain that’s otherwise unattainable.

    This is cause, I believe, for profound gratitude, particularly from we, the powerless.

    I suspect that if the Editor rigorously enforced the Comments section by strictly applying its Code of Conduct there would be lots of collateral damage as maybe half of those submitted are promptly deleted, despite the automatic “Comment accepted” notification. Given the sloppy, lazy, obscene, nasty, juvenile and Facebook nature of some Comments, I suspect there are certainly some here who would really appreciate that, however I’ve noticed that some of those reforms are already underway.

    It seems to me that the Editor has always relied upon all Tasmanian Times’ contributors to submit their articles, and their Comments upon articles, in good faith and as backed by a high level of care, rigorous attention to detail (particularly fact and grammar) and fulsome respect for his right to irreversibly delete anything, particularly those offerings outside the legislated requirements regarding libel.

    The reputation of these columns would certainly be enhanced if personal attacks, snide remarks, ridicule, sarcasm, nastiness, crudeness and personal ‘put-downs’ were not published ... preferably because they were never offered.

    I am finding, in my doddery and awkward years, that by asking myself “Is what I am contemplating kind, or is it unkind?” and thereby perceiving what is the right thing to do with this sieve ..  ‘If it’s kind, do it’ and ‘If it’s unkind, don’t do it” and I recommend this course to all - particularly because the answer is usually both swift and clear.

    I believe that readers should always remember that publication of nearly everything in Tasmanian Times is a privilege, and not a right. Respect counts.

    Posted by Peter Bright  on  10/06/18  at  01:53 PM
  35. Well put, Peter (#35).  We haven’t yet met, though we’ve corresponded via TT and through it, privately, for years.  Actually it’s because of TT that I publish my email address ... recalling as some of us will, how our email addresses used to be displayed by ‘hovering’ over the ‘Posted by…’ part of a threadster’s message.  Ah ... those salad days!  Those days before the ‘Code of Conduct’.  I argued against the Code, hoping that the common sense/good will of contributors would eventually force the nasties away from their negatives.  I hope your day is blessed by peace and quietude, Peter - Garry.

    Posted by  on  10/06/18  at  02:14 PM
  36. Re #35 and #36 ...

    An inspiring exchange. Makes me want to try harder to be kinder in my Comments. Difficult at times.

    Posted by John Biggs  on  10/06/18  at  04:59 PM
  37. Back at the turn of this century I was involved in a civil matter involving both a (then) barrister, who was the judge in this case, and the same DPP who was representing the respondent RPDC.

    I wish all those posters expressing faith in the S N-F judgement could have shared in the revelations from my case.

    John Hayward

    Posted by john hayward  on  10/06/18  at  06:06 PM
  38. #37 ... It takes a good keen man to show an empathy toward his boldest critics.
    One must question the time and energy necessary for an attempt to placate an unreasonably pernicious communicant.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  10/06/18  at  06:08 PM
  39. #38, John ... Thanks for sharing that information. In 2015 I did some research to find out why some people who were commenting on the SNF case were so negative about the Tasmanian judicial system. I flagged about 4 people, including you. I did learn that some of the flagged people have had negative experiences with the Tasmanian judicial system. Those are sorts of things that can lead to a conscious or subconscious perceptual and cognitive bias when considering the evidence in the SNF case.

    How can William Boerder be convinced that there is a lot of perceptual and cognitive bias in the SNF camp? Some of those in the SNF camp are relatives and/or friends of SNF or her late mother. Some have been led by the ‘Shadow of Doubt’ documentary to believe that there was in fact a grey dinghy tethered at Four Winds at 4 pm and at 5 pm.

    Some have been led to believe that Sue told only one lie. Some have been led to believe that Sue did not have the physical strength to winch out Bob’s body, but it was never explained to them how easy it is with a winch that has a power ratio of 27:1. Some have been led to believe that the prosecutor invented a weapon (a wrench) but it was never explained to them how the issue of a wrench actually arose during the Trial. Some have so much faith in Dr Bob Moles that they are led to believe that whatever he says is valid. Some are excited that the current appeal has a witness who was in his dinghy at night about the time a person was seen, but they are ignoring that this person did not have a motor on his dinghy, whereas at the trial the witness stated that he heard a motor.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  10/06/18  at  08:15 PM
  40. #40, Peter Lozo ... I note your perception skills are a little wanting when you could not copy the correct spelling of my name.

    However, be that as it may, a sharply perceptive practitioner of your analytical pursuits would have discovered that the preponderance of my SNF comments has been based upon the state’s judiciary and its carriage of Tasmania’s own version of biased justice.

    Is the word of a professional deemed more credibile than the word of an honest citizen?

    Posted by William Boeder  on  10/06/18  at  10:29 PM
  41. Dr Lozo, may I refresh your memory of my comment #14 and Justice Blow’s less than impartial jury direction.  He said, at page1,493 of the trial transcript -

    ‘10 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

    15 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

    20 said, “No, that didn’t 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’.

    Twice, in the space of a minute, Justice Blow told the jury they ‘should consider’ the prosecution’s unsupported theory.

    Compare the direction of Justice Blythe of the Queensland Supreme Court in the trial of Gerard Baden-Clay for the murder of his wife, Allison (  ).  Unlike the Neill-Fraser case, the victim’s body was recovered, but the evidence against Baden-Clay was largely circumstantial.

    Blythe’s direction is clear, well-organised and above all, impartial - as it should be.  In canvassing the same aspect of the direction as Blow does, above, he says -

    ‘27.  Sometimes a lawyer includes an allegation of fact in a question asked of a witness.

    28.  No matter how positively that allegation was asserted, it will not form part of the evidence unless the witness agreed with it.

    29.  Let me give an example divorced from this case.

    30.  Imagine the lawyer says to a witness: “The toy was blue, wasn’t it?”; and the witness replies, “No, it wasn’t”. Given that answer, there is no evidence that the toy was blue.

    31.  Even if you do not believe the witness, still there is no evidence that the toy is blue.

    32.  In general, disbelief of a witness’s answer does not provide evidence of the opposite.

    33.  To prove that the toy was blue, there would need to be evidence from some other source, such as a photograph or the testimony of another witness’.

    Note particularly, item 29 - ‘Let me give you an example divorced from this case’ which is followed by a simple, totally unrelated and impartial explanation, one that’s NOT an explanation/example using the scenario posited by the prosecution followed by advice to the jury that they ‘should consider’ it.

    That’s just one reason why many consider the Neill-Fraser conviction to be unsafe.

    Posted by Invicta  on  10/06/18  at  11:23 PM
  42. #42, Invicta ... Thank you for the comment. It is noted, I am not qualified to comment on a matter of law concerning the judge’s summation to the jury and will thus not engage in a discussion on the subject. Furthemore, I certainly won’t jump onto a bandwagon of miscarriage of justice just because some people (regardless of their legal standing) claim that the verdict is unsafe. My interest is in analysing the trial evidence as well as in analysing people’s analysis and interpretation of that evidence. I am very confident that the police got the right person and that the jury made a correct decision in this case. You just have to accept that it is OK for people to limit their opinion to some aspects of the case. I would appreciate if you were to respect my desire not to engage in a discussion on points of law.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  09:47 AM
  43. #41 ... William, I apologise for misspelling your surname.

    Being an honest citizen does not necessarily mean that the person is objective, or that the person is aware of their bias.

    Being objective isn’t easy. Scientists are trained to be as objective as possible. I work hard at staying objective.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  09:57 AM
  44. #44 ... “Scientists are trained to be as objective as possible. I work hard at staying objective.”

    Then Mr Lozo, you had better try a little harder. Second guessing people’s motives is not very scientific. I for one have never met Sue Neill-Fraser.

    Posted by John Biggs  on  11/06/18  at  11:00 AM
  45. #45 ... Thankyou, Dr Biggs.

    I did not care about the motive but rather whether the police got the right person and whether the jury made the correct decision.

    But when Lynn Giddings tried to make someone believe that Sue would not have benefited from Bob’s will any more than what Sue would have gotten otherwise, my curious mind decided to sit down and do a quick and rough estimation just to see how it works out. My quick and rough estimation was that Sue would have been at least $500 K better off under the terms of the will compared to what she would have received if they had just separated. Search TT of around six months ago and you will find how I got to the $500 K.

    It isn’t up to me to decide whether this was a sufficient motive. As I said earlier, I was puzzled about the reason Sue wanted the yacht broker to think that she and Bob had separated. My conclusion on who murdered Bob is based on the other evidence. I have written my reasoning on various parts of the evidence across a large number of Comments here, and I have also written about my review of other people’s opinions.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  11:31 AM
  46. #42, Thank-you, Invicta for your well-researched then extracted depiction of the “correct judicial protocols” to be set into motion during a presiding judge’s summarization of the evidence presented when this case summarization is delivered to the members of the jury panel.
    An exemplary example of proper non-biased conduct by the Honourable Supreme Court Justice Mr Justin Blythe.
    Please note that Justice Justin Blyth was sharply aware of how not to lead his summary of the evidence presented during the Baden Clay case with “evidence unproven nor improper witness non-attested to evidence.”

    Further, that the body of the deceased was recovered and identified.
    From there that the given course of events leading to the murder of the wife that the presented evidence was circumstantial only, yet at least there was a body of the wife of Baden Clay recovered.

    The same cannot be demonstrated by the presiding judge of the SNF case, in his summary of the circumstantial only evidence that he had delivered to the jury panel, the judge had steered his summarization of the circumstantial only evidence to impress upon the jury his and the public prosecutor’s determined course of delivering the (non-beyond all doubt or reason)  available circumstantial only evidence.
    “An error in law.”
    Therefore it is my understanding that a situation of bias was present at the time of the case summary presentation of evidence that was delivered to the jury panel by the presiding judge of the SNF case by the Honourable Justice Blow.

    John Hayward had alluded to this very same via his comment #3 yet had not provided the specifics as had Invicta at #42.
    Essentially such an error of bias may introduce the call for a new case trial to allowed to the defendant.
    Bias can be shown by outright favouritism or hostility towards a party in a case, or
    by anything that could compromise a judge’s or other decision-makers fairness and independence, such as when they have a financial interest or a special determination to ensure the outcome of a case.

    The burden of proof;
    The obligation on one legal party to prove their side of the case in court. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must leave no reasonable doubt that what they allege is what really happened. If they cannot prove their case in this way, the accused will not be convicted. In a civil trial, the plaintiff must prove that their claim is more likely to be true than false. See also the balance of probabilities, beyond a reasonable doubt, the onus of proof.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  11/06/18  at  01:43 PM
  47. #44, Thankyou Dr Peter Lozo, your apology is accepted. Please understand how the presence of disingenuous bias can completely alter the procedural fairness of process during a court trial.

    Unfortunately, I have detected a number of such flagrant errors in law, be they Supreme Court Hearings or be they Criminal trials, and also sentencing appeals cases that seem not to offer any consolation of a change in the sentencing regimen for an increased or reduced sentence via Tasmania’s Supreme Court of Appeal.

    Many a rich harvest of fees has been won by defence lawyers without any variation achieved in a sentencing appeal case, and the same can be said for Supreme Court adjudicated Hearings.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  11/06/18  at  01:59 PM
  48. Just to clarify: In #40 I was referring to biases rather than motives.

    There is a suggestion in #45 that I am second guessing people’s motives. My comment in #40 clearly refers to biases. My perception of various people’s comments is that the nature of the comments have an underlying bias. I listed a number of valid sources of possible bias.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  03:44 PM
  49. For the recordI don’t “believe” that:

    —the defendant SN-F told one lie. I know she did, and I believe I know why she so did.

    —the speculation or otherwise as to SN-F’s strength with the winch, as I have no evidence that she actually used it. Thus, if I were a jury member I wouldn’t want or need to know ratios about an action that was not supported by evidence that came through the witness box.

    The wrench for me was a tactical diversion; speculation. Given the full context of the mention of the word and the defendant’s denial, and her “evidence” about use of same, I am not interested in that debate point, either.

    Whilst I hold great respect for the learned Dr Bob Moles’ opinions, I am not overly influenced in his say-so just because he says it.  I can think/read for myself.

    I don’t and won’t ignore the facts given as evidence at trial.Yet, I do and will ignore the speculation which is unsupported by evidence.

    At any fair and just trial the rule is —  if it didn’t come though the witness box as evidence, it is not evidence. Jury decisions are to be arrived at by evidence only. Certainly not speculation. And that is precisely what the jury might more appropriately have be reminded of and, decided upon.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  11/06/18  at  05:35 PM
  50. I actually took an interest in figuring out how is it that Lynn Giddings (who was a good friend of Sue’s mother) came up with just the ‘one lie’ but other people came up with a list of over 10 (my list is about 15 or so).

    It then hit me: Lynn (and a few other people) have an odd definition of what constitutes a lie. In their definition, the lie that Sue admitted to is the only lie.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  06:13 PM
  51. #50 ... Since the prosecution did not aim to prove beyond reasonable doubt how the body was winched, it is something that you (had you been on the jury) wouldn’t have had to decide on.

    But the claim that Sue could not have done it because she did not have the physical strength arose after Sue’s first appeal when Barbara Etter and Eve Ash started working together. It was also mentioned in a letter to the TT Editor (and subsequent comments) by a former GP who knew Sue years earlier. It was claimed by Sue’s daughter on one of the TV programs. So, talking about the mechanics of the winch and how Sue could have done it is very much an issue over the past few years and is still relevant today given that Dr Reynolds was referred to late last year as a “winching expert”.

    As stated earlier, I have analysed the trial evidence and I have analysed various people’s online comments. The winching issue is a more recent subject of discussion.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  06:34 PM
  52. Invicta #42 ... Justice Blythe’s comments throw those of Justice Blow into stark relief.  Thankyou for juxtaposing the two. Let me offer you something in return, Invicta:  regarding the evidence at trial of John Hughes, who told the trial and 2nd appeal application hearing courts that between 11:30 pm and midnight of 26J an 2009 he had heard the sound of an outboard motor and had seen a person who may have been a female going out in a dinghy “from towards the Royal Yacht Club”.

    We have heard fresh evidence from a number of people at these 2nd appeal application hearings including from three people:  Grant Maddock, John Brettingham-Moore and <b>Stephen Gleeson<b>.  Mr Maddock’s evidence was to the effect that it was he who had gone out in a dinghy that night.  He thought that during the day he’d been sailing on the Derwent and that he’d returned to his mooring, had gone to Woollies (Sandy Bay) and had done some shopping and returned to his mooring.  [When last I checked, Woolworths at Sandy Bay remains open till midnight.]

    Posted by  on  11/06/18  at  09:01 PM
  53. .../The evidence:
    It was late at night, the evening of 26Jan2009.  Around midnight Mr Maddock noticed a vessel approaching the moorings.  He rowed out to it to see if it needed help.  At that time Maddock’s appearance was similar to what it was when giving evidence to the court in 2017:  slim, 171 cm, 63 kg (usually) but different in that he then had shoulder-length hair.  A photo of him in a dinghy in 2011 was tendered to the court. [Invicta, you can see that photo:  [Here].  [It’s not difficult, in my opinion, to understand that Mr Maddock, going out in a dinghy, with his shoulder-length hair, may (to Mr Hughes) have possibly appeared in the darkness to be a female.]

    He rowed out by the marina where (due to the wind and darkness) Mr Brettingham-Moore was apparently having some difficulty entering the marina.  Brettingham-Moore’s vessel was under power and relatively close to the area where Mr Hughes heard an outboard motor and saw a dinghy going out.  [N.B:  The marina was not as large then as it is now - for those who might access Google/The LIST to check these matters out.  It should be noted that the marina has been extended since 2009 – another arm/wing has been added.  Similarly, additions have been made to the rowing club premises – the little alcove area out of the wind where Mr Gleeson and pals would congregate – is now gone … built out.

    Mr Hughes’ evidence was that he heard an outboard motor and that he saw a dinghy going out.  [Mr Hughes was not asked whether he observed/heard Mr Brettingham-Moore’s vessel trying to enter the marina.  Nor was he asked if the motor that he heard could have been that of the vessel towards which Mr Maddock was rowing.  Mr Hughes has told the court (CT 381-382) that the person that he saw in the dinghy was sitting towards the rear of the dinghy, was not on either the LHS or RHS of the dinghy, but was either on a seat or on the floor of the dinghy.  [It seems to me that such a position is more suggestive of a sculler, rather than of someone operating an outboard motor:  to do the latter it is common for the ‘driver’ of an inflatable to sit to one side of the motor and steer with one hand.  Another question which to my knowledge hasn’t been put is whether the person in the dinghy was facing forward or astern.

    Mr Hughes was in his car at the end of the little spit on which the rowing club has it sheds.  [He had told the trial court that] while he was there, he may have stepped out of his car to stretch his legs.  He also was fairly definite that there were no vehicles or persons in the rowing club area.  Mr Stephen Gleeson‘s yellow van however was parked in the space between the rowing shed and the children’s playground.]  Mr Hughes had driven [past Gleeson’s van and further] along the spit till he reached its end.  [c.100 metres].  Gleeson was either in his van alone, or in the company of a young couple and cooking sausages on a gas cooker.  [That the van was there is not in contention by either prosecution or defence, nor that Mr Gleeson was in it that night. - gfs

    Mr Maddock continued to row out to Mr Brettingham Moore’s vessel.  When Mr Maddock got to the vessel, he hailed the vessel’s occupants and offered help to get them into their marina mooring.  Actually his dinghy bumped into the side of their vessel.  They politely declined his offer, deciding to anchor overnight just outside the marina for the night – which they did.  Early the next morning, Mr Brettingham-Moore moved his vessel into its regular position inside the marina and left the boat.  He went first to the Chandlery (shop) and spoke to one of the persons inside.  There he learnt that a man had gone missing from a yacht [the Four Winds] overnight.

    [In my opinion and from my records of the evidence that Mssrs Maddock and Brettingham-Moore gave to the court last year, the evidence from these two men was not contested by the prosecution.  I encourage readers to understand that fresh evidence has indeed been presented to the court – evidence which in my opinion makes it rather pointless to be going back over just the evidence which came out at the trial.  In my opinion we must accommodate the new material into the tapestry that was woven at the original trial.  The account that I presented above is simply my gathering together of relevant evidence given in court last year.  It is evidence from witnesses.]

    [Any of my own thoughts are contained within square brackets and are italicised, such as you see as in this sentence - gfs.]

    Posted by  on  11/06/18  at  09:02 PM
  54. #4 Ian ...  ” SNF’s ‘supporters’ have fumbled at every stage.” What do you expect when it all started with a “farrago of lies” told by the person they are supporting.

    Tasmania was hit with the first conviction that was entirely circumstantial. Some just do not understand how it can be so. No body, no weapon, no witness. They think they can fool the rest of the community with their ‘one lie’ nonsense. Thank goodness that there was an ATM photo and a midnight witness. Almost a perfect murder. Very clever to use the winch.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  09:03 PM
  55. #10 ... Justice Marshall is talking about two different males. He names one but not the other (probably because of the age of the kid, a 16 yo).

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  09:45 PM
  56. #54 ... Nice summary. Did you you leave out the statement of the lady who was on that yacht? She believed that the event concerning Mr Maddock’s offer to assist was not the Australia Day evening!

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  09:52 PM
  57. Mr Hughes’ evidence was that he heard an outboard motor and that he saw an inflatable dinghy going out.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  09:59 PM
  58. In #56 I meant to say that the name of the then 16 yo boy isn’t mentioned, probably because of legal reason related to another matter.

    (I had a lot of free time in the last few days to check out what is happening on TT)

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  10:42 PM
  59. This is my final post for this long weekend:

    The name of the other male mentioned in relation to Mr Gleeson is Samuel Devine.

    I read this sometime ago but could not recall the details. See here:

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  11/06/18  at  11:29 PM
  60. #59 ... If you have a lot of free time, I suggest you read up on criminal trial procedure and the rules of evidence, and make a committed attempt to understand what ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ means in a criminal matter .. in general, and in cases involving only circumstantial evidence.

    Who knows, one day you might be thankful that you are aware of the legal protocols governing criminal trials.

    Posted by Invicta  on  11/06/18  at  11:58 PM
  61. Here is some useful information for SNF’s supporters who seem to often miss out or ignore information that contradicts their view:

    “Last year, the appeal application heard from Grant Maddock, who said he believed he was rowing in the area about that time on the night, and that he had long, collar-length hair.

    Neill-Fraser’s defence team argues Mr Maddock — who was rowing to offer assistance to a yacht struggling to reach a marina in rough conditions — may have been the feminine figure seen by a witness, rather than their client.

    Mr Maddock gave evidence that he believed the incident occurred on the night of January 26, 2009, but that there may be “some error of memory” on his part, given the lapse of time since.

    Earlier today, a woman who was on board the yacht to which Mr Maddock offered assistance gave evidence that this incident could have been a different night.

    The court heard that Sandra Junee Miedecke, who was on the struggling yacht, told a police officer in 2009 that the encounter with Mr Maddock was on the night of January 24; not January 26.

    Ms Miedecke told the court she could not remember what date she had given the police officer. “I cannot remember telling him that exact date,” she said.

    However, she remembered her response to the policeman’s question of the date was made after she had checked her diary. “I went to get my diary and read out the dates that were recorded in my diary,” she said.

    Asked by prosecutor Jack Shapiro whether she had told the officer she and her travelling party had left Hobart on their yacht on January 25 and not returned until January 27, Ms Miedecke said: “That could be correct.”

    However, she said she no longer had the diary. The court heard the policeman had signed a statutory declaration relating to his 2009 conversation with Ms Miedecke.

    Counsel for Nell-Fraser, Paul Smallwood, challenged the admissibility of elements of the evidence related to Ms Miedecke and the officer’s statutory declaration.

    Justice Michael Brett invited submissions on the issue and adjourned the appeal application until June 26.”


    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/06/18  at  12:24 AM
  62. Garry wrote in #54 the following paragraph:

    “Early the next morning, Mr Brettingham-Moore moved his vessel into its regular position inside the marina and left the boat.  He went first to the Chandlery (shop) and spoke to one of the persons inside.  There he learnt that a man had gone missing from a yacht [the Four Winds] overnight.”

    But would it have been known by the public at that time on 27th that a man had gone missing from the yacht? The cops wouldn’t have spread the news by then. It is highly likely that the event related to Maddock was the evening of the following day (27th) as was also suggested in the interchange between Shapiro and the female witness. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/06/18  at  12:49 AM
  63. This was the 2012 appeal court decision  that relates to the wrench issue (from Neill-Fraser’s first appeal):

    “No error of law was made by the learned judge in the ways asserted by this ground of appeal. His Honour was not obliged to direct the jury that they could not find that a wrench was used by the appellant to kill the deceased. Nor was his Honour obliged to direct the jury that they could not find that she used the gloves that were found in the galley. His Honour made it clear to the jury that the use of the wrench was merely a theory and there was no evidence that one was used. The references by counsel for the Crown to the gloves were insignificant in the overall context of the trial, the cross-examination of the appellant, and counsel’s closing address. The trial judge was not obliged to comment on everything that was raised in cross-examination or argument by counsel.

    153   Concerning his Honour’s use of a wrench in the examples he gave to the jury, it would have been obvious to the jury that examples were being given and that the judge was not endorsing the theory raised by counsel for the Crown.

    154   No miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated in support of the ground.”

    Please note that I do not wish to engage in Comments on the issue. I am just copying the decision from the 2012 appeal, given that Garry above mentioned Ground 5 of the first appeal. You can find it here:

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/06/18  at  01:58 AM
  64. #61 ... Please do enjoy reading the 2012 Appeal Court decision, particularly Ground 5. Several people here (Garry, William and John Biggs) might be willing to engage you in a discussion on this, but please leave me out of points of law type of discussions.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/06/18  at  06:20 AM
  65. More about evidence that did or did not come through the trial witness box. The weapons — I believe I am correct in recalling that a sizeable knife was shown to the jury. Why?

    I am unsure of the size of “the wrench”, the non-exhibit that the then DPP positioned on his desk during the trial. Although I am uncertain if it remained on view for the entire trial duration, the cynic in me speculates it wasn’t comparable in size to those that upon prosecutorial questioning, the accused particularly referred as being in the tool-kit on board; those that SN-F denied (the evidence) using. The theatre of the court room, eh?

    What I do know is that the trial judge seemed to go along with the demo-yet-counterfeit murder weapon to which referral was made 26 times during the trial, including but not limited to 8 times by the judge.

    As I continue to revert to the now long-ago Supreme Court trial by jury, I am well aware that a CCA hearing/decision followed.

    Currently, yet another appeal process is before the court for which more recent legislation now allows, thus I attempt to be cautious in my comment on finer details that may affect the current process. Nevertheless, in spite of the ‘did she’/didn’t she’ debate, the bottom line for me is — (i) had proper and efficient police and prosecutorial processes been followed at first instance? and (ii) had the original trial been fair and not manipulated towards a guilty finding as per recognised modus-operandi? and (iii) had evidence not been withheld from the jury, thus leaving them uninformed and at times duped, these discussions would not be occurring and, no further court actions would have transpired.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  12/06/18  at  08:38 AM
  66. #66 correction = instance? modus-operandi? should read instance, modus-operandi,
    My preview read requires more vigilance

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  12/06/18  at  11:06 AM
  67. A comment about Ms Miedecke’s statement:

    I was wondering how it would have come about that Ms Miedecke spoke to police in 2009. I think that when she heard the news that Bob Chappell was missing (and that police received information about a dinghy seen late at night) she called the police to report the event they experienced and used her diary to check the dates (Mr Maddock coming to their yacht in a dinghy to offer assistance). If that is indeed the case then it can be surely concluded that the event with Mr Maddock did not occur on 26th Jan (otherwise Mr Maddock would have been interrogated by police back in 2009).

    Thus, there are at least 3 reasons why I conclude that Mr Maddock was not the person who was spotted by Mr Hughes. I have dealt with one of the 3 reasons elsewhere (it concerns motorised dinghy versus a dinghy without a motor; an inflatable dinghy versus a wooden dinghy - the shapes are significantly different). The other reason is above at #63.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  12/06/18  at  06:53 PM
  68. This has been fascinating .. but all of it, utterly all of it, can be dealt with by a verifiable explanation (preferably offered by Ms Neill-Fraser herself) for the five hours or so that are completely missing from her account of events on the night in question.

    I’ve said this before, but if the woman is innocent she is a textbook example of how not to cooperate with a serious police investigation.

    Posted by Cameron  on  13/06/18  at  01:14 PM
  69. #69 ... Interesting comment, Cameron. One must consider the capacity of this police investigation “in light of its incapacity” to draw out the goings-on in that time discrepancy period of 5 hours. This factor demonstrates the presence of a flaw (among the others) in a circumstantial evidence only Supreme Court trial.

    Your comment also highlights the questionable efficacy of an intensive Tasmanian police investigation. Also for consideration is that this 5-hour time lapse factor appeared to be considered ‘unimportant’ yet ripe for speculation by the DPP in setting a court date for the commencement of the SNF Trial.

    This component itself (in its case trial relativity) underscores the lean capacity of Tasmania’s judiciary (DPP) to dot the i’s and stroke the t’s to present a fully investigated and fleshed out court case presentation.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  13/06/18  at  03:25 PM
  70. #69 ... Cameron - good point. The story about the “Weatherbeaten man” goes a long way in offering plausible and significant evidence of where Sue was shortly prior to her first phone conversation at around 9 pm. It puzzles me why it wasn’t used at the trial- (probably because of the issue related to the mistaken identity of another person.

    For those who don’t know what I am talking about please see #5

    - Who was the person spotted leaving the area of Four Winds on Australia Day 2009 at around 7:45 pm - 8:30 pm on a light coloured motorised dinghy, and why hasn’t that person yet come forward to identify himself/herself?

    - Where was Sue and what was she doing during the unexplained 5 hours (4 pm to 9 pm) on Australia Day 2009?

    - Why did Sue change her story several times about what she did late that night after 11 pm?

    The last known person who was on Four Winds has a lot to explain to the Tasmanian public

    What I find fascinating is how Sue’s supporters are trying to convince the community that Sue told only one lie. Then they are trying to convince the community that it was only a small lie that was used to protect a family member. Then they are trying to convince the community that Sue did indeed have a memory problem.

    If I have anything personal against the matters related to this case it is against a core group of SNF supporters who, in their endeavour to help Sue’s cause, are treating intelligent and rational people as dummies who will accept any nonsensical explanation. Some are willing to debate on every issue whether it be legal, technical or scientific .. and yet it is obvious that they aren’t qualified to do so. The reasoning process of some is so limited that it makes me wonder why they feel confident of debating me on my analytical conclusions and opinions.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/06/18  at  03:41 PM
  71. #70 ... William, The police have been given a witness statement. They were confident that it was Sue. Please read Barbara Etter’s blog carefully. I mentioned the “Weatherbeaten man” a number of times over the past few years, but you must have missed it.

    The problem was not the police investigation nor DPP’s decision to proceed with the trial. The problem is with people in the SNF camp who have a misconception about the evidence, and who have mistrust in the police investigation and mistrust in the DPP, and mistrust in the trial judge’s summation, etc.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/06/18  at  03:59 PM
  72. The fact that the public doesn’t know everything that went on during the police investigation doesn’t necessarily mean that the investigation did not discover some useful information that diverted the police away from possible false leads, nor does it mean that the investigation did not discover some useful information that was pointing towards Sue. Let me just give an example of each:

    - It is only several months ago that the public learned about Ms Miedecke and her evidence that was provided to police in 2009. This evidence excluded Mr Maddock as being a potential person of interest. We had no idea about this until March this year when she was called as a witness. I don’t know why Garry did not include her statement in his #53 and #54. I am not sure whether Garry was aware of this more recent new information. His analysis is biased, and is based on the assumption that the incident with Mr Maddock did occur on the 26th,

    - The other information that was provided to the police (and which was not known by the public or the jury) is about the “Weatherbeaten man”. It is easy to see why Sue would be considered as being the person who was on a light coloured dinghy leaving the area of Four Winds at around 8 pm. In her Stat Dec of 28th she said she got home about the time it was getting dark. Since she wasn’t in Bunnings at all that day, and had no explanation where she was between 4 pm and 9 pm, then surely she must have been on Four Winds until about 8 pm because the description of the sighted dinghy and the person in the vicinity of Four Winds matches Sue and her dinghy.

    I ask (and have asked over 2 years ago on TT)  where is the reasonable doubt that Sue was not on Four Winds from about 2 pm to about 8 pm?

    The comment in #70 by William is what I consider to be a good example of a comment that was written by a person who is biased because of his mistrust of the police and the judicial system. I think that William has, in other TT Comments, demonstrated his distrust for various government departments (including those that had something to do with the fox issue in Tassy).

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/06/18  at  04:51 PM
  73. #73 ... Yes, you are correct Peter Lozo, and I make no excuse for my prejudgements relating to Tasmania’s Judiciary, then a small number of our Tasmanian police investigatory processes concerning their inadequate investigative outcomes. Then how my comments relating to the SNF case have dwelt upon the conduct of this case.

    It was quite sharp of you in identifying my harsh concerns relating to the long-term stacked-deck bias inherent in the “across the full dimension of this State’s judiciary appointees and their upper-level officials.”

    The following inclusion of this factual basis of my ambivalence as can be assessed by you and can be demonstrated in the here-below references open for your examination.

    I strictly base my claims “relative to Tasmania’s justice system” on the dubious fidelity of the content held in claims and the retaining of exculpatory evidence relating to certain case matters examined. (This same applies to state government closed GBE hearings, aided by the very fact that there are conspicuous tight-bound secrecies and instances of maladministration as well as non-sought-after evidence that would otherwise contradict certain desired outcomes within a few of this State’s GBE’s.)

    “From May to October 1996, Bryant had insisted on his innocence, including at a hearing on September 30, 1996. Then when his new lawyer, John Avery, came aboard, Bryant changed his plea to guilty. Note: in murder cases, even when the accused pleads guilty, it is customary to hold a trial. But Bryant had no trial, just a sentencing!”

    Perhaps the content of the link material supplied in the above will explain why my faith in Tasmania’s Supreme Court decisions has been detonated and exploded into almost a completely fragmented disarray well beyond their restoration.

    Of note, it is quite interesting that I was able to listen to an on-site witness of the Port Arthur Massacre who had narrated the series of the events that had occurred (from perhaps a time lag of 3-5 minutes only) just after the shootings on that specified day, then later, in how the official report as presented and for the public record, held a far different account of the witnessed events on that same day.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  13/06/18  at  06:22 PM
  74. Perception of 3D perspective:

    In #54 Garry wrote “Mr Hughes has told the court (CT 381-382) that the person that he saw in the dinghy was sitting towards the rear of the dinghy, was not on either the LHS or RHS of the dinghy, but was either on a seat or on the floor of the dinghy” .

    Then Garry offers this personal opinion: “It seems to me that such a position is more suggestive of a sculler, rather than of someone operating an outboard motor:  to do the latter it is common for the ‘driver’ of an inflatable to sit to one side of the motor and steer with one hand.  Another question which to my knowledge hasn’t been put is whether the person in the dinghy was facing forward or astern.”

    I’d like to offer an alternate opinion.  I’d like to suggest that, although it was around midnight, Mr Hughes was able to see some things (such as shapes) that were 50 or so metres away on the river because it was cloudy (clouds reflect city lights and can provide enough light to see shapes of objects). However, the lighting level wasn’t sufficiently high for Mr Hughes to properly perceive the curvature of all the dinghy surfaces and the 3D perspective of the dinghy. Under such conditions, it is possible for a person to sit on a side of an inflatable dinghy (on the actual tube) a short distance from the stern, but be perceived to be sitting in a different location with respect to the dinghy (such as close to the middle of the dinghy). Had the dinghy been travelling perpendicular to Mr Hughes’ line of sight then his perception would have been accurate. But had the dinghy been travelling at say 45 degrees with respect to Mr Hughes’ line of sight then his perception would have been quite skewed.

    Even though it might not be obvious to most people, a reliable interpretation of some evidence in this case does require some scientific (and engineering) knowledge. The winching issue and the visual perception of colour and shapes of a dinghy are the two main areas that seem to be a source of misconception in the SNF camp,

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/06/18  at  08:10 PM
  75. #74 ... William, now that you agree that you are predisposed to prejudgements, may I suggest that you sit down and think hard about what effect your prejudgements, particularly those that are related to the Tasmanian Judiciary, might have on:

    (i) your ability to impartially, correctly and fully understand the State’s case against Sue;

    (ii) your ability to impartially, correctly and fully understand the opinion of people Commenting here, particularly when their opinion differs from yours;

    (iii) your ability to professionaly interact with those whose opinion differs to yours.

    You also need to realise that some Commenters here (besides having advanced legal, technical, engineering or scientific knowledge) have advanced analytical skills that are supplemented by professional training and years of experience in research. Some probably also supervise and train others in research.

    Just because their opinion agrees with the State should not raise your suspicion about their motives.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/06/18  at  10:14 PM
  76. Hi Geraldine, #66 and #67 ... I like the Latin, your ‘modus operandi’  shone through - I could write an essay on that expression, but shall have to save it for another day.

    Look, Geraldine, you know that I’ve finished revising and integrating my various notes taken over the course of the 2nd appeal hearings (2017-2018).  I’ve tried to keep you up to date with the evidence that was given in court and I believe that I’ve sent you everything that I recorded about those court proceedings.  As well as doing that, I believe that I’ve sent you my linking of the red jacket on the fence of the house on the corner with the young teenage girl and two men who ‘came out of nowhere on a dinghy’ that night, onto the dog beach (aka as Errol Flynn reserve and aka Short Beach).  These matters have been given in evidence and are not contested. 

    However, Geraldine, I’m not sure if I mentioned to you my second linking together of other evidence.  In the notes that I sent to you, you may recall that they recorded DPP Darryl Coates’ failed attempt to establish 24 Jan, 2009 as the evening on which Grant Maddock rowed out to John Brettingham-Moore’s power boat/cruiser to offer assistance in bringing it in to its usual berth within the marina.  I’m not intending to reproduce my notes here in their entirety, but firstly should observe that according to Miedecke’s evidence:

    Posted by  on  13/06/18  at  10:45 PM
  77. .../ The evidence (cont.):
    she answered the phone on 24 Feb,2009.  It was Dtv. Sen. Sgt. Puurand wanting to speak to her partner, John Brettingham-Moore “in regard to the Chappell inquiry”.  Mr Brettingham-Moore was not there so she asked could she help but had to get her diary. The diary gave dates when they left and returned to Hobart.  She “read out the dates to him that were recorded” in her diary.  [In court], she could not recollect the precise date that they met the (Maddock) dinghy. 

    [At some point, probably this one, the prosecution/‘respondent’ (i.e. the DPP/team) sought to introduce Dtv. Puurand’s statutory declaration (<i>which may have contained dates given by Miedecke over the phone.)  Mr Smallwood, citing the Evidence Act 2001, objected to that document’s admission (vis à vis the hearsay provisions).  At this point, Sandra Miedecke was ‘excused’ from the courtroom while the objection was discussed.  Justice Brett himself raised another two such hearsay provisions within the Act, and asked for submissions on the matter.  Mr Smallwood (for SNF) indicated then and there his attitude to the admissibility of the document, while Mr Shapiro (for the DPP) said that he needed time to think about it and asked for an adjournment. 

    Sandra Miedecke was readmitted to the court-room.  She was asked whether their return to Hobart (ie Sandy Bay) had been on the night of 24 Jan, 2009.</i>] 

    She replied:  “that could be correct” but then added that she didn’t remember telling [Puurand] “the exact date”.  She had “read out the dates to him [Puurand] that were recorded” in her diary.  She had since looked for her diary “high and low” without success.  She then said that she was unsure what date they’d left Quarantine Bay [Bruny Island].  [Listening to the earlier parts of her evidence, I’d gained the impression and noted down that they’d been at Quarantine Bay on the 24th, had tried unsuccessfully to leave on the 25th and eventually had arrived at Sandy Bay on the night of the 26th. ]

    /... The evidence (cont.):
    When Mr Eddie Hidding, then proprietor of the Sandy Bay chandlery, arrived for work on the morning of Tue27Jan2009, he found a lot of activity in the area:  police were at the front of his shop – a yacht was sinking.  [The Bay Chandlery, on the water side of Marieville Esplanade, is opposite that red brick house on the corner of Marieville Esplanade and Margaret Street.  Across a level grassed area, it faces the spit on which are the rowing club sheds and on the rocks of which the dinghy had been found.
    The Bay Chandlery opens at 8:30 a.m.  Quite literally, the entrance to the business is 100 metres from the spit where the rowing club is, where the dinghy was found, where Sue Neill-Fraser (having been rung by police at 7:11 a.m. ) had immediately attended, was already standing there, waiting, and joined by family members, more police and media.  I’ve already noted [#54] how on that 27Jan2009 morning, Mr Brettingham-Moore, having moved from his overnight mooring outside the marina, berthed inside the marina at his regular spot and then called in at Mr Hidding’s chandlery and was told about the sinking yacht by Mr Hidding.  This was in ‘real time’

    27Jan2009:  Grant Maddock, the ‘man in the dinghy’ from the night before, visited a friend that day.  He was unaware of the Four Winds incident, but was told about it by another person who was there when he visited his friend.  He was told that the Four Winds was being brought to Constitution Dock.  He went to Constitution Dock [That date was 27 Jan, 2009].  He was there when Sue Neill-Fraser, family and friends started arriving at the dock.  He spoke to Dtv Conroy there at the dock (and offered him a recent photo taken of him with the Four Winds in the background).  The policeman didn’t seem particularly interested.  Maddock saw SNF go on board the Four Winds.  Maddock nevertheless sent the photo/s to the police, but [he told the court] they did nothing to follow up.  He was not contacted by police after that meeting on the dock.

    Posted by  on  13/06/18  at  10:47 PM
  78. .../Resumé:  In case, Geraldine, that the point of my presenting the above evidence given in court is not immediately clear, I’d hope that you and fellow readers understand that when Brettingham-Moore got to the Eddie Giddings chandlers shop, the Marieville Esplanade and the boat shed area 100 metres across the lawn from him was buzzing with people and police cars.  There’s no doubt as to which day it was:  it was the morning of 27 Jan, 2009.  Grant Maddock knew what day it was … he heard about it in the afternoon when visiting a friend, and was present at Coronation Dock when SNF, the police and others arrived to inspect it after it was brought there.  He even spoke to Dtv Conway, to no avail…

    Here’s some more Latin for you, Geraldine:  festina lente:  make haste slowly.  Not that I’m suggesting you need to, but certainly there are some who seem to find it easy to jump to conclusions… (smile!)

    Posted by  on  13/06/18  at  10:48 PM
  79. Garry had 3 months to provide us with the information related to Ms Miedecke.

    There was also a court reporter who heard Mr Maddock. This is what was reported:

    “Mr Maddock gave evidence that he believed the incident occurred on the night of January 26, 2009, but that there may be “some error of memory” on his part, given the lapse of time since.”

    Garry does not mention that Mr Maddock had a doubt about the accuracy of the date.

    Garry expects people to have a correct memory of what they said back in 2009 but he doesn’t pay attention that the female witness recalled referring to her diary. The question posed by Mr Shapiro (“whether she had told the officer she and her travelling party had left Hobart on their yacht on January 25 and not returned until January 27”) did not come out of nowhere.

    The simple logic is this: if Ms Miedecke told the cops in 2009 that Mr Maddock approached their yacht on the Australia Day evening then the cops would have flagged him and interviewed him as a potential person of interest.

    It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the future.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  13/06/18  at  11:23 PM
  80. The changing story by Garry:

    In the first version at #54, Garry wrote as follows (my emphasis is in bold):

    “Early the next morning, Mr Brettingham-Moore moved his vessel into its regular position inside the marina and left the boat.  He went first to the Chandlery (shop) and spoke to one of the persons inside.  There he learnt that a man had gone missing from a yacht [the Four Winds] overnight.”

    In the second version at #78 he wrote (probably after he saw my #63) as follows (my emphasis is in bold):

    “Mr Brettingham-Moore, having moved from his overnight mooring outside the marina, berthed inside the marina at his regular spot and then called in at Mr Hidding’s chandlery and was told about the sinking yacht by Mr Hidding.  This was in ‘real time’.]

    So, which is the correct version?

    My bet is that the latter version is correct. But why did Garry write in his first version that Mr Brettingham-Moore was told that a man had gone missing? Garry had over 6 months to type on TT his hand-written notes and had 3 months to incorporate the more recent evidence related to the female witness? Can we trust the motives and the accuracy of this ‘reporter’? Strange! He seems to be more driven to push his view than to provide an accurate and balanced representation and analysis of what went on in the Supreme Court. Note the cheeky last paragraph in his #79, but did he apologise for his error? He didn’t ever bother to inform us that he made an error in #54, what the error was and that the correct version is in #79. I quickly noticed the change because I had previously used the first version (as in #54) to incorporate it into my brief analysis at #63.

    So, I now have 2 rather than 3 reasons for concluding that it was not Mr Maddock who was seen by Mr Hughes. But, if it turns out that the Judge accepts that Mr Maddock was on his dinghy in 26th I will want a retrial for Sue even though I am firmly convinced that it was her rather than Mr Maddock who was seen by Mr Hughes.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  12:20 AM
  81. In the Comments above we see that Garry not only ignored to mention that, in Court, Mr Maddock said that his memory might be in error, but that Garry has also provided two significantly different accounts as to what was told to Mr Brettingham-Moore about the Four Winds and the missing man. But perhaps worst of all is Garry’s dishonesty when he wrote in #78 that (my emphasis is bold):

    I’ve already noted [#54]
    how on that 27Jan2009 morning, Mr Brettingham-Moore, having moved from his overnight mooring outside the marina, berthed inside the marina at his regular spot and then called in at Mr Hidding’s chandlery and was told about the sinking yacht by Mr Hidding.  This was in ‘real time’.].

    When one reads what Garry wrote in #54 one notices a significantly different account of what was told to Mr Brettingham-Moore.

    It would have been more appropriate and intellectually honest had Garry started the above paragraph by stating something to the effect that in #54 he made an error, and then finished off by listing the corrected statement.

    Had Garry’s hand-written notes contained words “missing man” then why would he change from what he wrote in #54 to what he wrote in #78?

    On the other hand, had Garry’s hand written notes not contained the words “missing man” then why did he include those words in #54?

    How does Garry now know which is the correct version? Did Garry make the change after an analysing my #63 in conjunction with his inclusion and analysis of the more recent Court statements?

    But (as I said at the end of my last Comment) if the Judge accepts that Mr Maddock was on his dinghy on Australia Day evening then I will support a call for a retrial. I will do this even if the Judge decides on the basis of other evidence (such as on the basis of an overboard motor) that it wasn’t Mr Maddock who was spotted by Mr Hughes. I will do this on the principle that the State should have gotten its act together on this issue during the period between Mr Maddock’s appearance in the Supreme Court court late last year and Ms Miedecke’s appearance in March of this year. Had the police detective done his job professionally then the State ought to have been able to track down his 2009 notes or the relevant comments in the police log.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  05:37 AM
  82. A small correction to my last comment which inadvertently got away from me before I had it completed:

    I was intending to say that Garry did not consider in his analysis the possible implication of the statement by Ms Miedecke (that she recalled referring to a diary, even though he mentioned the diary above). Cops would have had Mr Maddock on their radar in Feb, 2009 had they thought her statement to have been relevant for the Australia Day evening. The fact that Mr Maddock claims not to have been interviewed suggests to me that it did not occur on 26th.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  06:02 AM
  83. #75…. Peter Lozo, you have taken a rather large and unwarranted liberty in your dwelling on but a small portion of my comment at #74. Furthermore, you have not bothered to read the content of the link included in my comment.
    Why did you choose not to pick up on the full content of my comment rather than dwell upon an uncompromising slither of fact held in the opening of my comment stating a concessional remark of my prejudged opinion specific to the system of justice employed in this area only of the fidelity of Tasmania’s judiciary?

    Had you read my complete comment in its entirety as one should have done so to learn the fact truth of my reasoning as relates to the justice system bias held in its midst that would identify the abject shortcomings I refer to.
    A rather glaring Example;  I bring into focus a major reported crime that I allege was stage-managed insofar as no trial was conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the person labeled as responsible for the Port Arthur shootings.
    The major players in this now strongly disputed case history consisting of both Martin Bryant who was whisked off into prison on the say-so of the then DPP Damian Bugg.

    Was this a proper legal process or a means not have the people of Tasmania aware of the conspiracy element extant in the Port Arthur massacre? Please provide me with your opinion on this matter Peter Lozo, given your professional pursuits this should not present as a difficult matter for you to provide your opinion?

    The Port Arthur Massacre occurred just 12 days prior to the John “Fibber” Howard gun buyback scheme. Then there is compelling evidence purporting to a false flag event, along with on-site witnesses to prove the falsity of the official report loaded with its favorably invented non-facts.

    Given the amount of exculpatory evidence that had been identified specific to the Port Arthur shootings “but not and never would be tendered to a trial by jury” with all of its due processes and protocols, yet nobody has questioned the absence of that mandatory court trial and its jury to decide the plea of either guilty or not guilty.

    I here below resubmit the link relating to the shortcomings by the then State authorities in their actions and decision to present a contrived incident report to represent the official record of the entire proceedings in this landmark criminal event in Tasmania.’;

    This incident matter incorporates the alleged reprehensible conduct of Lawyer John Avery acting against his clients best interests, then his utilization of coerced indoctrinating spiel engaged in to create ill-intended fabrication of the facts based upon this same person’s contriving actions to scramble the mindset of his client over a 6 or so month period in which he visited on a regular basis. Of special interest here is that Avery was the only person in contact with Martin Bryant during his incarceration in a private secured room in a hospital until his severe burns and whatever other other injuries had healed.

    As a result, a great many untruths were provided to the DPP who had quite deliberately deemed that there was to be no court trial, just a claim that a person is to be charged as guilty (that person unable to prove otherwise, nor given any chance to do so even though there had to be a representing defence counsel) in all of its extremes, its doubts, and the fact opposing evidence that held that Martin Bryant was to be labeled as guilty.

    One will read the purpose of the so-doing was to flesh out a false case scenario, of which will forever taint most all of this State’s legal practitioner brotherhood. (Comprising of those that hold a total disregard for the interests of many of their clients and of their private information as is often shared among this Philistine element that reigns extant in this State.

    The new privacy Act will or should deal with this grossly discordant conduct to have this State halt the systemic abuse by these charlatan lawyers that may already have a track record of discordant action that is and can be found out and or be confirmed online in this State.

    To be continued/

    Posted by William Boeder  on  14/06/18  at  02:33 PM
  84. The continuation of my response to comment #74 ..

    For example; the stated continuation by a goodly number of the Tasmanian charlatan law practitioners in their sharing of client personal information and fact opinions throughout the throng of those brotherhood snipes known for their inflating of costs “and often added phantom costs that cannot be supported.”

    It is a given that these same do not offer to provide the necessary detail on their client invoices. Let you all beware of this popular practice of inflating various entries of the true earned costs noted on legal practitioner invoices where often this inflating greed-stoked intent is revealed as to be fact amongst those responsible in their horde of fact-twisters and mercenary travails among their other unsound practices.

    This in itself will further damage the ill-used Justice system in Tasmania as well as it should set off a full-blown inquiry into the falsity of justice in Tasmania, as not to do so this ongoing scheming conduct will continue this unconscionable conduct to further fester in this State of Tasmania.

    I do not support your commentary given your guess-work response to my #74 in which had incorporated your ad hoc blathers of unworthy extended and heavily biased statements that had no basis for their inclusion in your #74.

    I believe it to be imperative that I search far deeper into your motives of providing your support toward the claims and determinations that have you abiding in your claim that the damaged and flawed whole enchilada of the SNF trial, is tantamount to a full-blown expression by you of the absolute guilt of SNF.

    On your own admission, you seek not to engage in the legal or law aspects of this case, then that the original basis for your engagement in this SNF matter, then that it so frequently happens that you rule over the fragmented evidence opined statements submitted by the Tasmanian Times forum attendees to. What an irresponsible non-professional contrary conundrum you present to this forum.

    Given that you have simply not bothered to run your eye over the factual information that would prove my contentions regarding Tasmania’s Justice system and its officials, you stand accused of mischief intended malice. One must learn to realize that I have access to all Tasmania’s court case transcripts as well as this same Australia-wide (if accurate case identifiers have been properly submitted and not held back by such as Tasmania’s Justice Department or by their substituted case identifying information) of Tasmania’s Supreme Court and upwards, court case transcripts.

    Then that I frequently choose Tasmania specific case transcripts for my in-depth study and the reasons for the decisions handed down. For example; Tasmania’s Legal Tribunal had lost a litigation claim against this very same Tribunal, how embarrassing was that? The judge handing down the courts decision “in favour of the individual” seeking entry into a capacity to practice law in Tasmania. The basis upon this individual winning the courts decision was that this State’s Legal Tribunal had been proven to have held “an apprehended bias” against this particular person. So much for the wobbly scales of justice in Tasmania when its legal practitioners gang up on an individual with their intent to harm the prospects of a decidedly worthy person.

    To make matters more stubbornly uncooperative and damningly suspicious is that the case transcript file has since been removed by a person of strong disposition had been responsible for its removal, or had caused the removal of this particular court case file from public access. If required I am able to provide you with further improper court case conducts and glaringly unworthy handed down decisions.

    Perhaps Peter Lozo you might sensibly choose to provide a ‘retraction’ to your denigrating of my credibility by your unwarranted speculative assertions, and if you please do so in the most immediate instance to retract your speculative denigrations of myself in this Tasmanian Times online forum
    Thank you.

    William Boeder.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  14/06/18  at  02:59 PM
  85. #85 and #85 ... Dear William, the answer is simple: based on my analysis of your comments on this case (and on the fox issue) I formed an opinion that you have a significant biased approach against various government agencies, institutions , departments, department officials and politicians. Some of your responses to me were quite offensiv,e too.

    As for the Bryant case: am not interested nor do I have time to study the case in detail. However, I do recall reading sometime ago that Bryant somehow ended up on a video footage as he was going on his murderous rampage.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  04:34 PM
  86. I am astonished to find myself publicly attacked by Peter Lozo, in his series of comments #80, #81, and #82. in this forum, he has made a public accusation against me of dishonesty.

    For the sake of my good reputation and so that truth should prevail, I need to reject his accusation and to assure those who may have seen his comment that it is untrue and without foundation.

    I have been meticulous in presenting the notes from the hearings (as in my #54) and at the end of that very comment, for clarity, I explained to readers that my own thoughts (ie ‘contributions’)  were contained within square brackets and italicised.  In this way I had hoped to distinguish between material drawn exactly from the notes and from elsewhere, eg. my own ‘take’ on things.

    The passage highlighted by Peter Lozo (in my #78) is italicised and is within square brackets. Plainly, it is not from the notes, it is my own take on such things and the words “the sinking yacht” which I used in that comment, were my paraphrase of the situation, as I understand it, down there that morning.

    Posted by  on  14/06/18  at  05:24 PM
  87. I really would not be concerned about being attacked by a contributor who was caught fabricating identities supporting his own “expert” opinion. Why bother?

    Posted by Jack Jolly  on  14/06/18  at  06:12 PM
  88. #87 ... Garry, I am so relieved to see you defending your reputation. I’ve been fuming all day since reading the defamatory comment, yet didn’t want to speak for you. Being the gentleman you are, I did wonder if you would not grace the comment, yet silence condones.

    I know the extent to which (i) your research is exemplary, (ii) you separate your opinion from the facts as recorded, and last but not least, (iii) you value your integrity, thus I was grossly offended for you. A smear to one’s reputation is just that — a smear.

    Horrible tactic upon one who has contributed generously, reliably and graciously over the years of this ongoing saga.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  14/06/18  at  06:17 PM
  89. Garry did not note in #54 “the sinking yacht” but the “missing man”.

    What Garry noted in #54 referrered to a “missing man” not “the sinking yacht”.

    Therefore, the relevant sentence in #78 is blatantly incorrect. I used the term “intellectually dishonest” because it ought to have been very obvious to Garry that since he retyped (rather than copied and pasted) that he was offering a different version in #78 compared to #54.

    Since I overeacted, I apologise to Garry; and I withdraw all sentences that contain the word ‘dishonest or ‘dishonesty’.


    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  06:23 PM
  90. So we have a ‘fox’ expert joining in. Welcome. My friend says Hi.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  06:30 PM
  91. The duping of Gleeson: was Vass ever in Sandy Bay?

    It was reported that “Mr Shapiro told the court that a group of investigators involved with the Neill-Fraser case, “believed if Gleeson identified Devine that would be compelling evidence to lodge a second appeal”.

    Whilst it isn’t at all clear why Devine was considered to be relevant, I think that one can reasonably assume that Colin McLean (the former police detective from Victoria who was brought into the case by Eve Ash) had discovered a relevant link between Vass and Devine. Given that Vass had previously (at Sue’s trial and then again in 2012) stated that she was never in Sandy Bay, it seems to me that the aim of Gleeson’s affidavit was probably to discredit that earlier statement of Vass. Regardless, it is interesting to note that the investigation by Mr McLean hasn’t uncovered any witnesses that could place Vass as ever being in Sandy Bay. I imagine that Mr McLean would have done a far more extensive investigation of this than TasPol had done. It seems to me that once it was realised that McLaren’s effort in finding a witness who could place Vass in Sandy Bay didn’t bear fruit that someone then who had access to Gleeson hatched a plan to “dupe” him into a false affidavit.

    So the question is this: if a considerable investigation by an experienced former police detective could not place Vass as ever being in Sandy Bay, can we conclude without any doubt that Vass DNA on Four Winds was as a result of secondary transfer?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  06:56 PM
  92. #86 ... Peter Lozo, your response to my #84-85 verified conclusions are a signal that you are remote from the realizing and recognizing the blatant facts that surround the failing fidelity and efficacy of Tasmania’s legal and law engaged oft’ engaged in the illegitimacy of these State government involved conducts.

    Furthermore, your express claims and involvements in matters not fully appreciated by a majority of this forum’s attendees does not enhance your professional claimed privilege to conduct your heavily biased SNF court case based evidence-trashing endeavours.

    Given your self-inflated power of callous judgement to matters inappropriately chosen by you, is something that should have you debarred from all future engagements on this generally fact-filled media platform.

    The major tenet of the bias extant in the law, the legal, then the overall carriage of the justice system in this State that prevails over and above their sideshow legitimacy (as has already been evidenced per my referenced examples) yet you choose to remain oblivious to the facts I have presented to validate the specific faults and failures I have detected then rightly alleged as being irresponsible in light of the fact attestations held in these submitted comments.

    Your sanctimonious claimed “right of entry” into this privately owned forum must necessarily be open for a new essential deliberation or review, relating to “your unwarranted often derogatory and facetious statements and claims” that suggests a finding of trespass by you based upon your often heavily biased inconsequential commentary.

    There existed a common saying across Australia that an agreement between two or more parties or individuals undertaking a financial dealing or a special agreement “is as safe as a Bank” this belief has since been shattered to pieces by the courtesy of each of Australia’s major Banks own Board directors.

    This same is applicable to Australia’s nowadays more frequently found politically influenced law and legal establishments. I now refer to the fact referenced (Royal Commission evidence) incestuous relationship extant between Australia’s Government established Regulatory Authorities of ASIC and APRA with the CBA Bank, hereby proves the integrity of my critical claims of the illegitimately claimed trust in Australia’s now firmly biased Australian law institutions.

    I now return to your impositions, in that they concern my human instincts to the extent that your beguiling nonsense of seeking obsequious gained information for some obscurely claimed cause or purpose to create a peer level account of a controversial conducted Supreme Court case decision, given that this case has been critically reviewed by higher far more competent practitioners of our common law in our Australia.

    I, therefore submit to have your access to this site reviewed on the basis of your prior over-riding demands to censor the comments published by others that don’t pander to your frequently implied dismissal of “the respected and well-intended comments by the generality of others” seeking further unbiased in-depth intelligent consideration of their submitted opinions.

    One should be safe from the impertinence held in your unsought biased opinions frequently read as demeaning toward the many published comments submitted in good faith to this forum.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  14/06/18  at  07:01 PM
  93. #88 ... Jack, I agree with you in almost every comment you submit to this forum, yet in your #88 I choose to differ in my belief that the person you have ascribed to should be refused all further permission to have his attacks published on the Tasmanian Times on-line forum.

    This same person as you have stated has already foolishly fallen from the good ship carrying the words of fidelity and integrity.

    #87 ... Garry, you have every right and full justification to be angered by the offending traducing disparager in the name of Peter Lozo.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  14/06/18  at  07:20 PM
  94. This matter came up many times at the local ALP Meeting then held at the Derwent Tavern in Bridgewater.

    Without mentioning any names of say a former Premier’s mother, myself and many others heard all about the justice system in Tasmania and how it was said it is the most corrupt in AUSTRALIA!.

    Posted by Mary  on  14/06/18  at  07:44 PM
  95. #93 ... Mr Boeder, we can go on forever. You basically agreed in #74 that I made a correct observation about your biased attitude. That means that it would be futile for us to discuss any issue.

    A biased person only wants to express their own opinion. A biased person has a mental filter that is only seeking a confirmation of their own view of the world. A biased person does not aim to reach a mutual understanding. You also do not care about your audience given the complex nature of your sentences

    I read your debate with Invicta about another subject. She too, noted how hard it is to understand your comments (she has several degrees and is a lawyer, possibly a CEO of some agency). I struggle to understand you.

    Why should I invest a lot of time in deciphering complex sentences? Why should I comment on areas (such a criminal law) that are way beyond my field of interest, education and knowledge? If you are seeking someone to discuss the Bryant case then please seek another person.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  08:00 PM
  96. #95 ... Mary,  I won’t make a comment about the justice system.

    What I will say is that the mother of your former premier ought to look at her own prejudices (in this case against the homeless lady whose DNA was found on Four Winds). If you don’t know what I mean then I will refer you to two of her comments on Barbara Etter’s website that were posted within 24 hours after the ‘60 Minutes’ program on the case in August 2014 when a certain former legal academic from my home city (Adelaide) made an incorrect statement about the conclusion of the forensic report on the DNA.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  14/06/18  at  08:14 PM
  97. #94 So be it.

    It’s just that once you catch someone red-handed inventing their own on-line peer review panel and referees, from the comfort of their kitchen table, they’re rather dead in the water ever after.

    Of course it’s annoying, but so are mosquito bites and piles. These you can do something about. But when Bernie Madoff gets out of jail he’s likely to readvertise as an ‘expert’ and begin over again doing the same thing without a second thought. Such people do their time in the sin bin but don’t reform, because they are not playing the same game. They have no intention to reform, because they can’t.

    On the other hand, people like yourself and most TTimers, are made of metallic stuff. Collectively you seek the truth, not self affirmation and are driven by good will. I say this even of those whom I’ve crossed swords with. But others are on these pages for a very different motive and you can never change this. It is the nature of the beast and I doubt that most suspect the psychology behind it as I do.

    That’s going as close as I dare in stating what I believe the case to be. I hint at the reason why you are wasting your time (not that you have no cause for concern), without being able to openly state it.

    Party on. All the best William.

    Posted by Jack Jolly  on  15/06/18  at  12:15 AM
  98. #98 ... Thank you, Jack, also the supportive comments submitted by fair thinking others that also view your power of suggestion gimmickry that you Peter Lozo have engaged in, particularly your dalliance with deception to support your suggestive claims happen to be a deplorable resort.

    Shortcomings such as had occurred do not advance your personal character, nor the bona fides of anyone’s professional standing. When a person resorts to the means of deception to facilitate one’s own theories, this demonstrates a foolish departure from proven ascertainable fact. However, factual evidence is by far a better model to rule over another’s hollow power of suggestion. My admission to a predetermined mindset relating to the legal and law practices in Tasmania is supported by relevant times as well as historical fact.

    I do not resile from my contentions as I am able to rely on a compatible certitude of case recorded events. Albeit the carriage of “Tasmanian justice” in the matter of SNF.

    Given the circumstances of my prior admission, I had narrowed this down to a specific dysfunction, that being “the practice of law and the system of justice in this State.”

    “This legal drome of expensive resort often fails the common man” yet not so persons appointed an elevated role in Australia’s society. For they are substantially positioned and armed with their false moral rectitudes, are able to purchase their courtroom escape from whatever may be charges of maladministration or dishonest performance.

    I find it grossly misleading of you Peter Lozo to create “a mountain of cross-references” where no such mountain exists, nor must it be invented merely to suit your disparaging agenda to all who hold their differing opinions. Furthermore, your past engaged in deceptions do you no favour. Theorists are invariably persons given to pontification about airy matters in lieu of material fact.

    Do as you will with your agenda of foisted disparagements and denunciation of persons that actually view life events in a real-time perspective. I find that your claim of professional academic supremacy has no supportive basis to permit you to gambol about distorting life’s impeccable facts.

    Australian society has an abundance of professional mystics and spielers that employ their ugly malice and deceit to achieve their personal gain.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  15/06/18  at  02:32 PM
  99. #98 ... Hear, hear.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  15/06/18  at  03:12 PM
  100. Here is a very interesting witness statement provided to police on 27th Jan 2009

    “Last night between 7.45 pm and 8.30 pm I was looking out of the living area window and I noticed a light coloured Zodiac dinghy out on the river travelling towards Wrest Point in an arc towards the DSS Yacht Club. I first noticed the Zodia (sic) appear in the vicinity of where a yacht was sinking this morning.

    It had an outboard motor propelling it and the rear of it was sitting well into the water. There was only one person on the Zodiac, a male, stocky/solid build, late 40’s to early 50’s, weatherbeaten sailor type look, short reddish brown hair, but not close shaven. The hair was possibly a bit wavy and was fairly thick.

    The male was wearing a collared white short sleeve shirt with no obvious pattern or emblem. He was sitting in the rear left hand side of the zodiac steering the outboard with his right hand. It didn’t look like there was anything on the boat at all.

    It was travelling at an average speed and I last saw it about half way between the sinking yacht (this morning) and the DSS.”


    Now, this is what puzzles me: although both the prosecutor and the defence counsel had that witness statement, neither chose to use it at the trial. What is even more puzzling to me is why the current defence team chose not to use it. If one carefully reads Barbara’s blog it is evident that the police believed that the sighted person was Sue.

    I think that I was the first person to have brought the above witness statement into the spotlight on TT back in April/May 2015. But those supporting Sue are totally ignoring that witness statement and have been busy inventing a story of a burglary gone wrong, etc. Had Barbara Etter not written about it on her website none of us would have known about the sighting. I was also the first person on TT to integrate that eyewitness statement into a timeline to explain Sue’s whereabouts and why she was unwilling to explain her true whereabouts for a 5 hour time period (4 pm - 9 pm).

    Given that Eve Ash, Barbara Etter (and various investigators on behalf of Sue’s defence, such as Colin McLaren), as well as Sue’s currrent defence team, haven’t at all used the above witness statement to fit into into their theory that someone else boarded Four Winds and committed the crime of murder, can we conclude that they too believe that it was Sue on her dinghy leaving the area of Four Winds sometime between 7:45 pm and 8:30 pm? If so, then their theory that someone else was on Four Winds must have a timeline after 8:30 pm. As someone else wrote on TT a year or so ago, if Vass and her associates had been on Four Winds on Australia Day evening then they would have witnessed a crime.

    Why isn’t the current defence team using the above witness statement to claim that the sighted person could be the real murderer?

    Where is the doubt about Sue’s whereabouts between about 2 pm and about 8 pm?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  15/06/18  at  04:06 PM
  101. #99 ... William, I noted in my last comment to you, a biased person like you needs and is only seeking a confirmation of their own view of the world. You seek approval that you view and understanding of the world is the correct view and understanding of the world. When you get it, it makes you happy. But when someone disagrees with your view of the world and your understanding then .... please see below where I copy a few points that Invicta made in her comments to you on another TT thread.

    “Good heavens, William, how easily you are roused to an unseemly apoplectic state.  And how revelatory are the language and sentiments that ensue.”

    “And, by the way, Mr Boeder, using quaint language and big words doesn’t make you a person with ‘superior mental faculty’ – it just means most readers can’t work out what the f… you’re talking about.


    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  15/06/18  at  04:40 PM
  102. I consider Lozo less credible than the forestry bozos, fox fans and possibly even Nathan Carswell.

    I’m mildly entertained that he should sprinkle some sand in Gary’s budgie smugglers over a copy and paste error.

    Posted by spikey  on  15/06/18  at  05:00 PM
  103. It’s fascinating watching this thread.

    From past experience William, take Jack’s advice. He seems pretty close to the mark.

    Posted by Simon Warriner  on  15/06/18  at  05:17 PM
  104. “Spikey - your turd doctrine has nothing to do with it. Fact is if you post anonymously you have no credibility according to some. Therefore you have no credibility and do yourself no favours. If you were to be chastised only for reasons of bullshitting, then firstly how would I know when you were fibbing ?”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  15/06/18  at  06:22 PM
  105. Where has the dark grey dinghy with dark grey lee-cloth gone off to?

    Since basically my first couple of weeks on commenting on this case in April 2015 right through to 2017, virtually every SNF supporter who was commenting on TT was challenging me in my opinion that the grey dinghy that was sighted at Four Winds at 4pm and 5 pm could have been Sue’s white dinghy but was perceived to be grey. Just imagine what it was like, being barraged by numerous objections from people who had no understanding of factors that influence human visual perception and visual memory, to handle so many objections. The problem I faced was that the ‘Shadow of Doubt’ documentary got to these people before I appeared on TT. I had to deal with people’s entrenched belief that in reality there actually was a grey/dark grey dinghy at Four Winds at 4 pm and at 5 pm. I was even ridiculed by some who in their view thought that I was biased and did not know what I was on about, and yet my PhD was in a field of object recognition and visual perception (ie, I studied the psychological and neuroscience literature on vision and perception).

    Well folks, as many of your believed, if the sighted dinghy wasn’t Sue’s white dinghy then surely the current defence team could, and would, have used this as another ground of appeal. Surely a white dinghy and a dark-grey dinghy are two very different dinghies! Or are they?

    I think that the dark grey dinghy with a dark grey lee-cloth has gone off into people’s imaginary world.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  15/06/18  at  07:21 PM
  106. Conspiracy Theory vs Evidence Based Rational Reasoning

    OMG, we have a conspiracy theorist amongst us. No wonder he is so biased. This is what he wrote:

    “Bush will be long remembered for the covert false-flag event of demolishing America’s Twin Towers, also the demolishment of the lives of 2,753 American citizens. All done to create a reason to invade Iraq and commence the plunder of Iraq’s wealth and resources. (Not forgetting John “Fibber” Howard’s immediate commitment of Australia’s military forces to his best mate, George W Bush.)”

    See #7

    So, his bias isn’t just restricted against “the practice of law and the system of justice in this State.” as in the fourth paragraph of #99.

    Wow, I wonder what he will now think of me if I were to inform him that I worked for the Australian Department of Defence for 3 decades including during John Howard’s time as the PM.

    Watch out William, ASIO has you on their radar! lol.

    William also wrote “there is much amiss in the State of Tasmania, the issue of nil transparency of government, the now lengthy delays in the compliance to the Right to Information Act that thwarts the accessibility to Tasmania’s State government departments, being they that are failing the purposes of their enabled office of authority and regulation.”

    Why would he want it to be a faster process given that he ignores information that disagrees with his view? Is William just itching to get a hand on something juicy against the judicial system ( or another state entity ) so that he can then go on TT and whinge some more?

    The above can be summarised as follows: William believes in conspiracies and is seeking to convince others of his belief; he is itching to get evidence to prove that his view of the world is correct, and if the evidence disagrees with his view then he will just ignore it or will claim that it isn’t the real evidence because it was fabricated by someone in the judicial system or elsewhere.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  16/06/18  at  12:01 AM
  107. OK, Mr Doctor theorist .. best you ring ASIO tomorrow morning as they already have a file on William Boeder.

    I rang them myself just a few months ago so it shouldn’t be too difficult to track my file. At least these spooks can handle the truth ...

    Posted by William Boeder  on  16/06/18  at  01:49 AM
  108. The tone of this thread is rather low and I am loathe to contribute, however to say #101 that that description is even vaguely close to SNF is ludicrous, especially coming from the self-asserted expert on witness perception. There are numerous photos of Sue to compare to the description, and in none of them have I noted her need to shave her face, let alone be described as stocky solid build, with short reddish, wavy thick hair etc.

    “Last night between 7.45 pm and 8.30 pm I was looking out of the living area window and I noticed a light coloured Zodiac dinghy out on the river travelling towards Wrest Point in an arc towards the DSS Yacht Club. I first noticed the Zodia (sic) appear in the vicinity of where a yacht was sinking this morning.
    It had an outboard motor propelling it and the rear of it was sitting well into the water. There was only one person on the Zodiac, a male, stocky/solid build, late 40’s to early 50’s, weatherbeaten sailor type look, short reddish brown hair, but not close shaven. The hair was possibly a bit wavy and was fairly thick.
    The male was wearing a collared white short sleeve shirt with no obvious pattern or emblem. He was sitting in the rear left hand side of the zodiac steering the outboard with his right hand. It didn’t look like there was anything on the boat at all.
    It was travelling at an average speed and I last saw it about half way between the sinking yacht (this morning) and the DSS.”

    Posted by Rosemary  on  17/06/18  at  08:17 PM
  109. #109 ... Do you need a lecture on visual perception and visual memory?

    Just how many times and how many eyewitness statements do you need to read to appreciate that what people recall seeing or what they claim to be seeing does not necessarily perfectly match with what is physically out there! Same with hearing. There is a vast amount of signal processing between your eye and the part of the visual brain where you become consciously aware of the visual percept. The brain does a pretty good job of recreating what is out there, but it does not generate a camera-like photograph. There is a host of factors that can influence what is perceived and what is recalled. One such factor is the distance. Another factor are shadows, etc.

    I did previously refer to the experimental work of Prof Elisabeth Loftus. People will recall things that were not in the visual scence they were looking at. People will not recall some parts of the visual scene.

    This is a copy of my #289

    “I think this ought to consolidate my statements in #286 and #287 about the malleability of the human memory. The opinion piece is by a world expert in the malleability of human memory. I did expect Eve Ash to be somewhat familiar with this sort of literature given her background as a psychologist, particularly given the significant relevance the subject of memory has in this case.

    “Human memory does not work like a video camera it is far from completely reliable, says UW psychology professor Elizabeth F. Loftus. People may mingle memories of different events, fill in gaps, or create memories based on suggestion.

    Pioneering research conducted by Loftus at the UW over the past 20 years has documented such cases and probed the mechanisms by which false memories occur. She has conducted hundreds of psychological experiments which indicate that after people first see an event—for example, a crime or an accident—the memory of the event subsequently can be altered. New, post-event information can become incorporated into memory to supplement or change it. In her studies, people have recalled a clean-shaven man as having a mustache; straight hair as curly, and even a barn where no buildings stood at all.”

    Furthermore, Neill-Fraser’s defence attorney was given the above witness statement. Had he thought it a good ground to raise reasonable doubt then he could have used it, but he chose not to. There is no doubt as to who was on that dinghy even if there is no perfect match between what Susan looked like then, and the memory of the visual percept that was formed in the brain of the eyewitness.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/06/18  at  09:54 PM
  110. About eyewitness identification evidence

    “Earlier this month (July 19), new legislation passed by the New Jersey Supreme Court requires state judges to explain to jurors that eyewitness accounts are not always reliably because “human memory is not foolproof.”

    “Eyewitness identification evidence is seen by jurors as being trustworthy and reliable,” Cornell University psychologist Charles Brainerd told Wired. “The science shows exactly the opposite.”

    “Under the best conditions, people have about a 50/50 chance of getting it right,” he added.

    Indeed, the majority of wrongful convictions in the United States results from misidentification by an eyewitness - such as when a person is asked to pick a suspect from a line-up- according to Wired.

    The state’s decision to include this memory disclaimer stemmed from the 2004 conviction of Larry Henderson, who was found guilty of manslaughter in relation to a fatal shooting in Camden. The ruling was appealed in 2008. The Supreme Court agreed to take the case, but only if an investigation into the reliability of New Jersey’s identification procedures took place, the Associated Press reported. This investigation recommended that state police change their witness identification methods and that courts start treating identifications more scientifically, thus putting less weight on an individual’s memory.”

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/06/18  at  10:51 PM
  111. “How reliable is your memory”

    A TED talk by Prof Elizabeth Loftus:

    As you are watching the above YouTube video, please note that there are several points to keep in mind because not all of them are mentioned by Prof Loftus, a psychologist who is an expert on the malleability of memory but who is not a perception researcher nor a neuroscientist:

    (i) the initial formation of the percept in the brain;

    (ii) the initial storage of the percept into the memory;

    (iii) possible corruption of the memory between its formation and its recall;

    (iv) the recall of the memory of the experienced percept.

    A host of factors (some external to the brain, some internal to the brain) can affect how accurately the recalled memory matches the actual physical parameters of objects and events that the brain had been previously exposed to - such as when witnessing a person on a dinghy some distance away.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  17/06/18  at  11:58 PM
  112. “Human Memory and the Law” : Part 1

    “Human Memory and the Law” : Part 2

    Part 1 is about perception and memory as applied in real criminal cases.

    Part 2 is about the malleability of memory.

    These are excellent 2013 talks by two professors of Psychology: Prof Geoffrey Loftus and Prof Elizabeth Lotfus.

    PS: I am happy to discuss visual perception and visual memory (and how it relates to the SN-F case) but I do expect interested people to watch and read the relevant material I link to. My own expertise is in computational neuroscience of visual perception, object recognition, learning and memory; and the application to artificial intelligence/robotics.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  18/06/18  at  01:59 AM
  113. #113 ... Yes, there are other qualified psychologists on this string, too.

    All that you have said amounts to the fact that memory is faulty. We know that .. and under what conditions particular distortions of memory may occur.

    That said, it has little to do with the main facts of the case, and what the evidence says about guilt or innocence. There is a much bigger context out there which greatly exceeds your focus on visual perception and memory. And please note I am not going to get into a tedious and obsessive string of nitpicking on this matter.

    Posted by John Biggs  on  18/06/18  at  10:45 AM
  114. #114 ... Why are you bothering to reply to me?  What is your problem?

    My last few posts addressed Rosemary’s comment. It is also for anyone else who wishes to learn something about the psychology and neuroscience of visual perception and visual memory so that they can use that knowledge as an aid in making a more reliable evaluation of eyewitness statements. There are people outside the SNF support group who are reading thus. There are university students reading this. There are people outside your state reading this. For a former academic you sure are acting odd by wanting the readers to stay ignorant, so are wanting me to shut up.

    I don’t to see the case the way you see it. My interest is quite specific and it does not include the issue of law other than what is expected of a typical jury member to have an everyday knowledge of what is a reasonable doubt and hence what is beyond a reasonable doubt.  Had I also been a lawyer I am sure that Invicta and I would be engaged in an extensive dialogue to the nth degree.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  18/06/18  at  12:33 PM
  115. #114, John ... As someone who is professionally qualified in psychology may I direct some questions to you?

    Hypothetically, is it possible that some contributions here on TT are made to gratify a unilaterally defined self-image of ‘expert’ status that may be feeding and enabling a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)?

    If this was the case (and I don’t know) would such people be inclined to make up false avatars to support their own projections of ‘expert’ status? Is deception part of NPD?

    Does continuing to engage with such people on a well-meaning basis help them, or does it tend to promote the disorder? Might it cause psychological distress to those who end up feeding the needs of a person with NPD?

    Do people with NPD lack empathy and awareness of their impact on others?

    Posted by Jack Jolly  on  18/06/18  at  02:34 PM
  116. #115 ... ‘Had I also been a lawyer I am sure that Invicta and I would be engaged in an extensive dialogue to the nth degree’.

    Not likely, Dr Lozo. If you were a lawyer, with a solid understanding of trial procedures and protocols and the meaning of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, particularly as it applies to criminal cases reliant entirely on circumstantial evidence, we wouldn’t be going backwards and forwards dissecting the minutiae of the case, ad infinitum.  We would both KNOW there was insufficient evidence to convict Ms Neill-Fraser according to the required standard of proof.  We would KNOW evidence was presented that allowed a reasonable explanation for the alleged crime, other than Ms Neill-Fraser’s guilt.  We would KNOW the conduct of the trial and the trial judge’s summation and jury direction were flawed, and fell short of what should be expected of a supposedly competent judicial system.

    We are entitled to have very high expectations of our court processes and those who preside over them. If you were a lawyer, you would have serious doubts, as have many other lawyers, that those expectations were met in this case.

    I have no opinion one way or the other about Ms Neill-Fraser’s guilt, but I do know her conviction was unsafe, and we all need to be concerned about that.

    Posted by Invicta  on  18/06/18  at  02:38 PM
  117. Given the apparent scientific naivety expressed in #14, I will here define in the simplest possible way the two relevant issues that my recent posts above were focussed on. I have above also provided links to 2013 talks by two professors of psychology. These two talks need to be combined for a comprehensive understanding.

    First, let me make it clear that an error in memory isn’t the same thing as an error in perception. I say this because #14 seems to think that the only error of relevance concerns the memory. A person might have a perfect memory for what was perceived, yet still provide an honest but a factually incorrect statement about the actual object or event they witnessed. On the other hand, a person might have perfectly perceived the object or the event, but still later provide and honest but factually faulty memory of that perception. In general, there could be an error in both perception and memory.

    An error in visual perception refers to a discrepancy between the actual physical parameters of the object and the perceived physical parameters, eg perceiving a grey dinghy even though the dinghy might in reality be white.

    An error in recalled visual memory refers to the discrepancy between the originally perceived physical parameters and the recalled physical parameters.

    Either one or both of the above errors can occur. Errors in visual perception are mainly caused by environmental factors and the lack of attention. Errors in memory are mainly caused by internal factors, and the time delay between the acquisition of the memory and the recall of the memory.

    Note that in the above I have assumed that the brain of the eyewitness is functioning normally.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  18/06/18  at  03:38 PM
  118. Correction to my #118: Where I typed #14 it should be #114.

    #117… Invicta, at least we would have been able to pursue way beyond where it ended. I was basing this on seeing the disagreement between you and Burt on another recent thread. Both of you appear to me to have a law degree. Anyway, not my interest. I probably find it as boring as some find my non-legal opinions boring.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  18/06/18  at  06:44 PM
  119. #116 ... You may very well think so Jack, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

    Posted by John Biggs  on  19/06/18  at  09:46 AM
  120. I am not a Clinical Psychologist to comment about the NPD, but I will address the comment about empathy in #116.

    When one reads the details in the transcript, an unbiased and an empathetic person would soon note that Bob’s immediate family (his children and his sister) would have discovered that Sue lied to them on several occasions as to her actions on the evening of the Australia Day.

    So, may I ask ‘empathetic’ people to put themselves in the position of Bob’s sister Ann who had lunch with Sue on that morning, and who had at least two phone conversations with Sue a month or so later (she was called by Sue soon after police alerted Sue’s daughters about an ATM photograph) when Ann was home in Sydney. A person, whom Ann basically treated as a sister-in-law, lied to her several times about the events related to the evening Bob disappeared.

    May I ask people to put themselves in the position of the then homeless teenage girl (who by then was homeless since age 13). May I ask people to put themselves in her position as we understand it to have been last year. Then ask, what kind of a person would comment about Vass the way Lynn Giddings did in 2014 on Barbara Etter’s website? Lynn, via her various TT articles and Comments, definitely demonstrated empathy towards Sue and had written about the way she was treated. But was that because Lynn was a friend of Sue’s mother and was thus emotionally involved when assessing the evidence against Sue? But I don’t recall anyone in the SNF camp saying something about that. Virtually everyone else noted how unfairly was Vass treated by SNF supporters. I certainly was critical of Lynn’s comments. Where is an unbiased empathy demonstrated by Sue’s supporters?

    So, when a certain individual above mentioned empathy he ought to have considered the subject more deeply and asked whether empathy should be biased or unbiased. It is obvious to me that some people commenting on TT have a very selfish and narrow minded approach to the understanding of humanity, the human reasoning processes and emotions.

    May I ask people to think about the way the truth will be found in this case? Will it be found by a possible Royal Commission (something that Eve Ash seems to want) or will it be found when the last known person who was on the yacht with Bob explains to the public her true whereabouts and her actions for the 5 hour period 4 pm to 9 pm Australia Day?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  19/06/18  at  04:29 PM
  121. ” The 60 Minutes segment included a tabloid hatchet-job on the homeless girl that was nauseating, and completely unnecessary. I’ve warned about the behavior of Susan Neill-Fraser’s supporters previously, and pointed out their willingness to blacken anyone and everyone’s name in their crusade, but this was particularly repellent.

    See #13

    The above comment in 2014 was posted by a well respected Tasmanian citizen.

    If we now look at what the VPFSD forensic scientist said during his cross-examination late last year it is obvious that his confidence in whether the DNA was primary (a direct deposit by Vass) or secondary (via a substance attached to someone else’s shoe) wasn’t as high as what Barbara Etter and Bob Moles implied by their statements in 2014 and since.

    Anyway, if we now combine what we currently know (about the cross-examination of the VPFSD forensic scientist by the current DPP) with various false affidavits (particularly that of Gleeson), I wonder why even today there are people who still believe that anything useful can be obtained by an independent inquiry about whether Vass was on Four Winds. It seems to me that some people have a higher expectation than what could be reasonably achieved. Is this because they have a very limited appreciation for how easily DNA can be transferred, and are thus convinced that it must have been a primary transfer? Mr Richter QC did not, in his 25 page ‘white paper’, provide anything of substance to the Tasmanian Government in 2017. Mr Colin McLaren (the investigator and the prime contributor to that paper) did not discover anything during his investigation that could place Vass in Sandy Bay despite carrying out what appears to have been an expansive investigation of Vass and her past and present associates.

    The issue about the DNA and the way Vass was written about by a number of people on TT, is in my opinion, the single most disturbing thing about the nature of ‘group mentality’ as it pertains to the SN-F Support Group. Too bad that some very educated people, even a few with degrees in psychology, got stuck into a ‘tunnel vision’ mentality when analysing the Crown’s case.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  19/06/18  at  07:05 PM
  122. How to override the brain’s empathy bias


    Based on my understanding of empathy bias (from my earlier study of various brain sciences) and my understanding of what went on online in this case (with respect to the young homeless lady) I am of opinion that a good number of SN-F supporters, particularly those who are of the same generation as Sue’s late mother or have been in the same social circle,  would benefit greatly by reaching out to homeless people. Some would benefit by writing an online apology to Vass for not being sensitive to her emotional well-being and physical safety.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  20/06/18  at  12:10 AM
  123. Empathy or Rational Compassion

    “Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion” on

    by Prof Paul Bloom.

    (Paul Bloom is a Professor of Psychology at Yale University. See

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  20/06/18  at  04:56 AM
  124. About a psychologist who lost sight of objectivity:

    See #10

    The above also has a conclusion on the most likely reason for Mrs Etter’s resignation from SN-F’s legal team.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  23/06/18  at  07:00 PM
  125. #84, #85, #86, #108 ... William Boeder. Patsy Bryant had an IQ of 66, equivalent to an 11 year-old boy.

    ESSENTIAL reading for every Australian. Download for free, NO Copyright. “Our right to know.” 

    Imprisonment in Australia with no trial.

    Dr Keith Allan Noble: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) - Second edition 2014. 696 pages. ISBN 978-3-00-002841-0

    Part 1. Page 9. NO hard evidence proving guilt, NO motive, NO fingerprints, NO legal representation, NO truth. NO credible identification. NO public inquiry, NO proper firearm ownership, NO DNA evidence, NO coronial inquest, NO free admission of guilt, NO witness testified in court, NO forensic results, NO crime re-enactment, NO jury, NO complete list of evidence, NO JUSTICE!

    By the author of “FIND! FALCONIO. DEAD or ALIVE” - Concealing Crimes in Northern Territory, Australia

    “CORRUPT TO THE CORE” - Concealing Crimes in Queensland, Australia ... Keith Allan Noble.

    Mr Boeder, please contact me after you have read and digested MASS MURDER. I would be most interested in your legal and moral conclusions.

    Pursuing TasMANIA natural justice, ruined my career and life. It was all a sham and a scam; the only terrorised loser was poor honourable me.

    Posted by Kevin Moylan  on  24/06/18  at  09:56 AM
  126. #17 ... Geraldine, Former Northern Territory Chief Justice, Brian Martin, was appointed to a part-time position on Tasmanian Supreme Court for two years.

    Extract: “FIND! FALCONIO. DEAD or ALIVE.” Warning all residents and tourists. Northern Territory KANGAROO COURTS.

    Download for free: NO Copyright. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) - BIG WORM BOOKS. 2nd edition 2012. Dr Keith Allan Noble.

    Back cover: “The evidence was manipulated, jurors were pressure-cooked, and judges were corrupt - it means a COVER-UP!

    “There was no blood on the van that Falconio and Lees were driving. No brain or bone fragment found in the patch of roadside blood. No projectile - or bullet - was ever found.” - Paul Toohey

    “No body, no murder weapon and no apparent motive. Instead, the allegation of murder was purely circumstantial.” - Sue Williams

    “People don’t just wave down a complete stranger, shoot him, remove the body and leave behind the only witness.” - Robin Bowles

    “I did not kill Peter Falconio. And how do you know he’s dead?” - Bradley Murdoch.

    Extract: Part J. Page 140. UNETHICAL JUDGE MARTIN

    “Any judge who misinstructs a jury is unfit for purpose - he/she should be fired and never rehired.” - Keith Noble

    “As he discharged the jurors the judge told them, ‘For what it’s worth, I entirely agree with your verdicts. Know that you did your job and did it extremely well. Do not look back on this at later times and have any second thoughts’.” - Anne Barker 14 December 2005.

    “Brian Martin also say he agrees with the jury’s verdict - an amazing admission from a judge.” - Robin Bowles - Dead Centre 2006: Page 413.

    “In December 2005 I sat in the Supreme Court in Darwin and heard the chief justice [MARTIN] ‘CONGRATULATE A JURY’ for finding Bradley Murdoch guilty in one of Australia’s most widely publicised criminal trials.” - Robin Bowles - Rough Justice 2007: Page 193.

    “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” - Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

    Posted by Kevin Moylan  on  24/06/18  at  12:29 PM
  127. Thankyou, Mr. Kevin Moylan.

    In your comment to me you gave an example of the manner the Justice Department in Tasmania had departed from all the known tenets of Australia’s Court Trial System. There also lay within your comment the references “that would deny all the proper means necessary” to have Martin Bryant placed into solitary confinement incarceration for the term of his natural life.

    So much for the Tasmanian Justice system during the era of the alleged mass murder occurrence by a person or persons unknown, then of the illegitimate means employed in the Tasmanian Justice Department System to allow a sentence to be imposed on Martin Bryant.

    I have now established a correspondence relationship with Dr Robert Moles that will allow our opinions to be better considered, and based on our own discovered facts and evidence that will ultimately be an influencing factor in the assessment of the overall conduct and carriage of Law and Justice in Tasmania.

    I have followed and investigated a series of cases that prove the crony collusions that are rife in this State, and which includes certain government departments and improper GBE engagements in this state, that by necessity, should have the offending individuals concerned their being sent to prison.

    Let me state quite clearly that this investigative action I have engaged in will result in having certain professional persons of former high status to be sent to spend lengthy incarcerations in Tasmania’s Risdon prison. We must speak together privately and do so far away from the interventions of a certain South Australian theorist guilty of unwarranted threats and damning accusations.

    Thankyou, Kevin.

    .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by William Boeder  on  24/06/18  at  03:15 PM
  128. #127 ... Thanks Kevin.

    I did not realise that Martin A J was the same judge who, inappropriately in my opinion, relayed his opinion to the jury after their decision.

    In saying that, I have no informed opinion re Bradley Murdoch’s guilt or otherwise. Nevertheless, I wince at the thought of same judge now in a fill-in Tasmanian role.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  24/06/18  at  03:24 PM
  129. #128 ... Dear Mr Boeder, that’s powerful stuff! I was brutalised, bastardised, terrorised and driven to bankruptcy and State Sponsored PTSD for pursuing natural justice and the Van Diemen’s rule of TasMANIA law.

    I got one dishonourable legal scalp.

    Murray ‘Dale’ Docking, previously of ABETZ CURTIS and DOCKING in Davey St HOBART, was struck off the legal register in Dec 1999. Docking was my ANF agent, pending a $20 million mental health class action. 

    The late Premier Jim Bacon designated me my fifth legal counsel, Hobart’s James Crotty, also a Labor candidate for Denison.

    The Australian Nursing Federation, the ACTU and Greens’ leader Peg Putt, had demanded in parliament “that in the interests of humanity” my claims be settled expeditiously (nine years).

    Just prior to my sham and contrived Supreme Court hearing, Crotty said to me. “Mr Moylan. IF you don’t accept whatever The CROWN offers you today, then go find yourself another lawyer!”

    That tainted legal representation cost me $65,000.

    After Docking was struck off, my ‘secret file’ was sent (by someone?) to the corrupt self-confessed thief ‘The Barrister’ JOHN AVERY, who was illegally appointed by The State to defend Martin Bryant whose IQ was only 66.

    I only ever went to ONE Public Interest Network, PIN, TAS Whistleblowers meeting. It was at the Ferntree Tavern, five weeks after the Port Arthur massacre. Several PA survivors, witnesses and probing citizens were also there, discussing ‘irregularities and testimonies.’

    Then came my first warning of modern democracy.

    “Kevin, park your Mercedes behind the shopping centre. The police were here at our last meeting, recording all our registration numbers.”

    Silly, country boy naive’ me, said “Why would they want to do that ? We are up to good - not no good.” The learning curves were very high.

    No wonder isolated and downtrodden Tasmanians are chronically riddled with palpable FEAR and ANXIETY. Premature death. The Van Diemen Syndrome - it almost got me. 

    ALL this is on the public record: “ONE FLEW OVER the KOOKABURRA’S NEST” - Non-fiction. 2nd edition, 2017  

    Premier Hodgman was given a complimentary copy September 2017. No reply. No denials or rebuttals, either.

    Posted by Kevin Moylan  on  25/06/18  at  08:53 AM
  130. #130 ... Mr. Keith Moylan, may I suggest that you refrain from the mention of all comments relating to this state’s Justice Department and/or the brotherhood of lawyers that practice their trade in this state?

    You have my email address and I recommend that you use it. Should you have unanswered questions please keep them to yourself until we make contact.

    I am still pursuing matters that relate to this state’s former DPP. This Tasmanian Times’ Comments section is not the most desirable platform to discuss issues of private and personal concern relating to Tasmania’s past and present judiciary officials.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  25/06/18  at  10:41 AM
  131. #130 and #131 ... Kevin Moylan and William Boeder: My view is that it is okay to continue to publicly discuss matters of fact, most particularly those relevant to various branches of the Tasmanian Justice (and/or injustice) system.

    There ought be no need for any vigilante practices in a democracy. Any wrongdoing must be exposed, and then appropriately dealt with by oversight bodies. (*She sighs)

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  25/06/18  at  11:00 AM
  132. It is all about how a person decides to view the world.

    Some people are optimistic and enjoy what life has to offer. Even in the face of adversity, they find a way to smile at the world and say ‘that is life’. It has its ups and downs but I will take responsibility for my own life and for the choices I made. I am in the driving seat.

    Others are pessimistic and enjoy spreading their pessimism, They don’t take responsibility for their decisions and like to blame others for their misfortunes. They haven’t learned that life is what one wants it to be.

    The book by a psychiatrist Viktor Frankl ‘Man’s search for meaning’ might be of some help.’s_Search_for_Meaning

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  25/06/18  at  01:53 PM
  133. #132. Thank you. Geraldine, for your interest in the subject of fidelity in Tasmania’s Justice System.
    This action I speak of incorporates persons holding current appointments and are still serving in Tasmania’s Judicial arenas or call them State courthouse environments.
    Then there is the hand in glove manner of a number of the State’s legal practitioner brotherhood that needs to be confirmed before the cat is loosened from the sack.

    There is the necessary element of timing the announcements or be it the exposures of “the who and when"culprits, that are still able or in a position to engage in severe retribution from these same inchoate culprits.
    Furthermore, there are current proceedings that have their ingredient actions that must wait until the conclusion of such actions that will further solidify the case against the State’s Judiciary.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  25/06/18  at  02:00 PM
  134. #134 — William, you say and do it your way. Don’t be intimidated by others’ put-downs. Never will I be browbeaten/bullied into silence or inaction, when a duty exists otherwise.

    Knowing, that is — reliably witnessing, that there is a healthy dose of corruption and/or situations in which gross wrongdoing is involved, to the harm of Tasmanian citizens, let’s just stay with, “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.

    And #130, Kevin I attended your above-mentioned PIN meeting at Ferntree Tavern. It is fact that Tas Police were in the car park recording number plates of attendees’ cars. I, together wth numerous others, witnessed it. To this day, I hold the minutes of that meeting.

    Furthermore. I take offence at any suggestion that I am stupid and/or pedantic. I know what I know, and that is of corruption and blatant wrongdoing I have witnessed and/or experienced, and to which I hold direct evidence. Nevertheless, that does not mean that I show all my cards ... yet.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  25/06/18  at  04:23 PM
  135. BTW — whilst on my soap-box: quoting from Daily Stoic: -
    “Good Men Can’t Just Do Nothing.

    Around 1998, Miep Gies supplied a small note to be appended to the end of a forthcoming biography of Anne Frank. It was completely fitting that Gies have the last word on Anne Frank, given all that she had risked and sacrificed between 1942 and 1944 to provide for and supply Frank’s family as they hid from Nazis in an attic in the Netherlands.

    In her note, Gies makes an essential point—one of the most essential and undeniable hard-won lessons from the Holocaust—that good people must not stand by as bad people do bad things. Gies writes that while it was her “great and abiding sorrow” that she was not able to save Anne Frank’s life, she takes real solace in knowing that she was able to prolong Anne’s life by two years and, in the process, lead to saving the journal, which would reach and help so many millions of people. “It confirms my conviction,” she wrote, “that any attempt at action is better than inaction. An attempt can go wrong, but inaction inevitably results in failure.”

    To read Stoicism as a philosophy of resignation is a profound mistake. Because it is no such thing. Miep Gies may never have read a page of Marcus Aurelius, but she understood his philosophy at a level that scholars who have dedicated their life to the classics seem to miss: That the trying is what counts. That doing the right thing is all that matters, whatever the condition, whatever the risk, however unlikely the desired outcome. That talk about what a good person is or should be is worthless, what matters is whether you are one when it counts.
    The Stoic doesn’t stand by and do nothing. Not today. Not ever.”

    Oh yeah! Emphasising “...That the trying is what counts. That doing the right thing is all that matters, whatever the condition, whatever the risk, however unlikely the desired outcome. ...”

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  25/06/18  at  04:34 PM
  136. It was interesting to read that Eve Ash wrote a letter a few months ago in which she took an exception to the prosecutor’s suggestion, as reported by Bevan, that “a group of Neill-Fraser supporters ‘duped’ Stephen Gleeson.”

    According to Andrew Urban’s blog, Eve Ash wrote ” How does that happen in a maximum-security prison, riddled with cameras, microphones and guards? The insinuation being that four professionals – who have better things to do in their lives – had committed a crime. Yet, some of them didn’t know each other before the prison visits.”


    Well Eve Ash, “Police obtained a warrant and installed a camera and listening device to record the planned identification procedure.”

    Will the recent sentencing of Mr Gleeson convince Eve Ash that she too, was duped and that Meaghan was not on Four Winds, nor does Meaghan hold an answer to what happened to Bob Chappell?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/06/18  at  12:11 AM
  137. End of an era: no support for the “breakin-gone-wrong theory”

    I think that the sentencing of Mr Gleeson marks a turning point in the public’s perception of the “breakin-gone-wrong theory” in the Neill-Fraser case. The theory emerged in the public consciousness in August 2014 about the time that the VPFSD forensic science report on Vass DNA was provided to SN-F’s then solicitor. The following two paragraphs are from a 2014 news article:

    “SUPPORTERS of convicted husband murderer Sue Neill-Fraser believe her victim Bob Chappell was killed during a bungled break-in.

    A 60 Minutes segment on WIN television last night raised a new theory on the disappearance of Mr Chappell in early 2009 – that an itinerant man with a violent past had tried to break into his boat while he was on board.”


    I would say that it is all down-hill for those who still cling onto the theory that the then homeless 15 year old girl and two middle-aged vagrants boarded Four Winds on Australia Day 2009.

    PS: I also note that Barbara Etter has, in the past week or so, closed down her website and her Twitter account. Eve Ash seems to have lost interest in updating her own website on this case as the last update was in March. Perhaps the reality is beginning to sink in.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  26/06/18  at  05:49 PM
  138. Thanks for these comments (#132, #135 & #136), Geraldine.  I was moved to find out more about Miep Gies.  That she regarded herself as having done nothing exceptional, having simply done what any decent person would do, is one thing.  But still, a second consideration is that what she did is a source of inspiration for me, and obviously, for many people around the world.  I’m glad I ‘looked her up’ on Wikipedia, and was warmed by seeing that I share her birthday.  Just to bring my comment to the matter at hand:  Steve Gleeson, it seems, was motivated to ‘right the wrong’ that he believed had been done to Sue Neill-Fraser.  Whether or not he did actually lie to do so, I can’t tell.  He did admit in court (it seems) at the SN-F hearings that he had been prepared to lie ... (had been prepared to falsely identify a person in a photo) to help Sue get out of prison.  Yet it is not at all clear to me – in my readings of media reports and indeed, of the sentencing remarks, that he actually did lie to pervert the course of justice.  It seems to me, actually, that the most I could say about it, is that at one point he said to Mr Thompson that he could identify a photo as being that of a certain person, if it would help Sue.  My point is that (as far as I can tell) he didn’t actually make that identification (didn’t actually make such an identification) and it’s important to point out that Mr Thompson declined the ‘offer’.  And really, when we look at the bare words, what can an impartial person make of such a statement:  ‘I could identify … a certain person, if it would help Sue.  Are we looking at no more than a convict saying no more than he’d only make an identification (i.e. ‘dob in someone’) if it was for a good purpose?  Look at the words, Geraldine.  if you don’t like them, show – if my remarks are baseless – show me what he actually said differently to the way I’ve reported them.  Was he not simply saying that he was not in the business of dobbing-in others to the authorities, however, in this particular case he might consider, he could [be able to] identify … a certain person, if it would help Sue.  Maybe this was not about lying, but about abandoning the no-dobbing rule … ‘cos it doesn’t pay to be a dog.

    It reminds me somewhat of Lionel Murphy’s ‘and what about my little mate?’  In the hearts of some this question took on a context in which Murphy was believed by some to have tried to influence the outcome of a case, i.e. attempted to pervert the course of justice.  He was convicted, successfully appealed and then retried and acquitted.  Murphy has more than one link to this, the case of Stephen Gleeson.  Firstly, we see the same accusation:  attempting to pervert the course of justice.  Recall next, that Murphy upheld (in minority on the High Court) Lindy Chamberlain’s final (and unsuccessful) legal attempt to right the judicial wrong that had been done to her.  The case of Susan Neill-Fraser has often been compared to that of Lindy Chamberlain … the veneer of science being applied to show that the sound-deadener under the dash of their car was … an arterial spray of blood from the cut throat of their baby Azaria.  There are many shameful lies told with the support of science, through the mouths of so-called scientists.  Witness the way in which then DPP skilfully avoided saying that blood had been found in the dinghy of the Four Winds, yet using the word blood but 10 times in his opening address, and not a single time in his closing address.  See how with a few ‘blood’ references and photos of a dinghy awash with luminol – not blood – see how with 10 uses of ‘the blood word’ he seems to have created an impression of Bob Chappel’s blood in the dinghy and variously around the Four Winds.  Why did he not even once mention blood in his closing address? 

    Posted by  on  26/06/18  at  11:54 PM
  139. .../
    I suggest that he didn’t want to over-cook the pudding, did not want (in closing) to give Mr Gunson an opportunity to ‘blow the blood out of the dinghy’.  There was none.  There was no blood in the dinghy.  Aw … yeah … there was all those positive reactions to apparent luminol overspray.  But what you perhaps might not have read in the trial transcript is that all those screening tests only showed that the luminol (which reacts to a number of substances – bleach included … not just blood) reacted to itself or to something else when sprayed on the dinghy.  You didn’t read in the trial transcript that of the 16 confirmatory tests (as opposed to ‘screening tests’) that were carried out on the dinghy, not one confirmed the presence of blood.  That information was, according to Dr. Reynolds, contained in the case notes, not referred to by Counsel at the trial.  It is intriguing that Debra McHoul told the trial court that she did not conduct any confirmatory testing on the dinghy.  [CT: 669 1-23.]  See how she turned a question about how she might have tested “to confirm the presence of blood” into a response [CT 669 18-23]:

    Yes, I certainly looked by eye that night, or that day, at the police services building and I used luminol, as I’ve explained to you, and then I did have the dinghy brought back to the laboratory so that I could examine it with magnification and in good lighting conditions and I didn’t find any red/brown staining with the microscope.”

    Regardless, Geraldine, of these scientists’ vagaries, we know from the evidence of both sides that there was no blood confirmed as being present on the dinghy.  Yet we all have that ghoulish picture of excess (‘overspray’) luminol gathering and running aft in the dinghy.  Do not photos speak louder than words?  10 mentions of blood in opening … a photo of the over-spray of luminol in the dinghy … the idea of Bob Chappel’s blood ‘being in the dinghy’ thus created … now can not, it seems, be countered.  Yet all confirmatory testing proved negative.  Well done, Tim Ellis:  in spite of argument to the contrary, you got your verdict.  So too did Ian Barker, Q.C.

    I applaud your comments, Geraldine.  We, poor imitators perhaps of Miep Gies, must yet stand in defence to truth and decency in life.  Miep risked her life.  We are called to do far less.  You and I, in the absence of something similar to ‘a matinee jacket’ still must speak for the truth.  While we can’t state categorically that Sue Neill-Fraser was innocent of murdering Bob Chappell, neither can we say that she was guilty of murdering murdering him.  What we can say is that the trial process which resulted in a guilty process … was flawed.  Surely, even innocent or guilty, an accused person is entitled to a fair trial.  When then Justice Blow refused to allow Meaghan Vass to be recalled to the stand, the course of justice, in my opinion, miscarried.

    Posted by  on  26/06/18  at  11:55 PM
  140. WHO is “duping” witnesses?

    The above question was asked by Eve Ash in her tweet of 1st April this year:

    In her tweet, Eve provided a link to Andrew Urban’s blog ( where a portion of her letter to a journalist is posted.

    Eve asks “How does that happen in a maximum-security prison, riddled with cameras, microphones and guards? The insinuation being that four professionals – who have better things to do in their lives – had committed a crime. Yet, some of them didn’t know each other before the prison visits.”

    Now we can answer Eve’s question: Gleeson was duped by one of the professionals, a lawyer, who was not authorised by Sue’s then solicitor to work on the Neill-Fraser case.

    Is it time for Eve Ash to let go of this case? This is what she said on Ch 7’s ‘Sunday Night’ current affairs program last year: “It is starting to unravel now – I think the girl on the boat holds the key to this.”

    What seems to be unravelling is how a few witnesses were duped to help Sue’s appeal.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  27/06/18  at  03:18 PM
  141. #131 ... Mr Boeder. I know how much you dislike your name being misspelt. So call me Kev, not Keith. Otherwise keep up your passion and diligence.

    Posted by Kevin Moylan  on  27/06/18  at  07:57 PM
  142. #142 ... Thank you, Kevin for correcting me. I understand that these sort of goings-on can be particularly annoying. My apology to you.

    For your continuing interest, the on-site witness to the aftermath of the cafe that I had previously spoken with, regarding the cafe shootings, (that person being the person that had arrived within minutes after the cafe shootings had taken place…........
    is still alive and well and will continue to be an interesting source of reference.

    I am able to comprehend “the suspiciously given claim” of the alleged guilt of Martin Bryant, that had been introduced then reinforced by the likes of his only hospital visitor (the since-convicted high-living art thief, the very same person that was known to have been a practicing Tasmanian lawyer, John Avery) the suggestion that a person of such limited intelligence, IQ 66; Martin Bryant, does not support the methodology of a military-like precise undertaking as had been perpetrated by the actual shooter.
    The link below has some interesting comments presented below its feature article.

    It has been rumoured that the shootings were planned as the harbinger of a gun buyback scheme, just 12 days after the Port Arthur shootings, an action authorized by Australia’s “alleged to be the most traitorous person in Australia” former Liberal Party Prime Minister, John Winston Howard, as an essential precedent event to announce and to launch his gun buyback scheme.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  27/06/18  at  10:13 PM
  143. Is this the beginning of the end for the Susan Neill-Fraser Support Group? Are we witnessing an implosion that started soon after Mr Gleeson’s false affidavit was obtained by a lawyer who was not authorised by Barbara Etter?

    The SN-F Support Group is probably still shell-shocked and is recovering from the shock revelation that Mr Gleeson was indeed drunk and asleep, and that he did not see Ms Vass that night. No-one can place Ms Vass in Sandy Bay that night or at any other time of relevance.

    Eve Ash, Robert Richter and Colin McLaren must be thinking hard about how they got duped by a trio of homeless and/or troubled and uneducated people, and by one lawyer who was not authorised to work on the case when he obtained Gleeson’s false affidavit.

    Barbara Etter quit within weeks of Gleeson’s false affidavit. Mr Richter moved onto another case. Mr McLaren skipped the country.

    But what is Eve Ash going to do after such a major blunder? She even appeared on a TV current affairs program in July last year. Perhaps the time has come for Eve Ash to admit her error, apologise to Tasmanians and drop out of any further involvement in this case. She has totally lost the sight of objectivity by being obsessed with proving Sue’s innocence and/or unsafe conviction.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  29/06/18  at  12:56 AM
  144. #95 ... Mary, you misquoted me. I do not know enough about the police and judiciary in other States and Territories of Australia to make that comparison.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  29/06/18  at  01:12 PM
  145. #144. The Doctor of theory, Dr Peter Lozo, has it that you know little about the Laws in Australia, yet you rabbit on with your pro-the-State-government-justice-system as if it were an open forum and you likely to be one of the small band of its avid toady-like supporters.

    I personally am unable to accept the theories that are put forward by you Peter Lozo, that soon after sees you continuing to follow up with submitting a comment that disparages the honourable intended comment from persons closer to the coal-face facts than yourself.
    Next, we see you engaged in a Tony Jones-like Q & A commentary about some mute point that seemingly permits you to increase your disparagement of persons that do not agree and or remain unconvinced or uninterested in your postulated circumstantial theories.

    Incidentally, I will be copying in both ASIO & D of D intel’ Headquarters bearing another reminder of my recommendation that recently featured in an email to SBS about our D of D.

    Australia should not be transfixed by American weapons manufacturing consultants lobbying the Australian government, meanwhile, we soon read that the Liberal Federal government has embarked on a further buying frenzy that reveals another quantum of Australian $Billions are to be zipped off to Lockheed Martin.

    Or how about one of the other 46 American weapons manufacturing corporations hotly pursuing our D of D Taxpayer revenue budgeted expenditures, when at the end of it all is to see further taxpayer $Billions en-route to each or other of American weapon’s manufacturing Gorgon corporations?

    I see it as my role to recommend common-sense loaded logical endeavour and pursuit to both of our Federal government spook agencies, they currently besotted with all things pie-in-the-sky American.

    By the way, how well did your report of myself to the government spook agencies, succeed?

    Given the opinions already forwarded by me to both these intel’ agencies about the opinions and recommendations of this William Boeder, I wonder did this progress into more ink on paper, or just a reply of “ho-hum, yeah, we already know about this bloke?”

    In lieu of sending taxpayer $Billions offshore to the American war profiteers, I had recommended that Australia invite both Russia and China to each set up a military base on the South and the West of this continent. That leaves the USA Mordors a North to South strip down the middle of Australia, with the USA able to retain the Northern Territory military base and Pine Gap facility, this will remove the folly of sending multi-$Billions to the American war-profiteers.

    A win-win situation for each Super-Power, each military base on-high alert to protect their base regions, they will ultimately become our stoutest defenders while serving as Australia’s active defacto defence force to protect Australia from whomsoever hostile invasion.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  29/06/18  at  02:05 PM
  146. Thank you for your #145 comment, Lynn.

    Posted by  on  29/06/18  at  02:12 PM
  147. #146 ... Why bother, William?

    Posted by John Biggs  on  29/06/18  at  03:48 PM
  148. #148. Fair comment John Biggs, this gave my #146 the opportunity to present to the TT forum, of my actual line of correspondences directed to both ASIO and Australia’s Military Intelligence Headquarters.

    Further, it pleases me to demonstrate the fact that “I speak’s as I see’s it.”
    Yes, that I engage in the necessary research demanded as ever essential,  then allows the researched resultant influences to form the basis for a great many of my TT comments.
    Thank-you John.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  29/06/18  at  05:46 PM

  149. “I spent two hrs with mother & daughter when they wanted to hire me to investigate the alleged drug link to the yacht. I am very confident in the verdict and I am not surprised in the least at this new development.”

    “She had no problem walking. My office was on the 3rd floor (stairs only) of an inner city office. Of all the stories she told me, an inability to lift or walk was not one of them.”

    The above comments are from the ‘International law enforcement consultant’ who was approached by Susan Neill-Fraser in 2009 to investigate the alleged drug link to the yacht.

    See the Viligante News Facebook post from last year (my research into the SN-F case is very broad):

    (Ps: The irrational rambling in #146 is way off topic. The first two paragraphs are within the topic but everything after that is, in my opinion, a non-relevant rambling of an irrational and paranoid mind. It reminds me of the irrational and paranoid writings of the late mathematician Dr John Nash when he was at the heights - in my opinion - of his delusions.)

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  29/06/18  at  05:56 PM
  150. When freedom of speech and conspiracy theories go haywire and destroy people’s reputations and life. See this YouTube in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre:

    Ps: The former police officer (Michael Dyson) in the above video is the same person I mentioned in my last post.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  29/06/18  at  06:28 PM
  151. #151 ... Dr Peter Lozo, a simple couple of matters necessary for you to respond to in order to ascertain your ongoing credibility and the fidelity of your personally obliged practising professional Codes of Conduct.

    Professional Obligation. Lawyers, doctors, teachers, and other persons who belong to a profession are bound either by professional codes of conduct or by contracts that contain standards of conduct. A professional person who fails to meet the duties required of that profession may be judged incompetent.

    The first matter is to do with your avoidance to respond to specific items of contention that may be raised in regard to your professional public commentary.

    It is frequently observed that you do not respond to a topical yet relevant claim, nor respond to relative subject questions, nor do you respond to contentions that may be raised that present a challenge to your own theories views and opinions.

    Q1 ... Can you please abide by the ethics required of an adjudged person of professional status?

    Q2 ... Are you attending a physician to address and or monitor the obviated and or avoidance syndrome that appears as an apparent flaw in your capacity to comprehend?


    Posted by William Boeder  on  29/06/18  at  09:20 PM
  152. The SN-F Support Group was duped! Now it is falling apart.

    All it took was the words of three homeless and/or troubled and uneducated people to bring down Eve Ash and Robert Richter. Barbara Etter was too smart to hang around.

    Those of us who brought the voice of reason to this case tried to show the road to wisdom, but ignorance and stubbornness abounds in the SN-F camp.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  30/06/18  at  12:35 AM
  153. #51 ... My definition of a lie is a deliberately uttered untruth. Because Sue admitted to a lie, in my book that is the only evidence of her lying.

    Sue was not afforded the consideration that the DPP gave to other witnesses, that “honest witnesses can differ, honest witnesses can be mistaken”. I consider Sue “an honest witness”.

    The DPP dismissed, as “a throwaway line”, his own mistake at Sue’s appeal that “a DNA profile found on the glove matched the profile of Timothy Chappell” and not Sue, as claimed in the trial. I would argue that was a powerful and inaccurate statement and highly prejudicial to the trial of Susan Neill-Fraser.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  03/07/18  at  07:45 AM
  154. #153 ... Dr Lozo, let me assure you that the SN-F Support Group is not “falling apart”.

    We are tired of going over the same old ground and tired of your own tunnel vision and “stubbornness”. Secondly, the matter is now before the court and we do not want to be held in contempt of court.

    Posted by Lynn Giddings  on  03/07/18  at  07:55 AM
  155. Was Sue separated from Bob in the weeks prior to 26th Jan?

    “Evidence was given by Mr Stevenson that during the journey the appellant said that her relationship with the deceased was strained, it was over and it had been for some time. She also said that she would like to borrow $100,000 from her mother to buy out the deceased’s interest in the yacht.” 

    “Mr Stevenson’s evidence was that [when SNF arrived in Hobart with the yacht] the deceased “went to approach Sue and she really just stood back from him and ignored him, didn’t sort of respond to his – to, you know, acknowledging that – how he was”. He said that he had noticed no sign of affection between them when they were together on the boat.”

    “Evidence was given by Jeffrey Rowe, a Queensland yacht broker who negotiated the sale of the Four Winds to the appellant and the deceased. He said that in the course of a telephone conversation he had with the appellant on 8 January 2009, she told him that she and the deceased had separated and she commented “that she was just tired of having to do everything”.

    Watch “Neill-Fraser ‘separated’ from Chappell: witness” on YouTube:

    Why did Sue lie about being separated? Was she testing to see whether Mr Rowe might be interested in her? Was that the beginning of Sue’s numerous lies?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/07/18  at  01:38 PM
  156. What can be learned about relationships in the SN-F camp from Facebook?

    It was noticed in July last year that several people who are strong supporters of Sue (including Eve Ash and Sue’s daughters) were no longer Facebook-friends with Barbara Etter!

    Thus, soon after Barbara Etter quit, several people were sufficiently upset that they went on Facebook to make changes to their Friends’ list.

    How would Lynn Giddings know what can be discovered via social media?

    The SN-F Support Group is falling apart, and it started soon after Mr Gleeson provided the false affidavit on 8th May 2017. Eve Ash ought to apologise to the rest of the SN-F supporters .. and to the Tasmanian community in general.

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/07/18  at  02:12 PM
  157. #51 ... Lynn, in my experience when the DPP engages in a lie and is (at times belatedly) found out, it is brushed aside as “an honest mistake, your Honour”. That is FACT.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  03/07/18  at  02:47 PM
  158. I apologise for an error my last post that refers to #51. I now correct it to #154

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  03/07/18  at  02:48 PM
  159. Australia’s “Miss Marple” vs Hobart’s homeless

    Watch “EXTRA MINUTES | JUSTICE OVERBOARD | Eve Ash” on YouTube

    The amateur sleuth depicted in the above video considered a number of possibilities, but ignored the most realistic scenario.

    Based on what went on in August 2014, it looks like Eve Ash decided that the best option was to stick to the belief that was at that time firmly held by most SN-F supporters, including Dr Moles. It was thought that the truth in the matter involved the homeless girl and her associates. Tasmanians were therefore expecting a show-down: Australia’s ‘Miss Marple’ vs Hobart’s homeless! The climax was building up over a period of 3-4 years. It all came crushing down when the real sleuths, Hobart’s police detectives, got involved and tore down the illegal conspiracy to help Sue’s fight for freedom.

    Now, re-read the above sentencing remarks.

    Note that Barbara Etter obtained an affidavit from Mr Gleeson in September 2016. Note that in that affidavit he stated basically the same story he told TasPol in 2009 - he was drunk and asleep, didn’t see anyone or anything. Note that, on 8th May 2017, Mr Gleeson provided another affidavit .. but to a lawyer who was not authorised by Barbara Etter to work on the case. Note that in that affidavit Mr Gleeson totally contradicted everything he told Barbara Etter in 2016, and to TasPol in 2009.

    Why did Eve Ash trust Mr Gleeson’s affidavit of 8 May 2017 to be a truthful account of his memory for the evening of Australia Day 2009 .. but did not trust his earlier affidavits? Did Eve Ash in fact suffer from a confirmation bias because she believed that Vass DNA was primary transfer?

    Lynn Giddings (above at #155) says to me that they (meaning herself and the rest of SN-F supporters) are tired of my own tunnel vision. I say that she, Eve Ash, and the rest of the SN-F supporters suffer from confirmation bias.


    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/07/18  at  05:27 PM
  160. Cont…

    “Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia.

    People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarisation (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

    A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. However, even scientists can be prone to confirmation bias.[2]

    Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[3][4]”

    For more details see

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/07/18  at  05:30 PM
  161. So, Peter Lozo, are you aware of how rudely you respond to people who are offering their conjectures other than strictly obeying your own claims and opinions in this very same subject matter?
    You refer to other comment contributors as though you are their master and all others are your slave. Not very professional from my point of view.

    Given that you doggedly claim you know all to do with this SNF case, one is left to ponder as to why you persist in hurling “your summary of the SNF case events” against persons who have sought to respond to your assertions by providing their opinion in response to each and all of your claimed event sequences of its circumstantial only evidence.

    My mind tells me your intent to engage in the manner of your rude persistence is to exhaust the minds of all persons that dare to nominate a conjecture toward your ongoing pursuit of this SNF former or even current-time case proceedings, is done so for you to gain an additional form of recognition that well may boost your insufferable ego yet will never contribute an iota of beneficial consequence to the world of humankind.

    Posted by William Boeder  on  03/07/18  at  06:52 PM
  162. Here are some tips for amateur real crime analysts and TT commenters

    Based on my 6 year research of several complex cases, and from what I learned via my on-line interaction with supporters (several hundred) of four convicted people, I offer hereunder some useful tips to those who comment on real crime complex cases:

    - do not trust documentaries and/or current affair programs on real crimes to be a complete account as documentaries usually tend to be biased;

    - read Trial Transcripts and other official documentation before exposing your brain to emotionally charged documentaries on the case, as this will minimise the effect of entrenching your brain’s neural circuits to perceive and think about the case in the manner that the documentary producer(s) intended. Documentaries often have emotional music and visual imagery that have a strong effect on a brain (a very good example of this is the 10 hour docu-series ‘Making a Murderer’).

    - be sceptical of witnesses who come years after the event;

    - be sceptical when the original witnesses change their statements years later;

    - be sceptical about the completeness and the accuracy of police investigations;

    - be sceptical about the completeness and the accuracy of the presentation of the case during the court proceedings;

    - be sceptical about the evidence presented by expert witnesses;

    - be sceptical about the opinion of non-practising legal experts, eg active or retired law academics;

    - most of all, be sceptical of your own perception. Do you have the correct interpretation of the evidence in the case? Do you have a complete understanding of the case? Do you have sufficient medical/technical/scientific, etc knowledge in order to best understand the technical parts of the case and the expert witness opinions? Have you done extra research to help you understand the issues of concern (e.g. have you done any research about inflatable dingies the type and size that belonged to Four Winds so that you can understand its stability and the ease with which one can tip a body over without risking falling over or tipping the dinghy as it is not easy to tip such a dinghy of that weight, size and long inflatable tubes? etc);

    - are you sufficiently removed from both the convicted person (and his/her family) and the deceased’s family, to be able stay impartial?

    - are you sufficiently removed from the investigators and the lawyers in the case?

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  03/07/18  at  07:55 PM
  163. You forgot some Peter,

    - don’t create fake profiles and post supporting commentry for your own comments under said fake profiles.

    - don’t attempt to present yourself as an expert on topics outside your area of expertise.

    -don’t rely on youtube videos in attempts to convince others that you have expertise in areas outside of your area of expertise.

    and ..

    - don’t revert to repeatedly claiming you have higher levels of expertise when your opinion is challenged, rather than using evidence to back your opinion.

    Posted by abs  on  04/07/18  at  09:07 AM
  164. #164 ... Thanks. 😊

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  04/07/18  at  11:35 AM
  165. Chosen especially for abs #164 .. there are many more that I watched before I started talking about the subject.

    Watch “Memory and Law” on YouTube

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  04/07/18  at  11:42 AM
  166. You are being mocked, FYI, due to having trampled upon your own credibility.

    Furthermore, whilst my comment here has amusement (at your expense) within it, I am not going to engage in a funny argy-bargy with you.

    As I stated in the other SNF thread, your behavior on TT on such a serious topic is beyond unethical.

    Posted by abs  on  04/07/18  at  01:14 PM
  167. #167 ... Ciao! Good bye! 😊

    Posted by Dr Peter Lozo  on  04/07/18  at  01:28 PM
  168. You have said that before Peter, yet return with further examples of the kind of behaviour that I, and others, have called out. I suspect that you are unable to cease.

    Posted by abs  on  04/07/18  at  02:12 PM
  169. #155 ... Hear, hear.

    Posted by Geraldine Allan  on  04/07/18  at  02:42 PM





Remember my personal information

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.