Thank you Editor [ http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/pr-article/the-sue-neill-fraser-case1/ ] for publishing advice about Andrew Urban’s book concerning Susan Neill-Fraser’s last-days 2nd Appeal processes and hearings.
Andrew has surprised me with the scope of his book, ‘Murder by the Prosecution. I wish to advertise, not the book itself (worthy that it is) but the issue of justice versus the judicial system. I’ve done the ‘due diligence’ … and I hope that Justice Brett will find sufficient reason to either reverse Neill-Fraser’s conviction, or to at least order a re-trial. In my opinion, justice lies in the balance.Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org on 19/08/18 at 05:10 PM
I saw the book advertised but I haven’t read it yet.
It is my view that justice in this case lies in first properly understanding the prosecution case and the defence case, and then making a decision on the basis of that understanding. Based on Mr Urban’s previous writings (on his website, and on TT) I gather that he lacks the proper understanding of the prosecution case. The one thing that comes to mind is the way Mr Urban wrote on his website about the dinghy that was spotted late at night. The witness at the trial (Mr Hughes) stated that he saw an inflatable dingy and had heard its overboard motor but Mr Urban chose not to express either of these two significant factors that differentiate the statement of the prosecution witness at trial (Mr Hughes) from the statement of the defence witness at this appeal (Mr Maddock). If Mr Urban had a valid reason to believe that Mr Hughes did not see (or could not have) seen an inflatable dinghy and did not (or could not) hear the dinghy’s overboard motor, then he ought to have provided an explanation for his belief. But as is, his readers are left with incorrect information. It seems to me therefore, that Mr Urban’s book contains a lot of incorrect information and biased claims.
Also, Mr Urban (like the rest of Neill-Fraser’s supporters) still believes that the dinghy that was spotted at the port side of Four Winds on the afternoon of Australia Day was a grey dinghy, despite my numerous posts explaining that it could have been Sue’s white dinghy but it was perceived to be grey. Given this problem of people overlooking their common experience when experiencing glare, I recently decided that the best way to explain the phenomena of colour perception under the relevant viewing condition is to write a TT Article so that I can upload photographs and sketches to explain why a white object can be perceived to be dark grey (even black) under the condition of significant glare. To help in this regard, I recently took several photographs of a white boat that appeared to be black when the glare was in my eyes, but appeared white when I was looking at the boat from almost the opposite direction. When I previously explained the phenomena I suggested that the experiment ought to be done over a body of water because it is the reflection of sun rays from the water that provides additional light to the observer’s eyes, but a certain individual took a photograph of his ute under the incorrect viewing condition, and there is no glare in that ute photograph, Mr Stannus! Had you done your experiment under the relevant viewing conditions you wouldn’t even be able to discern what is on the back of the ute, and your ute would have looked very dark indeed.Posted by Dr Peter Lozo on 20/08/18 at 03:20 PM
Find it in the fiction section.
‘Their yacht was the culmination of a dream; they had sailed it down from Queensland just before Christmas, merely weeks before fate sunk their dream.’Posted by Mark Hawkes on 20/08/18 at 04:26 PM
#1 ... Garry, unless you have an objection, I plan to use in my TT article the photos you uploaded on your Facebook account which you used as a way to contradict my opinion that Mr Conde couldn’t have perceived a dark grey lee-cloth on a dark grey dinghy under the conditions he viewed the Four Winds yacht at 4 pm.
Suppose there was a body of water between your ute and you, and that the sun shone onto the water such that the reflection of the sun rays also entered your eyes (and your camera). What do you think the picture of your ute would look like then?
A white object can look dark grey, even black, during daylight! Dr Moles (a former legal academic at The University of Adelaide) had no idea what he was talking about when he wrote the following in his review of Eve Ash’s ‘Shadow of Doubt’ documentary:
“The old joke is about how a biased person can make black look like white. In this case the investigator actually said that a white boat might look like grey on the water .. without any evidential basis for such a remarkable claim. ”
I will just have to post a few photographs in my TT article for people to believe what they already ought to be well aware of. In fact, there are a few relevant photos of the Four Winds yacht that should have grabbed people’s attention.Posted by Dr Peter Lozo on 20/08/18 at 04:52 PM
#1, Garry ... This is what you posted on your Facebook account on 14 May 2016:
” RCENTLY on some discussion threads on the ‘Tasmanian Times’ it has been suggested that from a distance of 50 metres one would not be able to distinguish/see a dark grey lee-cloth across the bow of a dark grey dinghy. (A lee cloth in this instance is something like a tarpaulin placed across the bow of a dinghy to provide a bit of protection from incoming spray/water) I put this proposition to the test in a number of ways. In the photos accompanying this comment, you will see two photos of a ute with a tarp across part of its tray (Photos 5 and 6). Though the tarp’s colour was close in shade to that of the ute, from 50 metres I could see it for what it was. Actually, I could even read the number plate from that distance!”
But where is the water and the glare in your test?
Did we not first establish several years ago that the Four Winds yacht was pointing approximately in the South-East direction and that therefore anyone looking at the port-side of Four Winds between 4 pm - 6 pm would have been looking in the general direction of the sun and that there most probably wasn’t any direct sunlight on the surface of the tethered dinghy that was facing the observer? Although it was an overcast day, the photos taken on the morning of the day show that the cloud wasn’t thick to completely block the sunlight. It is therefore likely that there was sufficient sunlight in the afternoon to cause glare for observers who were looking at the port-side of Four Winds on the afternoon of 26th Jan ‘09. But your attempted experiment with your ute and the tarp doesn’t have any glare! I recall that Steve also conducted an experiment where he tied a cloth to a Stobie pole. I haven’t seen the photos of that experiment, but it seems to me that he too, did not attempt a realistic test that tried to reproduce the type of scenario that was likely faced by Mr Conde and other eyewitnesses who stated that they saw a grey to mid-range grey, or a dark grey dinghy on the port-side of Four Winds.Posted by Dr Peter Lozo on 21/08/18 at 09:22 AM
A recent Calendar thought —
“A judge is a law student who marks his (her) own examination paper.”Posted by Geraldine Allan on 21/08/18 at 04:25 PM
It is quite remarkable that none of Neill-Fraser’s supporters bothered (at least not until I first pointed out the issue in 2015) to consider the viewing geometry in which the eyewitnesses found themselves in on the afternoon when they spotted a dinghy tethered to the portside of Four Winds. There is sufficient information in the Trial Transcript that when combined with some astronomical charts (and a map of the local area) to conclude that the eyewitnesses were looking in the general direction of the sun. What people did not tune into is that when a person is looking at a scene across water and is looking in the general direction of the sun that the light entering the person’s eye directly from the sun and the light that is reflected from the water into the person’s eye can swamp the visual system to the extent that viewed objects will look much darker than they actually are, particularly if there is no direct sunlight on the object’s surface that is visible to the person.
“What is even more remarkable is that two university educated people (Eve Ash and Barbara Etter) one of them being a psychologist (Ash) discussed the grey dinghy issue to considerable extent in a joint video clip where they in particular focused on Mr Conde’s statements, but neither bothered to look at the viewing geometry.”
I do not understand why people post close range photographs of a white dingy as a comparison against a close range photograph of a grey dinghy to argue that they are very different and thus cannot be confused. What they should ask is whether a white dinghy can appear to be grey when viewed under the similar viewing conditions and geometry as when Mr Conde and other eyewitnesses saw a ‘grey’ dinghy on the port-side of Four Winds. Why did not Eve Ash think of the viewing geometry is rather strange given that all psychologists, including Ash, would have been taught something about visual perception in their first two years of psychology classes.Posted by Dr Peter Lozo on 22/08/18 at 12:50 PM
“Sue Neill-Fraser appeal: Letter smuggled out of prison to witness, court hears”
“A Hobart court has heard for the first time that convicted killer Sue Neill-Fraser played a role in arranging for a witness to give evidence in her last-chance appeal, including what she would say.”
Now the truth about the scheming nature of Sue’s character is being exposed to all.Posted by Dr Peter Lozo on 23/08/18 at 09:49 AM
Garry writes in #1 ”.. I hope that Justice Brett will find sufficient reason to either reverse Neill-Fraser’s conviction, or to at least order a re-trial. In my opinion, justice lies in the balance.
Rather wishful thinking by Garry! Reverse the conviction? Wow!
But this is a right-to-appeal application! Further, there is no valid reason for Justice Brett to reverse the conviction nor to order a re-trial. Given yesterday’s revelation in the Court about Sue’s involvement, I would like to see Sue’s original conviction (by Justice Blow) to be re-instated but I don’t see that happening either. The best outcome for the justice is for the right-to-appeal not to be approved now that we know to what illegal extent Sue was willing to go to in order for the Court to be misled by false witness statements in her favour. The best outcome for Sue is that Justice Brett approves the right-to-appeal on the basis that because her defence team at the Trial did not seek independent forensic opinion it therefore might constitute fresh evidence. This is what was written today:
“Justice Michael Brett said the submissions may come down to an argument about whether a decision by Neill-Fraser’s original team not to get their own forensic opinion for the trial could then be used to argue a decision to get a second opinion now counted as “fresh” evidence.”
It is thus possible that Justice Brett might approve the right-to-appeal on the above ground and then leave it to the Appeal to thrash out whether it constitutes compelling evidence. Previously on TT, I expressed that I considered the VPFSD fresh but did not consider it to be compelling.
I am looking forward to reading what the prosecution will say tomorrow.Posted by Dr Peter Lozo on 23/08/18 at 03:34 PM