<Back to Articles
The Sue Neill-Fraser Trial Transcript ...
Barbara Etter. http://www.betterconsult.com.au/ Pic: Four Winds. Pub: Sept 1012.09.14 6:00 am9 comments
• Download and Read for Yourself ...
Great these Court Transcripts are released to the public. It’s a massive task to understand the full extent of this case and what did not get investigated or covered adequately in court.
One more example:
BLOW BY BLOW: Drawing attention to Sue’s wrongful conviction
Many thanks for making this available Barbara.
It’s long, but easy reading. The first seventy pages have been interesting.
Tim Ellis’s (apparent) ignorance of boats is interesting. It’s already come out that there was a stiffish breeze on the relevant afternoon, enough for the dinghy to have been making heavy weather of going into it. That interesting fact could readily explain why Bob Chappell stayed on the yacht overnight. He may well have been quite capable of going to and fro in flat conditions but transfering from a large boat to a small boat in a breeze can be quite tricky, especially a inflatable which bounce about more than somewhat when empty.
Tim Ellis makes much of Sue’s differing stories but they read more like someone more confused than deliberately trying to mislead. Who’d make up such a jumbled mess? She even get’s it wrong where she had lunch, who with, and where she parked the car. All of which were easily verifiable, as there was someone else with her!
Yes, thank you Barbara for publishing this transcript of proceedings. I hesitate to ask, but if it is possible, could you please release the Victorian Police Forensic Services report, which seems to be a basis for the claim of ‘new evidence’.
Respectfully, if there are reasons which prevent you from doing this, could you let us ‘TasTimers’ know. It would be helpful if you could briefly explain the reason/s ‘why’ if you (for whatever reason) are not able to release that report.
I believe that in publishing the report in its entirety, you would counter the perceptions voiced by some on TT, that the SNF camp has cherry-picked from that report. Regardless of whether you are able/not able to publish it, I would like to make it clear that I believe that an actual MoJ did occur and that I support the (collective) efforts to correct that wrong.
#3 Garry, I would like to seek instructions from my client on this issue. Thank you for your ongoing interest in this case.
#4. Barbara, I suspected your obligations to client confidentiality may have been the reasons for not releasing said Vic forensic report.
Most reasonable citizens would be furious if a legal team breached confidentiality without good reason / authority.
It is decent of you to undertake to request client permission to release. For one, I will understand if SNF refuses release at this point of time, since that report most likely will form evidence in future submissions / litigation. At this time, it has not been before the court and therefore not a public document.
Thanks Barbara for putting the transcript on line. I agree with you Geraldine (and as far as I know you are not related to me although we share the same surname) that the forensic report must remain confidential at this stage.
My brother was murdered in a no-body murder, like Bob Chappell, but in his case there was DNA evidence and financial transactions that pointed to the guilt of the accused, who were convicted in two out of three trials. The verdict of the first trial was overturned by the Victorian Court of Appeal because of a juror’s question that the trial judge, according to the Court of Appeal, did not answer. The second trial was hung jury and the third trial resulted in a conviction. The three persons found guilty are now serving long prison sentences.
There are great differences between the circumstances in my brother’s case and the Chappell case. The similarity is the absence of a body.
Unbelievable that some could read this transcript and still declare SNF innocent. Is it the power of delusion, money, some wierd kind of SNF charisma at play? Bizarre to say the least, but most unfortunate for the innocent ones being smeared.
5. One wonders why some simply accept an answer like that. Why release part of a report that used to promote an argument, but when the post at 3 asks for the full report to be posted client privilege is raised. One can only assume that the client was happy for part of the report to be published and since it has been 12 days since Garry’s request the client did not want the whole report published.
Release of the report can hardly affect any future submission.
Barbara Etter’s latest tweet on SNF brings up the red jacket. I guess they will bring anything ...
Remember my personal information
Notify me of follow-up comments?
Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.
Tasmanian Times © 2017 | AANDCP
How to use this website | The Legal Bits | About | RSS