The Sue Neill-Fraser Trial Transcript …

11 Comments

1. 

   Eve Ash

   September 10, 2014 at 06:41

   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:
   http://www.betterconsult.com.au/blog/the-girl-with-dark-hair-in-the-sue-neill-fraser-murder-case-why-was-she-not-followed-up/

   BLOW BY BLOW: Drawing attention to Sue’s wrongful conviction
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpE1-90VyWM
2. 

   Steve

   September 10, 2014 at 13:20

   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!
3. 

   Garry Stannus

   September 10, 2014 at 16:20

   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.
4. 

   Barbara Etter

   September 10, 2014 at 19:53

   #3 Garry, I would like to seek instructions from my client on this issue. Thank you for your ongoing interest in this case.
5. 

   Geraldine Allan

   September 10, 2014 at 21:06

   #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.
6. 

   Lyle Allan

   September 12, 2014 at 01:07

   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.
7. 

   mark h

   September 22, 2014 at 13:15

   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.
8. 

   John Dodd

   September 23, 2014 at 01:08

   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.
9. 

   mark h

   September 26, 2014 at 12:55

   Barbara Etter’s latest tweet on SNF brings up the red jacket. I guess they will bring anything …
10. 

    Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    February 12, 2019 at 11:12

    Please see my Comment titled “Crime scene Photo 7: evidence that a winch on the main mast was used to remove the body” which was posted on 10th February on Tasmanian Times blog
    https://tasmaniantimes.com/2019/01/does-perverted-justice-prevail-in-australias-deep-south/#comment-227234

    The Comment referred to above is my brief technical critique of a section in a recent book on the case by Mr Colin McLaren. The relevant section of the book deals with crime scene analysis and a proposal on how Bob’s body may have been removed from the saloon.

    Based on the publicly available information, it is my technical opinion that the crime scene evidence, particularly Photo 7, strongly suggests that Bob’s body was winched through the saloon skylite hatch rather than (as was proposed by TASPOL) via the companionway.
11. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    February 12, 2019 at 12:26

    A remark on Meaghan’s DNA on Four Winds walkway

    In the near future I will further develop my previously proposed Chewing-Gum Hypothesis of Secondary Transfer of DNA on the assumption that Meaghan’s DNA was transferred via someone’s shoe that had her DNA in a bodily fluid form, eg saliva. But saliva doesn’t react to luminol unless the saliva has traces of blood.

    So far, in some other TT comments, I have provided an explanation of why there is only one spot on the walkway of the deck. I have also provided video evidence of news footage showing that there was a police boat tethered to the starboard side of Four Winds on the morning of 27th from which a number of people would have boarded the yacht. I need to explain how a shoe with a chewing gum stuck to the sole of a shoe can leave a transfer that is larger than the area of the sole.

    For now, I ask people to take a closer look at the footwear of all the people on Four Winds whose footwear can be discerned in various still photos and live news footage of 27th. I can pick out at least one person who is most probably wearing gumboots. Given that the yacht was partially submerged, it is likely that some police officers, forensic people and salvage personnel would have changed their footwear before or after boarding Four Winds via the starboard entrance gate on the morning of 27th. What if one of those people had a chewing gum stuck to the bottom of their shoe, and that person changed their footwear upon stepping onto the yacht? What foot movements, if any, would result in the physical contact between the sole of a shoe and the deck of the yacht that is larger in area than the area of the sole of an average adult male shoe? What if that person then took off his shoes and put them on the roof of the cabin right next to where he stood? Would there be a very weak transfer of the DNA onto the spot on the roof where the shoe rested?

    I invite those who are interested in this subject on DNA transfer to first familiarise themselves with the relevant scientific literature on the quantity of DNA contained in one drop of saliva versus the amount of DNA that can be transferred via a physical touch of an object by a hand. How much saliva can be mixed in the chewing gum? How much saliva, and hence DNA, can be transferred from the saliva trapped in a chewing gum that is stuck to a shoe when a weight in excess of 30kg (half of a 60kg person) is applied to the shoe when the person is standing with both shoes in contact with the deck?

    It would also be useful to take a walk along streets while on the lookout for chewing gums. I have had to clean chewing gums from shoes on at least three occasions (from my shoe and from the shoes of my children). Chewing gums stuck to shoes are a very common physical mechanism through which we bring someone else’s DNA into our homes.