‘SNF: Top barrister handed over explosive file on murder – he didn’t foresee reaction’

99 Comments

1. 

   Dr Peter Lozo

   August 30, 2017 at 22:44

   Sue or the “vagrant” men: further analysis Part I

   In this (and in forthcoming posts) I will analyse and compare the evidence against Sue versus the evidence concerning the possibility that someone else committed the crime of murder (i.e. the “vagrant” men as proposed in Mr Richter’s dossier).

   1. It is my well founded (analytical) opinion that the central component (the “sun gear”) that glues all the cogs together into a picture  of Sue’s guilt are the many lies told by Sue. If one just looks at her changing story about what she did that night (Australia Day late evening/early the following day) you will find 4 different versions:

   Version 1: stayed home the whole night; 

   Version 2: drove to the riverbank and then drove back;

   Version 3: walked down to the river, left her car there and then walked back home; 

   Version 4: walked to the river to pick up her car from there but on arriving there she found she had farm keys and not the car keys and had to walk back to Allison Street to collect them and return once again to the car,  sometime later she drove home.

   When I combined the above lies about what Sue did that night with: 

   (1) the sighting of a “female figure” at around 11:30pm-12:00am (on a motorised dinghy heading out towards the area of Four Winds);

   and 

   (2) the 3:08 am dial to *10#

   I concluded over two years ago without any doubt in my mind that Sue was on the yacht after midnight to dispose of the body.

   Had there been no sighting of a person on a dinghy at around 11:30pm-12:00am, Sue most likely wouldn’t have gone from Version 2 to Version 3 and then to Version 4.  I concluded that Sue discarded Versions 2 and 3 in favour of Version 4 because it would have put her outside the 11:30 pm-12:00 am time-frame of being the person who was spotted on a dinghy around midnight (it takes about 75 minutes do the walks for Version 4). 

   My complete analysis of the above (with the reason as to what I also concluded to be the real reason for Sue initially discarding Version 1 in favour of Version 2 a few days after the police showed (to Sue’s daughters) the 12:25 ATM photo of a car that looked like Sue’s) can be found at:

   Comments #577 & #578:

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

   Comment

    #8 at

   http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/spot-the-similarities#sthash.zehs19bP.dpuf

    

   ————–
2. 

   Johann Hulz

   August 30, 2017 at 23:30

   Re: 51. That should be received about BC’s daughter’s concerns.
3. 

   Dr Peter Lozo

   August 31, 2017 at 00:29

   Correction to my #52

   Version 3 should be: drove to the river, left her car there and then walked back home.
4. 

   Andrew

   August 31, 2017 at 11:11

   #51 & 52. Thanks. So I assume that one scenario was that Ms Neill-Fraser got home in the early hours after disposing of Mr Chappell’s body, then made the *10# call at around 3am. But was any theory advanced about why she made such a call after coming home? Doesn’t *10# just tell you the number of the last person that rang? What use was that to her – what was she checking? Was another possibility that she had actually been asleep but had missed a call and then used the *10# to find out who had called her? Did she offer any explanation during her police interviews about why she made the call?
5. 

   Dr Peter Lozo

   August 31, 2017 at 12:38

   #55 Andrew

   Sue stated that she did not remember dialling *10# (I will later today search for the reference).

   Within the context of what I summarised above (together with my relevant comments from 2015 & 2016) I concluded that Sue was away from home after her phone conversation with Mr King and got home at around 3am. Since there was no calls to or from her mobile phone the whole evening (nor were there any calls to or from her landline phone between 10:35 pm and 3am) and because she was away from home for several hours I formed the opinion that Sue wanted to know whether anyone called her home during the hours she was away. Since there were no phone calls she would likely have assumed that no-one knew that she was out and because she didn’t notice anyone seeing her when she was out, I formed the opinion that Sue didn’t want anyone to know that she went out. But the ATM photo tripped her. She then changed her story. But then a few weeks later (after the police released a statement about a person being spotted on a dinghy late at night) she started to change her story again.

   Sue’s supporters obviously have a different explanation. But why did Sue claim not to remember dialling *10# at around 3 in the morning? That is the question that Sue’s friends and family ought to ask.
6. 

   Dr Peter Lozo

   August 31, 2017 at 15:59

   #55 Andrew

   I don’t think that Sue provided an explanation (I seem to recall reading somewhere that she did not recall dialling *10#).

   The following is in the closing argument by the prosecutor,  Mr Ellis: Trial Transcript bottom of page 1510 through to the top of page 1511:

   
   “The – there’s – the evidence in the agreed facts, P17, that at 3:08am Ms Neill-Fraser rang star ten hash and that that will give a 
   Telstra subscriber information as to the last unanswered call. She had no explanation for that. If she hadn’t been out why did she 
   ring star ten hash at 3:08am, you might like to consider that. The Crown suggests that she had been out; that she’d been out getting rid of Mr Chappell’s body, or possibly killing him and getting rid of his body on that – both in the same expedition, and that what she was doing was seeing whether anyone had tried to ring while she was out to see whether she – anyone had discovered that she didn’t answer the phone while she was out.”

   I too concluded to the same effect as the State (on the the basis of my previously stated analysis, taking into account the fact that there were no calls to or from Sue’s mobile phone from 2pm until 7am nor were there calls to or from Sue’s landline between 10:35pm and 3am). I am of opinion that Sue was in the presence of her mobile phone the whole time until she left the yacht after midnight but she wasn’t in the presence of her landline phone from around 11pm to about 3am. I concluded that Sue wanted to know if anyone called her home during her absence between 11 pm and 3am. I think that once she discovered that no-one called and because she didn’t think that she was spotted when out on the riverbank that therefore she decided to keep quiet about going out late that night. But the ATM photo tripped her. Then several weeks later she again was forced to re-adjust her story after hearing that the police had a witness who spotted a person on a dinghy at around midnight.
7. 

   Steve

   August 31, 2017 at 17:28

   #57; A person could also awaken from a deep sleep, mistakenly thinking they have been woken by the phone, dial *10#, find nothing and go back to sleep, without recalling the event in the morning.
   I also fail to see why she would be concerned about someone having rung. Not answering the phone in the middle of the night does not mean you are not at home and few people would assume that.
8. 

   Johann Hulz

   August 31, 2017 at 18:44

   55 – Although there are answers at 56 and 57 I chose to answer your questions directly. The responses at 56 and 57 contain further information, but also the theories of that contributor.

   “Doesn’t *10# just tell you the number of the last person that rang”

   Answer: Yes

   “What use was that to her – what was she checking?”

   Answer: That’s a good question. Obviously using *10# doesn’t tell you why she was conducting that check. It is a piece of evidence that needs to be considered in light of other evidence. Prosecution suggests that it is a reasonable hypothesis that she returned home and checked to see if she had a call.

   “Was another possibility that she had actually been asleep but had missed a call and then used the *10# to find out who had called her?”

   The possibility you raise here can be excluded on the basis that there was no record of any call coming in.
9. 

   Mark Hawkes

   August 31, 2017 at 19:23

   #55
   Ellis Vs SNF pg1351

   [But in fact you weren’t back until about 3:15, were you?……..I don’t
   know what time I got back, but I walked down—
   When you – when you dialed the star 10 hatch number to see if
   anyone else had rung and found you not at home?……..I don’t recall
   making any calls that night.
   It’s an agreed fact that one such one was made to check what
   numbers had been called……..I can’t – I don’t – I have no
   explanation for that.
   There was no-one else in the house that could have made the
   call?…….Nobody else was in the house.]
10. 

    Steve

    August 31, 2017 at 20:26

    #59; “The possibility you raise here can be excluded on the basis that there was no record of any call coming in.”
    I can’t agree with the automatic exclusion of this possibility. It does not require an incoming call for someone to awake suddenly, thinking they just missed a call.
11. 

    Andrew

    August 31, 2017 at 21:46

    56-60 – Thank you for clarifying those points. I can now see the significance of the call.
12. 

    John Wiseman

    September 1, 2017 at 14:06

    With the *10# call, did the records of phone calls show the murderer had a history of calling this number?
    Or was the night her husband went missing the only night she called the *10#?
13. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 1, 2017 at 15:01

    #61. Interesting question and one can only speculate in response.

    I suggest that the defence could have asked the prosecution to address this issue or question relevant witnesses about that.

    The fact they didn’t could have been they didn’t think of it or there wasn’t such a record.

    It is highly likely that records were obtained leading up to BC’s disappearance and after. These would have been disclosed to the defence.
14. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 1, 2017 at 15:07

    #58 Steve

    It is possible that Sue dialled *10# without later having any recollection. There are examples of people doing complex tasks during sleepwalking and not remembering anything about it later.

    One has to look at Sue’s other ‘forgetful’ events and assess them within the context of Sue’s persistent lies, which (according to the Trial Transcript) started during the yacht’s delivery to Hobart when she told the sailors that she and Bob had separated. Here are a few other things Sue couldn’t recall:

    (1) how she got the cut on her thumb (which occurred after 11 am on Australia  Day but before 7:30 am the next morning);

    (2) where was she between 4 pm and 9 pm on the Australia Day;

    (3) whether she headed for Bunnings or for home after leaving the yacht in the afternoon or evening of the Australia Day;

    (4) how she got home (driving or walking) after leaving the yacht in the aftermoon or evening of the Australian Day;

    (5) where was her car parked (at home or somewhere on the riverbank);

    (6) that the red jacked looked like what she and Bob owned and that it therefore could have been hers or Bob’s jacket;

    etc.

    But here is something Sue claimed to have seen (and therefore remembered 6 weeks later in March):

    (1) homeless people around a fire on the evening when she returned to the riverbank.

    But, Sue ‘forgot’ to mention this critical bit of relevant information to the Police. The first ever mention of the homeless people around the fire was during face to face interview with a radio reporter. Had it not been for the fact that the reporter (as part of her story on the case) also later interviewed the then Chief Inspector Peter Powell the Police probably wouldn’t have known about this. But there was no sign of fire! Note that the Women’s Weekly reporter in 2015 asked Mr Ellis about the homeless people. You can read his response to that issue in his 2015 TT article.

    Either Sue had a total breakdown in how her brain functioned (in particular her hippocampus) between 4 pm 26th Jan and 3am 27th Jan or she simply lied about everything other than about the three phone conversations she had between 9 pm and 10:30 pm. Given that Sue perfectly recalled (18 months later!) her phone conversation with Mr  King it is highly unlikely (from the neuropsychological perspective) that her memory for few hours before and for few hours after that phone conversation would not have registered to be later accessible to her for later conscious recall and awareness (given that her arousal would have increased as a result of the nature of her conversation with Mr King).

    #61 John

    There is no information in relation to your good question.
15. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 1, 2017 at 16:41

    I think that the followers of the Susan Neill-Fraser will find these two (and related) youtube video talks about the human memory interesting and relevant:

    1. Learning and Memory: How it works and When it Fails (by Professor Frank Longo):

    https://youtu.be/a_HfSnQqeyY

    2. Here is another relevant youtube documentary about memory (particulary the hippocampus)

    https://youtu.be/EDPiH9xfMwU
16. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 1, 2017 at 16:43

    Re: #65 and the homeless people.

    – The question that comes to mind – were there actually any homeless people around a fire that evening?

    From a defence perspective one would say it can’t be disproven.

    From a prosecution perspective one would ask why all other witnesses, who provided accounts of what they did and didn’t see that night, didn’t provide any recollection of people around a fire that night.

    One might also question why someone would add the word homeless to people around a fire. A slip of the tongue maybe or an additional element added in an attempt to provide authenticity to a an account?

    I also note that SNF said the following in account to the court:

    TE: Now you told police officers that you believe there were – I think you described them – are you right there?
    SNF: Yes, yes.
    TE: That there were homeless people around the area?
    SNF: Yes, I’m sure 5 there were, I saw them. They were standing around some sort of a –
    either a fire pot or something, I don’t know what it was.
    TE: Do you have a memory of that?
    SNF: I have a clear memory of that.
17. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 1, 2017 at 16:50

    The prosecutor’s consideration of the various accounts, the *10# etc.

    “How late in the day was it that Mr Chappell was still alive, one person knows and that’s the person who killed him. And how late was it that Ms Neill-Fraser was still on board that day, one person knows and she’s never given a straight account of it. Not once has there been a consistent account, one that can be verified by other
    facts, verified by other witnesses, not one such account has come from her….

    All we can tell, reliably on the evidence, is at 9:17 she was at her house and that’s all we can tell. And we can tell that at about a quarter past three in the morning she was in her house, checking to see who might have phoned while she was away.”
18. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 1, 2017 at 22:37

    #67 & #68 Johann,

    1. The homeless people around a fire

    The eyewitness who was parked next to the Sandy Bay Rowing Shed at around 11:30 pm – midnight did not report seeing any fire but he reported seeing a “female figure” on a motorised dinghy. The police officers and the other people who turned up the next morning did not notice any remnants of there being a fire (not that they were looking for it).

    I refer you to Mr Ellis’s point no 7 in his TT article

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

    If Sue did see any people around a fire then surely she would have reported this to the police the very first thing the next morning when it was discovered that Bob was missing and that the yacht was sabotaged.

    2. There are some things we can tell based on the factual data that is available to us. But we can also infer some things on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. The question is whether in our mind (after understanding the Crown’s case correctly) we can infer beyond reasonable doubt that Bob is dead and that he was killed by Sue.

    NOTE:

    I hope that the readers do watch the youtube video on memory I provided in #66, particularly the lecture/seminar by Prof Longo. I saw it several times and was totally fascinated even though I learned most of the science (and about patient HM) years earlier when I undertook a PhD in a closely related field.
19. 

    Steve

    September 1, 2017 at 22:49

    The interesting thing about this case is when you consider how it was handled as compared to other offences.
    Consider the situation where a burglary has been committed. The police know perfectly well who did it and they can demonstrate that the offender is lying about their whereabouts when the crime was committed. They can show that the offender has been spending more money than they can account for. However, if they couldn’t prove that the crime was committed by their suspect, they’d never get a conviction. That is because there is a basic legal principle that states that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
    In the case of SNF, the prosecution managed to turn the lack of evidence into a positive. Tim Ellis … speculated scenarios ….

    Will this be the way of the law in the future? “We know you did it, you can’t say where you were at the time, we’ve demonstrated that you are lying; Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200”.

    There is absolutely nothing to say that someone else didn’t happen along and do everything the prosecution alleged SNF did.

    (anonymous comment edited)
20. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 1, 2017 at 23:29

    #70. Very interesting logic.

    Liked the analogy of Monopoly.

    In respect of the Burglary – Be interested for you to expand on what you mean by “police know perfectly well who did it”. Is that intuitively or based on some form of evidence.

    Are you suggesting that the only evidence against SNF was her inconsistencies??
21. 

    Steve

    September 2, 2017 at 14:28

    #71; Happy to expand my point.
    The burglary was committed at a Launceston jewellers. The thief did a perfect job. Disabled the alarms, blanked the cameras and left no fingerprints or detectable DNA. Investigating officers have had experience of this quality of break in, having previously encountered such events in Hobart. In that instance they caught the perpetrator when he was selling his loot. His name was Joe Badun.
    Investigations show that Joe Badun was in Launceston at the time of the recent offence. When asked where he was, he gives a story that is proved false. He then refuses to give any more information. Searching his home reveals nothing more than that he appears to be living well beyond his apparent means. Asking questions about the place turns up one Bill Sneaky, who recals a conversation with Joe Badun, in which the Launceston jewellers was discussed.
    I would suggest that if Joe Badun was arrested and tried before a jury, in the same manner as SNF was, there’d be every chance he’d be found guilty, especially if prior convictions found their way into the jury’s ken. He’d discussed the crime previously, he was in the right place, he lied about where he was. It’d be up to the judge to hammer home the “innocent until proven guilty” bit, otherwise the jury wouldn’t hesitate. Joe’s refusal to say where he was would be enough to convict him in most people’s eyes.
    However, there could be another story. Joe might have been up to something completely different (“..arms of his best friends wife”, to quote Lefty Frizzel) and some entirely different person committed the crime. That’s why I ask for some central bit of evidence that ties SNF to the crime.
22. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 2, 2017 at 15:55

    #70 Steve

    “In the case of SNF, the prosecution managed to turn the lack of evidence into a positive. Tim Ellis … speculated scenarios ….”

    The above statement of yours caught my attention. I don’t know whether you meant it the way I understand it but here we go:  it seems to me that you do not trust the outcome of this case because there was no direct evidence, such as having a witness to the crime. Dr Robert Moles, having researched many cases, can tell you that eyewitnesses can be wrong. There are many  examples where people were wrongfully convicted on the basis of misidentification by an eyewitness. It was DNA evidence that helped set them free. I am researching one such case where in 1985 a man had at least 15 people provide him an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time of a sexual assault and attempted murder. He even had a receipt from a shop to prove that he was elsewhere. But the testimony of the victim was unshakable. She even spoke about how she was focused on her attacker’s face in case she survived so that she can identify  him. There was a re-enactment during the trial as to how she was attacked. She was absolutely sure that her attacker was the person who was on the trial. But 18 or so years later DNA evidence proved that someone else was responsible for attacking her. The convicted man was freed in 2003. But the sad thing is that two years later he killed  a young woman and was convicted and sentenced in 2007 to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. His name is Steven Avery of Wisconsin, USA.
23. 

    Richard Kopf

    September 2, 2017 at 21:20

    The Mercury. “Phillip Paul Thomas Triffett dropped a bombshell at the trial — Neill-Fraser had asked him to help kill her brother and later Bob Chappell in the 1990s. Both murders were to be carried out on boats, the bodies thrown overboard and the vessels sunk. She proposed wrapping Bob’s body in chicken wire, he said.”
    Defenders of her innocence. Is this relevant? Are there any more skeletons on the seabed?
24. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 2, 2017 at 21:31

    #72 – “That’s why I ask for some central bit of evidence that ties SNF to the crime.”

    Interesting analogy. A circumstancial case is one that has a series of facts that lead to a reasonable conclusion, not a central piece of evidence that ties someone to a crime. In a case where there is direct evidence of which I think you are alluding to supports a conclusion directly.

    Many cases are circumstancial and in this case the jury had a series of facts that they could either make a conclusion about or decide there was a reasonable doubt.

    #72 – “there’d be every chance he’d be found guilty, especially if prior convictions found their way into the jury’s ken”

    Prior convictions are not admitted into evidence against an accused person. Prejudicial value outweighs the probative value.

    I think your comparison would be more valid if you used a wider range of facts.
25. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 2, 2017 at 21:56

    #72 -How about the following Burglary scenario with a nexus to the SNF case.

    Burglary at a Jewellers overnight (nexus – murder of BC)

    No DNA / No fingerprints of Badun (as you alluded to)

    A witness comes forward and states that “Badun” told him of his intentions to commit a burglary of another jewellery store and then later of committing a burglary at this store. (nexus – witness who stated that SNF told him of intentions to harm her brother and later BC)

    Badun provides an account to police that he went to a hardware store and then went home and spent the rest of the night at home. (I think this nexus is pretty self explanatory)

    He later tells a reporter that he lied to police and he wasn’t home until much later. (self explanatory nexus)

    Telephone records show that he made a *10# call on his phone in the early hours of the morning. (self explanatory nexus (SEN for short hereafter))

    Badun changes his story and admits going near the jewellery store, but says he saw a few homeless people hanging around the area. No other witnesses spoken to state that they saw any homeless people. (SEN)

    There was damage to the store on the night of the burglary to gain entry. Badun is seen with no injury the day before the burglary and an injury to his hand the day after the burglary. (SEN)

    Despite no DNA or fingerprints linking Badun to the burglary, when spoken to by police Badun states that his fingerprints are probably in the store anyway because he had been there before. (nexus – SNF referred to her fingerprints potentially being there – interesting why she would raise that specifically isn’t it, but maybe I am just being too suspicious)

    There is evidence that the way the alarm was disabled would require specialist knowledge. Knowledge that police can prove Badun had. (Nexus to SNF who had specialist knowledge that related to scuttling the boat)

    There is evidence that Badun made enquiries as to what someone would get for jewellery similar to that which was stolen from the burglary. (Nexus SNF who enquired about how long before she could declare BC deceased)

    This doesn’t include other elements that related to SNF which were difficult to weave into your scenario (such as the evidence from a number of witnesses that SNF had stated that BC and her were parting ways, and a witness who believed they saw a female in a dinghy later in the night).

    After all you are comparing apples with pears, but at least I have tried to provide some alternative considerations.
26. 

    Steve

    September 3, 2017 at 11:26

    #73; Peter, I mistrust this case because the prosecution’s case was speculation, based on a belief that SNF was guilty. You must remember that this is claimed to have been premeditated, not a domestic gone wrong,followed by a clumsy cover up, but premeditated; all planned out before hand.
    Why on earth would she bother? It is possible to divorce husbands, or, if she was dead set on homicide, why not a couple of valium in his coffee and a nudge over the side, 20 km’s off shore? Who’d plan such a risky, messy business?
    I’m totally with you on the subject of eye witnesses, but it depends on the circumstance. If the witness is identifying a person or object with which they are familiar, I would say it’s very reliable but identifying a stranger that you’ve only seen once before?
27. 

    Steve

    September 3, 2017 at 15:25

    #76; Johann, I think I was trying to step back a bit from a direct comparison of fruits and take more of an arboreal overview, but much of your post covers points about which I am uneasy.
    In no particular order; the specialist knowledge. This is one of those flights of logic. Just because one person knows something, it does not follow that no-one else knows. I would expect to find the sea cocks on a yacht, and just because one was obscure and disused, it doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t have found it. The bilge pumps are more interesting but I don’t believe I have seen any details on how they were disabled. Can anyone help?
    The discussions regarding intentions, some years previously, could be taken another way. Even back then SNF did not consider herself physically capable of the crime discussed? In my hypothetical comparison, would the prosecution have got any traction from an alleged conversation, ten years previously?
    Enquiring as to the time period for declaring someone dead is somewhat different to canvassing for offers on stolen jewellery. At the time the enquiry was made, SNF had a husband missing under circumstances that suggested he might well be dead.
    Telling the police your fingerprints might be somewhere is the sort of thing lots of people might do. Indicative of an overly helpful nature, not necessarily a guilty conscience. In the context of my hypothetical, perhaps Badun had been into the shop as a legitimate customer?
    The injury to the hand is meaningless, unless it can be tied to something. Was there anything about the injury that suggested it happened winching a dead body about? If I remember correctly, the whole injury thing is a bit vague.
    With regard to the “parting ways”. Again meaningless. Plenty of couples have been separating since a few weeks after they married. Twenty years later, they are still together, still arguing, still separating.
    “Female in a dinghy” Bit vague. There are also others who mention a different dinghy. If you allow one vague sighting, you have to allow others, despite Peter Lozo’s thoughts.
    The point I am making is that none of the apparent evidence connects SNF to the disappearance of her husband. Yes, it can be made to look like it does, in the same way that a dinghy glowing with luminol can be made to look as though it transported a bleeding corpse. It can also be made to look totally innocuous.
    Is there one bit of evidence that shows that some person unknown did not board the boat, have an unplanned fatal confrontation with BC, slip the body over the side and scuttle the yacht to hide any traces?
    Sorry if this is a bit long winded. I don’t have time to be brief and I also don’t have time to go back and research details, so if I’m factually wrong anywhere, happy to be corrected.
28. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 3, 2017 at 20:35

    #78 – Luckily, unlike you, I have time to be brief.

    I note that you don’t make much of the elements on their own. Of course a conversation some time ago has little meaning on its own, but when you put it with all the other factors it has meaning.

    You can always speculate that something else happened, but a jury has to take into account the likelihood against all those other factors.
29. 

    Steve

    September 4, 2017 at 14:53

    It’s that word “likelihood” that concerns me. Doesn’t sit very well with “proven”.
30. 

    johann Hulz

    September 4, 2017 at 21:10

    #80 – Re: likelihood.

    A jury decision of guilty is based on the premise of beyond reasonable doubt.

    Very few people would be convicted if a decision was based on the premise of beyond all doubt.

    Whether you agree with the jury decision or not, I suggest that it was open for them to find a guilty verdict in this case.

    This is where I think the attack of the verdict is faulty. Just because someone has an alternative view of the weight of evidence doesn’t make their decision wrong.
31. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 4, 2017 at 23:58

    #77 & #78

    Steve,

    There are two ways to process the evidence in a wholly circumstantial case such as this one. Either one looks at the individual pieces of evidence or one looks at the temporal and physical inter-relationships between the various bits of the evidence. You are looking at each piece of evidence to test if it implicates Susan Neill-Fraser (or another party). That is OK but don’t you think that it is possible for you  to look at the the various bits of the circumstantial evidence as being related to one another in both the timing and the physical aspect?
32. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 5, 2017 at 00:59

    Continuation to my last post #82

    The following few events are highly indicative of Sue returning to the yacht sometime around midnight  and then returning home at around 3 am:

    EVENT 1: An ATM photo from 12:25 am emerges and it shows a car that resembles a car that Sue drove at that period of time. A few days later (after this photo is shown to Sue’s daughters) Sue calls Bob’s sister on 8th or 10th March to tell her that she did go to the riverbank late at night: before that Sue declared in her Stat Dec of 28th Jan that she stayed home the whole night.

    EVENT 2: An eyewitness emerges and tells the police that he saw a “female figure” on a motorised dinghy going past the Sandy Bay Rowing Shed (and in the general direction of the Four Winds).

    EVENT 3:  Within a few days of EVENT 3 Sue changes her story couple of times and comes up with a story where she walks late at night for approx 75 minutes to pick up her car from the riverbank and to check on the yacht (but without a single phone call to her mobile phone to check on Bob).

    EVENT 4: Sue dials *10# at 3:08 am to check the last caller.

    EVENT 5: Sue’s dinghy is found early next morning next to the Sandy Bay Rowing Shed.
33. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 5, 2017 at 07:21

    “Death on the Derwent: Key witness ‘plans to withdraw statement, faces charges'”

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/death-on-the-derwent-key-witness-plans-to-withdraw-statement-faces-charges-20170905-gyb1fc.html

    Looks like that MV is represented by a lawyer and could be withdrawing her Stat Dec of 27th April.
34. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 5, 2017 at 10:27

    #82 – Nicely summed up.
35. 

    Steve

    September 6, 2017 at 21:56

    #81 etc: Sorry for the delayed response but I have been traveling and I have a weakness for Qwerty.
    I think I’m failing to get my point across, which is a pity as I believe it to be quite valid. The “evidence” as you choose to call it, is not really evidence unless you approach it with a preconceived idea that SNF is guilty.
    A car similar to hers is noted on CCTV. Ummm, yes, but also similar to quite a few other cars…?
    A “female figure”. Exactly what percentage of the human race are “female”?
    Essentially, all the arguments presented above revolve around the basic premise that “she told lies, therefore she is guilty and look; we’ve all this corroborative evidence”. Consider all the posts above that I have argued against, they all mention her “lies”.
    In reality, there’s no body, no weapon, no credible motive. There is a spouse who has been presented as behaving strangely and telling lies and everyone knows that statistically people are generally murdered by their spouses.
    I introduced that felonious personage, Joe Badun, to try and make the point that if you put someone up before a jury, prove they are telling lies and won’t/can’t present an alibi, there’s every chance a jury will convict, unless the judge or the defence manages to get the presumption of innocence across.
    Most people, in their day to day affairs, do not presume innocence. The simple act of lying would be enough to prove guilt to the average “jury of peers”. In this case, any doubts held would have been quashed by the glowing dinghy and the prosecution theories.
36. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 6, 2017 at 22:59

    #86 “The “evidence” as you choose to call it, is not really evidence”.

    A bit of an oxymoron don’t you think.

    Another way to look at is if you approach the evidence from a preconceived idea that SNF is innocent you disregard the evidence.

    Of course the car on its own is not significant. It is interesting to note that this resulted in a change in accounts – it was certainly perceived by her and others as being hers.

    I agree – I think you are failing to get your point across.
37. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 7, 2017 at 00:07

    #81 Steve

    Does it matter whose car that was at 12:25 am given the chain of events that followed when that photo was shown to Sue’s daughters?

    That photo was the critical piece of evidence without which Sue most likely wouldn’t have finally admitted to going out to the riverbank. We can therefore place her as most likely being the person on that dinghy at around midnight and returning home at around 3 am.

    I can see that you aren’t looking at the relationships as things had evolved in time, space and activity but are still tackling one piece at a time. Good luck with your approach in problem solving
38. 

    Steve

    September 7, 2017 at 00:53

    #87; You continue to consider the question as one of problem solving. People pay me a lot of money for my problem solving abilities and one of the first thing one has to do with a problem is put it into context.
    In this instance the context is a legal system with a presumption of innocence. It is not a context of “what is the most likely explanation”.
39. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 7, 2017 at 10:36

    #89 – Of course the legal system has a presumption of innocence. As it should be. The issue is was there enough evidence when you take all the pieces collectively to provide reasonable grounds to believe that person is guilty.

    You don’t believe so, but don’t suggest that others are just relying on “what is the most likely explanation”. And spare us the “people pay me a lot of money to solve problems” therefore my opinion is beyond reproach comments.

    When you take all the evidence of SNF’s, place it together with evidence of having a prior intention. The fact that she has the most to gain from BCs disappearance, the fact that she told lies about her movements (the reasonable proposition is that the truth would incriminate her) etc. etc.

    I suggest the decision the jury made was a reasonable one. They had time to not only consider the evidence, but the reliability of witnesses and the accused.
40. 

    Steve

    September 7, 2017 at 15:38

    #90; Sorry Johann, I wasn’t intending to try and present an argument from authority. I was replying to Peter’s rather patronising comment. A hurried and clumsily addressed comment on my behalf!
    With regard to the discussion at hand, I would suggest that the prosecution argument was most definitely based on “what is the most likely explanation”. There’s not even any proof that a murder occurred! I agree that is highly likely that it did, but we’re back to that “likely” word.
    I think the reason I am failing to get my point across is that we are discussing the subject on different planes. You consider that SNF is guilty, as does Peter. I don’t have an opinion on this, however I do consider that if our justice system is going to lock someone up for twenty plus years, it should be based on a lot more than a “likelihood”.
    As I have previously stated, none of the evidence on which you rely is evidence of murder, or of anything else criminal for that matter. I totally agree that it’s suspicious but all it actually corroborates is a hypothetical put forward by the prosecution. Other evidence, such as DNA that shouldn’t be there or witnesses who saw other dinghies is dismissed because it doesn’t fit with the hypothetical.
    Logical questions, such as why would she sink the yacht, or why would anyone plan such a ridiculous crime, remain unanswered. Why murder a husband when you can divorce them? I don’t buy the financial imperative. They were hardly on the breadline, she’d still have done quite well out of a divorce.
41. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 7, 2017 at 18:57

    #91 “As I have previously stated, none of the evidence on which you rely is evidence of murder, or of anything else criminal for that matter.”

    Interesting – maybe you should point that out to the DPP who decided to prosecute the case, the judge who could have intervened and directed the jury not to convict (as there was not enough evidence), the court of criminal appeal and the Coroner.

    If there was no evidence to support a crime has occurred, as you say, then no gets charged!
42. 

    Richard Kopf

    September 7, 2017 at 20:34

    #91 SNF is guilty. The evidence clearly points to that conclusion. The jury believed so. The appeal outcome supported that conclusion.
    Why sink the yacht? It possibly contained evidence of a brutal crime linking it to SNF. Why not divorce? Possibly SNF did not wish to share her assets Do you know who was the wealthier? Or a spontaneous angry reaction. Don’t forget she had attempted to previously have Mr Triffet encase Bob in chicken wire and weights and sink him to the bottom. Coincidence?
    Ridiculous crime? Ridiculous defence more likely!
43. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    September 7, 2017 at 22:18

    #91 Dear Steve

    Someone said this in response to a Steve over 3 years ago (I assume you were the Steve):

    
    “Don’t mess with horsey women!”

    #58

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/sue-neill-fraser-the-sentencing-blow-by-blow

    This is what I say:

         Don’t mess with physicists!

    Now seriously did you really all these years since you first started commenting on this case believe that it is significant whether or not it was Sue driving that car given what followed a few days after Sue’s daughters were shown the photo?? Did it not strike you that the significant thing is the effect that photo had on Sue and her changing story? No wonder I doubted your problem solving skills. Now you are listing other issues that you do not seem to be able to reason about so are leaving it for us to engage in a discussion on the various issues you listed. I won’t bother other than to direct your attention to the following which is an indicator to me of where you are stuck and why:

    You say

    “There’s not even any proof that a murder occurred!”

    I don’t know what your definition of proof is but given the way you have worded your statement I am led to question your understanding that in circumstantial cases it is open to the jury to make inferences based on the evidence even though that evidence might be incomplete and is indirect.

    For your convenience, here I provide a definition of the word inference:

    “a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.”

    Note that I emphasised the word ‘reasoning’ in the above definition. I infer on the basis of the nature of your comments that you aren’t reasoning about the evidence to discover if there are  any links between them so that you can make a reasonable decision, a higher order decision, regarding the matters of this case.

    All the best.

    Cheers,
    Peter
44. 

    Johann Hulz

    September 7, 2017 at 22:33

    #91 It may be worthwhile for you to review some other circumstancial court cases. I think the legal system would be interested in your thoughts on the lack of reliability of circumstanical cases that don’t prove cases beyond all doubt.
45. 

    Moo

    September 21, 2017 at 01:14

    #66…Sir! You are no gentleman! Referring to a respectable, middle class lady’s hippocampus in a public forum goes too far. Desist!

    …BTW I notice Ms Neill Fraser is now claiming to have been in shock ‘for months’ after Mr Chappells murder. This happy circumstance presumably accounts for her changing story during those months.

    There is a very noticable implicit snobbery among some on this thread:

    Baddies: Homeless people, lower middle class women,
    former criminals.
    Goodies: Middle class yacht owning professionals their families and supporters.

    I see that one overheated supporter is trying to pre-empt the inevitable finding that there is no ‘new and compelling evidence’ by calling for a Commission of Enquiry.
46. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    November 5, 2017 at 03:33

    #96 Moo

    So far I talked about hippocampus, amygdala and the frontal cortex!

    Now about the statement of Mr Hughes during the trial. When I read that he saw a “female figure” on a motorised inflatable dinghy I wasn’t thinking about the length of the hair on the person but the size of breasts because that is one thing that would indicate a “female figure” profile from the side silhouette he would have seen given the geometrical perspective of where he was and the direction in which the dinghy was travelling past the rowing shed where he was parked. It seems that the defence claim is that the person that was seen is likely to have been a slim man who had a long hair on that night and was on a wooden dinghy (looks very different in shape to an inflatable dinghy; I saw the photograph) that he propelled manually with one row. He didn’t have a motor on his dinghy! But the witness at the trial stated that he did hear a motor. The media reports do not say anything about the actual time during which this new witness was out on his wooden dinghy and towing past the rowing shed.

    Have you been to the Court to see the video of the winching re-enactment? I am after certain information on the winching video. If you know anyone who saw the video please let me know. I would like to have a detailed description of the winching re-enactment so that I can analyse whether the re-enactment was complete, realistic and scientific.

    Cheers
    Peter
47. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    November 5, 2017 at 04:56

    A human ‘guinea pig’ for the winching experiment

    I understand that a winching ‘re-enactment’ video was shown to the Court on Wednesday. I am also aware that the defence claim is that the re-enactment wasn’t scientific and that their “silver bullet” expert witness is a “winching expert”. I looked at Dr Mark Reynolds’ CV (it is available on Dr Mole’s website Networked Knowledge) and noted that Dr Reynolds is a biological forensic scientist and is a crime scene expert whose specialty is the science of blood splatter analysis. But he is expected to provide expert opinion in March on technical matters (winching a body) that I consider to be within the domain of physical science (applied physics) and mechanical engineering (these two disciplines deal with the issues that are relevant to winching and moving a weight across various surfaces and angles – forces, stresses, friction, geometry, mechanics, linear and rotational motion, vibrations, mechanical advantage provided by winches, pulleys, etc)!

    I haven’t seen the re-enactment video but based on a brief summary I read on Dr Bob Moles’ website I would currently tentatively agree with the defence claim that the re-enactment isn’t scientific. I am hoping to get a detailed description of what was done so that I can analyse the re-enactment to see whether it is realistic, complete and scientific. Based on Dr Moles’ summary, I don’t think that the re-enactment proved that a physically weak person is capable to carry out the whole task to completion. By the whole task I mean the following:

    – winching a 65kg weight from below the deck onto the deck;

    – moving the weight across the deck to a suitable location for lowering the weight onto the dinghy;

    – lowering the weight in a controlled manner and positioning it onto the dinghy in such a way that it would enable the perpetrator to easily push the weight overboard with minimum risk to the perpetrator of falling overboard.

    For the purpose of the re-enactment I consider a physically weak person as someone who can’t lift 1/3 of 65 kg weight and hold it in air for at least 15 seconds.

    To make the re-enactment more complete, realistic and scientific I am willing to donate myself as the ‘human guinea pig’ to the defence “winching expert” on whom he can test the police theory as well as the validity of my proposed three-phase winching scenario (summarised below) for a physically weak person (as long as my body is well padded and I get to wear a helmet; and the cost of my travel and accommodation is covered). Sometimes scientists do crazy things to test their hypothesis by testing it on themselves, all for the benefit of science!

    In the near future I will provide a comprehensive analysis and description of the winching scenario as I envisage it so will just briefly summarise it here (I have written a lot on the winching issue over the past 10-12 months on a number of TT blogs on the case; those interested can scan the relevant TT blogs ).

    My analysis of the problem led me to conclude that three different phases of using the winch are required for a physically weak perpetrator to get a 65 kg body from below the deck and then onto the dinghy (via the stern gate; the reason for the stern gate will be addressed in the near future). Each phase requires a different arrangement of the rope. The first phase is concerned in getting the body from below the deck onto the deck next to the winch. The second phase is concerned in getting the body from there to the edge of the stern gate. The third phase is concerned in getting the body lowered and positioned onto the dinghy for subsequent easy push into the water. The whole process is technically simple enough and is physically sufficiently easy to do for someone who is experienced with the yacht, its winches and its dinghy but it takes a lot of time to set up and execute.

    In the near future I will explain why I am of opinion that, on the basis of the physical geometry of the yacht and the fact that the drum on the relevant winch rotates clockwise, the third phase is the riskiest phase for injuries to the perpetrator and in particular to the perpetrator’s left wrist. I will also in the near future discuss what I visually perceive to be an asymmetric pattern of luminol positive reaction in the photograph of the dinghy (and why this is an important observation and is relevant to the third phase of my scenario) as well as the problems associated with the lighting levels during the winching operation (the winching was supposed to have occurred late at night).

    Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
    Applied Physicist/Perceptual Scientist
    Adelaide, SA
48. 

    Dr Peter Lozo

    November 13, 2017 at 17:40

    Vass or Neill-Fraser: My proposal for a formal lie detection test

    1. #482

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/comments/31178/

    2. 

    https://mobile.twitter.com/PeterLozo/status/930291350343438336?p=v
49. 

    Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    November 26, 2017 at 12:51

    Police raid a TV production company and obtain hours of video footage

    “A Police raid on a leading TV production company, seizing footage for a Seven Network “true crime” series, has dramatically escalated an inquiry into an alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of a murder appeal.

    The NSW Police raid on CJZ productions in Chippendale, Sydney, in recent weeks, is part of an ongoing Tasmania Police investigation into an alleged conspiracy to pervert justice in the appeal ­application by convicted killer Susan Neill-Fraser.

    Two people have been charged and Tasmania Police — now viewing the hundreds of hours of footage seized in the Sydney raid — have flagged the potential for further charges.

    …….

    “Acting on behalf of Tasmania Police, a NSW detective with a warrant seized CJZ footage of ­interactions between people ­potentially caught up in the investigation, which police allege ­involves a plot to present false evidence to Neill-Fraser’s current appeal application.

    The Australian understands the footage was sourced from filmmaker Eve Ash’s company, Seven Dimensions. Ms Ash has interviewed a number of people claiming to have new information about Chappell’s disappearance, while another filmmaker and former policeman, Colin McLaren, has helped dig up allegedly new information.

    Mr Campbell would not say whether the video seized was of interviews conducted by Ms Ash but confirmed Ms Ash and her company provided material for the series. Ms Ash did not respond to requests for comment. Mr McLaren could not be contacted.”

    For further details see

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/police-raid-tv-firm-take-seven-murder-series-footage/news-story/d7f6f78dd0300a65ae11ef0d625114cc#load-story-comments