Book review by Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia
Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
Does perverted justice prevail in Australia’s deep south?
By
Posted on
Dr Peter Lozo
January 31, 2019 at 08:33
“In his own handwriting to me, McLaren (photo) writes: “Be prepared to be shocked!”. The book blurb says: “The guilty are still out there!”
I invite the former Victorian police detectives (Mr McLaren and Mr Bezzina) to read a technical explanation of a winching arrangement called Closed Loop Winching. It is described in a TT Comment at this link:
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2019/01/letter-to-the-editor-on-justice/#comment-226625
The relevant comment was posted by me on 31st Jan.
I encourage Mr McLaren to contact the Editor of TT and obtain my email address if he wishes to discuss the matter.
For those without a mechanical understanding of the power ratio of a winch: the significance of the 27:1 power ratio is that the mechanics within the winch will amplify the human force applied to the winch handle by 27 times as soon as the handle is moved! In other words, the human will only have to apply about 3% of the total physical force that is required to move the body. Bob’s weight was around 65 kg. That means that the operator of the winch would need to only apply a force that is roughly equivalent to lifting a 2. 5 kg of water. But this would have to be maintained for a while because it would take many complete turns of the winch handle to lift the body from the floor of the saloon onto the deck.
[email protected]
January 31, 2019 at 09:47
I have just opened my copy and can hardly put it down. McLaren is presenting material which has not previously been out there in the public domain. McLaren and Bezzina, both with the highest detective skills, were brought in by Eve Ash to find out, through investigative journalism, the truth behind the disappearance of Bob Chappell. McLaren will give evidence (by video-link) next Tue-Wed in the final hearing of witnesses’ evidence given before Justice Brett. His evidence, despite the arrests by Tasmanian Police – on the grounds of ‘pervert justice’ – of two other witnesses, and despite the expressed fears of being arrested should he come to Tasmania again (Eve Ash is in the same predicament) his evidence may well be crucial and pivotal in Sue Neill-Fraser’s application for leave to make a second appeal [‘2nd Appeal’].
Many Tasmanians and many ‘mainlanders’ are watching this closely.
We want to see this matter resolved and we increasingly believe that the police and the ‘adversarial’ court process work against discovering the truth in this matter. That is, we come to the view that the police investigation has been poor/blinkered/ and that the DPP’s post-trial approach has been, in a nutshell, due to the adversarial nature of the legal process, namely not to discover the truth (which they apparently believe they already have done) but rather, to defend the original conviction.
Regrettably we begin to wonder about the justice process itself.
We believe that Susan Neill-Fraser should not have been convicted on the evidence then before the Court, and we now strongly believe – given what is now known (through evidence already given to the ‘2nd Appeal’) – that the appeal should be granted.
In such an adversarial context, Justice Brett will make ‘his own decision’. That will occur after he has heard all the evidence and when he has considered the various arguments and submissions that have been/will be made to him by counsel.
He will make his decision and that which ‘we in the street’ believe should not influence the course of justice – or should it?
Geraldine Allan
January 31, 2019 at 18:36
Garry, I’m just sinking my mind into the Colin’s book now. I can’t read it fast enough!
Your “He will make his decision and that which ‘we in the street’ believe should not influence the course of justice – or should it?” rightly or wrongly prompted my gut reaction which was — are jury members not in the category of ‘we in the street’? If so, in this instance can it then be said that a jury comprised of ordinary citizens did “influence the course of justice”, or have I put the cart before the horse?
We fair-minded citizens can but hold on to a strong hope that this time, the Supreme Court of Tasmania will come to the correct decision, which ‘we in the street’ will see as fair and just.
In this way we can bear witness to the old adage ‘the rule of law must prevail’.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 1, 2019 at 20:16
See my above reply to Rosemary.
Where in your own review did you note that Mr McLaren either ignored or was not aware of the Trial Transcript evidence about the two rope scuff marks (and the fibres that were found to be consistent with rope fibres) in the woodwork of the entry to the cabin? This is significant forensic evidence that was ignored by McLaren. This evidence was pointed out to the cops by Sue herself on the afternoon of 27th!
I totally agree with the majority view that searching for the truth ought to be the primary goal. But how does McLaren’s approach, which ignored a piece of forensic evidence that doesn’t fit with his hypothesis and certainly can’t be explained by his hypothesis, represents the search for the truth?
It is now very evident to me that Mr McLaren has extremely well developed police detective skills, but his skills were primarily directed, by Eve Ash, to find support for the 2014 theory that Bob’s murder was the result of a burglary gone wrong.
In the preview video of Undercurrent, there was a very brief segment of Eve Ash getting emotional (and almost crying) when she found out how difficult it was to find people who were interested in talking to her about what they knew in relation to the case. I might be wrong here, and might even be edited by the Moderator, but my perception is, and has been for several years, that Eve is too emotionally involved in this case to be objective in her search for the truth.
[email protected]
February 2, 2019 at 06:47
He will make his decision and what ‘we in the street’ believe, which should not influence the course of justice – or should it?
Rosemary
January 31, 2019 at 17:59
I think you have missed the boat, Dr Lozo. I will add another trite saying, namely about someone who can’t see the wood for the trees.
After I had read ‘Southern Justice’ you will find, if you read it too, that you are on the wrong location on the Four Winds to apply winching science, so that is no longer relevant.
Colin has indeed ‘shocked’ with his exhaustive analysis of fresh and compelling new information. If only these detectives were on the case from the start it would have been solved years ago, and Sue Neill-Fraser would have been spared a horrendous injustice.
Dr Peter Lozo
January 31, 2019 at 20:11
Rosemary … if you think I have missed the boat then my reply to you is that I think you have missed the white dinghy that turned grey in shade.
I have read enough, and saw the Current Affair program and saw last night’s part of Undercurrent. I am in the process of writing a summary of why I am concluding that Mr McLaren conducted a limited technical analysis of the crime scene evidence and basically followed a path that was more or less predefined for him by the events of 2014.
I suppose that you have used your technical knowledge and skills to evaluate the quality of Mr McLaren’s crime scene investigation.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 1, 2019 at 11:20
Russell, your point has nothing to do with me and my technical analysis of the crime scene evidence .. and the rest of the case evidence. I am not qualified to comment on Law 101.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 1, 2019 at 18:50
Rosemary, I got the book! It is remarkably excellent in detail that isn’t in the trial transcript.
There is strong evidence that the saloon hatch may have been the extraction point. As you have probably read by now, my Closed Loop Winching proposal (with respect to the same winch) is still applicable to the saloon hatch being the extraction exit point, but it does requires that the two ends of the rope be swapped in the way they are routed to the body.
This is the best book I have read on real crime (I have only read three others) primarily because of the detail provided about the crime scene that wasn’t written about in trial transcripts .. which for technically orientated people is very important.
I am very impressed with Mr McLaren’s work on the crime scene analysis. But, as I pointed out in my latest post and in my earlier reply to you, Mr McLaren’s effort is limited. I think that the limitation was partly imposed upon him by the person who sought him out – Eve Ash. The other limitation, as far as I can tell, is that neither Mr McLaren, nor the other Victorian ex-detective, has demonstrated any insight into possible winching scenarios that could have been used by Sue and which is consistent with most of the crime scene evidence. The Trial Transcript clearly shows that Sue had, on the afternoon of 27th when she boarded the yacht, pointed out to a police officer (a detective) the rope scuff marks in the woodwork at the entry to the cabin. These rope scuff marks were found to have fibres that were consistent with rope fibres. How is it that neither you nor Garry nor Geraldine nor Andrew Urban (on his blog) nor Bill Rowlings wrote that a reference to these rope scuff marks and the fibres is missing from both Mr McLarens’s description of the crime scene and from his analysis of the crime scene? Don’t any of you notice data or information that suggests that the defence lawyers, as well as Eve Ash and Mr McLaren, have either ignored, misrepresented or mis-reinterpreted the case details? In contrast to the approach undertaken by SN-F supporters when it was brought to my attention two years ago that the winch in question wasn’t self tailing, I took action to review my understanding, and have revised my hypothesis.
It is funny to me that the defence theory is that this is a burglary gone wrong. But what was actually stolen? Now I know that there was money (coins) left spread in various places, possibly as the body was pulled through the saloon hatch.
The way I look at the defence theory is this: vagrants boarded the yacht to steal, but all they stole was a dead body, an old fire extinguisher and a personal radio beacon which they subsequently (the same evening) decided to ditch so that it could be easily found. Wow!
Peter Powell and his former team members got it right, and will win over the Victorian team.
Geraldine Allan
February 2, 2019 at 15:37
It’s time for a ‘Soap Box’ post.
Being fully aware that numerous contributors, including me, wisely choose to not further feed the dominating-to-the-point-of-annoying, Dr Peter Lozo posts, I now find it necessary to break my own abstinence. In previous threads I have respectfully asked that Dr Peter Lozo abstain from using my name in any posts.
For me, it is offensive to be nominated and interrogated in the following manner — “How is it that neither you nor Garry nor Geraldine nor Andrew Urban (on his blog) nor Bill Rowlings wrote that a reference to these rope scuff marks and the fibres is missing from both Mr McLarens’s description of the crime scene and from his analysis of the crime scene? Don’t any of you notice data or information that suggests that the defence lawyers, as well as Eve Ash and Mr McLaren, have either ignored, misrepresented or mis-reinterpreted the case details?”
We, the above-mentioned, have freedom of choice to write, as we see fit, from our varying perspectives. Most certainly we do not write to please one obsessive poster’s viewpoint. Writing and pursuing justice goes much further than a couple of now ‘worn-out’ scientific aspects.
Overkill (the amount by which destruction or the capacity for destruction exceeds what is necessary) can be dangerous to credibility. To my knowledge none of those nominated in this post identify and offensively criticise other posters, unless in a reply to a particular post which of course is fair. Each contributor to TT has a right to their opinion, yet none of us must accept and validate that of another poster. To be named and singled out for not catering to someone’s every whim — the ‘Lozo theory’- in our posts, is crazy and indulgent.
Additionally, this poster’s persistent method of attack on some most decent, generously dedicated and diligent persons, all of whom I hold in great respect, does not fit my personal standards.
Thus I post this reply in respect of them, who for numerous and varied reasons including being more controlled than I, choose to be silent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter, the quality of your writing is the best we receive, but to preclude unpleasant ramifications, please moderate the content to accommodate the valid sensitivities and rights of others.
— Moderator
Dr Peter Lozo
February 1, 2019 at 13:18
Further points on Closed Loop Winching:
I propsed the Closed Loop Winching arrangement on TT over 18 months ago as the way to overcome the problem associated with a winch that isn’t self-tailing. It was pointed out to me (by Lynn Giddings on another TT thread about 2 years ago) that the winch in question is not self-tailing.
Closed Loop Winching will enable one person of quite limited physical strength to pull a heavy load from below the deck.
Closed Loop Winching is equally applicable to a body being removed via the companion way as it is for removing the body via a hatch in the saloon. The only change is the reversal of the rope ends. If the body was winched via the saloon hatch then the winching rope would also need to be supported from above (via the sail boom) so that the body can be cleanly pulled upwards.
The version of Closed Loop Winching that I outlined was based on the winch that is attached to the rear mast. Closed Loop Winching is also applicable to any other suitably positioned winch as long as it has a sufficiently large power ratio for the task at hand. I prefer the winch on the rear mast in this case, because the operator of that winch can see directly down the companionway into the saloon where the body would have been initially positioned and can thus watch the progress of the winching. When the person gets tired of winching they can just let go of the winch handle. The tension in the rope via the loop, and the fact that the winch drum rotates only in one direction, will ensure that the body (even if suspended in air) will not move back from the position it was left at whilst the person is resting.
Closed Loop Winching can use more than one winch. It can also include at least one pulley.
I understand that Mr McLaren and Mr Bezzina believe that at least two people would be needed to pull a body aloft from below deck and that the body was removed via the saloon hatch. The trial transcript doesn’t provide enough technical details of the crime scene for me to assess which was the most likely exit point. Either way, I have outlined how the rope and the winch can be configured to enable one person do winch the body with physical ease.
There was lot of cutting (pipes and ropes) and there is evidence that there was winching. There was evidence that Sue had injury (a cut and a wrist injury) on her left hand that appeared sometime between lunch 26th and the following morning.
I am about out to go to a bookstore to purchase McLaren’s book. I imagine that it will have a lot more useful technical details about the crime scene for me to work with than what is in the trial transcript. I will then finalise my technical analysis after I read the book. But, this is one book that I would recommend without having seen its contents first!.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 1, 2019 at 15:19
Below is my preliminary technical review of the book’s section on the crime scene.
Had this attempt been a ‘search for the truth’, then in my technical opinion, it should have followed two parallel paths:
Path 1: Someone else did it – as presented by Sue’s defence team and by Mr McLaren in his book.
Path 2: Get a mechanical engineer to study the crime scene with respect to the ropes and winches and see whether there is any evidence of how a physically weak person could have configured the ropes and the winches so as to enable that person to easily winch out a 65 Kg dead body – via the saloon hatch or via the companion way.
I just got the book and had a quick read through the ‘Assessing the Crime Scene’ section. It is very detailed. Excellent work. The only negative point is that there was no effort to go along Path 2.
There is evidence in the trial transcript of scuff marks on both ends, but McLaren (on page 73) has this sentence referring to the other end (the stern end) of the yacht “Plus there no scuff marks or tell-tale signs that this area … “. But it was Sue herself who brought attention to that end of the yacht. There were two sets of scuff marks. Fibres were also found at that end that are consistent with the rope.
Clearly, there were scuff marks at both ends. How can that be explained? My Closed Loop Winching solution explains why both ends would have rope scuff marks, and how a physically weak person could remove the body from below the deck.
Mr McLaren also readily accepted that Sue didn’t have the physical strength to operate the winch, as was evidenced during the yacht’s trip from Queensland when she tried to lift the sail under a wind load. But there is a significant difference in physical strength required to operate the winch in order to lift a sail under a wind load, and the physical strength required to operate the same winch to lift a 65 kg body if the rope was configured to be detached from the sail.
So, it is my opinion that there is clear evidence that McLaren had focused on evidence that could exonerate Sue rather than on searching for the truth. It is also my opinion that McLaren did not show a sign of having sufficient technical insight into various types of winching possibilities and had readily accepted what others had said about Sue’s physical limitations.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 2, 2019 at 11:08
The strangest coincidence just happened! I just had a chat with Mr McLaren’s sister, Bev!
I was in my favorite cafe on Jetty Rd in Glenelg. I had Colin’s book on my table – the front cover being clearly visible. A lady was standing next to my table waiting in line to order when she noticed the book and pointed to the name of the author and said “He is my brother.”
After few minutes of talking I asked her to tell Colin that he had missed the rope scuff marks (and the fibres) that were spotted by Sue.
Perhaps Colin will make an attempt to contact me to discuss the case.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 2, 2019 at 11:39
What is the latest urgency in calling for a Royal Commission now, given that the case is still before the Court? For some reason there appears to be restlessness, and people can’t wait for the Supreme Court decision!
“Find the truth! Investigate Bob Chappell’s death. Call for Commission of Inquiry or Royal Commission. – Sign the Petition! (link: http://chng.it/yzqGcFTc) chng.it/yzqGcFTc ..
See here: https://twitter.com/eveash/status/1089474438683217925?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Those who are calling for a Commission of Inquiry or Royal Commission ought to first get their own interpretation of the case evidence sorted out so that they can at least then offer a substantial recommendation of why the State should spend a huge amount of public money on this case, given that the case is now back in Court after the State Government changed the legislation.
It is my opinion that Civil Libertarians and others who are now calling for a Royal Commission or a Commission of Inquiry ought to respect that the matter is still before the Court. Perhaps there is expectancy in some quarters that Sue won’t be granted the appeal.
I won’t comment on Eve Ash’s list of items in her petition other than to say that Eve and Colin McLaren had ample opportunity to test whether the white dinghy of the yacht (or a similar dinghy) can be perceived to be grey under some daylight conditions, including the conditions when the dinghy is in the shade of its yacht.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 2, 2019 at 19:05
Block and Tackle + Winch
I just had a lesson from someone who worked as a sail maker. He told me how easy it is to configure a winch and a block and tackle so as to enable a “4 year old boy to lift 65 Kg.”.
I mentioned earlier that at least one pulley can be in the loop. At that time I had no idea that each boom had a 3 pulley system arranged in a block and tackle. This is significant.
I invite Mr McLaren to check the two booms and see the exact location of the block and tackle over the saloon roof.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 3, 2019 at 09:31
I had no prior idea what was on Four Winds in terms of pulleys or their location, nor do I know exactly how the ropes were found, but I was aware (since my undergraduate days, and because I studied physics) of the mechanics of winches and about the various ways pulleys can be configured.
What I have been talking about for over 18 months on TT is now supported by someone who has worked on yachts. You also seem to understand that Sue could have pulled a 65 Kg body with physical ease, had she known how to configure the mechanical system to physically empower her. Congratulations.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 3, 2019 at 09:41
Now you can teach the SN-F supporters, and the two Victorian police ex-detectives, how Sue could have extracted a 65 kg body from below the deck. They surely have no idea.
Alan Arkle
April 13, 2019 at 09:17
Yes it is basic physics, something which the majority of people have little understanding of. Ouf of all the material I have read on this case Lozo is the only one that seems to have figured this out. Bravo! And yet for his effort, all he gets is a snide perosnal attack from someone who is unable to offer an informative comment. Another emotionally invested desperate SNF supporter?
Dr Peter Lozo
February 3, 2019 at 10:36
Lack of insight by SN-F supporters
Here I copy two recent comments from Andrew Urban’s blog …
From an experienced sailor:
“I was a cruising ‘yachtie’ for about 15 years in my 45 ft ketch steel and travelled thousands of sea miles around the south east asia area including Japan.
On board were two large sheet (rope) winches which were used to winch in the ropes attached to the sails. I have been on board Sue and Bob’s yacht ‘Four Winds’ and the winches were similar to the winches on my yacht. THESE WINCHES REQUIRE TWO PERSONS TO OPERATE THEM, ONE TO TURN THE WINCH AND THE OTHER TO TAIL THE ROPE TO A CLEAT. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ONE PERSON TO OPERATE THESE WINCHES. Also I would like to add that Sue has a bad back from a previous injury. Sue could not have used the winch which leaves the prosecution case in tatters. The fairy tale produced by the prosecutor should not have been used by the court or the presiding judge who mentioned a wrench (?) 8 times in his address to the jury. The wrench was mentioned as the ‘murder’ weapon in the fairy tale”
From an author of real crime books:
“Absolutely right, Ronald! In his evidence, Stevenson (bloke who the sailed 4 Winds to Hobart) said the same thing about the necessity for ‘tailing’. The jury may not have understood. Why Gunson didn’t ask more questions we’ll never know. His defence was pathetic. I spent a few years in the Whitsundays, doing a lot of mostly easy sailing, but as soon as I sat in the saloon of the 4 Winds I said to Chris Smith ‘However Bob met his death, it was a 2-man job.’”
See https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/01/27/sue-neill-fraser-author-colin-mclaren-to-be-silenced/
I spoke to a young man yesterday who worked on sail making. I first asked him how he would configure ropes and a non-self tailing winch on a yacht so that a physically weak 55 year old woman could extract a 65 Kg body from below the deck. He said it is easy, and then went to sketch out a few ways it can be done. I then drew my Closed Loop Winching concept. He said yes, that would work too, and that it would cause rope burn marks at both ends. He then pointed out to me the block and tackle on the mizzen mast. Then he pointed out to me a location on the main boom above the saloon where there would be another block and tackle. He finally said that it is easy to set things up so that even a 4 year old boy can pull/lift 65 Kg.
How is it that two very experienced former Victorian police detectives did not consider the possibility that Sue had configured the winches, the rope and the block and tackle (the one on the main boom) to extract the body from below the deck, and then used the boom to lower the body onto the dinghy?
Why did the two former Victorian police detectives ignore the rope scuff marks (and rope fibres) that Sue herself spotted on the afternoon of 27th and had pointed this out to a detective?
Dr Peter Lozo
February 4, 2019 at 17:36
Trial statement from Mr Hughes vs 2016 statement from Mr Gleeson
In light of various reviews of Mr McLaren’s book, the latest being from Dr Bob Moles (http://netk.net.au/Tasmania/Neill-Fraser82.pdf) I invite SN-F supporters, including Mr McLaren, to read the Trial Transcript concerning the evidence of Mr John Hughes.
When I saw this statement on page 114 of Mr McLaren’s book (with reference to Mr Gleeson):
“At about 11pm he was woken up by a tap on the car window .. “ I very quickly concluded that the defence case, as put together by Colin in the 2017 ‘white paper’, is on very shaky ground. The reason being that Mr Hughes (the prosecution witness at Sue’s trial) was there, probably just past Mr Gleeson’s car at the end of that driveway near the Rowing Shed, at around 11:30 pm to midnight.
Here I copy the relevant part from Mr Ellis’s opening statement during Sue’s trial (page 66):
All that Mr Hughes saw between 11:30 and midnight was a female figure on an inflatable dinghy whose overboard motor he heard. Had there been people there, or a gas-cooker induced light, at that time, then he would likely have noticed them, unless it was all over by then and Mr Gleeson fell happily asleep.
Similarly, had Mr Gleeson been woken at around 11pm and then cooked on his gas cooker with two other people with him then surely at least one of them would have noticed a car light and a car pull into the location several metres away from them. But there is no evidence in Mr Gleeson’s statement that another car pulled up.
In my opinion, the case that Eve and Colin had put together is based on a very shaky ground. I am seeing evidence in Colin’s book that he and Eve were looking for confirmatory evidence that Meaghan was in the near vicinity of Four Winds (and had boarded the yacht). In the process of doing so, Eve and Colin have readily accepted unreliable evidence from unreliable witnesses and they have ignored contradictory evidence. This is on top of the physical evidence I pointed to earlier that was ignored by Mr McLaren.
I wonder on what basis can Mr McLaren state that their case is rock solid? It very much looks like that an earthquake had hit the defence team since August 2017.
Lola Moth
February 4, 2019 at 19:33
I’m sorry, but I am unsure what you are trying to say, eg the quote ” .. on that evening he had been to the movies or the casino following golf, he’s not entirely sure which.”
Are you trying to say that this person’s testimony is solid fact, or are you wanting to prove this person has no clue what they were doing on that day and so we should disregard their testimony?
Dr Peter Lozo
February 4, 2019 at 20:13
Those are part of Mr Ellis’ opening statement about one of the key eyewitnesses. Where Mr Hughes came from, and what he did before he drove to the Sandy Bay Rowing Shed, isn’t quite relevant to your/our understanding of what he witnessed when he got to the Rowing Shed. I’m not sure why you focused on that.
The crux of the matter is that Mr Hughes was parked at the end of the driveway next to the Sandy Bay Rowing Shed at around 11:30 pm to midnight and would have been within metres of Mr Gleeson’s car and most probably drove past it by 15 metres or so.
Lola Moth
February 5, 2019 at 07:04
To me, where he was beforehand is very important. If he only gets half a day off a week he should be able to remember what he was doing before he parked near the rowing shed. If he often parks there for a bit of peace and quiet he may be confused about which night he saw the dinghy. Anyone unable to remember what they were doing on their one afternoon off, but says they absolutely know what they did that night, is an unreliable witness. If I were on the jury I would not believe his testimony.
As for your thoughts on the colour perception of the dinghy and the ability of SN-F to winch a body out of the yacht, I agree with you on both points, but just because it is possible does not make it probable. I am sure a case could be made against me for the same alleged murder. I have no plausible alibi and I could have winched a body out of the yacht, so it could have been me.
I would not have convicted SN-F on the evidence supplied at her trial. A lot of it is iffy at best. There was no solid case against her, just supposition and speculation, and I could not put someone in prison for years on such flimsy evidence.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 5, 2019 at 09:33
Lola, have you read the Trial Transcript to understand what Mr Hughes’ whole testimony was during Sue’s trial, including his response during cross-examination? It is the job of the defence attorney to raise doubt.
I am pleased that you agree with me on the colour perception of the dinghy and the ability of SN-F to winch a body out of the yacht. I agree with your point that just because it is possible it doesn’t necessarily make it probable. This is why it is necessary to look at all other circumstantial evidence to see whether it tips you over the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. For example: alibi and consistency in the alibi; injuries; familiarity with the yacht plumbing and the pump control switches; motive, etc.
My point has always been that one cannot exclude Sue from being on the yacht until about 8 pm.
My point has also always been that one cannot exclude Sue from being able to configure the mechanical system (a winch, rope etc) to extract the body from below the deck. It is just a matter of experience and the know-how.
Lola Moth
February 5, 2019 at 12:09
Peter, I have read the transcripts but it was a long time ago. It was the transcripts that made up my mind that I would not have convicted SN-F had I been on the jury.
The circumstantial evidence is not strong and the speculative scenario is fanciful. I have yet to hear evidence of a motive. I just can’t find any motive for the crime if it was committed by SN-F. Long-term relationships break up every day but they don’t end in murder.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 4, 2019 at 21:11
Further to my above Comment regarding Mr Hughes and Mr Gleeson …
I couldn’t find any reference to Mr Hughes (or his testimony) in the part of the book that deal with Mr Gleeson. I haven’t yet read the whole book.
Further, there is a significant discrepancy between the Court statements and Mr McLaren’s writing about Mr Gleeson’s affidavits.
Mr McLaren doesn’t state in his book that Mr Gleeson had actually provided two contradicting statements to Sue’s lawyers – one statement to Mrs Etter in Sept 2016, and the second statement to Mr Thompson in May 2017. I ought to emphasise that the statement he gave to Mrs Etter in Sept 2016 is consistent with what he had told police years earlier.
The extract below is from:
STATE OF TASMANIA v STEPHEN JOHN GLEESON 6 JUNE 2018
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE MARSHALL AJ
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2018/06/supreme-court-of-tasmania-comments-on-passing-sentence/
“On 13 September 2016 Ms Etter took an affidavit from you in which you confirmed your earlier statements that you were intoxicated on the night of 26 January 2009, and slept in your car on your own. You did not state that you had seen any people that night, or that anyone was in the car with you.
On 8 May 2017 Mr Thompson took a second affidavit from you, although at the time he had been told by Ms Etter he was not authorised by her to work on the Neill-Fraser case. In your 8 May 2017 affidavit, you said, for the first time, that on 26 January 2009 you were woken up by someone tapping on the window of your car.”
Was there an attempt by the author of the book to suppress the mention of the above evidence that Mr Gleeson is an unreliable witness for the defence team? It is also of interest to note that Mr Gleeson changed his version a few weeks after Meaghan had signed her Statutory Declaration in April 2017. Mrs Etter quit a month or so after Mr Gleeson’s 8 May 2017 affidavit.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 6, 2019 at 09:12
Area of the luminol-positive reaction in location 20
This is from Mr Bill Rowlings’ review of Mr McLaren’s book – at the bottom of page 3:
“Only now do we learn publicly that the DNA sample was the size of a dinner-plate, or an A4 sheet of paper (26cm x 21cm), and is likely the result of vomit. If nothing else, McLaren’s book has done a service to justice by this wider revelation.”
I invite Mr Rowlings to search the following set of keywords in the Trial Transcript:
area was approximately 210 by 260 millimetres in size
The above will take you to page 670 of the transcript. A forensic scientist (D. McHoul) is describing the area in location 20 that responded to luminol. Thus, the jury had known about the size of the area on the deck that reacted to luminol. This is the location where Meaghan’s DNA was obtained from.
The Trial Transcript can be downloaded from here
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cdn-src.tasmaniantimes.com.s3.amazonaws.com/files/Transcript_Complete.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjE79vN2qPgAhXab30KHT8GCR4QFjADegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1uw9RElvkI7im9E0JGkH69
Why Mr Rowlings or McLaren, or anyone else, decided to say that the DNA sample was the size of a dinner-plate is beyond me. The correct statement is that the area of luminol positive reaction was the size of a dinner-plate.
If one prefers to use Mr McLaren’s expression about the size of Meaghan’s DNA on the walkway of Four Winds, then one can use it to say that the size of Bob Chappell’s DNA on his dinghy was about half of the floor area of the dinghy. After all, Bob’s DNA was detected in areas on the dinghy that reacted to luminol.
Ps: Mr Rowlings also referred to Mr Chappell as being a radiographer. Mr Chappell wasn’t a radiographer – he was a radiation physicist. Mr Rowlings also wrote that Barbara Etter is a chemist. Barbara Etter’s science degree is in biochemistry.
Peter
February 6, 2019 at 10:10
Moderator: there is something odd about the format of my above Comment. Sentences go beyond the screen!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter, sometimes a particularly long URL goes off a reader’s RHS of the screen, but your Comment presents appropriately here. Changing your browser’s Zoom factor (eg, from 120% to 100%) may fix such problems.
Please copy the published Comment in question and edit it as you wish, then submit it as a new Comment. The one appearing faulty may then be deleted, along with any flaws.
— Moderator
Dr Peter Lozo
February 6, 2019 at 17:25
Season 1 Episode 1 of Undercurrent can be seen at :
https://7plus.com.au/undercurrent-real-murder-investigation
The above is referenced on Eve Ash’s twitter account
https://twitter.com/eveash/status/1092908496624840704?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Also note that some think that Mr Colin McLaren “should have walked away from the case when Meaghan told him, via phone, that she ran away from the crime scene in a dinghy. How did the other two alleged visitors leave the yacht, and take Bob’s body with them? See page 136 of his book.”
Dr Peter Lozo
February 8, 2019 at 18:12
Tunnel Vision
A lot has been said about ‘Tunnel Vision’ in relationship to how TASPOL investigated this case. As someone who had studied the psychophysical and the neuroscience literature on ‘Selective Attention’ in early 1990’s, and partly since – primarily within the visual domain, I am in a good position to assess the issue of Tunnel Vision with respect to a restricted part of the investigation by TASPOL and by the Victorian ex-detectives.
I will start with the following published comment in Sydney Morning Herald because what Mr Robert Richter QC said is very relevant to my point on Tunnel Vision given that Mr Richter’s opinion is based on the work of the Victorian ex-detective (Mr McLaren) who prepared the white paper which was submitted to the Tasmanian Government in May 2017:
“Hair samples found on the lip of a skylight will also be tested. Richter said the hair sample combined with a dangling rope from the skylight showed it was likely the body was removed from the cabin via the hatch. “That would make it impossible for Sue Neill-Fraser to have done that,” he said, alluding to her injury history and build — 157cm tall and 53kg.”
See: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/sue-neillfraser-appeal-ill-winds-blow-in-bob-chappell-luxury-yacht-murder-mystery/news-story/30f2aa0a408f467ed966932d74d649a2
If one reads from Mr McLaren’s book the section on Crime Scene Analysis, one can conclude that Mr Richter’s opinion is very much derived from Mr McLaren’s own analysis.
Now suppose we were to inform Mr Richter that Mr McLaren missed out from his analysis of the crime scene a very crucial piece of physical evidence. How would Mr Richter react if he was to be told that on the morning of 27th there was a large winch handle in the winch of the main mast and that this winch on the main mast was only about 2 metres from the starboard hatch where a dangling rope was found?
The mentioned winch handle is discussed in the Trial Transcript. It also stands out like a sore thumb in the news footage of the morning of 27th!
I have had email contact with Mr McLaren and have mentioned the above problem, and other problematic issues, in his work on this case.
On the other hand, Mr McLaren has provided compelling evidence that Bob’s body was removed via the starboard hatch in the roof of the saloon. In this regard, I would say that TASPOL detectives fouled up.
Personally, I would like the case to go to the appeal on the basis that it would be better for the Tasmanian community to have a better understanding of complex issues. My understanding is that when the case goes to a panel of three Appeal Court judges that both the defence and the prosecution can bring in relevant experts to help the Appeal Court with the understanding of complex issues.
Peter
February 8, 2019 at 18:45
Moderator,
I wanted to say that TASPOL detectives fucked up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quite so Peter, and this Moderator stopped you by replacing the naughty word with “fouled”.
Vulgarities and obscenities and profanities contravene Tasmanian Times’ Code of Conduct.
https://tasmaniantimes.com/the-legal-bits/
–Moderator
Dr Peter Lozo
February 8, 2019 at 19:15
Hypnosis and False Memory
I understand, from Mr McLaren’s book, that there was an intention to subject Meaghan to hypnosis with a hope that she might recall some suppressed memory of the Australia Day 2009.
I pointed out to Mr McLaren that there are a large number of published psychological studies that suggest that human memory is malleable, and that it is quite possible to implant a false memory into someone’s brain.
The hypnotised person who comes up with a new memory wouldn’t later know whether what they recalled is real, or just a dream or imagination, or a mixture of all three. Similarly, the hypnotherapist wouldn’t be able to tell whether the memory is real or false. Then it would be up to a Forensic Psychologist to explain it.
I suggested to Mr McLaren to Google “hypnosis and false memory”. I also mentioned to him the work of Prof Elizabeth Loftus. She is very much against the use of hypnosis to retrieve forgotten or suppressed memory for the very fact that her scientific research, and the research of many others, has demonstrated that is is quite possible to cause/implant false memories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
The way I see it, Meaghan seems to be very confused about how her DNA got on the yacht. She has no memory of ever being on the yacht, but after all the fuss about her DNA on the yacht that no-one can explain, she is thinking that perhaps she was on the yacht but suppressed her memory of that occasion.
I pointed out to Mr McLaren that in Meaghan’s very fragile and troubled mind, it is very easy to cause a false memory, particularly when someone tells her a lie (as what he did) that a certain hair was confirmed to be hers.
I am quite shocked that Eve Ash would have agreed to have Meaghan subjected to hypnosis. As it turned out, Meaghan flew into rage just about when she met the hypnotherapist and basically walked out. Good on her. Who knows what psychological damage may have been done to her since she first got interviewed in 2010 about her whereabouts on Australia Day 2009?
Ps: I am not a psychologist nor a forensic psychologist. My opinion above is based on my study a couple of years ago of Prof Elizabeth Loftus’ research on the malleability of human memory. I have mentioned her work several times on TT in relation to Mr Conde’s eyewitness statements and his Court testimony.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 8, 2019 at 23:47
The use of hypnosis in criminal investigations
I was challenged (via email) on the issue of hypnosis by someone who read my above post :
“Your lambasting of hypnotherapy as a police investigative tool highlights your complete lack of knowledge in the world of criminal investigation. It has been used by all the major police departments in the world for two decades, achieving great results, using the most experienced practitioners.”
Here I copy a section from an online article aimed at lawyers and written by a lawyer:
http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/07/08/the-use-of-hypnosis-in-criminal-investigations/
“How reliable is information obtained from hypnosis?”
“Given that within the scientific community there is a lot of disagreement about the nature of hypnosis, it is difficult to assess the reliability of information gained from an individual through the course of a hypnosis session. It may be unreliable because certain things, regardless of their truth, can become fixed in the mind of the individual as facts during hypnosis. These things may include: suggestions made by the hypnotist, a fantasy of the witness and an unrelated thought of the witness.
“There is no way of deciphering whether what is said during a hypnosis session is, in fact, true. A person who has been hypnotised may tell a story which appears very convincing. This is because when under hypnosis, as explained above, certain things become solidified in the mind as if they were facts. Thus, a false story told under hypnosis may potentially stand the test of cross-examination. The subject will not himself be able to decipher between reality and illusion.
“Information obtained by the police from an individual whilst under hypnosis should be treated very cautiously indeed. In any event, an individual who has been hypnotised by the police should only be called as a witness in court in exceptional circumstances. Often evidence obtained from a hypnotised person is rendered unreliable and therefore inadmissible in court.
“Similarly, if an accused makes a confession whilst under hypnosis, it is likely to be ruled inadmissible under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is on the basis that it would have such an adverse effect upon the fairness of the proceedings that it would be unfair to admit the evidence.”
A substantial amount of research by psychologists on the malleability of the human memory has emphasised that false memory is an issue of concern in criminal cases.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 9, 2019 at 01:13
Does hypnosis help solve crimes?
Here is an example of what I was explaining could be the by-product of the application of hypnosis in a criminal investigation:
“During what he described as a “high state of concentration,” Rassier remembered seeing a person in the passenger seat of the car, a woman or child. Today, he doesn’t know if that memory is real or concocted while under hypnosis. “I’m not sure whether somebody was looking out the window,” he said. “In my memory, I see someone looking out the window, but I don’t know if I really saw that.””
See here:
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/09/20/does-hypnosis-help-solve-crimes
The person who challenged my above post on Hypnosis and False Memory obviously isn’t aware of how hypnosis can impart a false memory such that the person cannot tell whether the memory is real or not.
Just imagine what could have happened had Meaghan undergone hypnosis, and then whilst been asked about what she saw on the yacht she said something about spitting on the deck? Who would know whether that was a real memory or a false memory? A lot has been said over the past few years in the media about her DNA. People had talked to her about it. Suppose that as a result of all that bombardment she had a dream of spitting on the deck. Who is to say that subsequent to that dream, her brain (via hypnosis) wouldn’t have converted that dream into a false memory of being on a yacht and spitting onto the deck?
When we think of what we had dreamt we are consciously aware that it was only a dream. But it is also possible for a person to believe that certain memory was as a result of an actual real-life experience, even if that experience was experienced during a REM sleep.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 9, 2019 at 18:37
Photo 7: the critical crime scene photo that was ignored by Victorian ex-detectives
According to the Trial Transcript, Photo 7 is of a winch handle in the winch on the main mast and a rope going from that winch to the saloon hatch.
For the benefit of those who had not noticed that Mr McLaren’s book failed to mention the above critical piece of physical evidence as part of his crime scene analysis (and as part of his hypothesis of how the body was removed via the saloon skylite hatch) I invite interested readers to look at page 90 of the Trial Transcript. Below I have pasted the relevant part from that page (my emphasis is in bold):
This is from page 91 of the Trial Transcript (my emphasis is in bold):
<
blockquote>“I wonder if that photo could be handed back to me, please. Did you draw to anybody’s attention the fact that a rope was coming from the winch on the mast into that hatch and hanging down into the saloon?……No.”
<
blockquote>
My understanding of the above is that the winch on the main mast had a winch handle in it and that a rope went from that winch to the saloon hatch and was left hanging down into the saloon.
If we now go to page 57 of the Trial Transcript (my emphasis is in bold) we see this in Mr Ellis’ opening statement about Sue’s own observation after she was allowed to board the yacht:
“Now the next day, so we’re on the 28th, the boat had been pumped free of water and she went onboard the Four Winds with police this time, including a Detective Sergeant Simon Conroy – sorry – Conway – and she went about and she noticed, apparently quite quickly and
commented on various things – she noticed that ropes appeared to be
cut, there’s a winch on the boat and she said that the handle shouldn’t
be in the winch it should have been stored separately, but it was in
there. She said the fuse board switches were in the on – were in the
incorrect position. She pointed out that there was scuffing in the
framework to a hatch entrance to the cabin, which had not been there before.”
I was informed (via email) by Mr McLaren that he had “read every page of every document this complex issue has thrown up”; that he has “a copy of every photograph”; and has “been on board Four Winds many times.”. He further said that he had “tested his theories and measured his opinions and thoughts.”. I have no doubt about the honesty of his statement to me.
Now, I don’t have any police detective experience but my keen observation very quickly picked up that Mr McLaren either failed to notice or intentionally ignored Photo 7, which appears to be the key evidence of a winch being rigged up for the extraction of the body from below the deck via the skyline hatch. What I do not understand is how and why in his crime scene analysis did he not say anything about the winch handle in the winch shown in Photo 7; and why didn’t he mention that a rope appeared to go from that winch to the saloon hatch. Given that the State case is that Bob’s body was winched from below the deck, I would have expected any subsequent investigator to be on a heightened alert for any winches that had a rope going to the saloon area.
The Trial Transcript can be downloaded from here https://tasmaniantimes.com/2014/09/the-sue-neill-fraser-trial-transcript/
Dr Peter Lozo
February 10, 2019 at 18:02
Crime scene Photo 7: evidence that a winch on the main mast was used to remove the body/b>
In the 17 page section “Assessing the Crime Scene” there is a paragraph on page 64 of Mr McLaren’s book that describes evidence related to how Bob Chappell’s body may have been removed from the saloon. The relevant paragraph says this:
I have an issue with Mr McLaren’s assessment of the crime scene evidence, for the very simple reason that he had totally ignored that the rope that was dangling down the skylight hatch was actually coming from a winch on the main mast on which there was a large winch handle that wasn’t there when Sue left the yacht on the afternoon of 26th January. Below I reference several sentences from the Trial Transcript.
According to the Trial Transcript (page 90), Photo 7 is of a winch handle in the winch on the main mast and the rope going from that winch to the saloon hatch. On page 91 it is said that “rope was coming from the winch on the mast into that hatch and hanging down into the saloon.”
Note that the hatch mentioned above is the same skylight hatch that Mr McLaren claims was the exit through which Bob’s body was extracted from below the deck
On the bottom of page 57 of the Trial Transcript, the DPP mentions what Sue observed with respect to the winch on the main mast. He says “she noticed that ropes appeared to be cut, there’s a winch on the boat and she said that the handle shouldn’t be in the winch it should have been stored separately, but it was in
there”
The above indicates that the winch handle wasn’t in that winch when Sue left the yacht on the afternoon of 26th Jan.
The very presence of the winch handle in the very winch that had a rope running to the saloon skyline hatch on the starboard side of the saloon is strongly suggestive of a scenario where Bob’s body was winched from below the deck rather than lifted out as proposed by Mr McLaren.
The fact that Mr McLaren did not mention the presence of a winch handle in the winch on the main mast, coupled with the fact that he didn’t mention that a rope from that winch ran to the skyline hatch, is in my technical opinion indicative of Tunnel Vision. Had Mr McLaren had a valid reason for why that winch wasn’t used to winch out the body via the skyline hatch then I expect that he would have provided an explanation in his book. But as is, his book doesn’t at all mention that winch and the winch handle on the main mast even though it is pictured in Photo 7 of the crime scene.
In conclusion:
I am of a strong technical opinion that Mr McLaren’s assessment of the crime scene, as presented in his book, is an incomplete assessment that failed to consider the evidence shown in the crime scene Photo 7.
It is quite reasonable to propose that Sue (or someone else) winched Bob’s body via the saloon skylite hatch, rather than via the companion way, using the winch on the main mast that is only about two metres from the saloon skylite hatch. In this case the rope from the winch would first need to be routed to a suitable location on the boom and then to the body so that the body can be cleanly pulled up through the hatch towards the boom. The boom can then be used to shift the body (by shifting the boom) over the water to enable the lowering of the body onto the dinghy.
NOTE: The Trial Transcript can be downloaded from the link provided in this TT Article: https://tasmaniantimes.com/2014/09/the-sue-neill-fraser-trial-transcript/
Ps: With the above Comment I have now fully completed my technical review of Mr McLaren’s book on the Susan Neill-Fraser case.
Lola Moth
February 10, 2019 at 21:33
Change “Sue” to “somebody or anybody” and I may give your opinion more gravitas.
Peter
February 11, 2019 at 16:53
Modified! I found a significant error in the work of the Victorian ex-detective(s) and have pointed it out here. That error ought to be of concern to those who are seeking the truth in the matter of what happened to Bob.
Ciao, Peter.
William Boeder
February 12, 2019 at 13:20
One might ask the question, is Dr Peter Lozo still meddling with the minds of the persons that are prompted to respond to his vicarious claims opinions and judicial improprieties?
It is my understanding that his comment dalliances with his prescripted dialogue, is an assault on the mass of the many individual person’s perceptions.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 13, 2019 at 19:44
What a spoiler to a fantastic technical review below on what both the Tasmania Police and the Victorian ex-detectives ignored. Back to detective school for some of them!
By the way .. you can thank me that TT made your post visible a few minutes ago. I read it last night because for some odd reason I could see your post via the link embedded on my FB.
Ps: I emailed Tasmanian Police and the Tasmanian ODPP about my conclusion that Bob’s body was winched out via the skylight hatch rather than via the companionway.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 14, 2019 at 02:40
The pigeon theory of secondary transfer of DNA
Do you recall my pigeon theory, William?
I was reminded of the pigeon theory when I saw this Current Affair program.
https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/2018/extras/latest/190130/lost-at-sea
Pay attention to who made a home for themselves on Four Winds. I wonder whether there were a lot of pigeons around the area where Four Winds was between 27th and 30th Jan 2009.
Suppose that a pigeon stepped into MV’s vomit and then flew onto Four Winds landing on the starboard walkway leaving a stain there whilst taking a step or two and then flying away.
William Boeder
February 14, 2019 at 16:18
Yes I do, and how extraordinary large the pigeon footprints must have been that you have since found to be fact.
Surely you must remember your statement relating to your chewing gum theory on that former occasion, relating to the quoted size of the DNA sample of MV’s detected on the Four Winds yacht?
Your professional forensic skills at that former time must have failed you.
Again you are postulating your readily disputable bias held toward the SN-F case.
Peter
February 14, 2019 at 17:13
I can’t speak for forensic scientists, but physicists are usually a step ahead. Did you not realise that I posted recently on
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2014/09/the-sue-neill-fraser-trial-transcript/
Also, did I not note above “whilst taking a step or two”? A pigeon will, in general, have two feet! A step or two could mean taking a turn, shifting the position of the feet, etc. A pigeon which steps into a puddle of vomit will probably walk all over it searching for interesting food, and it could pick a lot of stuff on its feet, etc.
I can’t discount my friend, the pigeon!
Geraldine Allan
February 14, 2019 at 18:20
William, maybe the pigeon ate a gutfull of the vomit on land, then extruded it on board?
This is getting crazier and crazier!
Peter
February 14, 2019 at 18:50
How about the chewing gum stuck to the bottom of a shoe? https://tasmaniantimes.com/2014/09/the-sue-neill-fraser-trial-transcript/#comment-227267
William Boeder
February 15, 2019 at 00:39
Hello, Geraldine.
I gather that you are also set against the speculative ‘roll of the dice’ theories being put forward by Dr Peter Lozo.
I am still inclined to believe that Dr Peter Lozo is on some sort of retainer paid by the State’s Justice department. How else can so many postulated power-of-suggestion theories be put forward for consideration when they are nothing more than alternating guesstimated speculations not unlike that which was offered to the court and the jury by the DPP?
There is no place for expansive speculative dialogue being proffered as some sort of firm evidence to the court, as was relied upon to have the jury arrive at its decision regarding the SN_F case by the DPP.
I also believe that a person bereft of proper judicial training should not continue to proffer the many differing and oft-times contradictory theories s are regularly put forward by Dr Peter Lozo.
Not to be overlooked is that this same unqualified person purposely favours his own locked-in bias toward ‘the unsound decision’ handed down by the Tasmanian Supreme Court.
As for splay-footed pigeons having an inclination to patter about in pools of vomit, be it on land or boat, as has since been discussed by the many that hold to their own opinion (rather than accede to that which is postulated by Dr Peter Lozo) that disagree that such postulated imagery can become acceptable as a form of sound circumstantial evidence, as it denies every fibre of credibility, especially toward the SN_F case decision that was so keenly sought by the DPP.
Peter
February 14, 2019 at 19:16
Lateral thinking, please!
It has been interesting, William. Surely you can take some of my ideas and develop them into a useful hypothesis. I can think of several different ways MV’s DNA could have got there without her presence.
.. a pigeon comes across a discarded tampon, carries it away, lands on Four Winds, etc;
.. a pigeon with vomit on both feet lands on the yacht and tries to clean its feet, moves around and stains a dinner plate size area;
.. a pigeon picks up a used handkerchief with its snot and plays with it on the deck;
.. chewing/bubble gum stuck to a shoe.
..etc.
Geraldine Allan
February 15, 2019 at 18:13
William, the pigeon has landed.
If you didn’t see Colin McLaren’s interview on Ch 9 this morning, I think you may be interested in the latest news.
Forget the petty narrow-minded debate.
https://www.9now.com.au/today/2019/clip-cjs58rbs2001z0hmr6qifq9y0
Peter Lozo
February 15, 2019 at 12:47
William, why are you so suspicious?
I could have written a book on the case like a number of others did (Urban, McLaren, Bowles) and made more money that way. I haven’t kept track, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone told me that I wrote 100,000 words on TT. There we go, I have published an e-book. It is free, but it is spread over a large number TT Comments in a dozen or more TT articles. What most won’t believe is that a person who has to access to i-pad tablets, laptops and desktops, has in fact typed virtually all those 100,000 words on the small touchpad of a Samsung Smartphone!
But I did send an email several days ago to Tasmania Police and to the Tasmanian Office of Director for Public Prosecutions. In that email I explained that the crime scene evidence does strongly suggest that Bob Chappell’s body was removed via the saloon skylite hatch with the aid of the winch on the main mast. This totally contradicts the theory of the Victorian ex-detectives. It also disagrees with the state’s case that Bob’s body was winched out via the companionway.
In other words, one person could have done it in a physically more efficient way using the winch than two people could do it manually! Winches of power ratio X:1 multiply the human power X times. Had the winch a power ratio of say 27:1 that means if a human can pull 100 Kg without a winch then the same person can pull 2,710 Kg via that winch. In other words, Sue could have done it more efficiently and with far less physical effort using the winch on the main mast to extract Bob’s body from the saloon via the skylite hatch than the physical effort required by two physically strong men to extract the body in the manner demonstrated in Episode 3 of Undercurrent.
I must say that my time on researching this case, and the Henry Keogh case, was technically very interesting. In each case I was able to offer to both sides of the case a new insight into a technical issue. Analysing the physical geometry of the crime scene plays a great part in understanding what happened.
In my opinion, Colin McLaren did a pretty good job on crime scene analysis but failed in a crucial area, namely how the body was removed from the saloon. His theory is busted!
John Dodd
February 13, 2019 at 19:12
Those interested in determining the credibility of those reviewing the case may want to read this review of another McLaren novel:
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/stuffing-up-the-mother-of-all-jfk-conspiracy-theories-20131106-2x1kk.html
Dr Peter Lozo
February 14, 2019 at 09:28
John, We all get a negative review from time to time. I got one recently via email:
“You? Sit at a laptop, unqualified and spruik knowledge and opinions as a Dr of something important. Yet you are like all the rest, picking over your hobby. Just as the many do on Dealey Plaza in Dallas Texas. Where JFK was assassinated. Oddball conspiracy theorists promoting the involvement of the mafia in the killing of JFK, or Kruschov, or Castro. And so it goes, still today. Hobbyist seeming a voice. Time wasters.
Peter, as a hobbyist you are taking up valuable space in the area of who killed Bob Chappell. Readers time as you offer your crude opinions and insults to those that try to bring a qualified opinion to this atrociously handled case.”
I have had opportunity during my career in the Depth of Defence to contribute to the research supervision of two Masters and three PhD research students in a branch of engineering that was relevant to my own research and project management at work. On that basis, I can confidently state that a fresh PhD engineering research student, after a month of studying the crime scene and the photographs, would have come up with a more plausible physical explanation of how Bob’s body was removed than what either the Tasmanian detectives or the Victorian ex-detectives achieved in this case. How and why did the police detectives/ex-detectives fail to consider that the body was winched through the skylite hatch via the winch on the main mast given that they all saw the crime scene photographs and had been on the yacht? It reminds me of an Adelaide case where up to 10 forensic pathologists failed to notice what I noticed quickly after a studying the geometry of the problem.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 13, 2019 at 21:22
Below I provide a link to the Current Affair program that features the two Victorian ex-detectives – Colin McLaren and Charlie Bezinna. I invite people to take a close look at the main mast of Four Winds and see whether they can spot a large winch handle sticking out like a sore thumb.
https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/2018/extras/latest/190130/lost-at-sea
The following time periods are relevant:
At 2:55 you will see a boat, most likely a police boat, that was to the starboard side of Four Winds.
at 3:03 there is a good portside view of Four Winds. The winch handle sticks out quite well.
How can Richter, McLaren and Bezzina, be totally oblivious to the evidence that a winch on the main mast was most likely used to winch out Bob’s body via the saloon skylight hatch. The removal of the body from below the deck and off the yacht can be done efficiently by one person as outlined in my review below: the use of the winch and the boom on the main mast.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 13, 2019 at 23:40
A brief remark on episode 3 of Undercurrent
I really feel sorry for Eve Ash. I say that because I just saw how very emotional she got on tonight’s episode of Undercurrent and was crying. Had I previously had any idea how deeply she invested her emotions (and money – close to $750K) into searching for the truth, I would have been kinder to her in my many TT Comments. I actually had tears in my eyes tonight whilst feeling her emotions. She is really a wonderful person.
As a very experienced researcher, I am of a strong view that people who are emotionally involved because they have a firm conviction of what they believe to be the truth (as Eve appears to be firmly of opinion that Sue is innocent) CANNOT be objective because they are highly susceptible to confirmation bias.
Tonight’s episode showed how two people pulled a person (an actor) through the hatch. One person was lifting and pushing from below, the other pulling on the rope from the roof of the saloon. Looked pretty tedious.
The episode also showed how SN-F’s son-in-law and another person rigged up the winch on the rear mast and pulled a load via the companionway, and then lowered the load into a dinghy. That too looked pretty tedious.
Why didn’t anyone try to winch a person or some other load via the skylite hatch using the winch on the main mast? After all, that is where the winch handle was on the morning of 27th.
Peter
February 14, 2019 at 07:49
A link to Episodes 1 – 3 of Undercurrent
https://7plus.com.au/undercurrent-real-murder-investigation
I imagine that the next 3 Episodes will be uploaded to the above site.
I really appreciated seeing the cross-sectional plan of the yacht that showed the difficult path from the saloon to the deck via the companionway. That path is quite long and difficult to extract a body through to the deck compared to lifting or winching the body 2 or so metres up through the skylite hatch. Now that I have a more thorough understanding of the problem I find it very difficult to understand why Tasmania Police detectives believed that Bob’s body was winched out via the companionway given that crime scene photographs would have shown that the winch on the main mast had the handle in it and that the rope from that winch was running to the saloon hatch. For the same reason, I don’t understand why the Victorian ex-detectives (McLaren and Bezinna) failed to also recognise that the winch on the main mast most likely played an important part in how the body was removed from below the deck. I find this very bizarre.
Geraldine Allan
February 14, 2019 at 11:31
In order to arrive at a more reliable, and of course unbiased, picture …
Particularly I Note #3 below, which reads “3. An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his or her opinion is based. He or she should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion.”
Thus from whichever viewpoint one stands, all facts of matters must, not may, be considered. Having observed numerous so-called expert witnesses, especially during court proceedings, my observation is that they did not seem to see that their “primary duty” as the expert “is to the Court.”
“THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN EXPERT: PART 1
“The primary duty of the expert is to the Court.”
When briefing an expert, be sure to provide enough information to form their opinion, however not so much that they’re overwhelmed. Avoid the temptation to influence the case by only giving partial evidence, as this strategy invariably backfires. On this note, always keep in mind that the primary duties of the expert are to assist the court.
Prior to engaging an expert, consider the below Common Law Duties as set out in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles:
1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation …
An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise … An expert witness … should never assume the role of an advocate.
An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his or her opinion is based. He or she should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion.
For more information about “The duties and responsibilities of an expert,” refer to Chapter 4/ p12 of The Practitioner’s Guide to Briefing Experts.”
Geraldine Allan
February 14, 2019 at 12:55
For completeness, some of the numbering in my post above seems to be missing. It should read
“… Prior to engaging an expert, consider the below Common Law Duties as set out in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles:
1— Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation…
— An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise… An expert witness…should never assume the role of an advocate.
3 — An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his or her opinion is based. He or she should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion.
…”
Geraldine Allan
February 14, 2019 at 12:59
Re-posting my comment from another justice page …
Having watched episode 3, my heart is heavy. No need to list the several reasons why, as I suspect most viewers feel likewise, especially for numerous people who have become innocently embroiled in this ongoing saga.
I too shed tears with and for Eve and others.
I also feel extreme admiration for all those who have indeed sacrificed sooo much (too much!) in a search for justice.
7PLUS.COM.AU
Undercurrent: Real Murder Investigation – Undercurrent: Real Murder Investigation S10 Ep: 3
A true-crime series in the tradition of The Jinx and Making A Murderer. An active, unfolding investigation with twists, revelations and cliff-hangers.
Geraldine Allan
February 14, 2019 at 13:06
To add some balance to this discussion, I quote from Robin Bowles re last week’s Supreme Court hearing …
“There was some misreporting of this week’s events in court. Colin McLaren never conceded that Ms Vass was ‘threatened’ as reported in some media.
But we do know from an earlier police witness, that prior to Ms Vass recanting that she was on Four Winds, police sent her (through her lawyer) a letter stating that based on her statement that she was on Four Winds she ‘would be at face value guilty of making a false declaration and the crime of pervert justice’ – hardly reassuring for someone considering testifying her presence at a murder!”
See author Robin Bowles’ February 9th full account of the week’s events in court:
https://www.facebook.com/robin.bowles.165?tn=%2CdC-R-R&eid=ARDC__i9qxbk5-OahJ0Ag-BLok_7oplPXgQCm4we1Pcq21KO_12n-haE2Wi9SpfGtRgMr8J0WrBNSn_M&hc_ref=ARQkkkzQcamWTApBLu3Yk464k0scCJ8P5uOmJDfKlCPwErk4DjTP5UlYAIsn6EaH3H4&fref=nf
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 16, 2019 at 08:01
I saw Robin’s FB. I read her 9th Feb postut I did not see in her post the bit you posted above. Where did that bit come from? Or am I blind after typing 100,000 words on the touchpad of my smartphone?
As for you Comment below that starts with “William, the pigeon has landed.
If you didn’t see Colin McLaren’s interview on Ch 9 this morning..”
It is my view that irrespective of what Colin McLaren says on various Current Affairs programs, the fact is that: (i) Forensic scientists could not exclude secondary transfer of Meaghan’s DNA; (ii) Colin has published a book on this case where he advanced a theory on the basis of an incorrect assumption that at least two people must have been on the yacht in order to remove Bob’s body from below the deck.
I am also of the opinion that had either Colin or Charlie worked on this case as totally independent reviewers on behalf of an Independent Commission of Inquiry that both would have independently included the winch in their theory of how Bob’s body was removed via the skylite hatch.
I had an email communication with Colin. He hasn’t addressed the subject of the winch on the main mast, but kept diverting to other matters. I think that he has recognised the error in his work and is avoiding the subject of the winch on the main mast.
William Boeder
February 16, 2019 at 20:16
Dr Peter Lozo, if I could respectfully request that you halt your ongoing cavalcade of speculative commentary?
Bad enough, has been the now documented bias held by the prosecution of the SN-F Case, and as has been held toward the appeals sought by the victim, that this person has suffered and continues to suffer the burden of now documented and declared bias.
Thank you.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 15, 2019 at 10:55
Crime scene evidence that a winch on the main mast was used to remove the body via the saloon skylite hatch
For the benefit of the new readers, particularly for those who were directed here via Twitter, the reference is for my post below dated February 10, 2019 at 6:02 pm.
The winch handle wasn’t mentioned in any of the first three episodes of the Undercurrent although the handle was in the winch on the main mast and was about 2 metres from the skylite hatch that was the focus of attention in Episode 3 of Undercurrent. The first three Episodes of Undercurrent are now available online at
https://7plus.com.au/undercurrent-real-murder-investigation
I invite people from US to watch the above, particularly Episode 3.
The winch handle I refer to above can be seen in the live news footage taken the morning after Australia Day 2009. See the following Current Affair program
https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/2018/extras/latest/190130/lost-at-sea
The following time periods is relevant:
at 3:03 there is a good portside view of Four Winds. The winch handle sticks out quite well on the main mast.
That winch handle wasn’t in the winch on the main mast the day before when Susan Neill-Fraser left the yacht. That means that someone had boarded the yacht in the evening of the Australia Day, took the winch handle out of its usual storage locker, and inserted the handle into the winch on the main mast. Given that there was rope running from that winch to a nearby skylite hatch where rope scuff marks were found, it is highly likely that the winch was used to remove Bob Chappell’s body via that saloon skylite hatch.
William Griffin
February 15, 2019 at 20:57
Geraldine I have met both Charlie and Colin during my working life as you and I have discussed,neither needs to go back to Detective School . There are TASPOL members who need to go back to the classroom. Charlie is one of the best in the business at Homicide investigation’s as I have always maintained the only person’s who know what happened that night is Bob Chappell and his killer or killers..Everything is self serving guesswork by people with there own agendas pumping up there own importance.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 15, 2019 at 23:47
Mr Griffin,
Please look at the video evidence from news footage of the morning of 27th and see if you notice a large winch handle protruding to the left of the main mast.
Please read pages 90 -91 and page 57 of the Trial Transcript. Please note what is said about the winch handle, the winch on the main mast and the rope that went to the skylite hatch.
Given that you are a private investigator it ought to be obvious to you that Charlie and Colin failed to include in their keen detective eyes the fact that the crime scene evidence strongly suggested that the winch on the main mast was used to winch out Bob’s body.
According to Sue, the winch handle wasn’t in that winch when Sue left the yacht in the afternoon of the Australia Day. Therefore, someone boarded the yacht in the evening, took the handle out of its storage box, and inserted the handle into the winch on the main mast.
How did Charlie and Colin manage to be totally oblivious to a significant piece of physical evidence (the winch handle in the winch on the main mast) that was less than 2 meters away from the saloon hatch they claim was the exit point of the body from the saloon?
There is no guesswork in my claim that Mr McLarin’s theory of how Bob’s body was removed via the skylite hatch is busted. Further, the location of the rope scuff marks (and the angle) on the inner visible woodwork of the hatch is inconsistent with Colin’s re-enactment. I will write about this in the near future.
My theory is:
the boom on the main mast was swung to be over the skylite hatch,
a rope from the winch on the main mast was routed to a location on the boom and then dropped vertically down through the hatch,
the body was winched towards the boom via the winch on the main mast;
when the body was fully out in the open, the boom was swung over the water, thus shifting the body across the deck and over the water;
the body was then lowered onto the dinghy.
The above can be done by one person more efficiently and with less physical effort than by two males doing it manually (as proposed by Colin and demonstrated in Episode 3 of Undercurrent).
Therefore, I have very solid evidence and the technical know-how to back me on my cheeky statement: back to the detective school for some of the TASPOL detectives and the two Victorian ex-detectives!
Ps: A number of overseas researchers of real crime cases have been directed to this TT link via Twitter. Kathleen Zellner (a high profile Chicago defence attorney) is likely reading this too. Let us therefore stick to analysing the case evidence and its interpretation.
William Boeder
February 16, 2019 at 00:45
Hello Mr, William Griffin, welcome, good of you to put some perspective into the more significant processes that are considered by the great many as unsound.
Not to be overlooked is how both the State’s Justice department, then the Judiciary officials, one has to wonder how both these State departments can content themselves without the most vital component as is necessary to establish a case for the prosecuition, consider no discernible weapon, only a speculative guess, no physical evidence that would define anything as specific, then most of the witness’s are only able to provide little other than their opinionated and or hearsay evidence.
Were one to assign any credit to the voluminous theories since introduced does not necessarily provide anything other than a cavalcade of differing unqualified opinions.
One aspect of the SNF case is the bias inherent and fielded by the prosecution, also at varying intervals has been the mindset and opinions from a number of the State’s judiciary officials, they with their accompanying privelige that is allowed to this species.
The odour of bias had riven its ugly influence throughout the past and present time since this case had been initiated. This particular aspect is yet to be explored.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 16, 2019 at 06:41
For William Boeder and other SN-F supporters or the critics of Meaghan (or TASPOL or DPP):
Michael Williams has something to say about Undercurrent. Check it out
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/01/30/who-killed-bob-chappell-the-cops-dont-know-but-we-do/#comment-3036
It was posted yesterday pm. No doubt, some of the comments on Andrew Urban’s website will end up in his next book.
There is a person by the name of Andrea Brown who posted some very nasty comments about Meaghan on some of Urban’s blogs. I think that Andrew Urban needs to edit out the vitriol that some people are pushing out via his site. People end up committing suicide over junk that other people post online about them. Meaghan doesn’t deserve what some are dishing out. Forensic Science CANNOT and HAS NOT established whether her DNA is primary or secondary, irrespective of the volume of the DNA. People need to get this into their head. It is one thing for a defence lawyer to argue in a Court of Law that Meaghan may have been on the yacht but it is a totally another thing when the general public uses this and writes very nasty things about Meaghan. Keep in mind: the authorities (the police) have not charged Meaghan on anything to do with this case. Let the lawyers debate but please keep her innocent until proven guilty! Thank you.
William Boeder
February 16, 2019 at 08:39
Dr Peter Lozo, why is it you attached my name to this comment a response to myself?
My engagement in the SN-F case is all to do with the means in which the trial had been conducted, then at time criticisms to yourself that I believe are more than justified.
Your writings on this particular case would be the equal of War and Peace, yet you are no closer to establishing anything other than your own biased offerings.
How about you lay off criticising others in deference to some of your rather fanciful speculated offerings as if you know it all better than those whose professional career has their opinions farther above your plethora of suggestions, scenarios, accusations, that you refer to the SN-F supporters as if they are all cracked in the head?
Apparently almost all of your offerings favour the comments of Peter Lozo rather than the comments offered up my almost all others.
Essentially you are playing the part of a covert, semi-skilled troll.
William Boeder
February 16, 2019 at 19:29
To further emphasise my claims of bias, see and read the following points of reference contained in the below link.
It will be necessary to ignore the comments constantly alluding to the Tas Times forum attendees, to attend to the speculative theories put forward by Dr Peter Lozo given he has ignored the bias I have referred to on past occasions.
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/16/sue-neill-fraser-crunch-time-on-the-dna/
Geraldine Allan
February 16, 2019 at 20:41
William, I won’t repeat my comment, posted and awaiting moderation, on the Wrongful Convictions article.
It reinforces the reality of the current status of matters at issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Geraldine, there’s nothing from you in the queue. Send it in again?
— Moderator
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 17, 2019 at 00:36
With respect to Andrew Urban’s scientifically naive post on DNA
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/16/sue-neill-fraser-crunch-time-on-the-dna/
What do you make out of the following, Mr Boeder?
“the fact that this was an external surface means there may have been washing or weathering events ..”
Do you think it physically feasible that because the DNA was deposited in a substance on an external surface that therefore the original DNA deposit may have been in fact in a small visible stain on the deck measuring say 6 cm in diameter but that the “washing or weathering” events may have spread the luminol reactive substance over a larger area, say 21 cm x 26 cm?
As for the following statement
“But her DNA indicates that she was on the yacht ..”
The above statement is absolute bollocks! But of course, scientifically naive people wouldn’t know that.
The correct statement is
“But her DNA indicates that she MAY HAVE BEEN on the yacht ..”
In other words: she may have been on the yacht or she may not have been on the yacht. Science cannot establish the truth here.
In conclusion, some people would benefit from a lecture on forensic science about primary and secondary transfer of DNA before offering opinions.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 17, 2019 at 10:31
So you see , Mr Boeder, that when one applies a logical and reasoning mind, a plausible physical explanation can be found that initially didn’t appear to be trivial.
Meaghan’s DNA may have been brought on board via a substance stuck to the bottom of someone’s shoe. If I were to pick the time and date, I would pick the morning of 26th when a number of people boarded 4W via its starboard entrance gate from a boat (a police boat?) that was at starboard of 4W.
Meaghan’s DNA may have been brought on board via a bird, eg a pigeon.
The visible stain on the deck next to the entrance gate is much smaller than the area that reacted to luminol. Wind and water sprays across the deck may have spread the luminol-reactive substance over a larger area. Luminol is extremely sensitive, and is certainly more sensitive than confirmatory tests for blood. In order words, luminol could have reacted to human hemoglobin.
Those who talk about the “plate side puddle” haven’t at all considered the possible effects of water sprays and wind.
Listen to Charlie on this Current Affair program:
https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/2019/clip-cjrixks72000e0ho5sn74m81x
I didn’t realise how ignorant and narrow-minded police detectives are about the natural forces that shape our environment.
To close off this post, here is a video of a ‘pigeon thief’ ..
“Bird Steals Bag of Chips” on YouTube: https://youtu.be/L_rRlNLpW0k
gemgs
February 17, 2019 at 11:19
Thanks Moderator. As above my comment was “awaiting moderation, on the Wrongful Convictions article”. I was too lazy to re-post on TT!
My comment is now up on the Wrongful Convictions page.
William Griffin
February 16, 2019 at 15:50
Thankyou, William.
I saw the winch handle discussed. I will not dignify others’ comments.
My summary of this is not about the crime, but the conduct of the trial. It was a farce made up of speculation and fantasy, which is sad. If lies get you convicted then most politicians would be locked up.
I revised the comments of Colin. Yes, he mentions rope burn marks. Sadly, unless you have actually performed investigations, most people have no idea how they are done.
To quote Ron Iddles: Believe nothing check everything, the rules I work by and teach students. Follow the evidence to its conclusion even if it dispels your theories, check all evidence, only report what you can prove not what you think happened. Others here I will not dignify debating this crime. Please read my previous comment.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 16, 2019 at 20:28
Killer Susan Neill-Fraser ‘offered rewards’ for exit
“Convicted killer Susan Neill-Fraser offered a house and $50,000 education fund to a fellow prison inmate she hoped could help secure her freedom, a new book alleges.”
https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/killer-susan-neillfraser-offered-rewards-for-exit/news-story/48370cc1e543caca6bf472cba5f87a10#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
Geraldine Allan
February 17, 2019 at 11:33
William and William … You may find CLA’s Bill Rowling’s review of yet another book reassuring. Stay tuned.
“Death on the Derwent” by crime writer Robin Bowles is to be released this Tuesday, 19/02/19. https://www.cla.asn.au/News/
“A former Tasmanian, and noted crime author, Robin Bowles brings a unique perspective to her skilfully crafted, disturbing and compelling new book on the Sue Neill-Fraser case. The third book on the wrongful conviction released in just six months, Bowles brings a different insight to the sorry saga, which is still being played out in the Tasmanian courts 10 years after Bob Chappell disappeared off a yacht, his body never found. All actors in this drama await judge Michael Brett’s imminent decision on whether the woman sentenced to 23 years jail will get another chance to appeal her innocence.”
William Boeder
February 17, 2019 at 16:45
Thankyou, Geraldine.
I read up the bona fides of Robin Bowles and they are fully intact and credible.
The former stigma of bias may be apparent in and when Justice Michael Brett provides his decision of Yay or Nay.
The professional status and local standing of Tasmania’s judiciary and Tasmania’s Department of Justice also rests on that same decision.
Geraldine Allan
February 17, 2019 at 20:06
I’m unsure what you mean in your reference to Brett, J. It matters not here and now.
The judge will make a decision based on the laws which are now enacted. Meanwhile, let’s not jump to any conclusions about that pending decision.
Here’s hoping SN-F is finally granted an opportunity to have all the facts known, and the speculation properly put to rest .. after which comes an ending that is seen as a fair and just outcome.
William Boeder
February 17, 2019 at 23:05
In reply Geraldine, the notion of bias is of important concern in case matters such as the SN-F case.
Either way, the decision handed down by Justice Brett will suit some and will anger others.
However, my belief is that the consent to an appeal is warranted and the most equitable decison that can be delivered, more-so after an exposure to both the calculable caprice, then the notion of fallibility… that from time to time pays a call upon this State’s system of justice.
Geraldine Allan
February 17, 2019 at 17:44
Btw — Two Williams ..
Matt Denholm in The Australian yesterday, quotes a section from Death on the Derwent that discusses the offering of a substantial sum of money to “the associate”. According to the article, Robin Bowles writes that “the associate told her xyz” about $$$ promised.
This selected section must be read in the full context of the discussion in the book as it relates to “the associate” who was in prison with SN-F. We all know hearsay is not fact.
I feel for SN-F and loved ones who have had to endure far too much fiction rather than fact circulating and promoted as fact.
Gossip dressed up as evidence is not evidence, yet the naysayers seem to prefer to go for the jugular when the gossip is circulating.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 18, 2019 at 06:22
How did a small dark stain become a “bowl of vomit”
The following paragraph (with my emphasis in bold) is from the transcript of the ’16 July 2017 Channel 7 Sunday Night’ program titled “The case of Susan Neill-Fraser in Hobart”:
“Matt Doran: Of all the forensic evidence found on the Four Winds, what could be the most crucial was discovered right here, a small dark stain on the deck containing human DNA. It would become known as sample 20. Sample 20 was the DNA of a homeless fifteen-year-old girl called Meaghan Vass. During the trial Meaghan claimed to have never been on the yacht before in her life. Prosecutors successfully argued that her DNA could have been inadvertently carried on to the yacht on the shoes of police. So, the jury was told it was a red herring, and that Sue Neill-Fraser was the only other person on board the yacht. Sue maintained her innocence.”
The transcript of the above mentioned program can be downloaded from
http://netk.net.au/Tasmania/Neill-Fraser37.pdf
Note that the visible stain on the deck was said to be small dark stain.
Note that, at Sue Neill-Fraser’s trial, the forensic scientist who performed a luminol test (a presumptive test for blood) on the area of the deck where sample 20 was obtained from indicated that the luminol positive reaction was spread over an area a bit smaller than 21 cm x 26 cm.
If we now fast forward to 2019 and listen to what a former ex-detective from Victoria (Charlie Bezinna) said in a recent Current Affair program we find that the ex-detective refers to the size of DNA sample on the deck as being a “bowl of vomit”.
See https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/2019/clip-cjrixks72000e0ho5sn74m81x
Mr Bezinna makes the statement at time 5:35 on the mentioned current affair program. I wanted to find out how a small dark stain at location 11 become a “bowl of vomit”.
The Tasmanian forensic scientist who analysed sample 20 from location 11 explained the following in an email in March 2010 to a Tasmanian police detective (my emphasis is in bold):
“There was an area, the black outline in the photos, of positive luminol which suggests the presence of blood. However, our testing of the swab taken from the area was negative for the blood screening test, suggesting that we cannot confirm the presence of blood. Given the strong DNA profile that we obtained from this swab,I’d suggest that this is indicative of the presence of a relatively large amount of DNA which is more likely to come from bodily fluids, blood, saliva, than a simple contact touching event. So basically we cannot say of any certainty where the DNA may have come from. The positive luminol result suggests that the source may have been blood, and the fact that this was an external surface means there may have been washing or weathering events that have prevented us from being able to definitively identify the presence of blood.
More complex scenarios such the luminol result, coming from an older event, e.g. an old stain which has been overlaid by more recent events, which is where the DNA came from, eg spitting on the deck cannot also be ruled out. I hope this makes sense.”
Thus, given that sample 20 was from the deck of the yacht, it is quite likely that the environmental effects (water sprays and wind) would have spread the luminol-reactive substance contained in the small dark stain over a larger area than what was visible to a naked eye.
This is the first time ever that I had an opportunity to review the work and technical opinions of police detectives/ex-detective. I must say that, overall, I am surprised by the low level of technical and scientific knowledge amongst the detectives/ex-detectives who investigated this case. But the two ex-detectives from Victoria deserve a special mention here because of their terminology when describing the area over which the luminol-positive reaction was observed by a Tasmanian forensic scientist on the walkway at location 11 – the location of the small dark stain.
It appears to me that Charlie Bezinna (and Colin McLaren) hadn’t at all considered the effect of environmental conditions on the spread of human hemoglobin from a localised and visible small dark stain on the walkway of the Four Winds yacht
In conclusion, it is my opinion that there is a plate of bollocks in the opinion of Victorian ex-detectives. This applies to their opinion about Meaghan’s DNA, and to their opinion that at least two people were required to remove Bob’s body via the saloon skylite hatch.
Here is a link to Andrew Urban’s blog, just in case the reader is interested in opinions by non-scientists:
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/16/sue-neill-fraser-crunch-time-on-the-dna/
Lola Moth
February 18, 2019 at 07:39
Peter, you have put a lot of time and effort into this case, which is commendable.
You have been chipping away at the evidence that others may have been involved in Bob’s death, but by trying to weaken that evidence you have not strengthened the case against SN-F.
If anything, you have highlighted the weaknesses of the entire case which seems to have been a dog’s breakfast from the beginning.
This case needs to be retried so that every piece of evidence is brought to light. To have two families torn apart by a verdict based on dubious evidence is not justice.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 18, 2019 at 11:54
OK. Thanks, Lola.
I am just about done on this case. I still have to address the rope scuff marks in the woodwork of the skylite hatch. I will do that by the end of this week. For now, the significant observation is that the mentioned rope scuff marks are on the side of the hatch frame that is closest to the walkway and is parallel to it. These rope scuff marks are angled to the right from the perspective of the observer who is looking at the skylite hatch from below in the saloon and is facing starboard. These two geometrical factors are significant, and are also inconsistent with Colin McLaren’s re-enactment.
I expect my analysis and commentary on this case to be complete by the end of this week. I am already on a lookout for one more and my last case. I am searching for a case where I can learn something about forensic psychology and/or forensic psychiatry. I have already learned a lot about forensic pathology from my 2012 – 2014 research on the Henry Keogh case.
Lola Moth
February 18, 2019 at 13:37
Peter, there is another case I know of where there was no body, no murder weapon, and no proof of there even being a victim.
Thomas William Hudson from North Wyong, NSW was in 1990 charged with the 1984 murder of Elizabeth Margaret Bromfield. He spent months in prison and was eventually acquitted .. but he is adamant the woman has been in witness protection all the time and that the police knew it. His own investigations are very thorough but he has hit a big blue wall of officialdom in trying to prove he was deliberately fitted up for a crime that was never committed.
I can probably send you his contact details via TT if you are interested.
Peter Lozo
February 18, 2019 at 20:56
Lola, I will consider it but only if there are reports/opinions by forensic psychologists and/or forensic psychiatrists. I am considering the Adelaide case of Derek Bromley. The main eyewitness for the prosecution was a diagnosed schizophrenic, hence why psychiatric reports formed a crucial part of Derek’s recent (failed) appeal bid. https://indaily.com.au/news/sponsored-content/2018/08/16/the-case-of-derek-bromley-a-crisis-point-for-criminal-appeals-in-australia/
Dr Bob Moles has a substantial database on the case.
http://netk.net.au/BromleyHome.asp
TT Editor
February 18, 2019 at 14:37
Dr Lozo’s point above is perfectly valid, but there is another aspect of the forensic scientist Mr Grosser’s quoted reply which is unremarked by those seeking money and fame out of this case, and that’s “More complex scenarios such the luminol result, coming from an older event, eg an old stain which has been overlaid by more recent events, which is where the DNA came from, eg spitting on the deck cannot also be ruled out.”
It is not just spitting on the deck which is relevant or possible. It is necessary to appreciate that a swab is taken from a small point because the tool to take the sample, which is then referred to as ” the swab”, is like a cotton bud . It is not dragged over a large area, so the stain, which was measured and which the Money and Fame Makers have decided to call the “size of a dinner plate” and to depict as an homogeneous puddle of liquid, may well have come about well before the very small area swabbed was overlaid with a DNA bearing deposit. That deposit could have got there by transfer. There is absolutely no evidence and absolutely no reason to believe that the rest of the stained area is of the same material, or would yield the same result if swabbed. Claiming it isso misrepresents the process by which such samples are taken.
What is fascinating is how the Money and Fame Makers all decided late last year to portray it in the way that they have. Surely the Great Detectives would know how a swab is taken, and would know that it proves no more than the composition of the very, very small area from which it was taken.
By the Great Detectives I mean the one (McLaren) who was unable to produce to the Court a credible explanation as to why the affidavit he drafted did not contain the vital information he claimed to have heard, while on the very same day the other ( Bezzina) was trying to explain to the SIlk Miller inquiry how it was that he was purported to witness backdated altered statements, and agreed he could offer “no legitimate excuse” for doing so.
Peter Lozo
February 18, 2019 at 20:59
Burt .. excellent point.
The “Great Detectives” had at least one valid reason, as written in the Trial Transcript and explained by a forensic scientist Mr Grosser, was to confine their logic within the scope of ‘forensic reality’ .. but they chose to invent their own version and called it the “bowl of vomit”.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 21, 2019 at 18:57
The visible dark stain on the walkway was the size of a 50c coin
The quoted sentence below (my emphasis in bold) is from page Page 61 of the latest book on the case, Death on the Derwent SUE NEILL-FRASER’S STORY by Robin Bowles (https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Death_on_the_Derwent.html?id=prpxvQEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y)
“An ‘unknown female’ sample about the size of a 50c piece was found o the walkway inside the starboard acess gap in the outside railings.”
Anyway, there are at least two physically plausible explanations why luminol reacted strongly over an area of the walkway that at around 21 cm x 26 cm is significantly larger than the area of a 50c coin that defines the visible small dark stain from where a swab was obtained from. See Burt’s Comment and the sentence that he quoted.
Also note that page 33 of Robin’s book mentions the winch handle, the very same winch handle that was ignored by the “Great Detectives”. ‘Great Detectives’ is a term given to the two Victorian ex-detectives (Colin McLaren and Charlie Bezinna) by TT reader, Burt.
Ps: Robin Bowles posted a comment on Andrew Urban’s blog on 11th Feb https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/07/sue-neill-fraser-evidence-went-missing/
Here is a part of Robin’s post:
“Another issue is that the tide was still coming IN at around midnight (1.04m for you fisherfolk and weather enthusiasts) and there were NO stars or moon until 4.30am (approx). Black sea, black sky, Mr Hughes (who saw ‘a probable female’ motoring out) must have 20/20 vision! Has his eyesight been checked? “
I posted the following as part of my overall reply to Robin, but via her own website:
“It was an overcast day. I assume that therefore there were clouds at night. Clouds can improve night time visibility because they reflect city lights. I have explained this on Tasmanian Times quite some time ago and have also written as to how cloud-reflected level of light would have enabled Mr John Hughes to see the dinghy and the person on it. But he most likely wouldn’t have had sufficient light to get a good enough 3D perspective of the person and the dinghy to correctly see how and where the person was seated. But he most likely would have been able discern the shape of an inflatable dinghy versus a wooden or aluminum dinghy. He also heard the overboard motor.“
The critical think to note that is Mr Hughes stated that he heard an overboard motor. Mr Maddock, the female looking person with long hair who claims to have been on his dinghy late at night on Australia Day, did NOT have a motor on his wooden dinghy. But you won’t see that mentioned on Andrew Urban’s website.
See for example Andrew’s paragraph
“The hearings seeking leave to appeal, it was revealed by Neill-Fraser’s legal team that a witness testifying to seeing what may have been ‘a female’ figure heading in the general direction of Four Windsjust before midnight, turned out to be mistaken. It was in fact Grant Maddock (left, in 2009), a slightly built, long haired male. Given that this sighting was the only (and rather flimsy) evidence that put Neill-Fraser on the water heading ‘in the general direction’ of the crime scene, now there is nothing at all to connect her to the crime or the crime scene.”
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/18/sue-neill-fraser-case-tainted-view-v-facts/
Just who is promoting a tainted view of the evidence that was presented at Susan Neill-Fraser trial versus the evidence that was presented in recent times as part of Sue’s current right-to-appeal application?
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 21, 2019 at 23:29
Images of the large winch handle that was missed by the Victorian ex-detectives
Here is a link to my own Facebook post where I have stored 3 images that show that: (i) a large winch handle was in a winch on the main mast on the morning of 27th Jan: (ii) at least two crime scene photographs that Colin McLaren had access to show the winch handle in the scene, but the handle is on the deck next to the main mast.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=938387123031354&id=100005802249120
I find it very difficult to believe that both Colin and Charlie, who would have independently looked at all the crime scene photographs that the defence team provided them, missed noticing the winch handle. Charlie is considered to have been amongst Victoria’s best police detectives. So, why on earth didn’t he notice the winch handle given that it featured in Sue’s trial. I am at a total loss to logically explain this significant oversight by two very experienced ex-detectives.
Ps: I am in the process of writing up my detailed pictorial explanation as to why the location, and the angle of slant, of the rope scuff marks in the woodwork of the saloon starboard hatch supports my hypothesis that Bob Chappell’s body was winched out via a winch on the main mast towards a location on the boom of the main mast which was positioned over the location of the starboard skylite hatch. I will post my write-up on my FB page and will then make a brief final comment here on TT.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 23, 2019 at 21:08
The critical crime scene photograph showing a large red winch handle in the winch on the main mast
Note that there is rope going from the winch to the starboard skylite hatch.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=950694588467274&id=100005802249120&set=p.950694588467274&source=47
The boat tethered to Four Winds at starboard side is a police boat. Here is another view of both the yacht and the police boat.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=652589364944466&id=100005802249120
It has been my opinion for over two years now that the secondary transfer of DNA, had it been brought onboard via a substance on the bottom of a shoe, was most likely brought onto the deck next to the starboard entrance gate on the morning of 27th January 2009 when a number of police officers and other people boarded the yacht via the starboard gate.
Ps: I think that Tasmanian’s ought to print a copy of the crime scene photograph of the red handle in the winch of the main mast and frame it to remind themselves of how both TasPol detectives and the two Victorian ex-detectives failed to take that crucial crime scene photograph into consideration.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 24, 2019 at 18:48
3 books on the Susan Neill-Fraser case but what did we really get?
I found Robin Bowles’ book extremely enjoyable to read. I actually purchased the book! I gather that Robin doesn’t have a high opinion of someone whose name I won’t mention. But Robin lacks technical knowledge and has provided some naive views.
I found Colin McLaren’s book technically very useful. I actually purchased the book! It gave me a lot of insight into how police detectives/ex-detectives do crime scene analysis. The 16 page section on Crime Scene Assessment, coupled with Episode 3 of Undercurrent (the two sets of re-enactments), helped me to finalise my own hypothesis of how Bob Chappell’s body was removed from the saloon and then lowered onto the dinghy. I will post my complete hypothesis on my Facebook in the near future. For now, I ask people to have another look at Episode 3, but this time keep in mind the set of photographs I have posted on my Facebook. Then ask: did Colin get it right? Did Charlie get it right? Was Eve justified in saying the things she said after she watched the video and got very emotional? Given that Eve funded a lot of the expenses, and given her friendship with people from one side, my question is how then could Colin have stayed impartial? I don’t think that he was sufficiently open minded and impartial in this case. Same for Charlie.
Here is the link to the first 4 Episodes of Undercurrent:
https://7plus.com.au/undercurrent-real-murder-investigation
I found Andrew Urban’s book not so interesting – probably because I got used to his views by reading TT since April 2014. I didn’t purchase the book but borrowed it from a library. I found that Andrew just doesn’t like the word ‘motor’. He just cannot admit that John Hughes heard an overboard motor but Grant Maddock didn’t have a motor on his dinghy at the relevant time. Just check out a conversation between Andrew and a person named Rick.
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/02/18/sue-neill-fraser-case-tainted-view-v-facts/
About the search for the truth
My conclusion is that hardly any of those who claim to be searching for the truth in the matter of what happened Bob Chappell have been trained on how to do a proper objective and independent search for the truth nor are they sufficiently technically competent given that the crime scene was on a yacht. How and why was a critical crime scene photograph overlooked by Eve Ash and her Victorian friends?
I wonder whether Dr Mark Reynolds would agree with Colin McLaren’s or Peter Lozo’s hypothesis of how Bob’s body was removed from the saloon via the skylite hatch.
I am reposting the two relevant links to my Facebook.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=938387123031354&id=100005802249120
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=652589364944466&id=100005802249120
Ps: my book on the Susan Neill-Fraser case is free but it is spread on a large number of TT Comments since April 2015.
William Griffin
February 24, 2019 at 23:36
My final comment on this blog as I am sick of the dribble and made up theories. Here goes Colin states it is his belief Bob was lifted out through the forward starboard skylight with rope burns and skin and grey hair supporting that theory. On one of the other boats moored nearby was Grant Maddox who was on the boat the night Bob disappeared Victoria Police Forensic scientist have stated secondary transfer is extremely unlikely because the sample would be a highly degraded or a mix of DNA.All evidence should have been presented to the jury not selective evidence and speculative theories similar to the dribble being concocted on this page. Again I will say it so simply that anyone can understand the only people that know what happened that night are Bob and his killer or killers anything else is speculative. People should stick to what they know best and whatever happens will happen.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 25, 2019 at 10:58
MODERATOR: please preserve the format of my Comment because it is much easier for people to see that there are two different points being clearly emphasised. Thanks.
If you haven’t caught onto what is going on in the ‘dribble’ that I posted over the past 10 days, or since April 2015, I will clarify it here.
The ultimate crime scene related technical question is:
(1) whether the crime scene photographs support McLaren’s hypothesis that Bob’s body was extracted manually from the saloon, by at least two people, via the saloon starboard hatch;
or
(2) whether the crime scene photographs support Lozo’s hypothesis that Bob’s body was winched out from the saloon, by an experienced sailor, via the saloon starboard hatch.
Both of the above methods of extraction via the skylite hatch could have caused the rope burn/scuff marks in the woodwork of the hatch frame. Similarly, both of the above methods of extraction could have caused a hair from the victim’s head to get lodged in the hatch frame. In Colin’s re-enactment, the person who is on top of the saloon roof and is pulling on the rope is actually standing at the wrong side of the hatch for the rope to scrape along the correct side of the hatch frame. But there is hardly any standing room next to the side where the scrape marks are, unless the person stands on the walkway next to the hatch. But how is that person then going to pull the body vertically up through the hatch so that that the body doesn’t get jammed in the hatch frame?
But here is the critical crime scene photograph that resolves the debate on which of the above two methods was most likely used.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=950694588467274&id=100005802249120&set=p.950694588467274&source=47
There is a large red winch handle in a winch on the main mast that is about 2 metres away from the hatch; and there is rope going from that winch to the skylite hatch!
Print the photo and frame it!
Ps: I am very impressed with the quality of my ‘dribble’. In fact it gave me courage to email Andrew Rule, TasPol and the ODPP.
William Boeder
February 25, 2019 at 14:30
Mr. William Griffin is equally entitled to his considerations as are the many Tasmanian people, particularly when the Tasmanian State’s predilection of bias is the withholding of material evidence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/predilection
Geraldine Allan
February 25, 2019 at 18:59
William and William — do we now really care about the speculation and self-assessed proclamations?
The then 15yo young girl has just recently re-affirmed that she was on the Four Winds yatch, that fateful night in 2009. The rest is history, and red faces.
And whilst I’m here, boy! Robin Bowles Death on the Derwent surely has caused some to take deep breaths and others to wipe the sweat from their brow. I openly confess, it brought me to tears in a few chapters.
Not long to wait now …
William Griffin
February 25, 2019 at 19:42
Thank you Geraldine for your comment, I care about one thing everyone is entitled to there opinion but when others try to thrust there version of events as the only version that is correct then I comment because like everything in this case it is guess work. Yes I saw that Ms Vass has reiterated she was on the boat which helps to destroy the secondary transfer of DNA theories. My biggest concern about this case is the conduct of the trial by the use of manipulated and fabricated evidence and theories as proven fact.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 25, 2019 at 20:03
“Vass flew to Melbourne last week to make yet another statement. McLaren says that in it Vass concedes “she was on the yacht that night”. Other sources say this is rubbish, that it merely concedes the DNA suggests she had been on the yacht but that she maintains she can’t recall ever being on board. It was not deemed strong enough to use in court.”
https://beta.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/apple-isle-at-odds-over-twists-in-murder-tale/news-story/4faf66656c1780f7e45d04f601f8132d
Dream on! The lady has no memory of ever being on the yacht.
William Boeder
February 25, 2019 at 20:27
Hello Geraldine, I agree with you as to the ongoing pontifications being expressed per the impure pursuit of this questionable case matter.
One must wait and see the ramifications resulting from the recently announced fact evidence?
Out in the real World the officialdom of government and its judiciary care not to the casualties they create. One just needs to examine the war-mongering of the USA and the complicity of our Federal Liberal government there toward.
Geraldine Allan
March 6, 2019 at 20:46
There are times when less is more.
Sometimes it’s prudent to watch on, say nothing to the naysayers & those who attack the person rather than the subject.
When one is aware of the facts before the attackers, one can remain assured of the good in some ppl.
https://www.9now.com.au/60-minutes/2019/clip-cjswww4rl000m0jmo2939ubkx?fbclid=IwAR394YVCKrpoTlwCuENQB4atZTkDyiHdnHgJiCdrmb75X2BZiLVLaIHOsss
Dr Peter Lozo
February 25, 2019 at 20:24
Mr Boeder,
Based on the available crime scene photographs:
Is it not more plausible that someone winched the body through the saloon skylite hatch (as proposed by Lozo) rather than two, or more, people extracting the body manually via the skylite hatch (as proposed by McLaren)?
Here is a link to the critical crime scene photograph, Mr Boeder:
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=950694588467274&id=100005802249120&set=p.950694588467274&source=47
Will you find a mention of the above photograph in Colin’s book or on Undercurrent?
Guess who touched the winch handle, took it out of the winch and placed it onto the deck? Read the good book by Robin Bowles to find out.
William Boeder
February 25, 2019 at 20:58
Dr Peter Lozo, I here advise you I will not respond to your speculative comments.
For a person who openly admits that he is not well acquainted with Australia’s laws, I offer you the advice that you are still questing into the serendipity of your own conclusions.
Not a sound principle for one to engage in.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 25, 2019 at 22:50
“Jones suggested the DNA was most likely deposited one or two days before the sample was collected, on January 30, 2009 — four days after the murder. The trial heard Vass had told police she may have been hanging around Goodwood at the time.”
https://beta.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/apple-isle-at-odds-over-twists-in-murder-tale/news-story/4faf66656c1780f7e45d04f601f8132d
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 25, 2019 at 12:06
The role of the sail boom during the winching of the body via the saloon skylite hatch
Further to my Comments below on winching out the body via the skylite hatch:
I ought to stress that my hypothesis, which I briefly outlined below in a Comment posted February 15, 2019 at 11:47 pm, depends on the sail boom being swung over the location of the saloon starboard skylite hatch so that the rope from the winch is first routed to a suitable location on the boom and then straight down through the skylite hatch to the body. For now, I invite people to study the relevant images & photographs that are now uploaded on my FB, particularly at this FB post:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=951314415071958&id=100005802249120
I believe that no-one noticed the potential role of the sail boom in the extraction of the body from the saloon, and off the yacht.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 26, 2019 at 11:55
My ‘Winch-Boom Hypothesis’ of how Bob Chappell’s body was extracted from the saloon through the skylite hatch
I have almost completed my write-up. For now, I invite the reader to see my new FB post on how I believe Bob Chappell’s body was removed from the saloon of the yacht onto the deck via the saloon starboard hatch.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=952213084982091&id=100005802249120
I have added more images on this FB post explaining why Colin Mclaren’s re-enactment mismatches the crime scene evidence:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=951314415071958&id=100005802249120
Note: I still have some more work to do, in particular on how the winch and the boom may have been used to transfer the body from the deck to a suitable location for lowering onto a dinghy.
Emmanuel Goldstein
February 26, 2019 at 13:10
Once upon a time I worked in the Tasmanian Public Service, I ‘believed’ in procedural fairness and put my faith in Police. After reporting ongoing departmental corruption I found myself at the attention of ex and serving Police who lie, who falsify evidence, who ‘verbal’ people, who build a body of false evidence with the intention of convicting you of crimes you have not committed. Beware people there bad cops in Tasmania. Try reporting this to the commission for corruption or elected representatives just like Scott Bacon or Lisa Singh then watch when they report you to the very same cops who set you up. There are very rotten apples in Tassie folks.
Geraldine Allan
February 26, 2019 at 15:47
No argument from me Emmanuel. I endorse what you write, since I know it to be true. Beware anyone who takes on the living corrupt ones, for we “oppose their way of life”.
I would be interested in talking further with you, if you are keen to discuss further.
You can obtain my email address from TT Editor/moderator, or private message me via f/b messenger and I will accept your contact.
Geraldine Allan
March 7, 2019 at 12:08
Slowly but surely and against heavyily funded opposition, the truth is being exposed.
Beware of the naysayers for they oppose our way of life, at any cost & with whatever it takes.
The dirt files are turning …
Dr Peter Lozo
February 26, 2019 at 20:31
I am very close to the completion of my online work related to the SN-F case. Then it will be sefebe orvour to you all.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 26, 2019 at 16:30
Beyond objectivity
“Former homicide cop Colin McLaren maintains his cool, but the same can’t be said for his colleague, psychologist, Eve Ash. Both are clearly well beyond objectivity.”
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/wednesday-picks-undercurrent-get-krack-n-australia-in-colour-20190220-p50z1t.html
MJF
February 26, 2019 at 17:26
Dr L
Re the DPP’s alleged use of the fire extinguisher as a body weight , If it was still charged at time of use, it would float as containing a water/air mix ?
If SNF had had the foresight to empty it before using it as a weight, it would float even better, only having air trapped inside ?
Why could the rope burns/scuff marks on the skylight hatch frame not have been pre-existing ?
Dr Peter Lozo
February 26, 2019 at 19:07
Fire extinguisher:
An interesting issue but not of interest to me. I read many comments about it. There is a person called Steve who had good points on this. I agreed with him. But perhaps the much mentioned alleged weapon (the large wrench), and perhaps a metallic toolbox, have joined the fire extinguisher to weigh down the body. Had Sue used the fire extinguisher to weigh down the body the issue is whether she herself would have wondered whether it is a suitable weight. I won’t go speculating any further on this issue. I consider it a waste of time.
Rope burn/scuff marks
The rope burn/scuff marks in the woodwork of the skylite hatch were said to be fresh. Hair with skin was also found by the salvage engineer in the frame of that hatch. Too bad that forensic people didn’t spot this.
The rope burn/scuff marks on the other end (entrance to the cabin at the rear deck) had fibres that matched the rope. Sue pointed out this set of rope/scuff marks.
If both sets of rope burn/scuff marks are fresh, and I am assuming that they are, the puzzle is how were they caused by the same, or a related, event given that the two locations are over 5 metres apart. Closed Loop Winching is the only thing I can think of that would simultaneously cause rope burn/scuff marks at both ends.
MjF
February 27, 2019 at 10:35
I was hoping you would know definitively whether a fire extinguisher sinks or floats. Clearly then you don’t. As it featured as part of the DPP’s prosecution, I don’t consider it a waste of time at all.
Closed lop winching is a possibility but given the various levels involved I would think more than a couple of rope scuff marks would have been caused throughout the yachts layout. At least one block, probably two would need to be used. Where/which ones were they and the evidence ? Are you planning a re-enactment ?
Dr Peter Lozo
February 27, 2019 at 11:23
I haven’t looked into it to any great depth. I couldn’t find data sheets to tell me the volume of such a fire extinguisher. But I did write one TT Comment over 3 years ago where I talked about the density of the 14 kg fire extinguisher versus the density of water (fresh water; saline water). I also mentioned that one needs to get an opinion from a forensic patholigist about the gases produced by a decomposing body of a 65 kg male so that one can then calculate the minimum required weight that needed to be attached to the body for it not to rise to the surface.
Do you know the density of the full 14 kg fire extinguisher of the type that was on Four Winds?
The issue is that the body could have been weighed down by something in addition to the fire extinguisher. What if there was a large wrench that was also tied to the body?
Had I had the money to fund a more extensive underwater search than what was done by the police in 2009, I would have done it myself with the aid of some remotely controlled underwater robotic vehicles I saw several years ago at Sydney University’s Australian Centre for Field Robotics. I actually called ACFR couple of years ago to inquire about the cost/day. Perhaps Tasmanian’s ought to have a fund raiser.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 26, 2019 at 17:24
Force to be reckoned with
“Former detective Colin McLaren and “amateur investigator”, psychologist Eve Ash, are the quintessential odd couple from many a TV whodunit. She’s all unruly curls and quirky red spectacles, leaping to conclusions and talking excitedly over important recordings. He’s her long-suffering companion, his years on the beat etched into his face, his mind visibly connecting puzzle pieces as he pores over evidence. On the case of convicted Hobart murderer, Sue Neill-Fraser, they are a force to be reckoned with“.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/m16tvwed-20190104-h19qhj.html
Force to be reckoned with? Well, they forgot to mention that there is a new kid in town – he comes from Adelaide in the force of a physicist! .. lol.. ?
Watch “Eagles / New kid in town (Live 1977)” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/IR_Ii0hXLEk
Bob
February 26, 2019 at 19:47
Can I out of the blue just ask one simple question please: why is it that Peter lozo feels the need to always have the last word?..
Dr Peter Lozo
February 26, 2019 at 22:14
Perhaps he loves problem solving; perhaps most of the SN-F supporters challenge him on some issue; perhaps he is trying to show people how to be open minded; perhaps he is concerned about the unrest in the Tasmanian community that was caused by so many misconceptions on behalf of Sue’s supporters and is offering a new perspective for people to consider; perhaps he is engaging with so many people in order to understand how people think, etc.
But, Peter is aware that Kathleen Zellner might also be reading this given Eve Ash’s link to Kathleen. So why don’t we address the content of Peter’s numerous Comments. About the only subject that he prefers to stay out of are the matters of criminal law. Are we talking to a former law academic?
I will be saying sefebe orvou to you all by the end of this week.
Dr Peter Lozo
February 26, 2019 at 22:50
Or perhaps Peter is just a mad scientist who thinks he knows everything and has a mental disorder! How about Narcissistic personality disorder?
But he can’t get over the fact that two sets of independent police detectives/ex-detectives overlooked a very significant piece of crime scene evidence. Both the TasPol detectives and the two Victorian ex-detectives stuffed up badly with respect to how Bob’s body was removed from the yacht. The relevant crime evidence is in the scene of the photograph referred to as Photo 7 on page 90 or page 91 of the trial transcript. The very same photograph was included by Andrew Rule in his Sunday Herald Sun article titled “Twists in the tale of Bob Chappell murder mystery” from 10th March 2018:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/andrew-rule-twists-in-the-tale-of-bob-chappell-murder-mystery/news-story/e4b2b0513ae3fb74cdc06d7ae995c682
Peter is still recovering from the shock of discovering 10 days ago that the “Great Detectives” from Victoria overlooked a crucial piece of the crime scene evidence to then end up chasing the red herring. This must be so embarrassing to the two ex-detectives who thought they could outsmart TasPol detectives all the way to the Tasmanian Government.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 27, 2019 at 07:23
My analysis of Colin McLaren’s hypothesis on body extraction via the saloon skylite hatch
“On the basis of the above brief analysis, I very much doubt that a person stood on the roof of the saloon and pulled out the deceased’s body through the skylite hatch in the manner that was proposed by Colin McLaren during his crime scene analysis, and then later demonstrated via a re-enactment in the same yacht using actors.”
See my FB posts as follows:
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=952642011605865&id=100005802249120&set=p.952642011605865&source=47
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=952642434939156&id=100005802249120&set=p.952642434939156&source=47
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=952642534939146&id=100005802249120&set=p.952642534939146&source=47
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=952642681605798&id=100005802249120&set=p.952642681605798&source=47
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=952642768272456&id=100005802249120&set=p.952642768272456&source=47
Rosemary
February 27, 2019 at 08:15
Much has been made of the handle in the winch and a short rope hanging in the skylight and assumptions made ( even by the scientist Dr Lozo) that this means they were used. However the marks explained in the book southern justice by experienced crime scene analyzers show actual evidence of an action taken. Without knowing from the person or persons responsible for what happened to Mr Chappell there is no evidence to show that the winch and the rope were used as explained at great length by Dr Lozo. They equally could have been placed there with some intention of being used and later abandoned and not used. There is nothing to prove it was used. Sorry Dr Lozo I believe that is another of your many assumptions, reducing your credibility of having all the answers that you would like everyone to agree with you on. Characteristic of all the theories in this case. Not definitive!
Dr Peter Lozo
February 27, 2019 at 16:06
How about you starting a petition to the Tasmanian Government to fund a $1M underwater search for Bob Chappell’s remains in the Derwent? That would be a far more beneficial way for you to get the answer you want than posting largely naive and biased opinion about my work on this case.
What is it that you, and your fellow truth seekers below, don’t understand when someone tells you that Colin McLaren’s hypothesis is dependant on there being at least two men. But there is no crime scene evidence to support the hypothesis that it was done by two or more men.
Have you got the point now?
I perfectly agree with Colin McLaren that the body was extracted from the saloon via the starboard skylite catch.
However, I disagree with Colin McLaren that a person stood on the roof of the saloon and pulled the body upwards with rope.
I have thus provided two grounds for my disagreement with Colin’s proposition that Bob’s body was extracted by at least two men. One ground is based on the overlooked crime scene evidence. The other ground is based on my analysis of the possible standing locations around the skylite hatch in relationship to the location of the fresh rope burn marks in the hatch woodwork. END OF STORY.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 27, 2019 at 10:37
What is a hypothesis
I thought to address the subject of a Hypothesis and how it relates to Comments below by Rosemary, William G, William B, and the person whose name I was asked not to mention.
The term ‘hypothesis’ has been used a lot in my Comments below. It seems to me that the people who have challenged my opinions just do not know what a hypothesis is nor do they know that it is quite valid for police detectives and for scientists to propose hypotheses.
Stated in the simplest possible way:
“a hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation”
In other words: police detectives, as well as scientists, propose a hypothesis on some relevant evidence that is not necessarily complete.
In terms of the evidence that Colin McLaren used to propose his hypothesis of where and how Bob’s body was extracted grom the saloon of Four Winds:
● vertically oriented elliptical blood drops on the blue couch/sofa under the starboard skylite hatch (why he called it “vertical circles” is beyond my mathematical and scientific education, training and experience);
● fresh rope burn marks in the woodwork of the saloon starboard skylite hatch;
● hair with skin lodged in the starboard skylite hatch:
● rope dangling down the saloon skylite hatch;
● coins spread on the deck near the saloon skylite hatch.
Based on the above, Colin McLaren formed a hypothesis that two or more men extracted Bob’s body from the saloon via the starboard skylite hatch. But there is no crime scene evidence to support the hypothesis that it was done by two or more men!
In terms of additional evidence that was used by Peter Lozo to extend Colin McLaren’s hypothesis
● a large winch handle was found in a winch on the main mast located about 2 meters from the saloon starboard skylite hatch;
● rope was found to be going from the same winch to the skylite hatch;
● Sue Neill-Fraser stated that the winch handle wasn’t in that winch when she left the yacht in the afternoon of the Australia Day; same for the ropes;
● crime scene photographs show that the winch in question didn’t’t have any ropes going to the sail;
● yacht booms, including the two booms on Four Winds, can swing up to about 45 degrees in either direction; in other words, the boom on the main mast can be positioned over the saloon starboard skylite hatch.
Peter claims that the crime scene evidence supports the hypothesis that Bob’s body was winched out from the saloon via the saloon starboard skylite hatch, rather than being extracted manually by two or more men.
Colin McLaren had his hypothesis tested via a set of re-enactments. Peter Lozo has analysed Colin’s hyothesis, and has had developed it further by integrating the crime scene evidence that Colin McLaren overlooked.
Peter Lozo’s hypothesis hasn’t been tested. He is currently searching for a suitable yacht in Adelaide for experiments. He will also try to contact the current owner of Four Winds. Peter wants to know the power ratio of that winch on the main mast that had the red handle in it.
This was part of Peter’ Lozo’s email to Colin McLaren:
“The ignored large winch handle on the winch of the main mast does say something about the quality of the investigation.
But I am only an amateur chair detective who had gone out of my study room to visit several yacht clubs to learn about winches and sails to see if I can do some real-world experiments. I found a 2 masted ketch but the owners are overseas. Who knows, I might get to do a winching experiment to see what it takes to extract a person through a hatch and then transfer the person onto a dinghy.”
And this ..
“If I do get in touch with the owner and if they approve I will invite you to plan and execute the experiment with me. I am a physicist – and have thus planned and carried out plenty of experiments (in laboratories, in a plane, in a desert, on an airstrip, in a bathtub, etc) but never on a yacht. I am still struggling to understand the yachting terminology.
I am serious about doing a winching experiment. Would also like to tip a body out of a dinghy and off the dinghy.”
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
February 28, 2019 at 08:42
Rowing a Wooden Dinghy versus Motoring an Inflatable Dinghy
“Percy’s team also pins some hope on an alleged case of mistaken identity. The trial was told that a witness saw a person of “female appearance” rowing towards the Four Winds about 11.30pm on the night of the murder, the prosecution asserting this was likely Neill-Fraser.
Percy produced a new witness, Grant Maddock, who said he was out rowing in the area at the time and, given his then long hair, might have been the person spotted. However, Coates countered that a woman Maddock met on the night he was out rowing had told police the occasion was January 24, not January 26.”
Unfortunately for Mr Percy’s team, there is one crucial factor that distinguishes Mr Grant Maddock’s statement about his dinghy versus the statement that was made by the key prosecution eyewitness Mr John Hughes.
1. Mr Grant Maddock
“The defence also called Grant Maddock, who lived on a nearby yacht. He told the court he had been rowing in the area late on the night of Chappell’s disappearance. A photograph was produced, showing that at the time Maddock had collar-length hair; supporting a defence theory that it was he — rather than Neill-Fraser — who was the “female” figure seen by a witness rowing in the rough direction of the Four Winds about 11.30pm that night”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/high-drama-engulfs-susan-neillfrasers-yacht-murder-appeal/news-story/bfe5718b646669dbb2ba77b1fed14606
“Under cross-examination, Mr Maddock said he was waiting to have a broken wrist operated on at the time and to avoid putting pressure on his wrist to propel his boat forward using one oar placed into the water at the back — a technique he called “sculling”.
“I certainly didn’t have an outboard motor — I could just as easily have been sculling or rowing,” he said.”
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-01/tas-susan-neill-fraser-day-3-conviction-appeal/9107180
2. Mr John Hughes
“John Hughes told the court he saw a dinghy and heard an outboard motor between 11.30pm and midnight on Australia Day last year near Short Beach.”
http://www.australianmissingpersonsregister.com/BobChappell.htm
CONCLUSIONS:
● Mr Grant Maddock was rowing a wooden dinghy. He did not have a motor on his wooden dinghy.
● Mr John Hughes heard an outboard motor. He saw an inflatable dinghy.
● Had it been Susan Neill-Fraser who was spotted on her motorised dinghy then she wouldn’t have been rowing but would have used her overboard motor.
● It is therefore highly unlikely that the person and the dinghy sighted by Mr John Hughes was Mr Grant Maddock and his unmotorised wooden dinghy.
● It was an overcast day. I assume that therefore there were clouds at night. Clouds can improve night time visibility because they reflect city lights. I have explained this on Tasmanian Times quite some time ago and have also written as to how cloud-reflected level of light would have enabled Mr John Hughes to see the dinghy and the person on it. But he most likely wouldn’t have had sufficient light to get a good enough 3D perspective of the person and the dinghy to correctly see how and where the person was seated. But he most likely would have been able discern the shape of an inflatable dinghy versus a wooden or aluminum dinghy. It appears that Mr Grant Maddock had a wooden dinghy in 2009. See the photo here
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/doubt-cast-on-susan-neillfraser-appeal-ground/news-story/7a72c1ab13d4eb75a8b17f82d78e7247
But the crucial point is that Mr John Hughes heard the overboard motor.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 6, 2019 at 06:24
Disappearance of Bob Chappell: a scientist’s perspective
I understand that Tasmanian Times will be closing down permanently this week
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2019/03/and-so-its-come-to-this-2/
I am putting the final touches to my complete hypothesis of how a physically weak person (someone who cannot lift more than 15 Kg) could have used the winch and the boom on the main mast in a Closed Loop Winch-Boom Configuration to:
(i) first winch out the body from the saloon onto the deck via the starboard skylite hatch;
(ii) transfer the body (in air) to the starboard boarding gate by using the winch and the boom;
and (iii) to lower the body onto an inflatable dinghy or below the surface of the water and then tied to a handle of the dinghy.
My complete hypothesis will be posted on my Facebook account in the near future.
https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005802249120
For now, the important thing to note is that when the main boom is swung so that it overhangs the starboard boarding gate the boom will also cross over the location of the starboard skylite hatch; and that the winch in question is more or less perfectly aligned with the starboard boarding gate. I also learned recently by talking to yachties that it isn’t unusual to hoist sails, which are typically stored below the deck, up onto the deck via the various hatches.
William Griffin
March 6, 2019 at 20:58
The hypothesis means nothing now as Meaghan Vass has admitted on National Television she was on the four winds and the male there murdered Bob Chappell NOT Sue Neil Fraser so as many who have been howled done by some are grinning from ear to ear.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 7, 2019 at 09:58
I don’t think so Mr Boeder. My hypothesis is solid, certainly more solid than whatever Meaghan Vass said in the preview of 60 minutes https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/06/20/54/60-minutes-bob-chappell-murder-breakthrough
I understand that there was a lot of financial motives in getting Meaghan to say that she was on Four Winds.
My hypothesis explains why there were fresh rope burn Mark’s in the woodwork of the skylite hatch and in the woodwork of the entrance to the wheelhouse. It explains how the body was easily winched out and transferred off the yacht by a physically weak person. My hypothesis is based on the crime scene evidence. Unlike TasPol, and unlike Colin McLaren and Charlie Bezzina, I didn’t ignore the winch handle in the winch on the main mast nor did I ignore the rope that went from that winch to the starboard skylite hatch. How many people would know where that winch handle is kept when not in use?
The important think to note is that the winch in question is aligned in the direction of the starboard boarding gate.
Check out this photo. Imagine a person hanging upside down from the end of the boom and being lowered onto a dinghy, or below the surface of the water.
https://www.cruisingworld.com/how/lift-it-or-lose-it
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 7, 2019 at 11:29
You might also consider going to shopping malls and doing research on the distribution and the size of dark stains on the ground from discarded chewing/bubble gums. I will load dozens of photos on my FB in a few days from my own research. Most of the stains are approximately the size of a 50 cent coin. Robin Bowles stated in her book that the stain on the walkway from where the DNA swab was obtained from was about the size of a 50 cent coin.
I plan to do an experiment to test out my hypothesis that the small dark stain on the walkway of Four Winds right next to the starboard entrance gate was left by dirt that was picked up by a chewing gum that was stuck to the sole of someone’s shoe. I further plan to test my hypothesis that weathering effects could have distributed hemoglobin beyond the region of the stain.
Please keep in mind that what matters isn’t what Meaghan Vass states on national TV, such as on ’60 Minutes’ but what she had said under oath in the Supreme Court. She cannot be charged for any lies she says on TV but can be charged for any lies under oath in a Court of Law.
William Boeder
March 7, 2019 at 11:32
Dear Geraldine, I owe you an apology for crediting William Griffin (thank you just the same for your posted comment Mr William Griffen) with posting the update featuring the Meaghan Vass official recorded confession to the factual events that had occurred on board the Four Winds yacht on that fateful night. The order that I had read my emails is the cause of my unjust reference.
I do hope you accept my apology and my regret for not having read your prior comment bearing its revelatory news link that you had provided.
Aside to my error please Geraldine, is the fact that we both maintained the same opinions in this matter, especially the bias and the impropriety held by this State’s Judiciary officials and significant others to secure a conviction upon an innocent individual.
I have evidence of a former fitted up person convicted of a crime he did not commit. This had entailed tampering of a recorded phone conversation between the suspect and, nor a conviction involving the context of a phone conversation between the wrongly imprisoned person and a friend who had become of the actual person responsible.
Do please get in touch with me via my email address should you be interested in prior Supreme Court case trials that had functioned outside the regulated guidelines of Tasmania’s Supreme Court.
Geraldine, I have resubmitted your reference link below also a portion of your prior comment that you had provided.
https://www.9now.com.au/60-minutes/2019/clip-cjswww4rl000m0jmo2939ubkx?fbclid=IwAR394YVCKrpoTlwCuENQB4atZTkDyiHdnHgJiCdrmb75X2BZiLVLaIHOsss
“William and William — do we now really care about the speculation and self-assessed proclamations? The then 15yo young girl has just recently re-affirmed that she was on the Four Winds yatch, that fateful night in 2009. The rest is history, and red faces. And whilst I’m here, boy! Robin Bowles Death on the Derwent […]”
William Boeder
March 7, 2019 at 12:07
“My complete hypothesis will be posted on my Facebook account in the near future.”
https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005802249120
Dr Peter Lozo, now that the truth has been published this truth has outed all of your comments including those loaded with disparagements, then at other times those defamatory comments made by you that have since beenremoved from their publication, have finally all come to nought.
Your obtuse manner and attitude have not done you well.
(I recall providing you with this same comment in a prior reference to yourself that you had then ridiculed.)
Furthermore, I had made reference to the extremes of bias held by this State’s Judiciary officials, still you did not heed my comments.
Your hypothesis in now worthless as it relied heavily upon your slight twist woven into the DPP presented ‘circumstantial only’ evidence, but with a slight twist to suit your eager negative agenda.
You also owe an apology to the persons in Tasmania that you had aimed your haughty superior self into denying their right to their private offered opinions.
Given all my prior conjectures that you had dismissed (yes, they had been many in number) along with the conjectures of many other Tasmanians, this forum’s attendees now wait upon your apology.
William Griffin
March 7, 2019 at 17:23
For any interested persons watch 60 minutes on Sunday night Meaghan Vass is interviewed and Admitted in the said interview she was there.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 19:20
“IT remains unclear whether a 60 Minutes interview about the murder of Bob Chappell will air in Tasmania.
A Nine publicity spokesman today said the network was seeking legal advice on the matter.”
https://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/uncertainty-surrounds-whether-a-60-minutes-interview-regarding-a-decadeold-bob-chappell-murder-case-will-air-in-tasmania/news-story/0cdf9f91b8b20405a8f8bc9aabdf456d
gemgs
March 7, 2019 at 18:50
William you don’t owe me an apology. I’ve been otherwise distracted and didn’t notice.
The cherry-picking for self-purpose doesn’t distract me, nor does the attacking of the person, rather than the substance. This usually happens when the essence cannot be challenged. Rather, more recent beat-ups indicate ignorance of matters and, confirmation of a long-held belief that always, we must,”beware of those who lie in wait for the virtuous man, for he opposes our way of life”. I
Be assured William, I’m not intimidated into silence by spurious activities. Rather at times they are a direct give-away as it only takes a slight error to indicate the source (sometimes indirect) and, at times a specific word or two is a direct top-off.
Too long in the tooth to worry about insignificant and uninformed attacks. With inadequate research and supporting information, one can blunder into unseen traps eh?
You refer to your email address; sometime ago my recollection is I attempted to send you something and it bounced. Perhaps you’ve changed it since we last communicated — a few years ago now.
William Boeder
March 7, 2019 at 20:55
Dear gemgs, please call me if you could, my phone number is recorded in the white pages on line directory.
Geraldine Allan
March 7, 2019 at 22:00
Another post requires my correction. I won’t explain how this has happened other than to say I posted hastily, and failed to check name.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 7, 2019 at 11:54
You might want to study the financial motives of “Gabby” and her influence, and the influence of the bike boyfriend, over Meaghan. Meaghan may have finally accepted that it is better to have money even if it is at the expense of lying about being on the yacht.
Financial motives are mentioned here:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/killer-susan-neillfraser-offered-rewards-for-exit/news-story/48370cc1e543caca6bf472cba5f87a10
I am laughing at the gullibility of those who are willing to believe the words, almost a decade after the event, of an extremely unreliable witness who is financially desperate, and was described in Court as ” junkie, powder-keg and ice head”, and who hasn’t really provided any useful information that the police can check out.
The reference to “junkie, powder-keg and ice head” is in this news article:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/excop-denies-leaning-on-addict/news-story/593f647b9e16293ada15599124de745f
You might also note this paragraph:
“Mr McLaren also agreed that Ms Vass, at this meeting, may well have told him she couldn’t remember being on any yacht and the story that she boarded the Four Winds with two men and a fight broke out was “rubbish”.”
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 09:16
Episode 6 – Undercurrent
I saw Episode 6 of Undercurrent last night. But nowhere did I see Meaghan Vass admitting that she was on Four Winds. Perhaps Mr Griffin would like to point to the public the exact spot in Episode 6 where he thinks Meaghan admitted to being on Four Winds.
What was shown on Eposide 6 was a draft statement that Colin McLaren prepared in Meaghan’s absence, which she then signed days later. We now know from her Court appearance in late 2017 that she was pressured to sign the affidavit, possibly by those who had financial motives. People ought to look at the financial motives involved in getting Meaghan to lie about being on the yacht.
William Boeder
March 7, 2019 at 12:23
Dr Peter Lozo, apparently you failed to view the presence of Meaghan Vass being interviewed and then claiming her presence along with other persons, that were on board the Four Winds yacht on that particular fateful night.
Your credibility is being further shredded by your continuing your now irrelevant speculations.
No amount of wrongs will ever constitute a right.
Nor will further circumstantial evidence support your now failed hypothesis.
Perhaps you should view the content of this below link’s partial release of the Meaghan Vass interview and her confession to the facts?
https://www.9now.com.au/60-minutes/2019/clip-cjswww4rl000m0jmo2939ubkx?fbclid=IwAR394YVCKrpoTlwCuENQB4atZTkDyiHdnHgJiCdrmb75X2BZiLVLaIHOsss
Your having done so would be a favour to yourself, then should compel you to abort your prior negatively biased endeavour to create something of major failed objectivity.
Please do not reply with more of your dispaging or defamatory claims.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 15:07
It is my opinion that she was NEVER on the Four Winds yacht! She has no memory of ever being on the Four Winds yacht! END OF STORY
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 15:29
William, I am very confident with my technical analysis and the conclusions I reached on this case. I have had positive feedback from Hobart (via a phone call and via email) from people who are in a better position to assess the situation than you and your mates on here.
You are, however, entitled to your opinion as long as you adhere to the TT guidlines. I am entitled to state that, on the basis of my obvious superior analysis of the evidence in the Susan Neill-Fraser case and on the basis of my analysis of your many objections to my opinions, your opinions are just a big bowl of scrambled bollocks, sprinkled with angry juice of a typical bully who hasn’t learned to express his opinion in a socially acceptable manner, particularly when communicating with a very experienced scientist whose opinions are very technically orientated.
Kate
March 7, 2019 at 16:58
That was very well put Peter! Fundamentally, it appears allot of people just do not like evidence.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 19:30
Hi Kate, I almost missed your comment. There are number of people responding and I am lost in the sea of Comments and replies.
I appreciate your positive feedback.
I agree with you that there appears be a lot of people who just do not like evidence. Some prefer the words of unreliable witnesses and do not know when to stop listening to what people are saying to then pay attention to what people are actually doing.
William Boeder
March 7, 2019 at 20:48
Dr Peter Lozo, again you spring your disparaging narrative as a put down to ‘me and my mates on here.’
Beware of your predilection for over-inflating your actual standing here in Tasmania, in claiming yourself to be a credible very experienced scientist.
I offer the comment in my saying that each and every stab by you at a speculative nil-witnessed scenario, could ultimately imperil the infatuation you hold toward yourself.
Your liaisons with the persons that had provided their positive feedback from Hobart (via a phone call and via email) fail to impress me with the blatancy of their bias held toward myself.
My prior researches and investigations engaged in over the past say 5 years suggest to me that your respondents may well be ill at ease, especially in regard to a letter bearing its allegation and inferences therein, that I had directed to Tasmania’s Police Commissioner back around October 2018.
It may strike you as unbelievabl,e as to the amount of insider information that comes to my notice, a great deal of that information I chose not to reveal on Tasmanian Times.
Let me offer to you that these sources are impeccable in their delivery of detail and revelatory content.
(Even to the names of the people that you had consulted outside of Hobart.)
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 22:40
Dear William Boeder,
It is last few days of commenting on TT. Let us agree that you and I will disagree on virtually everything about this case, and about life itself and its purpose!
I hope that you spotted the winch handle that you asked me about on my FB. If you have spotted it then please let Colin and Charlie know about it for they have missed it.
My best moment in 4 years since I researched and commented on TT about the Susan Neill-Fraser case was my discovery several weeks ago that two very experienced former detectives from Victoria, whom Burt referred to below as the “Great Detectives”, overlooked a crucial piece of crime scene evidence. Then these Great Detectives ended chasing the next best theory of what happened – the 2014 burglary gone wrong theory. I have printed and framed that crime scene photo 7. It is now sitting on my study desk at home as a memory of how I derived my winching hypothesis.
Best wishes to you in your life.
Peter
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 7, 2019 at 15:46
Mr Boeder.
My hypothesis is solid, certainly more solid than whatever Meaghan Vass said in the preview of 60 minutes
https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/06/20/54/60-minutes-bob-chappell-murder-breakthrough
I understand that there was a lot of financial motives in getting Meaghan to say that she was on Four Winds.
My hypothesis explains why there were fresh rope burn marks in the woodwork of the skylite hatch and in the woodwork of the entrance to the wheelhouse. It explains how the body was easily winched out and transferred off the yacht by a physically weak person. My hypothesis is based on the crime scene evidence. Unlike TasPol, and unlike Colin McLaren and Charlie Bezzina, I didn’t ignore the winch handle in the winch on the main mast nor did I ignore the rope that went from that winch to the starboard skylite hatch. How many people would know where that winch handle is kept when not in use?
The important thing to note is that the winch in question is aligned in the direction of the starboard boarding gate. I will show how that alignment with the direction of the starboard skylite hatch (snd the boarding gate) resulted in a need for the rope to be wound around the winch in the antickockwise direction in order for the closed loop winching from below the deck to be effective. I will also show how the body could then be easily winched to the end of the main boom when that boom is swung over the starboard boarding gate. And finally, I will show how the body can then be easily, and in a controlled manner, lowered onto the dinghy or below the surface of the water (and then tied dinghy).
Check out this photo. Imagine a person hanging upside down from the end of the boom and being lowered onto a dinghy, or below the surface of the water.
https://www.cruisingworld.com/how/lift-it-or-lose-it
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 09:21
People can believe in this nonsense if they wish. They ought to keep in mind the financial motives.
https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/06/20/54/60-minutes-bob-chappell-murder-breakthrough
abs
March 7, 2019 at 15:18
I think that people here should consider the motive of Peter, in attempting to play down the importance of this development, that being him trying to stop getting egg all over his face
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 17:40
Perhaps Peter had read Robin Bowles’ book. The book has a section on Karen and the promises that Susan Neill-Fraser made in exchange for help – an offer of a house and some funds. I also saw all 6 Episodes of Undercurrent, including this week’s Episode 6 about Meaghan. I could see that Meaghan was under pressure from the bike guy that turned up with her. I could also see that she was extremely frightened.
Please read the summary here of how a financial desperation most likely led to what has occurred in this case since Karen met Sue in prison several years ago.
Killer Susan Neill-Fraser ‘offered rewards’ for exit
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/killer-susan-neillfraser-offered-rewards-for-exit/news-story/48370cc1e543caca6bf472cba5f87a10
So, the idea of getting Meaghan to say that she was on the yacht is an idea that gestated in the head of a prisoner who herself was financially desperate. You can read the rest in the various news articles since August 2017.
But, my biggest and the most important claim to date on the Susan Neill-Fraser case is that both the TasPol detectives and the two Victorian ex-detectives (Mr McLaren and Mr Bezzina) stuffed up with respect to how Bob Chappell’s body was removed from the saloon of the yacht. Both sets of detectives/ex-detectives overlooked a very significant piece of the crime scene evidence: the large red winch handle in a winch on the main mast, and the ropes going from that winch to the starboard skylite hatch (which was located over the blue seat that had vertically orientated blood droplets on it). According to Sue, that winch handle wasn’t in the winch when she left the yacht in the evening of the Australia Day, same with the cut ropes.
abs
March 8, 2019 at 11:08
Peter, Your claims of Meaghan’s statement as being ‘nonsense’, demonstrate clearly that you are not an unbiased assessor of information. Your presense here on TT has played out as a person desperate to be right, and so all information is moulded to fit this predermined position of yourself being right. This new information is requiring far greater detached analyisis and consideration than what you are giving it, which is biased dismissal simply because it does not fit your conclusion.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 8, 2019 at 12:25
Thankyou for your comment. It is noted.
William Boeder
March 8, 2019 at 17:30
abs, I trust you will not mind my adding further fuel to your claim of bias?
(Thanks, in my anticipation to your consent.)
Dr Peter Lozo, it is clearly proven that all of your comments and narratives “have been ‘specific to the guilt of SN-F”.
Your forensic analysis has demonstrated that at all times your analysis has been centred on your own held bias that SN-F is guilty.’
This same ‘bias’ is alleged to have been extant during the SN-F case trial prosecution conducted by the DPP, in the manner of providing the court with only inculpatory circumstantial evidence while having been supplemented with wild speculative suggestions as to the type of weapon (inconclusive) and the subsequent method and means to the disposal of the presumed slain body (yet to be conclusively established) have been largely ignored in your forensic analysis commentary.
In effect you have relied upon the the SN-F case result (while not necessarily considering any reference to its alleged improper carriage) to support your own pre-determined claims to the guilt of SN-F.
Bias or even apprehended bias can arise in many situations. There might be apprehended bias where, for example: a judge is openly hostile to one of the parties to a court case; … a decision-maker’s public statements suggest they have already made up their mind before considering a case in full.
As follows;
Now, with all Criminal Court Trials “the DPP is obliged” to consider and also deliver exculpatory evidence to the court, as opposed to inculpatory evidence only…. in which it is alleged in the SN-F case, had decidedly chosen to deliver circumstantial only….incriminating (inculpatory) evidence.
There must be an articulation of the logical connection between the matter and “the feared deviation from the course of deciding the case on its merits”.
Note: This statement incorporates any likelihood of apprehended bias.
Apprehended bias can arise in many situations. There might be apprehended bias where, for example: a judge is openly hostile to one of the parties to a court case; … a decision-maker’s public statements suggest they have already made up their mind before considering a case in full.
(See below)
Exculpatory Law and Legal Definition. Exculpatory describes evidence which tends to justify or exonerate an accused person’s actions and tends to show that they had a lack of criminal intent….It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to incriminate or prove guilt.
Australia’s common case law suggests; strongly to the extent that “the prosecution have a ‘legal’ obligation of disclosure at common law,” It is an obligation owed to the Court….not to the accused.”
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/2006/9.pdf
So now we arrive at your method and means that has seen you dwell upon your exclusively chosen speculative comments…. that have at all times been overlain by your own ‘inculpatory demonstrated conclusions.’
The best descriptive term to capture the ‘the alleged persecution’ in this case matter [as opposed to all that is obliged in a prosecution] that requires the proper undertaking of the obliged roles of the ‘prosecution.’
This being that the term of an ‘apprehended bias’….having been consistentlyclaimed by a great number of Tasmania’s people.
For example; your dismissal of the Vass DNA [to it being any form of conclusive evidence] is premised on your frequently demonstrated- personal bias.
The product of your pursuits via your exclusive inculpatory resultant analysis’, sees you present each item of your analysis incorporating the stigma of the [alleged- yet arguably disproven] guilt of SN-F in all of your
SN-F case narratives.
I again return you to my long-held opinion that, no amount of wrongs will ever constitute a right, nor even the wrong of apprehended bias.
gemgs
March 7, 2019 at 18:29
abs — it matters not to those of us for whom justice is paramount. Blind Freddy (with respect to those with a vision disability) can determine where this matter is headed. Remember when Baby Azaria’s matinee jacket was found, Lindy Chamberlain was released almost immediately.
Geraldine Allan
March 7, 2019 at 21:52
My error; I didn’t amend the name. I don’t post anonymously.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 8, 2019 at 00:16
gemgs or Geraldine,
You are after justice. I am after the truth. Justice and the truth aren’t always on the same side. I never comment on whether or not justice had been served, and I have researched and commented on 4 cold cases since early 2012.
The truth in this case is that someone (Sue or someone else) took out a large red winch handle from its usual storage box and inserted it into a winch on the main mast sometime between 2pm Australia Day and 7 am the next morning, and rigged up the winch with ropes that went to the starboard skylite hatch. You won’t find that information on Andrew Urban’s blogs. That is a crucial piece of forensic evidence that Andrew Urban doesn’t want mentioned and discussed on his blog. Is that forensic evidence hurtful to Sue’s bid for freedom?
I had a few people contact me via FB messenger. Some informed me that they submitted a comment on Andrew’s blog with a reference to this site where my analysis of Colin McLaren’s work is presented, but Andrew chose not to uploaded those comments. I also submitted a comment, a reply to Robin Bowles, but Andrew didn’t upload my comment either. It is my view that most of comments on Andrew’s blog would have faced a tough challenge had they appeared on TT.
You might want to study why the matinee jacket had forensic evidence that helped Lindy. But there is no way that Meaghan’s latest ‘story’ will help Sue’s current right-to-appeal application because it wasn’t submitted for cross-examination when the Court was on. However, if Sue gets her appeal on the basis of what was said by Mr McLaren in early Feb then we will see whether Meaghan will provide an affidavit that will withstand the rigour of cross-examination during the appeal.
Geraldine Allan
March 8, 2019 at 14:01
Quoting from ps 346/347 Robin Bowles’ book, Death on the Derwent. When one sensibly and objectively compares the tone of this conversation with the obvious pressure from “Damien” & others in the court, there is no comparison. I know which one jumps out as more credible to me. Of course those who were not present in the courtroom at the time Meaghan Vass giving evidence, are lacking the benefit of observing the body language and other distressing and concerning factors. It has since been said that never before has such behaviour been observed from a witness.
M = Meaghan Vass
McC – McClaren
M: We were there on the yacht partying. I can’t remember but I have to think about it. Paul and Sam and me. There was a fight on the other yacht.
McC: The Four Winds?
M: The old guy’s yacht, next to Paul’s.
McC: How’d you get onto the Four Winds?
M: We got a dinghy.
McC: What happened next on board?
M: A fight. Fuck! I saw it, but I fucked off. Took off.
McC: How?
M: In the dinghy, fucked off.
McC: What happened to Paul and Sam?
M: Don’t know. They went back to Paul’s yacht. I took off.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 8, 2019 at 15:54
And if she ‘fucked off’ in a dinghy, how did the two guys get back to Paul’s yacht? Did they swim and take Bob’s body with them?
What did they actually steal other than a dead body, an old fire extinguisher and a personal radio beacon which they discarded so that it could be easily found. Didn’t they like the coins that were on the deck? Didn’t they like Bob’s pipe and tobacco?
Did the two male attackers leave any DNA or finger prints?
What time did this occur?
Dream on!
Geraldine Allan
March 8, 2019 at 16:52
How did Paul Roe get to & from shore since he owned the nearest yacht to Four Winds. He didn’t swim. We know (i) he had his own dinghy and (ii) what colour it was. I suggest that was his means of getting to Four Winds, hence no blood in SN-F’s dinghy.
William Boeder
March 7, 2019 at 15:50
Dr Peter Lozo, your claims of nonsense do not accord to the televised witness account of the events on the night specified, as were provided by the on-site witness in the name of Ms Meaghan Vass.
I understand your angst and anger to this now publicly revealed set of revelatory claims from an on-site witness, based on her mind imprinted recall of that very nights tragic consequences.
Your immediate injection of a financial motive into this case matter does not support all your prior evaluations of the the person you claim is full guilty, then that your evaluation of all the presented circumstantial evidence does not necessarily accord with the logic that could and would disprove a greater proportion of the submitted records of circumstantial evidence.
Now, I am providing you with matters that cannot be ignored by you any longer, I make no apology for submitting my deeply considered opinions relative to your postulations and speculations, then of your heavily biased assumptions that you had suggestively, enforced into the minds, of the people stating their own counter-held opinions.
Also that I have studied your comments relating to the DNA of Ms Vass since this was discovered on the deck of the Four Winds yacht, then that this specific DNA evidence was not vigorously investigated by the appropriate authorities right from the get go of that DNA discovery.
I note you have again attempted to despoil the significance of one of Australia’s most successfully utilized items of reliant Court Trial established and accepted forms of evidence….that ultimately becomes the ruling arbiter chosen by all the other Courts of Justice throughout Australia…..though in the SN-F case, not ideally relied upon by Tasmania’s Supreme Court and their pursuit of what appears to be a determinedly soughtafter conviction.
I further question why you refuse to accept the inherent bias that exists in Tasmania’s Supreme Court, though this is an act unkind to the truth to a number of previously discovered powerful demonstrations of apprehended bias, is, beyond my comprehension?
I make this claim based on my having carefully read a number of prior Supreme Court transcripts of a case proceedings that have demonstrated the apparency of an overlying judiciary-wielded bias.
Now, you being the owner of your speculative opinions, whilst I acknowledge I am the owner of my studied and not necessarily ‘speculative’ opinions, that each of us claim to hold as the most credible asserted opinions of case relevancy, during our long term discourse regarding this SN-F case matter.
Then, the fact that you claim to be a man well practiced in forensic investigations and best considered by you as being far superior to all and every claim of my credible comprehended assessments, well, this still remains to be proven. Let us both rely on the substantiated evidence facts.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 19:57
Mr William Boeder,
“Dr Peter Lozo, your claims of nonsense do not accord to the televised witness account of the events on the night specified, as were provided by the on-site witness in the name of Ms Meaghan Vass.”
I am very confident that it is a nonsense that is motivated by the desperation for financial security.
“I understand your angst and anger to this now publicly revealed set of revelatory claims from an on-site witness, based on her mind imprinted recall of that very nights tragic consequences”
My opinion is that your understanding is up the creek! I am not angry. I am in fact pleased that at last the poor lady might have financial means to have a better life – I assume that ’60 Minutes’ paid her for the interview. I did in fact state on TT in mid 2017 that Meaghan might one day become a star. This is her opportunity to make money and live a better life. I hope that she makes the best out of it.
And finally, I invite you to study the difference between ‘speculation’ and ‘hypothesis’.
My analytical work in this case, as presented on TT, is most certainly way superior to what you have written. But that is expected given that I earned a PhD and have engaged in scientific and engineering research.
William Griffin
March 7, 2019 at 21:22
Firstly DR Lozo Meaghan Vass signed a Stat Dec stating she was on the Four winds that night (Fact) in court she stated answers to questions I don’t remember and obviously under pressure from police calling to a policeman Damien and saying I can not do this( Fact ). She must realize by this 60 minutes interview that she will face serious charges but have you ever thought she maybe can not live with the guilt of a person in jail for a crime she didn’t commit. So its about time you gave up trying to invent a situation that in all likelihood did not happen.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 21:49
Mr Griffin,
I am aware of what Meaghan is saying now and what she had said to Colin McLaren – I read his book several weeks ago! I am also aware of what she said in the Supreme Court in late 2017.
I am also aware that Meaghan withdrew her April 2017 signed affidavit before she fronted to the witness box in the Supreme Court in late 2017 where she stated to the Court that the statement she signed was false and that she was threatened to sign the affidavit.
I am aware of what Robin Bowles discovered through her interview of Karen Keefe, and thus how there was a financial motive to get Meaghan on side.
Meaghan can face serious charges only if she lied under oath in a Court of Law.
She must know that she won’t be charged because the cops believe that she was under duress when she signed that statement in April 2017.
I am not legally qualified but who do you think will charge her or even even sue her over her statements on 60 Minutes?
I am yet to see her full interview on Sunday.
William Griffin
March 8, 2019 at 02:36
She can be charged as an accessory to murder at least plus other offences so she is at risk of charges.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 8, 2019 at 05:07
OK William,
Thanks for your reply below regarding the charges.
Do you think that the police believe that Meaghan was on the yacht with two or more men?
According to McLaren’s book, “Pablo” was one of the men who attacked Bob Chappell. We know now that Pablo is supposed to be Paul Wroe. Mr Wroe was in the Supreme Court as a witness. He stated under oath:
“I’ve never been on the Four Winds at all,” Mr Wroe said.
“I’ve never met the doctor or his wife.””
see here
https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5027891/witness-grilled-in-neill-fraser-appeal/
Would it be your opinion that Mr Wroe was truthful on oath or that Meaghan’s latest ‘story’ isn’t based on fact? One of the two isn’t factual.
I am trying to get to the bottom of your own opinion on this issue. I am not trying to convince you to adopt my own opinion. I just like to read your reasoning as to which of the two (Paul Wroe or Meaghan Vass) was truthful in the Supreme Court, and why you formed that opinion. You obviously know more about the criminal law than I do. I would be pleased to read your detailed explanation.
Please keep in mind that Mr Wroe was interviewed by the police, but well after Sue was convicted. He offered his DNA. It didn’t match anything on Four Winds.
This is what Peter Powell said in 2014 (as a response to the ’60 Minutes’ program):
“The itinerant man who has been recorded under various spellings of the surname Roe (Wroe, Roe and Rowe.) became known to police but was never a suspect. After the conviction, he was identified as someone who may have been in the area on that night. He was interviewed and volunteered his DNA. His DNA and fingerprints were checked against any outstanding forensic exhibits from the ‘Four Winds’ – with no match. This man informed police that he was leaving the state.”
See here
https://www.police.tas.gov.au/news-events/media-releases/tasmania-police-statement-2-susan-neill-fraser-case/
Geraldine Allan
March 8, 2019 at 13:40
William, Meaghan Vass knows (not speculation) what she wrote in her journal all those years ago.
Lola Moth
March 7, 2019 at 17:01
Peter, is it because if Ms Vass is telling the truth then all your work on this hypothesis has been for naught that you refuse to believe her story? Ms Vass could be in serious trouble for concealing the truth all these years and I can’t imagine any amount of money would induce her to lie and point the finger at an innocent person as well as put herself in jeopardy for the sum of money 60 Minutes usually offer (been there, done that).
Your work has been thorough and well thought out but is just one possibility among hundreds of scenarios that could have occurred. If Ms Vass is finally telling the truth then Sue, and most others in this case, have been telling the truth all along. Doesn’t that make more sense than the convoluted stories some people have been inventing in order for SN-F to have done it?
It is not keeping an open mind to believe a witness is lying for financial gain just because it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative. Even you must now admit there is enough evidence that SN-F did not get a fair trial and that another is warranted.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 18:46
Lola,
I have never stated nor admitted that “there is enough evidence that SN-F did not get a fair trial and that another is warranted.”
I have always stated that I am not legally qualified to comment on whether Sue did or did not get a fair trial. You are over-interpretting my opinions.
Ps: About a month ago I read your TT article about yourself. I am thus aware of your problem in interpretation of what people are saying. I will not therefore make a big issue about your misunderstanding of what I am saying on TT about the SN-F case.
Lola Moth
March 7, 2019 at 22:01
Peter, you are very clear in your writing and I find your writing style easy to understand so my autism is not confusing me as to your comments. Your investigations are so narrow that anything outside your specific studies of the winch, rope, and dinghy colour seem to be in your blind-spot.
There is an old Cuban saying: el sol no se tapa con un dedo – you can’t cover the sun with one finger. That is what you are trying to do by concentrating on one part of the case while ignoring the big picture.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 23:12
Lola,
Since about April 2015 (nearly 4 years now) I have also researched and commented on many other issues: human memory; the time sequence of events; DNA: Chewing Gum Hypothesis of Secondary Transfer etc.
I am also the first who commented on TT about the sighting of a middle aged person on a light coloured dinghy seen leaving the location of Four Winds sometime between 7:45 pm – 8:30 pm. Cops believed that it was Sue.
Sue hasn’t yet accounted for her whereabouts between 4pm – 9pm. That is a 5 hour time block- a significant chunk of a day! Have you wondered where Sue was and what she was doing at that time? Do you think it likely that Sue was on Four Winds until about 8pm rigging up the winch, etc? I am convinced that it was Sue on her dinghy who was spotted between 7:45 pm – 8:30 pm.
Why are you focused on Meaghan rather than also looking at Sue? I have considered Meaghan but found that it doesn’t add up. I can refer you to my analysis of quite some time ago if you are keen to read it. For the start, she left Mara House at 3:55 pm. At that time there was a “grey” dinghy sighted at portside of Four Winds. Who do you think was on Four Winds at 4pm? That dinghy was also sighted in the same location at 5pm. Who do you think was on Four Winds at that time?
I believe that you are ignoring a large chunk of the Trial evidence and are relying too much on Colin McLaren’s opinion and Meagan’s new ‘story’.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 8, 2019 at 02:39
“There is an old Cuban saying: el sol no se tapa con un dedo – you can’t cover the sun with one finger. That is what you are trying to do by concentrating on one part of the case while ignoring the big picture.”
What is the big picture in this case, Lola?
I would live to know what is it that a 62 year old scientist hadn’t picked up during his 4 year research into this case that covered many different aspects of the case. He even talked about a Royal Commission, as well as the push by Dr Bob Moles for the establishment of the Australian Criminal Cases Review Commission.
I think that anyone who studies Dr Moles’ work is well on the way of seeing the big picture in this case and in a number of other cases!
I have during my work related research into the neuroscience of perception and recognition had opportunity to read psychological and neuropshychological literature about various brain dysfunctions and brain developmental disorders. I learned 20 or so years ago that autistic people get lost in detail and fail to see the big picture. I haven’t yet being diagnosed as being autistic, but you are the second person on TT who wrote to me with a statement that I am ignoring the big picture! What big picture, I wonder?
About the only thing that I am avoiding commenting on are on matters that in my opinion require considerable education in Criminal Law in order for a sensible and valid opinion to be made . I don’t comment on whether Sue had or hadn’t had a fair trial nor do I comment on whether her case is a Miscarriage of Justice. I am too Independent to rely on the opinion of Dr Moles or on the opinion of Robert Richter QC.
Perhaps you can clarify for me what big picture do you think I am ignoring.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 8, 2019 at 03:13
Lola,
I thought that this might be of interest to you.
How people with autism miss the big picture
“A PICTURE is worth a thousand words” may sum up how people with autism see the world.
Brains scans of people with the condition show that they place excessive reliance on the parietal cortex, which analyses images, even when interpreting sentences free of any imagery. In other people, the image centre appears to be active only when the sentences contain imagery.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9593-how-people-with-autism-miss-the-big-picture/
“People on the Autism Spectrum such as individuals with Asperger’s and High Functioning Autism often have trouble seeing the bigger picture. In other words, individuals on the spectrum are often detail orientated. The autistic mind is wired to focusing intensely on one idea at a time. This causes individuals on the spectrum to have strong interests, be very knowledgeable about one thing but not others, but have trouble understanding abstract things, struggle with change, planning, organization, and of course not seeing the bigger picture sometimes which I will focus on here.”
https://electron2601.wordpress.com/tag/seeing-the-bigger-picture/
Autism often accompanied by ‘super vision’, studies finds
https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/autism-often-accompanied-by-super-vision-studies-find/
gemgs
March 7, 2019 at 19:09
To include some balance in commenting, this post seems a worthwhile read.
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/07/undercurrent-the-wash-swamps-the-conviction/
Geraldine Allan
March 7, 2019 at 21:56
Another whoops- I amend to declare no hiding from me
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 7, 2019 at 14:55
The amazing story by the amazing ‘witness’
I am laughing at the gullibility of people who are willing to believe the words, almost a decade after the event, of an extremely unreliable witness who is financially desperate, has changed her story a number of times, and was described in Court as ” junkie, powder-keg and ice head”, and who hasn’t really provided any useful information that the police can check out.
She bursted out of the ’60 Minutes’ interview at the very instant she was asked what she saw.
https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/06/20/54/60-minutes-bob-chappell-murder-breakthrough
Does she really have a visual memory of being on the yacht and seeing lots of blood or is she aware that she is lying and is concerned what may happen to her if the cops turn up to her door? Is she now saying that she purjered herself on the witness stand in the Supreme Court in late 2017 when under oath she stated that her April 2017 signed statement was false and that she signed it out of fear, etc?
The reference to “junkie, powder-keg and ice head” is in this news article:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/excop-denies-leaning-on-addict/news-story/593f647b9e16293ada15599124de745f
I was reading Andrew Urban’s blog. This comment by a ‘Dr Kelly’ caught my attention:
“If the average reasoning ability of a typical jury sitting at a criminal trial in Tasmania is as low as the average reasoning ability of those who believe that Susan Neill-Fraser had a brain fog and that she is innocent, and that she was physically unable to do what the prosecution claims she did, then Tasmania has a huge problem with its population of rather poor reasoning ability.”
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/01/30/who-killed-bob-chappell-the-cops-dont-know-but-we-do/
That about sums up the reasoning ability of those who are challenging my opinions below.
My hypothesis of how Bob Chappelle’s body was removed from the saloon of Four Winds, and then off the yacht, is equally applicable to there being one person (eg Sue) or two or more people involved. The hypothesis is based on the crime scene evidence, regardless of whether Meaghan Vass was or was not on Four Winds on the relevant night. Why William G and William B quickly thought that Meaghan’s latest ‘story’ abolishes my ‘Closed Loop Winch-Boom Configuration’ is something that is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps Dr Kelly has a valid point about the reasoning ability of the SN-F supporters.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 17:13
<i<“Uncertainty surrounds whether a 60 Minutes interview regarding a decade-old Bob Chappell murder case will air in Tasmania”
https://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/uncertainty-surrounds-whether-a-60-minutes-interview-regarding-a-decadeold-bob-chappell-murder-case-will-air-in-tasmania/news-story/0cdf9f91b8b20405a8f8bc9aabdf456d
Lola Moth
March 7, 2019 at 17:59
Peter, if you believe Ms Vass was never on the yacht even though she now says she was, then you must believe she is a liar. If I believe Ms Vass was on the yacht when she formerly says she was never there, then I must believe she is a liar. Does not that mean that both sides believe she is a liar? Shouldn’t that fact alone be enough cause for a new trial?
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 18:49
Lola, If you reply to my Comment then please click on ‘Reply’ below the relevant Comment so that your reply appears as a reply to my Comment and is then placed underneath the Comment to which you are replying. Thanks.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 19:05
Lola,
A decision on an appeal is decided on the evidence that is presented to the Supreme Court. Meaghan withdrew her April 2017 signed affidavit before her 2017 appearance in the Court.
What matters isn’t what Meghan says on national TV but what she had stated on oath in the Supreme Court in late 2017.
My work on the winching problem can be used by TasPol and the DPP in case Sue does get an appeal. TasPool and the DPP had wasted public money when they went on Four Winds with the new owner to do the winching video which was presented to the Court. It was the wrong winch and the wrong location of extraction. TasPol and the ODDP have by now read my email where I stated that the crime scene evidence supports my hypothesis that the body was winched out through the saloon starboard skylite hatch with the aid of the winch on the main mast and the main boom. They can test my hypothesis and be better prepared in case the case goes beyond the current right-to-appeal application.
I might have saved the State of Tasmania a lot of money by informing the authorities that they have it incorrect with respect to how Bob’s body was removed. However, I am aware that what happened after the murder is irrelevant because the Crown wanted to prove that Sue murdered Bob. They did not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt how Bob was murdered nor how his body was removed
You have to look beyond the current right-to-appeal to see the value of my winching hypothesis!
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 7, 2019 at 18:38
No objective evidence to believe Meaghan’s latest ‘story’
Just in case the reader hasn’t kept up with the reporting from the court or isn’t a subscriber to the relevant media, here are a few relevant paragraphs for digestion. This is part of the reason (together with my reply below to ‘abs’) why I am very confident that Meaghan’s latest ‘story’ is a nonsense that has a financial motive behind it.
This is an extract from a media article related to last month’s cross-examination of Mr Colin McLaren about Meaghan Vass. My emphasis is in bold:
“Yesterday, Colin McLaren, a former policeman turned true crime author, was questioned by Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates SC about his role in drafting a statement signed by a former homeless girl, Meaghan Vass. On April 27, 2017, Ms Vass, whom the court today heard described as a “junkie, powder-keg and ice head”, signed a statement claiming she was on the Four Winds, with others, on the night of the murder and that Neill-Fraser was not on board.
However, on the first day of the appeal application, in October 2017, Ms Vass gave evidence that this statement was false and had been made under threat of being “put in the boot of a car”.
Footage late last year seized by police from Sydney TV production company CJZ, and later shown to the court, appeared to show Mr McLaren dictating a statement to documentary maker Eve Ash for Ms Vass to later sign. Detective Sergeant Sam Sinnett told the court the footage showed Mr McLaren and Ms Ash “making up” Ms Vass’s statement.
Yesterday, Mr McLaren gave evidence via video link that he had spoken to Ms Vass on the phone before drafting parts of the statement in January 2017, and again in person several months later.
In footage played to the court and recorded in November 2016, Mr McLaren says he has just visited a woman in Risdon Prison, acquainted with Neill-Fraser, who claimed Ms Vass was on the yacht on the night with two men, one of whom, Paul Wroe, had killed Mr Chappell.
Under questioning by Mr Coates yesterday, Mr McLaren agreed that in a March 2017 conversation with Ms Vass, she “may have” denied knowing Mr Wroe, who had given evidence that he had never met Mr Chappell, much less killed him.
Mr McLaren also agreed that Ms Vass, at this meeting, may well have told him she couldn’t remember being on any yacht and the story that she boarded the Four Winds with two men and a fight broke out was “rubbish”.
He agreed with Mr Coates that he had lied to Ms Vass, described in court as the girlfriend of a local Devil’s Henchmen motorcycle gang president known as “Sharky”, by suggesting to her that hair found on the yacht matched her DNA. “Yeah… that was a lie…I was waiting for a reaction,” Mr McLaren said””..
As far as I know, based on the publicly available information, there is no objective evidence to support Meaghan’s claim of being on Four Winds with two men, one being Paul Wroe.
Please keep in mind what Paul Wroe stated under oath when he was in the witness box in the Suoteme Court:
“I’ve never been on the Four Winds at all,” Mr Wroe said.
“I’ve never met the doctor or his wife.””
See here
https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5027891/witness-grilled-in-neill-fraser-appeal/
Who is more believable – Ms Vass or Mr Wroe?
There is no-one that can back up Meaghan’s latest story. Her DNA on the walkway of the yacht right next to the starboard boarding gate is highly likely to have been as a result of secondary transfer. It is said that the visible dark stain from where the DNA swab was taken from is about the size of a 50 cent coin but that luminol reacted over a significantly larger area (21 cm – 26 cm). But this DNA is being used by SN-F supporters as the foundation on which they believe that Meaghan was on Four Winds.
Robin Bowles
March 16, 2019 at 00:44
Peter, I don’t have the stamina to enter into a debate with you, so I will state the following as Facts, not ‘would have, could have, as far as I know, had I been the one investigating’ , etc.as in your response and then I will bow out of this discussion.You were NOT the one investigating, I was, in particular the allegations made by TasPol about KK corrupting a witness. It is ALLEGED in the charges against her she corrupted Meaghan Vass by putting pressure on her to say she was on the 4W. The first statement signed by Vass was signed in front of a very mild-mannered lawyer when KK had been back in jail for 10 weeks. Since then, Vass has gone on National TV and clearly stated she WAS on the 4W. Ipso facto, no pressure to corrupt by KK, as first time she wasn’t there and second (or whatever time we are up to), if MV was pressured, it was by Liam Bartlett, not KK. Karen DID take me ‘to the location of where the alleged diary was allegedly kept’; I did talk to Karen’s mother; I did talk to several of Meaghan’s friends from when she was 15 and since; I also found out that she keeps little notes to herself and loves colouring in. She fills books with both. I also examined several CLD recordings between MV and her mother.I wish you luck talking to former police officer Robyn B (friend of Meaghan’s family) and/or Sam Devine. Are they going to give you ‘objective’ information??
As to your comment ‘About the alleged storage location of the alleged diary: Colin has one version (storage facility), you have another version (garage at Karen’s mums house). I suggest that both of you have been hoaxed into believing the existence of Meaghan’s 2009 diary and its entry for the Australia Day 2009’. You can suggest all you like. I, unlike McLaren HAVE seen where the books were stored and had their collection confirmed by KK and her mother. (they were exercise books, not diaries in the true sense). Unlike McLaren, I wasn’t very interested in the diaries, as you will note, I barely mention them.
Karen may have said something to MV about putting her in the boot, but not while ‘threatening’ her to get her to sign a statement. She says the same thing to her little kids and they don’t look in fear of their lives.I get her to explain this comment on p 301 of my book. MV had Sharkie’s protection, she was not scared of KK. Much more scared of either doing time as a dobber, or getting done over by SD.
I was provided with a lot of material from police files which is not directly in my book, but which gave me background to ask the right questions. I am certain the pervert justice charges against KK will be withdrawn. There is no evidence whatsoever that KK did anything to MV except to urge her to tell the truth. If the judge now believes MV, then KK has done nothing wrong whatsoever.
That’s all I have to say on the matter.
Geraldine Allan
March 16, 2019 at 11:46
Thankyou Robin for taking the time to post a correction to the record.. I was hoping you would; I couldn’t be bothered even though I knew the facts, or at least some of them. You are a gem.
Lola Moth
March 7, 2019 at 21:47
This is what makes sense to me. Ms Vass was 15 when she went with others to a yacht and witnessed a murder. She promised to never tell anyone about what she saw but her DNA was found on the yacht. All she could do was to deny, deny, deny, in order to keep herself safe.
As she grew older and watched as an innocent person was punished for the crime, she began to have second thoughts about concealing the truth. Each time she began to tell the truth she was threatened so she recanted.
She finally matures enough to realise her testimony has destroyed many people’s lives and wants to tell the truth so that the guilty can be punished and the innocent go free. She knows that revealing the truth puts her in danger but also that it is the right thing to do.
If it is actually all the other way around, it means she was telling the truth at 15 but when she matured she became a liar in order to make money and point the finger at innocent people that she must have held a grudge against for 9 years.
Which scenario is more likely? Did she become older, wiser, and braver? Or is she now, in her mid-twenties, a less mature and responsible person than she was at 15?
Dr Peter Lozo
March 7, 2019 at 22:53
“when she went with others to a yacht and witnessed a murder. She promised to never tell anyone about what ..”
Where does Karen Keefe fit in?
Are you ignoring that Meaghan started changing her story after Karen met Sue and was offered a house and funds if she could help Sue!
Are you also ignoring Paul Wroe’s examination and cross-examination?
In the end, the choice of where the truth lies, as far as Meaghan is concerned, rests on whether one believes Paul Wroe or Meaghan Vass! Paul Wroe (the “Pablo” in McLaren’s book) is allegedly one of the two man that was with Meaghan that night.
Please broaden your scope of analysis to include all the available relevant evidence rather than just Meaghan’s changing stories and her DNA.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 8, 2019 at 03:39
“Which scenario is more likely? Did she become older, wiser, and braver? Or is she now, in her mid-twenties, a less mature and responsible person than she was at 15?”
What about the third scenario, Lola?
The third scenario is that she got tired of being miserable and poor. She finally accepted that there is good money to be made. She agrees to go ahead with a false claim on national TV because cops can’t touch her. She was honest when she was in the witness box under oath in the Supreme Court in late 2017. She cannot be charged as perverting the course of justice, on the ground that she withdrew her false affidavit of April 2017 before her appearance in the Supreme Court later that year as a defence witness. The cops chose not to charge her because they believed that she was under duress when she signed that false affidavit in April 2017. But whatever she says outside the Supreme Court, even on a national TV program (where she contradicts her own statement that she made as a witness under oath in a Court of Law) cannot be used against her. The law is only concerned with what she provides to the Court for examination and cross-examination. The young lady is about to get financially well off. She is about to become a star. A book or a movie deal might be around the corner. She is actually a beautiful looking young lady when dolled up. See the photo on Andrew Urban’s blog.
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2019/03/07/undercurrent-the-wash-swamps-the-conviction/
I wish her much happiness and financial prosperity.
Alan Arkle
April 13, 2019 at 12:00
After looking at this case from all angles the conclusion you have reached here in relations to MVs ‘performance’ seems to be the best answer. Well done.
Again, you seem to have put a lot more thought into it than all the other speculators.
Geraldine Allan
March 8, 2019 at 12:56
Lola, it seems important that in the closing down of Tasmanian times, I acknowledge your input into these discussions. You seem to respect others’ views whilst at the same time not always agreeing. You then advance a thoughtful balanced opinion, which seems to me that you’ve broadened your thoughts to arrive at a sensible informed opinion. Well done!
It is timely to reassure you that it is incorrect to believe that Meaghan Vass (MV) “started changing her story after Karen met Sue and was offered a house and funds if she could help Sue”. The reality is that MV was an avid journal-keeper and wrote the truthful version in her journal several years ago. That version, or at lest some aspects of it will once again be repeated (I believe for now) on 60Minutes. Though, I am unsure as to how much detail she will provide at this time.
There will always be a selection of ppl who may well be influenced by ‘cash for comment’ incentives; certainly not all. It seems to me to be further derogatory (even defamatory) of MV to suggest/publish that she is now creating an untruth as opposed to revealing the truth, because of $$’s offered.
Your observations that MV has had to carry a huge weight including but not limited to fear over too many years, is insightful. A dreadful situation — damned if she does expose, damned if she doesn’t; her every possible action (or inaction) will have a negative outcome for her and/or cause her more troubling times. There really is no course for her that does not have a drawback.
Further to the ‘cash for comment’, on a personal note and to hopefully reassure you, I confirm that in 2000 I was party to a Tasmanian Department of Justice Agency’ offer of $200.000, if sign on dotted line and ‘shut up’. That offer was declined with the words “R (name of DoJ officer making offer), my integrity is not for sale”. Part of the terms of settlement were that nothing of devious, spurious matters including serious wrongdoing as uncovered would never be further spoken about/exposed. It was not on. Of course, any associated criminal activity was excluded if ‘deal’ agreed (which it wasn’t as above-mentioned), on the basis that my understanding was/is no one can bind a person to not expose/report matters of crime. So there you have it — there are citizens who will not sell their integrity.
Lola Moth
March 8, 2019 at 14:16
Geraldine, thank you for your feedback on my comments. I like to think that my great capacity for empathy helps me understand why people do the things they do, and also to realise when a scenario does not ring true. If something is not logical to me then my brain won’t accept it as a great possibility. The more contorted a story becomes to make it fit a narrative, the less likely that story is to be true.
I feel very sorry for MV. She has been through hell and back because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have been in that exact position myself but I was 22, not a child of 15 like poor Meaghan. I personally know how it feels to be in her place. She will get no help or protection from the authorities and she will be scared probably for the rest of her life, but she will at least have the comfort of knowing she has done the right thing now.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 8, 2019 at 16:09
“The more contorted a story becomes to make it fit a narrative, the less likely that story is to be true.”
A woman by the name of Karen Keefe, who has been in prison for almost 18 months, can have most of the charges against her dropped if she can prove that she has Meaghan’s diary from 2009. But she seems to prefer to stay in prison rather than produce the diary!
Does that tell you something about whether the diary exists or whether it is a fiction of imagination designed to pervert the course of justice in support of Sue’s bid for freedom?
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 8, 2019 at 14:57
“It is timely to reassure you that it is incorrect to believe that Meaghan Vass (MV) “started changing her story after Karen met Sue and was offered a house and funds if she could help Sue”. The reality is that MV was an avid journal-keeper and wrote the truthful version in her journal several years ago. That version, or at lest some aspects of it will once again be repeated (I believe for now) on 60Minutes. Though, I am unsure as to how much detail she will provide at this time.”
Who are you kidding? Karen Keefe claims to have a few of Meaghan’s diaries from years earlier. But the diaries haven’t yet surfaced! Let me put it to to you in another way:
Karen Keefe, who has been in prison for almost 18 months for perversion of justice and corrupting a witness (Meaghan) and is still waiting for her trial, has in some storage ‘A Get Out of Jail Free card’ , in the form of Meaghan’s diary, but has so far decided not to use that trump card to get of the prison or to have most of the charges against her dropped.
Gee whizz, the reasoning ability of some people on here is truly remarkable. Is there some sort of competition during the dying days of TT to see who will get an award for the least thought out opinion? I might need to knock myself into a semi-vegetative state and then see whether the Comment I am replying to makes sense to me.
Geraldine Allan
March 8, 2019 at 16:06
“Karen Keefe, who has been in prison for almost 18 months …”.Wrong. Fact, I spoke with Karen face to face, just a week or so ago.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 8, 2019 at 16:45
Did she produce the diary to get out or to help Colin?
Lola Moth
March 8, 2019 at 15:04
Geraldine, I have asked the TT editor to give you my email address if you ask for it. There will likely not be enough time left on this site for much more conversation on this and other matters, and I feel I have a good insight into what MV has been through that you may be interested in. Feel free to email me anytime. Lola.
Geraldine Allan
March 8, 2019 at 16:08
Thx Lola. Yes, debate will not not cease when the TT cyber-doors close.
Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)
March 8, 2019 at 15:29
“Mr McLaren said Ms Keefe told him she had four of the diaries in her possession — at that time locked in a storage facility — and had read notes Ms Vass had made relating to the night of January 26, 2009.”
https://www.themercury.com.au/news/scales-of-justice/sue-neillfraser-appeal-final-witness-quizzed-over-dealings-with-underworld-figures/news-story/0809c119f7a6047fede3affdffeb6e25
Not only hasn’t Karen Keefe been able to produce ‘Meaghan’s diaries’ to help her own situation with the charges of perversion of justice and corrupting a witness (Meaghan) she hasn’t even been able to produce the diaries to help Colin McLaren during his own video-link to the Supreme Court a month or so ago. Had the diaries existed then surely Karen could have arranged over a year ago, soon after she was charged and locked up, for a family member or a lawyer to get the relevant diary out of the storage facility so that it could be tabled in a Court of Law.
If you look at the time sequence of events, you will learn that Meaghan did first change her statement after Karen met Sue and there was a talk of money and property. Why do you think one of the charges against Karen is corruption of a witness. Clearly, the authorities mean that Meaghan was corrupted as a witness by Karen.
Robin Bowles
March 12, 2019 at 23:40
Peter, after reading all the comments on this case from the beginning of this blog/page, whatever it is I feel I must intercede to set a couple of issues straight. The Meaghan diaries were kept by KK in a garage (locked) at the rear of her mother’s house, not ‘a locked storage facility’. She was storing them, along with other items belonging to Meaghan Vass, because Meaghan had dossed down there at some stage ( before Karen went to prison) as she dosses down with anyone who will have her for a few nights. When you are itinerant it’s hard to haul your bits and pieces round with you and she left several things with Karen for safekeeping in her mother’s garage. Karen was being nosy and read bits of the diaries without, at the time, knowing the significance of the Australia Day entry for 2009, only that it said, ‘that wasn’t supposed to happen’ or words to that effect. When she spoke to McLaren during his visit to her in prison, she mentioned the diaries and that odd entry. McLaren was extremely keen to get the diaries, but when Karen left prison and was bailed to her mother’s house, she discovered that Meaghan had come and taken all her stuff, because she had moved in with Sharkie at the Henchman HQ. Karen was therefore unable to get the diaries for McLaren or anyone else. She did not corrupt a witness. Just for the record.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 15, 2019 at 11:13
Hi Robin, This is a bit lengthy and was mostly prepared over the past few days.
About the corruption of a witness
i>”She did not corrupt a witness. Just for the record.”
It is on record that one of the charges against Karen was corruption of a witness. I don’t know whether that has been dropped. If not then we can say ‘alleged corruption of a witness’.
About the diary:
There is no objective evidence that Karen had Meaghan’s diary nor is there any objective evidence that Meaghan kept a diary in 2009. Had Meaghan kept a diary then she herself would have mentioned it and would have, if she had it, provided it to the lawyer who witnessed her affidavit of April 2017 .
Had I been the one in Hobart investigating the plausibility of the existence of that diary, I would have asked Karen to take me taken to the location of where the alleged diary was allegedly kept; I would have talked to Karen’s mother; I would have talked to Meaghan; I would have talked to some of Meaghan’s friends from when she was 15; I would have talked to Meaghan’s mother; I would have talked to the female police officer who was the friend of Meaghan’s family; I would have talked to Sam D (the then friend/boyfriend of Meaghan).
As far as the objective evidence is concerned, there is absolutely nothing to support the claim that Meaghan wrote in Jan 2009 that she was on Four Winds nor that she was even a keen diary writer then.
In fact, there is a contradiction between what McLaren said was told to him by Karen and what Meaghan said on 60 Minutes. In the former version, the claim is that it was the older of the two men (Paul W) who allegedly killed Bob. In the latter version, it is the younger man (Meaghan’s then boyfriend) who killed Bob.
This is what transpired during the cross-examination of Colin McLaren in early Feb (my emphasis is in bold)
“The court was shown footage from late 2016 of Mr McLaren saying he’d visited a friend of Neill-Fraser’s in prison who told him Ms Vass was on the boat the night of the murder along with two men.
Mr McLaren said he was told one of the men, Paul Wroe, killed Mr Chappell.
But under cross-examination by Director of Public Prosecutions’ Darryl Coates QC, Mr McLaren said that in a subsequent meeting with Ms Vass she “may” have told him she could not remember being on the yacht and didn’t know Mr Wroe.”
https://www.9news.com.au/2019/02/05/03/34/killer-s-appeal-bid-returns-to-tas-court
This is the second version (my emphasis is in bold):
“At the original trial, she denied ever being on the yacht, but last night she admitted for the first time that she was on the boat, and witnessed her then boyfriend kill Chappell”.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/drifters-partner-killed-yachtie/news-story/0b351ed10f070853a1cc91a4253c46d3
Not only isn’t there any objective evidence to support the claim about Meaghan’s diary there is no consistency in the story that is emanating from that section of Hobart’s community.
It appears to me that, sometime after Paul Wroe was examined and then cross-examined in late 2017, those who are pressuring Meaghan Vass to admit being on Four Winds decided that they might have a more convincing story in the public eye, and in the Court, if Meghan were to point to her ex-boyfriend as being the one who killed Bob.
About the alleged storage location of the alleged diary: Colin has one version (storage facility), you have another version (garage at Karen’s mums house). I suggest that both of you have been hoaxed into believing the existence of Meaghan’s 2009 diary and its entry for the Australia Day 2009.
Dr Peter Lozo
March 15, 2019 at 20:46
“Karen Patricia Nancy Keefe has been charged with three counts of perverting the cause of justice, one count of corrupting a witness, and one count of firearm trafficking.”
https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5442645/woman-at-centre-of-susan-neill-fraser-witness-claims-has-case-delayed/